The real Reason for the "civil war"

[77patriots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ej365Y658Q&feature=player_embedded



Obviously most would not disagree that Slavery was a bad thing, and it was phasing out due to the cost/expense and the influx of immigrants from the old world that would be willing to be indentured servants for a short period of time. Slavery was not the REASON for the war we refere to as the "civil war". Slavery was an argument that took front stage as the war was in full swing.. research the African Nation of Liberia-the Capital Monrovia, and look at Liberia's flag and you will see what Abraham Lincon's plans for the American Slaves were. ( right before he was killed by Booth).

This video is historically accurate as to WHY the south succeeded from the North.. The result was the North refused to leave Ft. Sumpter SC and refused to acknowledge the Souths right to succeed.
The Ft. Sumpter attack was after the south demanded the removal of Federal Norhtern troops from the Sovereign State Of South Carolina.

Two biggest misconceptions of the "Civil WAR".
are explained in this video.


Now that you have seen the video
Thing about what the criminal Federal Govt is doing now to this nation?
do you think our forefathers would have let this corruption and criminal activity get this bad this far?
Nope they would be swinging from Trees.


tarred and feathered too

[lsmurphy]

I don't have time to watch....taxes and foriegn trade are the reasons for the war, as I understand it.

Probably the very beginings of the Fed power grab we are feeling now. I really wish the Confederacy had succeeded, my life would be better today.


Scott

[drjarhead]

Probably the very beginings of the Fed power grab we are feeling now. I really wish the Confederacy had succeeded, my life would be better today.


Scott
The Confederacy was doomed before it began.
No industry to speak of, an inability to keep their ports open and be supplied.
Not to mention that it took them far too long to get into the North, then a failure of tactics and leadership at Gettysburg.

Yeah, they never really had a chance.

IMO the inability to trade and be supplied were probably the biggest though.

While not a guerilla war per se, the failure to adhere to Mao's 3 conditions figured prominently in the defeat.

Just my 2 cents.
Men fought against slavery, they probably didn't care all that much about the rest, not the Union soldiers anyhow. The rest was the machinations of the powerful trying to rest power from one another.

[lsmurphy]

The Confederacy was doomed before it began.
No industry to speak of, an inability to keep their ports open and be supplied.
Not to mention that it took them far too long to get into the North, then a failure of tactics and leadership at Gettysburg.

Yeah, they never really had a chance.

IMO the inability to trade and be supplied were probably the biggest though.

While not a guerilla war per se, the failure to adhere to Mao's 3 conditions figured prominently in the defeat.

Just my 2 cents.
Men fought against slavery, they probably didn't care all that much about the rest, not the Union soldiers anyhow. The rest was the machinations of the powerful trying to rest power from one another.
We would have all been better off IMO if we had devided, we would not have 5 states feeding off of and destroying the other 45.


You F'ers in Cali and NY and Jersey.......F'ers.


Scott

[77patriots]

The Irony of this Conflict has effects on us , yet today.

[madmanmccoy]

Well start a movement for SECCESSION in your spare time, "
AND it's not" US Fer's in NY," it's the" Fer's "that run things, appeasing the vocal minorities by keeping them on the permanent dole,

[bigwheel]

Murphy you are right. The north had a larger voting block in congress and put
the south in the position of paying for the gov. through tariffs. But I think behind
the scenes God had a plan to rid us of slavery. Quincy Adams worked on it for
40 years and passed the mantle to Lincoln in 1848 or so. As far as mens reasons
for fighting, money nothing more. I don't believe for a second we would be better
off if we had divided. If it had gotten that far Hitler would have ruled and your
life would have been different indeed. And if not for the death of Stonewall
Jackson I think the south would have won. But all you eggs in one basket is a
risk to high to take.

[renegadebuck]

I don't have time to watch....taxes and foriegn trade are the reasons for the war, as I understand it.

Probably the very beginings of the Fed power grab we are feeling now. I really wish the Confederacy had succeeded, my life would be better today.


Scott


It probably took longer to type the reply than to watch the video, but you were right about the taxes part.

[lsmurphy]

It probably took longer to type the reply than to watch the video, but you were right about the taxes part.
I have satilite internet with limited daily band width.....I just get tired of having to explain this with each vid posted.


Scott

[CPO TED]

The Confederacy was doomed before it began.
No industry to speak of, an inability to keep their ports open and be supplied.
Not to mention that it took them far too long to get into the North, then a failure of tactics and leadership at Gettysburg.

Yeah, they never really had a chance.

IMO the inability to trade and be supplied were probably the biggest though.

While not a guerrilla war per se, the failure to adhere to Mao's 3 conditions figured prominently in the defeat.



Yep.

Fighting a conventional war with the limitations on supply they faced was REAL tough.

A bloody and protracted guerrilla war ... with covert ops, sabotage and assassinations ... carried on in the North as much as possible ... would have served the South much better.

Lessons to learn here.

T

[lsmurphy]

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/csa.htm

The CSA strengthened individual rights and LIMITED the powers of congress and the the prez, moreso than our constitution.

I would be better off with the CSA today.


F'n SUCKS.

Scott

[armchair_warrior]

its all about money and states rights. but the north use a good excuse. in reality we all know they just wanted the feds to grow and the south states rights.

well if things don't go too well the south could do it again.

[printerman]

....but who was that person they found in the barn , cause Booth spent several years in Brazil then moved back to N. America , Oklahoma I believe !

Your quest for the truth is common , History (His - Story) sucks that way ....

[drjarhead]

Yep.

Fighting a conventional war with the limitations on supply they faced was REAL tough.

A bloody and protracted guerrilla war ... with covert ops, sabotage and assassinations ... carried on in the North as much as possible ... would have served the South much better.

Lessons to learn here.

T
As it was in the first American Revolution.

Going musket to musket and cannon to cannon with Redcoats in open field was the height of stupidity, IMHO.

We did the same in the Civil War.

Then everyone did it again in WWI.

Then the Germans invented Stormtrooper tactics and rewrote the book on infantry warfare.

We have been using those tactics since but now are faced with exponential leaps in technology which will totally rewrite the book again.



But even with guerilla warfare you must still supply and resupply. You cannot get it all from the enemy, then there is attrition of your own materiels. War is hard on implements. ;)

Mao's 3 Conditions...

Learn 'em, live 'em.



But getting back to Revolutionary War, we won because we were the Vietnamese and they were us. We had the men and kept feeding them into the grinder. They had to cross the ocean with men, weapons, and everything else they needed.
IMO guerilla tactics would have been far more effective but it was a different time and I am left to wonder how it may have affected support for the war. Hard to say now.

In the Civil War, guerilla tactics would have been much more effective and much more acceptable. Consider Mao's strategy against the Union---leading them on merry goose chases, ambushing them, harrassing them, cutting their supply lines...now that had real promise.
Instead, sending thousands of men across open field into artillery and small arms barrages. Senseless.
In WWI they threw in the MG and still did the same, regardless that they all saw how the US Civil War went.

[drjarhead]

We would have all been better off IMO if we had devided, we would not have 5 states feeding off of and destroying the other 45.


You F'ers in Cali and NY and Jersey.......F'ers.


Scott
It is the cities, Scott.
Even in those States, it is the cities.
Same as it is the cities in TN that are causing your problems.

Need I say more?

[scaldwellk]

It was the War of the States. Cival War was slang term.

[bubbazan68]

major political issues that festered in the first half of the 19th century caused political alignment along sectional lines, strengthened the identities of North and South as distinct regions with certain strongly opposed interests, and fed the arguments over states' rights that culminated in secession and the Civil War. One of these issues concerned the protective tariffs enacted to assist the growth of the manufacturing sector, primarily in the North. In 1832, in resistance to federal legislation increasing tariffs,
South Carolina passed an ordinance of nullification *1, a procedure in which a state would in effect repeal a Federal law. Soon a naval flotilla was sent to Charleston harbor, and the threat of landing ground troops was used to compel the collection of tariffs. A compromise was reached by which the tariffs would be gradually reduced, but the underlying argument over states' rights continued to escalate in the following decades.


*1
Nullification is a legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory is based on a view that the sovereign States formed the Union, and as creators of the compact hold final authority regarding the limits of the power of the central government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the Federal Bench are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. A more extreme assertion of state sovereignty than nullification is the related action of secession, by which a state terminates its political affiliation with the Union. State efforts to nullify federal law have never been upheld.

[lsmurphy]

major political issues that festered in the first half of the 19th century caused political alignment along sectional lines, strengthened the identities of North and South as distinct regions with certain strongly opposed interests, and fed the arguments over states' rights that culminated in secession and the Civil War. One of these issues concerned the protective tariffs enacted to assist the growth of the manufacturing sector, primarily in the North. In 1832, in resistance to federal legislation increasing tariffs,
South Carolina passed an ordinance of nullification *1, a procedure in which a state would in effect repeal a Federal law. Soon a naval flotilla was sent to Charleston harbor, and the threat of landing ground troops was used to compel the collection of tariffs. A compromise was reached by which the tariffs would be gradually reduced, but the underlying argument over states' rights continued to escalate in the following decades.


*1
Nullification is a legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory is based on a view that the sovereign States formed the Union, and as creators of the compact hold final authority regarding the limits of the power of the central government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the Federal Bench are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. A more extreme assertion of state sovereignty than nullification is the related action of secession, by which a state terminates its political affiliation with the Union. State efforts to nullify federal law have never been upheld.


Nor have they been challenged at the border.

Scott

[tenfeathers]

Only reason the south lost was we found out the north just wanted our black women so we just packed up and went home.

[Coach]

Yeah, they never really had a chance.
I have to disagree a little bit.

The Confederacy had one chance.

They should have marched into Washington after the First Battle of Bull Run, burned the city to the ground, and forced Lincoln at bayonet-point to sign an armistace.

Beauregard wanted to do it. Davis said no.

That was their only chance to win. After that, the rest of the Civil War was endgame.

[partymember]

the Civil War was fought over slavery

period.

The Confederacy adopted an Articles-style constitution because they wanted to make it seem as though them bitching about "states rights" was a valid concern.

[drjarhead]

I have to disagree a little bit.

The Confederacy had one chance.

They should have marched into Washington after the First Battle of Bull Run, burned the city to the ground, and forced Lincoln at bayonet-point to sign an armistace.

Beauregard wanted to do it. Davis said no.

That was their only chance to win. After that, the rest of the Civil War was endgame.
Possibly.

Taking Washington with Union troops on their rear might not have worked out so well and there is no guarantee that it would have ended the war in any event.

[bubbazan68]

the Civil War was fought over slavery

period.

The Confederacy adopted an Articles-style constitution because they wanted to make it seem as though them bitching about "states rights" was a valid concern.
guess you missed Lincoln’s address that stated the SLAVERY WAS OK FOR EACH STATE as guarantied by the CONSTITUTION


Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4, 1861




part of it any way


I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

[lsmurphy]

guess you missed Lincoln’s address that stated the SLAVERY WAS OK FOR EACH STATE as guarantied by the CONSTITUTION


Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4, 1861




part of it any way


I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

That's why I say it was never about slavery.

Scott

[bubbazan68]

<<<< is in agreement with lsmurphy

it was more about trade england was making it harder for slave countrys to do trade if they still had slaves and were did we get most of our trade back then? why england

[Varokhâr]

It is the cities, Scott.
Even in those States, it is the cities.
Same as it is the cities in TN that are causing your problems.

Need I say more?I can't help but agree. Power and the consolidation of it are strong elements in urban thinking and mentalities. Even suburban communities are generally prone to approving of a strong central government with great power over the lives of its citizens.

This is a picture of downtown Trenton, NJ, near to where I spent 28+ years of my life. I took this picture about ten years ago. It's a nasty urban center, but even there, where the pressure of the Washington heel is felt most strongly, some have seen history a different way:

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc52/Varokhar/The%20Old%20Neighborhood/confederatedefiance.png

It isn't the only battle flag to be seen out there ;)

I have to disagree a little bit.

The Confederacy had one chance.

They should have marched into Washington after the First Battle of Bull Run, burned the city to the ground, and forced Lincoln at bayonet-point to sign an armistace.

Beauregard wanted to do it. Davis said no.

That was their only chance to win. After that, the rest of the Civil War was endgame.
That's a new one for me - never heard that before. Makes me mourn the outcome of the Civil War that much more, if indeed a victory against the federal beast could have been won in such a way. I spent 30 years of my life living in the northeastern US, and the fallout of the federal power grab of 1865 was always solidly impressed on me.

Thomas Jefferson once said that "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a revolution" (speaking of the American Revolution, of course); we went nearly a century without one, had a partial one (I tip my hat to Dixie for trying), and have lived under a government which has grown far in power and far from its original constitutional limits ever since.

[bluak47]

There is a brilliant officer thesis on the american civil war in the midwest. wish I had the link now. about one hundred pages.

anyway the southern army stormed across the midwest, had every strategic advantage ... and blew it.

They were pillaging and whoring, and mostly getting drunk.

I am a southerner by choice, not birth. And I strongly stand against the lie of history that the civil war had anything to do with slavery.

Exactly the same folks which have everyone convinced the middle east is about instilling democracy.

Just lies for the moron chattle to feel good about.

People everywhere, north and south, need to realize that when you lower your morals to their level, you get what you deserve.

[tenfeathers]

the Civil War was fought over slavery

period.

The Confederacy adopted an Articles-style constitution because they wanted to make it seem as though them bitching about "states rights" was a valid concern.

The war started before the subject of slavery came up, Btw read the emansapation proclomation Lincoln only freed the slaves in the south not in the north.

[partymember]

there were almost no slaves in the North to free. Northern industrialization made slavery pointless. The South didn't feel as though they needed to industrialize (probably why they lost the war) and used the power of slavery to make great profits on cotton and tobacco.

The South seceeded, not the North. The South knew their way of life was over if slavery died out. The South constantly tried to re-draw the lines of SLavery after compromises had been met, in order for more slave states to join the Union.

the Civil War was about States Rights... to own slaves.

the Civil War was about freedom from Federal opression... freedom to own slaves.

I still think Lincoln was an asshole, i couldn't care less about Slavery being 'wrong', but don't try to say the Civil War wasn't about Slavery. It very clearly was.

[Coach]

The CSA strengthened individual rights
Not for slaves.

[Varokhâr]

I still think Lincoln was an asshole, i couldn't care less about Slavery being 'wrong', but don't try to say the Civil War wasn't about Slavery. It very clearly was.It wasn't, otherwise slavery would have been the issue from the word go in 1861.

[partymember]

It wasn't, otherwise slavery would have been the issue from the word go in 1861.

the issue was the South decided to take their ball and go home

i can't blame them, nor do i condone the tyranny of Lincoln, but the problem was half the country just LEFT

over Slavery

[Varokhâr]

the issue was the South decided to take their ball and go home

i can't blame them, nor do i condone the tyranny of Lincoln, but the problem was half the country just LEFT

over SlaveryThe problem was that only half the country left. The other half should have joined in with them.

Though the war wasn't over slavery. Otherwise, it would have been the primary issue of 1861.

[partymember]

The problem was that only half the country left. The other half should have joined in with them.

Though the war wasn't over slavery. Otherwise, it would have been the primary issue of 1861.

the other half of the country was experiencing an industrial revolution. Had a working Constitution. The South had neither of those.

When the South saw that Slavery was on the chopping block thanks to religious nutcases and bleeding hearts in the North, they knew that with Slavery went their economic and political power. So they left. The Confederate Constitution was a joke, an innefective joke, as it was modeled after the FAILED Artciles of Confederation. Everything they needed was imported, they manufactured next to nothing in-country. They attempted to bully England into joining their cause by withholding cotton export for 2 years. The result was they lost 2 years of revenue that could have bought them more guns and gunpowder, and England started growing their own cotton in Egypt. The Confederate government was heavy-handed and tyranical in its own blundering way, just as bad as Lincoln's dictatorship was.

[winston]

Uh...

I don't think the south's efforts were a "success"... :wink_smal

But I know what you meant, "secede", it's just that your post reads really funny when you take the word you used literally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ej365Y658Q&feature=player_embedded



Obviously most would not disagree that Slavery was a bad thing, and it was phasing out due to the cost/expense and the influx of immigrants from the old world that would be willing to be indentured servants for a short period of time. Slavery was not the REASON for the war we refere to as the "civil war". Slavery was an argument that took front stage as the war was in full swing.. research the African Nation of Liberia-the Capital Monrovia, and look at Liberia's flag and you will see what Abraham Lincon's plans for the American Slaves were. ( right before he was killed by Booth).

This video is historically accurate as to WHY the south succeeded from the North.. The result was the North refused to leave Ft. Sumpter SC and refused to acknowledge the Souths right to succeed.
The Ft. Sumpter attack was after the south demanded the removal of Federal Norhtern troops from the Sovereign State Of South Carolina.

Two biggest misconceptions of the "Civil WAR".
are explained in this video.


Now that you have seen the video
Thing about what the criminal Federal Govt is doing now to this nation?
do you think our forefathers would have let this corruption and criminal activity get this bad this far?
Nope they would be swinging from Trees.


tarred and feathered too

[bubbazan68]

The letter below from Robert E. Lee to Andrew Hunter presents Lee's view on using slaves in the confederate army. Lee's position, summarized below, will surprise many

Lee Suggests that Negroes should be immediately recruited into the Confederate Army

Lee suggests that in exchange for their service, they be granted freedom for themselves and their families

Lee suggests that they should be welcome to live as free men in the south after the war

Lee suggests that the men's families should be granted freedom even if the men did not survive the war

Lee suggests that they should be paid a bounty for faithful service

Lee believes that the freed slaves would make loyal and effective soldiers

Lee suggests that the policy moving forward in the south should be emancipation of the slaves

[tenfeathers]

there were almost no slaves in the North to free. Northern industrialization made slavery pointless. The South didn't feel as though they needed to industrialize (probably why they lost the war) and used the power of slavery to make great profits on cotton and tobacco.

The South seceeded, not the North. The South knew their way of life was over if slavery died out. The South constantly tried to re-draw the lines of SLavery after compromises had been met, in order for more slave states to join the Union.

the Civil War was about States Rights... to own slaves.

the Civil War was about freedom from Federal opression... freedom to own slaves.

I still think Lincoln was an asshole, i couldn't care less about Slavery being 'wrong', but don't try to say the Civil War wasn't about Slavery. It very clearly was.


All that from a Northern prospective

[Varokhâr]

the other half of the country was experiencing an industrial revolution. Had a working Constitution. The South had neither of those.

When the South saw that Slavery was on the chopping block thanks to religious nutcases and bleeding hearts in the North, they knew that with Slavery went their economic and political power. So they left. The Confederate Constitution was a joke, an innefective joke, as it was modeled after the FAILED Artciles of Confederation. Everything they needed was imported, they manufactured next to nothing in-country. They attempted to bully England into joining their cause by withholding cotton export for 2 years. The result was they lost 2 years of revenue that could have bought them more guns and gunpowder, and England started growing their own cotton in Egypt. The Confederate government was heavy-handed and tyranical in its own blundering way, just as bad as Lincoln's dictatorship was.What working constitution? Even then, it was just a piece of paper that was in the process of being slowly subverted.

The South probably could have approached the war differently. I am not learned enough on that aspect to say for sure; Yankees aren't taught much about all the factors surrounding the Civil War. But what I do know is that the war wasn't about slavery, otherwise that would have been an up-front and hot-button issue in 1861, and it was not.

It sounds good to claim that the South's economy depended on slavery. Quite another thing to prove it. As I understand it, slavery didn't account for even the majority of Southern plantation's labor forces, possibly as little as %25 of it. I can't verify that as of yet (perhaps someone else can shed light on it?) but what I do know was that slavery was not the primary reason for secession.

[partymember]

What working constitution? Even then, it was just a piece of paper that was in the process of being slowly subverted.

The South probably could have approached the war differently. I am not learned enough on that aspect to say for sure; Yankees aren't taught much about all the factors surrounding the Civil War. But what I do know is that the war wasn't about slavery, otherwise that would have been an up-front and hot-button issue in 1861, and it was not.

It sounds good to claim that the South's economy depended on slavery. Quite another thing to prove it. As I understand it, slavery didn't account for even the majority of Southern plantation's labor forces, possibly as little as %25 of it. I can't verify that as of yet (perhaps someone else can shed light on it?) but what I do know was that slavery was not the primary reason for secession.

the Constitution of 1787, the currenty US Constitution, is a viable, working Constitution. It replaced the Articles of Confederation (1781), which was garbage. The Articles held the US together about as firmly as the Holy Roman Empire had been held together, in other words, not at all.

the CSA's Constitution (1861) greatly limited the power of the Federal government, granting each state near autonomy, as the US had been under the Articles of Confederation. This was a bad system. Might have worked well in peace time, but during a war it sucked royally.

as for Slavery being the CSA's main source of income, i can say Agriculture certainly was. And slavery was a huge part of that. Over 90% of factories existing in the United States (or former United States, as the case may be) were located in the North. This meant the CSA had to import nearly everything. Their lifeblood was cotton and tobacco. That was really all they produced. They tried to build a nation on the export of two products and wage a war against a nation with 10x the manufacturing capacity.

dumb

as for "Yankees aren't taught much about all the factors surrounding the Civil War"... sure. How many Southern states still refuse to teach Evolution? Lets not get into the quality of education between "Yankees" and "Rebels".

for the record i find nothing morally wrong with slavery and i think the South should've kicked Lincoln's smug ass... but it WAS about slavery

[partymember]

Slavery was an argument that took front stage as the war was in full swing.. research the African Nation of Liberia-the Capital Monrovia, and look at Liberia's flag and you will see what Abraham Lincon's plans for the American Slaves were. ( right before he was killed by Booth).

first off, you're wrong. Repatriation was the official Republican Party platform in the 1850's.

Before the war and during the war nobody actually believed it would be possible to repatriate the Blacks, and most people were talking about giving them citizenship or semi-citizenship.

secondly, you say the South seceeded because the North refused to recognize their right to seceed? By refusing to evacuate Ft. Sumter?

SOUTH CAROLINA SECEEDED BEFORE FT. SUMPTER WAS BOMBED YOU MORON

The REASON Ft. Sumpter was occupied was because the local Union soldiers (read: rightful and legal military force) saw that their own fort (which pointed towards the sea) was totally indefensable from a landward assault, so the Union commander, fearing the local Militia would attack their position to capture their cannon, relocated his men to Ft. Sumter, where the CONFEDERACY shelled them until they had to surrender

what the f*ck part of that screams "damn Yankees" to you?

[bigwheel]

Here is a pretty neutral read on the whole thing with a lot of numbers and dates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history

[Trotsky39]

[QUOTE=partymember]the Civil War was fought over slavery

period.

QUOTE]


yep

[tenfeathers]

[QUOTE=partymember]the Civil War was fought over slavery

period.

QUOTE]


yep

STILL A NORTHERN PROSPECTIVE, Most of what people are taught in school about the Civil war is written by northerners, try some southern books.

[Burnout]

I've always thought it was about states rights vs federal power. Early in US history states had much more power than after the civil war. Many states even had their own currency and were much more loosely controlled. The huge federal power grab (civil war) changed all that. Even going back farther the original colonies were simply a loosely controlled *confederacy* as was meant to be by our founding fathers.

Special interests wanted a strong tightly controlling federal government running everything. They didn't like the people having power at a local level that a true "state government" provided.

The slavery issue was and is a diversion from the real reason for the war - power, as in an absolute centralized federal power. Those who won were able to re-write history (as always). They want us to think the civil war was instead for the higher cause of freedom for slaves.

As a test of this "higher cause" of freedom theory we only need to look at how the new "free loving" federal government dealt with the native populations in the West for decades *after* the civil war. In this case the federals didn't care about the freedom of the Indians, but instead wanted their absolute control or extermination...so much for the "freedom for every man" theory...forced relocation and interment camps filled purposely with disease. Yup the Indians got a good dose of federal "freedom".

Even though I'm from the North, I've always admired those brave men who risked everything in an attempt to repel the great federal power grab...

[20nickels]

You're both right.
It was fought over slavery and nullification/succesion. We were multitasking. The slavery issue was festering since the founding of the country and the nullification issue went back to Andrew Jackson's butting heads with South Carolina.
Saying it was just about slavery is being ignorant of Jackson and Lincoln's efforts to "preserve the Union at all costs".
Likewise, saying slavery had nothing to do with it reeks of Lost Cause BS.

Lost Cause FYI;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

[kansasrebel]

My mom's side owned slaves, my dad's didn't. But, they both fought for the Confederacy. Really, arguing about the past is moot. What we really need to concern ourselves with is what's causing the NEXT CIVIL WAR.

[partymember]

STILL A NORTHERN PROSPECTIVE, Most of what people are taught in school about the Civil war is written by northerners, try some southern books.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zofbdrPGZRo

ETA: so do you trust American-written books concerning the American revolution? Or are they too biased for your superior Southern public schools.

and when did they start teaching non-biblical currciculum south of the Mason-Dixon?

[tenfeathers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zofbdrPGZRo

ETA: so do you trust American-written books concerning the American revolution? Or are they too biased for your superior Southern public schools.

and when did they start teaching non-biblical currciculum south of the Mason-Dixon?

Trying to change the subject because you can't prove otherwise ?? not the way to go.
I never mentioned religion or anything superior, I said read southern books that way you get both sides not just the north.

BTW the south did not invent slavery, Gerge washington, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves before the south even existed.

[partymember]

Trying to change the subject because you can't prove otherwise ?? not the way to go.
I never mentioned religion or anything superior, I said read southern books that way you get both sides not just the north.

BTW the south did not invent slavery, Gerge washington, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves before the south even existed.
change the subject?

every time i make a valid point you say "damn Yankees"

you could make a point, if you wanted. Personally i don't read books that are 'from' this place or that place, i read books that are written by well-respected scholars and are favorably reviewed by the authors peers.

most of them are Phd's. They write very long books on very narrow topics because they know what they're talking about. I don't go out of my way to read one Yankee book to one Rebel book.

and slavery has been around since the dawn of humanity. I find nothing morally wrong with slavery whatsoever and i never said it was 'bad' or that the Federal boys were 'good'. I just said it was the driving force behind Secession.

[Coach]

the Civil War was about freedom from Federal opression... freedom to own slaves.
"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"
Samuel Johnson, Taxation No Tyranny