re: Civil War... States Rights or Slavery

Both.

Slavery and states rights

And the fact that it was clear that Yankees (Northerners) suck with a loud slurping noise even back then.

quote:

---

This was about a major centralized government vs not a centralized fedgov. Period.

This was a war fought about differences of belief on power in the hands of many or the few.

---

No.

quote:

---

Both.

---

Yes, but as mentioned, Slavery was the main States Rights issue at the time.

quote:

---

A couple states had in their letters for war slavery as the reason.

---

I don’t think there was a State that didn’t have this as a reason in their letters

quote:

---

States effectively getting raided financially without any real representation or the ability to affect the milking of their resources really topped it off.

---

Yea, but again, without Slavery issue, not a 1% chance of a Civil War

quote:

---

Not really, especially when you think about states who openly admitted they didn't give a shite about the Northern states' rights to refuse to go along with slavery.

---

Want to quote the rest of that sentence? Nah?

All of the above

quote:

---

However, I doubt you can get the whole population on board for a war when most of them don't actually own slaves themselves.

---

Really? You don't think you could fire up support for an issue that doesn't affect everyone directly?

Have you met people?

Consolidation of power to promote centralized authority was the goal. This goal necessitated the erosion of states rights.

Slavery was the message used to generate a net gain of public support, much like global warming is used as a similar strategy to achieve otherwise unpopular goals.

Slavery was going to fail as an institution anyway, just like it has in every other developed economy. Slavery is of course inhumane. But the reason it fails is because it is economically inefficient over the long term.

quote:

---

Really? You don't think you could fire up support for an issue that doesn't affect everyone directly?

Have you met people?

---

Not to the point that you have the most deadly war in our country's history. Again, I think slavery was not a small reason. It was a huge one. It was the "straw that broke the camel's back" and it financed it all. But I think revisionist history makes it look like the North was fighting the war to end slavery and therefore the south was purely fighting to preserve it. Someone mentioned earlier, Lincoln did not have intentions to free anyone.

The Emancipation Proclamation (hugely important in our country's history and should not be dismissed as not ultimately being a good thing) was a political move. Lincoln freed slaves in a territory he currently had no control over. If I recall correctly, it didn't even free slaves in states such as Kentucky that didn't secede. He didn't go into it as some grand gesture to provide justice to enslaved people. He just wanted to maintain the union. However history, movies, books, etc. all have influenced our perception that it was a fight to free the slaves.

quote:

---

Who is doing this? You know good and damned well it’s the left that generally writes the books, then they get propped by leftist media. If anything slavery is blamed for everything, every grievance minority has its roots there…it’s more than attended to, to the exclusion of every other issue.that might be involved.

---

At LSU, when I took American History, the cause was strictly defined as slavery. I would regularly question the Professor, who happened to write all the reference books for the class (which we had to buy)
The TA told me I had to stop questioning him because he would go the to his office and holler while throwing books against the wall for after class.