(07-10-2015 02:36 PM)NewJersey GATA Wrote: My Yankee teacher instructed us that the people in the south were bad and the Yankees were good. We kicked their tail when they disagreed with us because we are bullies!
Vote for Chris Christie!!!
Well, it is true. The Yankees are good most years.
Quote:A compromise could have been had. But Lincoln and his ilk wanted no compromise.
This is one of many examples where you are full of s***
His position was not to end slavery but to stop it from expanding into new territory and believed the federal govt did not have the constitutional right to ban it. If it were to be banned he wanted monetary compensation to slave owners. In fact he supported the Corwin Amendment (introduced by Seward) which would have guaranteed that slavery would have been protected in the Southern States.
I'll let The Judge field this one. Bonus points for him crapping on Wilson and Roosevelt too. Bet ya didn't know Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the military, did ya?
Quote:A compromise could have been had. But Lincoln and his ilk wanted no compromise.
This is one of many examples where you are full of s***
His position was not to end slavery but to stop it from expanding into new territory and believed the federal govt did not have the constitutional right to ban it. If it were to be banned he wanted monetary compensation to slave owners. In fact he supported the Corwin Amendment (introduced by Seward) which would have guaranteed that slavery would have been protected in the Southern States.
I'll let The Judge field this one. Bonus points for him crapping on Wilson and Roosevelt too. Bet ya didn't know Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the military, did ya?
Slavery was dying, but most experts say it would have gone on another 50 years; it wasn't going to die in 1865.
And if it had died a natural death early in the 20th century, there would not have been a smooth and immediate transition to equality as the judge implies.
(07-10-2015 06:40 PM)Jugnaut Wrote: I agree generally with the original OP's reasons, but I think everyone is missing the most obvious: regional identities. I think the greatest cause was lack of commonality between the culture and peoples of the North and South. When each side started identifying as a member of their state or region over the nation, then a split was inevitable. No different than the colonists wanting self-governance instead of wanting to be shackled to England.
I'd also like to dispel the myth that the North was fighting to end slavery, that was not the case. Slavery didn't end until the 13th amendment was passed. The emancipation proclamation only claimed to end slavery in regions controlled by the CSA, i.e. regions not under Union control, which in effect freed no one. Slavery was still existed in northern border states throughout the war.
well done... the simile? growing pains come to mind....
from a behavioral perspective, it was simply a cultural divide as both 'sides' attempted to achieve governing independence/solidarity through perseverance whilst participating in the conquest of acquiring the perceived goal of a unique control mechanism by whatever means required
I only see the abolition of slavery as a resulting consequence coinciding with that point in time....
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2015 11:14 PM by stinkfist.)
(07-11-2015 10:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: Slavery was dying, but most experts say it would have gone on another 50 years; it wasn't going to die in 1865.
And if it had died a natural death early in the 20th century, there would not have been a smooth and immediate transition to equality as the judge implies.
That'd be 50 years ahead of when actual equality arrived after MLK Jr.
(07-11-2015 10:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: Slavery was dying, but most experts say it would have gone on another 50 years; it wasn't going to die in 1865.
And if it had died a natural death early in the 20th century, there would not have been a smooth and immediate transition to equality as the judge implies.
That'd be 50 years ahead of when actual equality arrived after MLK Jr.
Um. Equality still hasn't arrived. It was better but that seems to have stalled with bad trade deals and the awakening of the Confederacy.
(07-10-2015 08:45 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: Stanley,
You or none of your ilk can produce any evidence that slavery was the reason why Lincoln went to war. If so produce the U.S. Declaration. Show evidence of an amendment concerning slavery for the United States.
You can't even answer why a man from Indiana would leave his family and fight in a war in the Southeastern portion of his continent. For a black slave ? Bull crap, Indiana wouldn't even allow a negro in the state during 1860 without a tax.
So go ahead and regurgitate "slavery" because that's all the "knowledge" you have read from Wikipedia regarding the true history of this nation.
It was an economic war wow you are a thick one to reason with.
And there you have it.
The men in blue didn't ride south to free the slaves.
Ever wonder why you don't see civil rights marches carrying the Union's "free-the-slaves" flags and symbols? There weren't any.
(07-10-2015 08:45 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: Stanley,
You or none of your ilk can produce any evidence that slavery was the reason why Lincoln went to war. If so produce the U.S. Declaration. Show evidence of an amendment concerning slavery for the United States.
You can't even answer why a man from Indiana would leave his family and fight in a war in the Southeastern portion of his continent. For a black slave ? Bull crap, Indiana wouldn't even allow a negro in the state during 1860 without a tax.
So go ahead and regurgitate "slavery" because that's all the "knowledge" you have read from Wikipedia regarding the true history of this nation.
It was an economic war wow you are a thick one to reason with.
And there you have it.
The men in blue didn't ride south to free the slaves.
Ever wonder why you don't see civil rights marches carrying the Union's "free-the-slaves" flags and symbols? There weren't any.
As our young posters here have learned from history on TV it's clear that Lincoln was too busy fighting the zombies to commission such imagery
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2015 06:45 AM by shere khan.)
(07-10-2015 08:45 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: Stanley,
You or none of your ilk can produce any evidence that slavery was the reason why Lincoln went to war. If so produce the U.S. Declaration. Show evidence of an amendment concerning slavery for the United States.
You can't even answer why a man from Indiana would leave his family and fight in a war in the Southeastern portion of his continent. For a black slave ? Bull crap, Indiana wouldn't even allow a negro in the state during 1860 without a tax.
So go ahead and regurgitate "slavery" because that's all the "knowledge" you have read from Wikipedia regarding the true history of this nation.
It was an economic war wow you are a thick one to reason with.
And there you have it.
The men in blue didn't ride south to free the slaves.
Ever wonder why you don't see civil rights marches carrying the Union's "free-the-slaves" flags and symbols? There weren't any.
As our young posters here have learned from history on TV it's clear that Lincoln was too busy fighting the zombies to commission such imagery
still better than getting a history lesson from GTS
(07-11-2015 10:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: Slavery was dying, but most experts say it would have gone on another 50 years; it wasn't going to die in 1865.
And if it had died a natural death early in the 20th century, there would not have been a smooth and immediate transition to equality as the judge implies.
That'd be 50 years ahead of when actual equality arrived after MLK Jr.
Um. Equality still hasn't arrived. It was better but that seems to have stalled with bad trade deals and the awakening of the Confederacy.
Someone recently posted a thread with statistics saying that the confederate states are actually producing more equal outcomes for minorities than the yankee states.
That's why states had to be admitted to the Union on a 1 for 1 basis prior to the 1850s. So that Slavery was protected.
The issue of States Rights was brought up by the Southern states.. But in what context? Slavery.
Trade and tariff issues were a minor issue.
---
People can bring up statistics showing what a small percentage of Southern whites were slaveholders all day long. It doesn't matter. Because of voter suppression, basically the only people who mattered politically in the South were the wealthy, who ran their states to protect and further slavery as an institution.
---
That's not to say that the North was some land of milk and honey for African Americans or that their treatment was good, because it certainly wasn't. But many in the North drew a distinction between acceptance of discrimination and tolerance of slavery.
---
But for slavery, there would have been no civil war.
---
The South seceded over the fact that someone who opposed slavery was elected President (even though he wasn't going to do much about it).
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2015 12:13 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
(07-11-2015 10:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: Slavery was dying, but most experts say it would have gone on another 50 years; it wasn't going to die in 1865.
And if it had died a natural death early in the 20th century, there would not have been a smooth and immediate transition to equality as the judge implies.
That'd be 50 years ahead of when actual equality arrived after MLK Jr.
This dream of a natural death wouldn't have produced better results for former slaves that the civil war. The difference between slavery in the US all those other foreign powers is that their colonies were overseas and thus not actual seat of power. Without relocation, I really can't see how a better outcome than what actually transpired could have been achieved.
And if slavery was on its way out, clearly the Southern States didn't get the memo. As evident in the Compromise of 1850, which succeeded the Missouri Compromise, America was still trying to decide how each state would deal with the slave issue and its expansion westward.
Provide the document stating that the North went to war to end slavery.
The Southern states left peacefully under the legal aspects of the U.S. Constitution.
What was so special about 7 states that the mighty Union needed ? Are you suggesting that the Union could not have survived without 7 states?
Slavery was the biggest cause of the Civil War, but that does not mean that Lincoln went to war to end slavery. He didn't. But can you imagine if the north won the war but slavery was still legal in the south? We probably would have ended up with yet another war.
The US was going to be much stronger keeping all the states together. If everyone that wanted to secede was allowed to, we would have ended up like the Balkans probably. Was that a good enough reason for the war? I don't know. In retrospect I think so.
(07-11-2015 10:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: Slavery was dying, but most experts say it would have gone on another 50 years; it wasn't going to die in 1865.
And if it had died a natural death early in the 20th century, there would not have been a smooth and immediate transition to equality as the judge implies.
That'd be 50 years ahead of when actual equality arrived after MLK Jr.
This dream of a natural death wouldn't have produced better results for former slaves that the civil war. The difference between slavery in the US all those other foreign powers is that their colonies were overseas and thus not actual seat of power. Without relocation, I really can't see how a better outcome than what actually transpired could have been achieved.
And if slavery was on its way out, clearly the Southern States didn't get the memo. As evident in the Compromise of 1850, which succeeded the Missouri Compromise, America was still trying to decide how each state would deal with the slave issue and its expansion westward.
Jefferson Davis even believed it would die on its own. And there was already a sell-off down south. The 8 border states (i.e. not the original 7 Confederate states) were all selling slaves, not adding.
(07-11-2015 10:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: Slavery was dying, but most experts say it would have gone on another 50 years; it wasn't going to die in 1865.
And if it had died a natural death early in the 20th century, there would not have been a smooth and immediate transition to equality as the judge implies.
That'd be 50 years ahead of when actual equality arrived after MLK Jr.
This dream of a natural death wouldn't have produced better results for former slaves that the civil war. The difference between slavery in the US all those other foreign powers is that their colonies were overseas and thus not actual seat of power. Without relocation, I really can't see how a better outcome than what actually transpired could have been achieved.
And if slavery was on its way out, clearly the Southern States didn't get the memo. As evident in the Compromise of 1850, which succeeded the Missouri Compromise, America was still trying to decide how each state would deal with the slave issue and its expansion westward.
Jefferson Davis even believed it would die on its own. And there was already a sell-off down south. The 8 border states (i.e. not the original 7 Confederate states) were all selling slaves, not adding.
So did the signers of the Constitution, 100 years before.
(07-13-2015 12:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: It was slavery. First, Last, and in Between.
That's why states had to be admitted to the Union on a 1 for 1 basis prior to the 1850s. So that Slavery was protected.
The issue of States Rights was brought up by the Southern states.. But in what context? Slavery.
Trade and tariff issues were a minor issue.
---
People can bring up statistics showing what a small percentage of Southern whites were slaveholders all day long. It doesn't matter. Because of voter suppression, basically the only people who mattered politically in the South were the wealthy, who ran their states to protect and further slavery as an institution.
---
That's not to say that the North was some land of milk and honey for African Americans or that their treatment was good, because it certainly wasn't. But many in the North drew a distinction between acceptance of discrimination and tolerance of slavery.
---
But for slavery, there would have been no civil war.
---
The South seceded over the fact that someone who opposed slavery was elected President (even though he wasn't going to do much about it).
You are mistaking the causes of succession with the causes of war. The cause of the war itself was states rights and sovereignty for the South and Lincoln's legacy for the North. Had Lincoln respected the right of self-determinaion over his legacy, there would have been no war.
(07-11-2015 10:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: Slavery was dying, but most experts say it would have gone on another 50 years; it wasn't going to die in 1865.
And if it had died a natural death early in the 20th century, there would not have been a smooth and immediate transition to equality as the judge implies.
That'd be 50 years ahead of when actual equality arrived after MLK Jr.
This dream of a natural death wouldn't have produced better results for former slaves that the civil war. The difference between slavery in the US all those other foreign powers is that their colonies were overseas and thus not actual seat of power. Without relocation, I really can't see how a better outcome than what actually transpired could have been achieved.
And if slavery was on its way out, clearly the Southern States didn't get the memo. As evident in the Compromise of 1850, which succeeded the Missouri Compromise, America was still trying to decide how each state would deal with the slave issue and its expansion westward.
Jefferson Davis even believed it would die on its own. And there was already a sell-off down south. The 8 border states (i.e. not the original 7 Confederate states) were all selling slaves, not adding.
So did the signers of the Constitution, 100 years before.
And New York and New Jersey abolished it. Other states would have.
![[Image: indoctrination-300x295.jpg]](http://www.foundersintent.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/indoctrination-300x295.jpg)
