War between the States

[boyst]

That is one of the most ignorant, insensitive, and ridiculous posts I have ever read on this board. And that's saying something. I'm flabbergasted to be honest.

 

Forget your points on the reason for the war, it's the rest of your statements that are alarming.

 

Are you really justifying slavery by saying it was the only way to grow cotton and thus the only way for the South to survive? Then, in the same breath claiming that because the slaves got room and board it was a fair deal?

 

Seriously?!

 

You're implying that slaves lived a better life (or at least as good of a life) as the northern factory worker or the poor southern farmer? Do you even understand how absolutely bat-**** crazy that sounds?

I am not justifying it, I am not saying it is an excuse; obviously it is hard to know the person I am through something like this place, and I am sorry you took what I was saying to be that. It is a fact that most homes in the South were simple homes without much luxury and that 160 years ago most people did not live in opulence, whether white or black. A plantation owner is like a CEO. He did not pay the slaves in money but he did depend upon other goods and services that supported the farm. I guess seeing the homes and businesses around here that go as far back as 1820-1860 you realize that things were just different...also people were very short.

 

If it was not for the cotton the entire history of this country would be drastically different and if it was not for slavery then cotton would never have become king in the south. That slaves got room and board is not a fair trade and that was not an implication. Room and board is still a factor; like it or not the cost to feed and house the slaves was still a cost.

[birdog1960]

I think there were many causes to the war. people believed in their state and not the federal government. So when the federal government threatened the states rights to own slaves, many southern states just couldn't understand or accept it. They felt Lincoln was going to destroy their way of life. So they attempted to protect it.

 

It was a combination of the two factors I think. General Lee turned down the offer to lead the Union army because he couldn't fight against his native Virginia. West Virginia succeeded from Virginia because they did not want to succeed from the Union. Many abolitionist movements in the North had been going on for years.

 

When it comes to War, the winner writes the story. If the South had won, we would read something different in history books. If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia we might be talking about the amazing success of the Third Reich still.

 

Even with my hindsight I can never be sure. It was before my powers came to me but Slavery had something to do with it and states rights and money and an inability to agree and x and y and z and I'm sure Aaron Maybin was somehow at fault too

cotton doesn't grow well in west virginia.

 

hitler did invade russia

 

many southerners still seek a noble cause to validate their losses

 

and maybin just sucks as an nfl player, nothing more, nothing less.

[boyst]

cotton doesn't grow well in west virginia.

 

hitler did invade russia

 

many southerners still seek a noble cause to validate their losses

 

and maybin just sucks as an nfl player, nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing grows in West Virginia that hasn't been shown on Springer

 

I think he meant conquered.

 

Southerns and the rest of this country still have a large population who want states rights restored. I am a Yankee, born in NY and raised in Ohio; but I know that the South had a noble cause - the idea that they be allowed to choose their rights and not be taxed unfairly.

 

Maybin...we agree on something.

[Pete]

"what caused the Civil War?" was a final question I had for a US History class. My essay's answer in short- "The south wanted to preserve their way of life"

[Kevin]

"what caused the Civil War?" was a final question I had for a US History class. My essay's answer in short- "The south wanted to preserve their way of life"

 

Pretty accurate, pretty simple, quick to the point, you must have failed right?

 

I wish more people would take the time to learn about the war. I am so sick of idiots just taking the stance that it was slave owners vs. freedom.

 

I was in Appomattox a few weeks ago for a few days - although, I did not get to see anything, I have spent time reading about the entire event for the first time in a while. About 5 miles away from my house General Lee met up with Jefferson Davis and spent the night trying to plan out some strategies. We still have the trees that were used to hang people, buildings that served as slave quarters, etc.

 

If anyone thinks that slave quarters looked that bad then they need to go look at the average home from that area. I am having a home we own taken down that is from 1820 and it is extremely plain, extremely simple, and nothing spectacular like those paintings show.

 

 

Really? Nothing to do with the North wanting to impose taxes on the cotton or other crops? The North wanted to tax their way to prosperity taking advantage of the Southern farmers, poor simple folk who did not enjoy the lifestyles of those up North.

 

Also, before you sound like an idiot again Andrew Jackson had slaves, Grant had slaves. Both presidents after "Lincoln freed the slaves" and after the war...but nice try. Way to pay attention in school.

 

No he didn't. He was a broke clerk before the war that was drummed out of the army for being an "alleged" drunk. He rose to prominence during the war, became president in one of the most corrupt administrations of the time, and died broke. He had to write his memoirs (which I read) to make enough money for his family to live on after his death.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Kevin

[/dev/null]

many southerners still seek a noble cause to validate their losses

 

Would you stand by and watch an army invade your home?

 

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. How many Viet Cong were card carrying flag waving members of the Communist Party?

 

If the Civil War was fought today, Johnny Reb would be called an Insurgent.

[birdog1960]

Would you stand by and watch an army invade your home?

 

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. How many Viet Cong were card carrying flag waving members of the Communist Party?

 

If the Civil War was fought today, Johnny Reb would be called an Insurgent.

um, did you even read the wiki article on fort sumter that you posted? sure, an apt analogy with iraq, afganistan and vietnam . keep trying...iran might work.

[LeviF]

I've actually taken to calling it "the War of Southern Secession."

[Rob's House]

hmmmm...care to expound? interesting idea in a time when libyan rebels are widely considered the good guys but are you suggesting the northern states oppression of the south justified succession/rebellion?

Are you suggesting the secession of The South justified military invasion by the north?

 

Further, are you suggesting proposed embargos forcing The South to buy goods from the north at higher prices than they could get from Europe played no part?

 

Are you also suggesting that the election of a president who was not even on the ballot in most southern states played no part?

Edited April 13, 2011 by Rob's House

[boyst]

No he didn't. He was a broke clerk before the war that was drummed out of the army for being an "alleged" drunk. He rose to prominence during the war, became president in one of the most corrupt administrations of the time, and died broke. He had to write his memoirs (which I read) to make enough money for his family to live on after his death.

Just one of many sites I found.

Yup, Grant owned slaves. Herp derp... whats that? It was all about slavery? The most famous and honorable Yankee General owned slaves. ...oops.

 

Would you stand by and watch an army invade your home?

 

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. How many Viet Cong were card carrying flag waving members of the Communist Party?

 

If the Civil War was fought today, Johnny Reb would be called an Insurgent.

A good chance Johnny Reb could win this time, too.

The military bases down South, the amount of firepower and terrain would play in to it, as well.

 

Of course, if the South gets Texas (it likely would) then it is game over North.

[Buftex]

Just one of many sites I found.

Yup, Grant owned slaves. Herp derp... whats that? It was all about slavery? The most famous and honorable Yankee General owned slaves. ...oops.

 

 

A good chance Johnny Reb could win this time, too.

The military bases down South, the amount of firepower and terrain would play in to it, as well.

 

Of course, if the South gets Texas (it likely would) then it is game over North.

 

Funny, a fair number of Texans are quick to claim that they are part of the West, not the South...

[DC Tom]

yes, the states rights argument.... cited by many, believed by few. this has been put forth as the biggest fallacy about the civil war by some historians.

 

it was, as most wars are, mostly about money. in this case that equated to slaves. cotton was the leading US export at the time...the value of slaves has been estimated to have been in the 10's of billions in mid 19th century dollars, significantly more than many industries, including the railroads. the south had much to lose from emancipation.

 

It was very much about states' rights. Outside the deep south, states (VA, AR, TN, and NC) specifically seceded over states' rights, and did so after Fort Sumter - which was regarded by many states as federal oppression of states' rights. Within most of the Confederacy (TX and MS being obnoxiously notable exceptions, and GA's declaration of secession making a fascinating read on this point) it was recognized that slavery as an institution was unsustainable and dying away, and the specific arguments were of means of abolition rather than the necessity thereof.

 

And in many of the border secessionist states it was argued rather astutely that emancipation must be predicated on black literacy, by the very sensible argument that an illiterate ex-slave class would be effectively unable to participate in the democratic process or even able to support itself, and such notable leaders such as Robert E. Lee, Joe Johnston, and Thomas J. Jackson against slavery and actively supporting black literacy in pursuit of eradicating it. Given that the Emancipation Proclamation effectively dumped four million illiterate, unskilled, and indigent people onto their own devices and ultimately left them just as enslaved as they were before the Civil War (a situation that persisted until well into the 1940s)...such Confederates may have had a very valid point...

[Kevin]

Just one of many sites I found.

Yup, Grant owned slaves. Herp derp... whats that? It was all about slavery? The most famous and honorable Yankee General owned slaves. ...oops.

 

The article says that Grant "probably owned 5".

 

So I looked it up myself, and stand corrected. By most accounts, he owned 1 slave for a year before he was manumit.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Kevin

[Rob's House]

I'm always ammused (and irritated) by those who persist in claiming the central theme of the war was slavery. I can't figure out if it's just having to face the dark uncertainty that comes with knowing that a great bit of your education was bunk, and thus facing the cold reality that you really don't know half as much as you thought you did, or if they draw some vicarious pride from the false belief that millions of people went to war to free the slaves.

[Captain Hindsight]

cotton doesn't grow well in west virginia.

 

hitler did invade russia

 

many southerners still seek a noble cause to validate their losses

 

and maybin just sucks as an nfl player, nothing more, nothing less.

Me thinks you missed my point....winners write history and thats whats told

[birdog1960]

I'm always ammused (and irritated) by those who persist in claiming the central theme of the war was slavery. I can't figure out if it's just having to face the dark uncertainty that comes with knowing that a great bit of your education was bunk, and thus facing the cold reality that you really don't know half as much as you thought you did, or if they draw some vicarious pride from the false belief that millions of people went to war to free the slaves.

.

i'm always amused when amateur experts are certain they know so much more than classically educated, published, respected, degreed experts in a field. at happens all the time in fields such as medicine, architecture, accounting, law and even trades like construction and plumbing, frequently with disastrous results. sometime the experts disagree or are just wrong but very frequently consensus opinions of experts whose life work is in a particular field, are correct. i believe this is the case on the question of slavery versus states rights as the cause of the civil war. fortunately, the overwhelming consensus opinion resulting from the scholarship of the most respected experts on the subject agrees with mine. if the thesis of my high school term paper on the subject, the results of a few google searches seeking a desired opinion or conversations with those holding similar views as mine was inconsistent with that consensus, i might take exception, however.

[Rob's House]

.

i'm always amused when amateur experts are certain they know so much more than classically educated, published, respected, degreed experts in a field. at happens all the time in fields such as medicine, architecture, accounting, law and even trades like construction and plumbing, frequently with disastrous results. sometime the experts disagree or are just wrong but very frequently consensus opinions of experts whose life work is in a particular field, are correct. i believe this is the case on the question of slavery versus states rights as the cause of the civil war. fortunately, the overwhelming consensus opinion resulting from the scholarship of the most respected experts on the subject agrees with mine. if the thesis of my high school term paper on the subject, the results of a few google searches seeking a desired opinion or conversations with those holding similar views as mine was inconsistent with that consensus, i might take exception, however.

So if a bunch of Massachusettes liberals say it's so, then we all better listen to them? Brilliant. I'm guessing this is the same kind of "consensus" as that surrounding global warming.

 

It's also the height of idiocy to say that some experts say this so whose right, you or them? Because contrary to liberal belief, there are many scholars who think you and that crowd you revere don't know your asses from a hole in the ground.

 

If you can't articulate your argument any better than to say someone else says so, you should probably remain silent and be assumed ignorant than speak up and remove all doubt.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Rob's House

[Buftex]

Ooh, good one Rob's House!

 

I never can tell if you are serious...aren't you the one who said psychology is all a bunch of hogwash, becasue you know somebody who said they were depressed, but rebounded from it? You took some psych classes in college and decided from your narrow perspective, it was all just bull ****?

 

Talk about poorly articulated arguments...you are slamming someone because they are just using the argument that "someone else says it"? Isn't that what you, and everyone here does? Were you around for the Civil War? Now it is all a liberal conspiracy? The more I get to hear people (like yourself) who proudly identify themselves as part of the Tea Party movement (appropriate) the more I realize there is nothing to it...a movement to make intellect a bad thing...pee-ew!

Edited April 14, 2011 by Buftex

[KD in CA]

I'm not an expert on the Civil War, but wasn't Lincoln still calling for the preservation of slavery (just not its expansion) when the war started? If the war was about slavery, why did he wait till 1863 to free them?

[birdog1960]

So if a bunch of Massachusettes liberals say it's so, then we all better listen to them? Brilliant. I'm guessing this is the same kind of "consensus" as that surrounding global warming.

 

It's also the height of idiocy to say that some experts say this so whose right, you or them? Because contrary to liberal belief, there are many scholars who think you and that crowd you revere don't know your asses from a hole in the ground.

 

If you can't articulate your argument any better than to say someone else says so, you should probably remain silent and be assumed ignorant than speak up and remove all doubt.

very appropriate since we're discussing history... societal attacks on intellectuals haven't worked out so well in the past but it seems very popular again in certain circles. maybe this era will be different?

 

and appeal to authority is a recognized logical fallacy but not necessarily an inappropriate device when experts in a discussion are lacking. it's what is done every time an author cites another's work in a scholarly piece.

Edited April 14, 2011 by birdog1960