*SNARF*

;p

poor Monitor....

you would think some people never heard of the word "pol-it-ics"
but when its the politicians, what idiots.

snarffles ^.^

I really cannot believe that so few people understand that the civil war had almost nothing to do with slavery... what idiots.

There are the tin-hat lefties who think that there were other ways to abolish slavery AND to pacify the south, idiots. but then there are the duffus righties who only know what they learned in 3rd grade history.

whats even worse is that alabama agrees ^.^

Hm.. I wonder what the world would be like with two americas.

Oh, its tooo horrible to imagine.

Except... it had everything to do with slavery. Sure, states rights (what I'm assuming you're implying it was about, as that's by far the most common claim) were involved, but... it was the states rights to slave ownership. I mean, really -- look at the Constitution of the Confederate States. Slavery enshrined as a right and states right barely touched upon.

The other one heard a lot is that it was about economics, but then, again... it was about the economics of slavery, the fact that the South was completely dependent on it.

Sorry, though whether or not Lincoln was right to press the war or not is a separate argument, to claim that the Civil War had "almost nothing to do with slavery" is a ridiculous revision of history.

wrong on all accounts Tsed, thats the classic misinformed point of view.

your view seems to make sense, but there are several points of failing that many people are unawares of

1) at the time unemployment was so rampant in the south that hiring a bunch of white men rather than feeding and owning a bunch of black men, would have been cheaper
2) very very few people in the south had slaves, those who didnt still supported the civil war despite the fact that slavery was damaging to them
3) Lincoln declared he wasnt going to take slavery from any states who remained with him, if that was the real motive than more states would have remained

so basically, the south would have done much better without slavery (and they knew it). the effects were more cultural (they are lesser than we are, let them do the work) and political (I dont want the northern tyrant in my government, I'm going someplace else) than they ever had to do with slavery. you can see this from the very verile responses to the tariff on european goods and numerous other examples of pro-northern government action.

truth be told its the slavery viewpoint thats a huge revision of history, considering we live in a post-50's era I'm not surprised how many people are brainwashed to that fact. slavery is only a big example of a northern falacy on southern views of states rights, nothing more. to claim it as THE "cause" of the civil war, instead of what it truly was (merely a catalyst) is wrong in just about every possible sense.

So? Owning slaves was a matter of status -- you don't see many sports guys driving Hondas instead of Lamborghini's, do ya?



Look above



Pol-i-tics -- he was trying to get more states to stay on his side, didn't really work though.

a very poorly designed strawman, one does not make money off of one's cars.

that being said, how many times a day do you see hondas? how many times do you see lamburgienies? if you were told by the UN to burn all of your lambourginies or you would be attacked by some bunch of nations that approximates your nations strength, would you? or would you say "fuck off"

well let me tell you something, the south said "fuck off", and it had little to do with their lambourguinies.

look above  :p 

true, but irrelevant, the point stands. if the south only wished to keep their slaves they would have remained, if the war was about slavery then this would never have been an option in the first place.

*eyeroll*

You don't address the fact that the most significant change to the Confederacy's Constitution is the enshrinement of slave ownership as a right. Their defining document itself clearly indicates the south's motivation.



It was at the root of everything that caused the south to seced from the Union. *Of course* the North wasn't all white-knight FOR THE END OF SLAVERY!!!. Ending slavery wasn't the North's motivation, but it was the root cause of the south's seceding.

Hell, look at the position of Southern politicians around that time -- it's clear that state's rights weren't what was important to them. When the question of allowing slavery in new territories came up, southern decmocrats formed a splinter party dedicated to ensuring that the territories would protect slave rights. Similarly, look at reasons provided for SC's secession: the election of Lincoln as “President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to Slavery”.



I have no idea where you're pulling that one from, and the second, again, goes back to slavery and Lincoln. Of course there was disagreement pre-war -- but look at the reasons for seceding. You'll pretty much always come up with the preservation of slave rights or state property rights (the property being slaves, of course).


The southern apologist stance of state's rights is understandable -- it's easier to fabricate a seemingly righteous reason for the war than confront the fact that their motivations in a "noble war" were indefensible by modern standards. It's not a "classic misinformed pov" -- it's a view held by many prominent, respected historians. Sources can be provided, but I doubt it'll convince you, I'm just a helpless little brainwashed poster, after all. It's completely impossible that *your* views have been distorted by a revision of history, eh?

Because... they didn't believe him?

The south's economy was in ruins because of slavery (north had a far better economy...), but that doesn't change the fact that it had become a cultural "icon" of sorts -- be the slaveowner, own the world kinda junk.

I think you overestimate American intelligence

your arguments have poor assertion, I need more facts from you two

nonetheless I shall dispense with them, here goes:

*eyeroll*
oh please, this is a classic example of them giving rights to the states, nothing more, nothing... why bother. its nothing more than states rights.

yes, but thats because it was merely a facet of a larger issue. I'm not doubting that slavery played a role, a big one, but if was not the cause of the war.

that splinter party was a meager attempt to assuage northerners, a failure you might notice.


if thats what you think of the south circa 1860...

I'm not even gonna bother refuting this point, its so wrong...

...
tsed I practically listed my reasoning, if you cannot read this is NOT your place.

far fewer than the prominent respected historians who will tell you otherwise

you havent even listed any logical reasoning Tsed, literally your WHOLE argument is "Because I was told so by... someone". so yes, yes you are a brainwashed posterchild. you really have done a good job not proving otherwise.

its kindof hard for him to lie to them, wouldnt you think? they had him by the short hairs.

again, not relevant.

seeing as I'm such a high standard and all... yeah pretty much.

If said state rights (other than the right to own slaves, that is) were *so* important, why weren't they more properly protected in their governing document. One would think that'd top the list of "changes to make" if that's why they were seceding.



Absolutely right. THE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES, nothing more. The Confederate Constitution hardly addresses states rights beyond slavery. It speaks volumes.



Yeah, you know, I'm just going by the politicians of the day's own words, and the defining document of the movement, as opposed to your assertions -- the first of which (they're below us, let them work) seems to have no connections to your above "points".

Your initial assertion was that "the civil war had almost nothing to do with slavery". I don't see how you can read the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" and come away with that impression.

But, in any case, I seem to have lapsed in judgment bothering to argue with you at all. If all I get is "you're not making a logical argument" when I'm pointing you to the period documents I'm basing my argument on, I'm out. Just not worth it. I'm sure The South Shall Rise Again or whatever.

see you're thinking like a federalist, states righters believed that the national government had no power not explicitely stated. they didnt defend states rights because, in their view, they didnt need to.

you're trying to spend two sides of the same coin, just because slavery was a part of their issue does not mean it was the WHOLE issue.

that you cannot see the connection is shocking.

yes, and I've done a fancy nice job protecting it, although you seem to be blissfully ignorant of the subtle distinctions in this argument that I keep highlighting, and you keep glossing over.

because you're reading into a small section of the document focused on slavery, while you're completely ignorant of the wholistic meaning.

thats a pattern you've just begin to do, for that I congradulate you. hooray, you listened.

its your argument that contains the lack in judgement.

again, the whole issue with anyone who claims the civil war was about slavery is the matter of their line of focus. yes, slavery was a major contributer to the war, yes the south and the north where schized over slavery, no the civil war could not have been avoided by the total acquiescence of one side to the other on this subject alone. If you bothered to read past the first few lines of any of the documents you cited you would notice that slavery was merely the mask for a far deeper conflict than simply property rights. Until you do more than read the first couple of cliffnotes about a document you will be completely unable to argue with me, so yes, this was a bad idea of yours.

This conversation is pointless. None of you are history majors, none of you specialize in the Civil War, AND the Civil War happened more then a century ago and has little relavance in the rest of the world, only here was it a big deal, and only because of the huge death toll.

we should get para in here... but then shoddy would only argue even more furtively... *shudders*

TGE your not an english major, but you go around correcting people's grammatical errors ceaselessly, I fail to see the difference.

only if he disagrees with me

im not an english major either, but that doesnt mean i dont know quite a bit about grammar and whatnot

precisely.

There is a differance, the Civil War is the most complex event in the history of this country. And to really get an idea what it was about you would have to go over quite a few thousand pages of documents. Unless you are a history major, I don't see you doing something like that.

Edit: Great, now I'm a hippy...

TGH we aren't going into any great detail here, being a history major isnt exactly a requirment...

besides, I think I'm well founded in saying that english is one of the most complex languages out there .

ehehe, the great hippy