[Smilin' Dave]

I have no response because you have no points. You contradict yourself and make no sense of anything.

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate these contradictions?

Best I can do for you, is yes everyone in the USA was a victim of the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks have affected everyone of us through economics, but worse yet our bill of rights was attacked through the knee jerk reaction that brought on things like the patroit act.

Keep the discussion on topic, thanks.

[ThereBeDragons]

I thought with as big of forum as this there would be some intelligent people here to debate with, apparently all there is, is the usual sheep who believe everything the public school taught them about their history. Bummer.

If you walk into a big room, and everybody else in it seems dumb, it's not them.

[capnhook]

If you walk into a big room, and everybody else in it seems dumb, it's not them.

Or it just explains the padded walls.

I'll be deleting anything that isn't on topic from here - SD

[MB.]

capnhook

Can you please elaborate on why slavery was not the significant factor in the origin of the American Civil War?

[capnhook]

Can you please elaborate on why slavery was not the significant factor in the origin of the American Civil War?

Slavery had its significance. But it is only the tip of the ice berg.

The main thing to remember, there is always two sides to a story, and the truth some where in the middle.

Here is a link with some of the other story, most have not heard. Try if you can to put yourself in the shoes of a confederate soldier while you read it.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatecauses.htm

[MB.]

Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful American conflict.

From your link. Nice, it's like I didn't even have to try.

[capnhook]

From your link. Nice, it's like I didn't even have to try.

Taken out of context, why not post the rest of the paragraph to show what it actually says?

Well that would take honesty, and actual effort to look at a different side. You just want to show how right you are, and don't take the time to listen to anything that contradicts your preset conclusions. Like a good little sheep you look at the good and evil of the civil war. Already sure that the good guys won, and the evil confederacy lost.

Like everything in life the Civil war is not so black and white.

But you are right about one thing, it takes no effort to stay ignorant. Therefor you did not have to try.


Did you know Lincoln was not the champion of African Americans that the history books in school portray? Lincoln planned on deporting Black Americans because he felt blacks and whites could never live together in this country, but his plans were cut short do to his assassination. Lincoln had Zero concern over equality, his only concern was maintaining the union. Because if the country were to split it would take to much power away from the bloating federal Government. It would have made making the empire we know the USA to be today impossible.

[MB.]

Did you know Lincoln was not the champion of African Americans that the history books in school portray?

I had no idea, could you please elaborate? Certainly my knowledge is derived entirely from high school texts, and I think it is clear that you possess the upper hand; being an expert in all things American Civil War.

Like a good little sheep you look at the good and evil of the civil war. Already sure that the good guys won, and the evil confederacy lost.

You are right Capnhook. I have only ever studied the American civil war in an academic context, and clearly my knowledge of the matter is compounded by ignorance & bais- an ignorance I am happy to say you demonstrated concisely.

Thank you.

[KurtFF8]

Slavery had its significance. But it is only the tip of the ice berg.

See the problem here is that you have it backwards. You also failed to recognize my criticisms of your post earlier.

The "States Rights" (I still find this phrase to be a contradiction of terms) argument was itself the venue/battlefield for the underlying issue that brought it up: slavery. The States Rights justification doesn't hold anything only on it's own. For example: State's Rights to do what? In the area of the Civil War, the major issue of States Rights was the right for States to allow the ownership of humans to continue or not.

This is not something you can just get around, your inability to address this criticism shows the weakness of your position.

[capnhook]

I had no idea, could you please elaborate? Certainly my knowledge is derived entirely from high school texts, and I think it is clear that you possess the upper hand; being an expert in all things American Civil War.

Read the link I put up, the info you seek is there.

See the problem here is that you have it backwards. You also failed to recognize my criticisms of your post earlier.

The "States Rights" (I still find this phrase to be a contradiction of terms) argument was itself the venue/battlefield for the underlying issue that brought it up: slavery. The States Rights justification doesn't hold anything only on it's own. For example: State's Rights to do what? In the area of the Civil War, the major issue of States Rights was the right for States to allow the ownership of humans to continue or not.

This is not something you can just get around, your inability to address this criticism shows the weakness of your position.

All you want to do is argue in an attempt to prove to yourself what a genius you are. There is no point in debating you as you are already convinced you know everything, while in reality you have already demonstrated just how little you really know about the subject.

You believe the union fought and killed other Americans for a righteous reason of equality, and the confederacy only cared about owning slaves. You are wrong but I doubt anyone could ever convince you of being wrong about anything.

[KurtFF8]

All you want to do is argue in an attempt to prove to yourself what a genius you are. There is no point in debating you as you are already convinced you know everything, while in reality you have already demonstrated just how little you really know about the subject.

You believe the union fought and killed other Americans for a righteous reason of equality, and the confederacy only cared about owning slaves. You are wrong but I doubt anyone could ever convince you of being wrong about anything.

I'm flattered that you don't want to argue with me, but this doesn't prove your point in any way of course.

Of course I'm convinced of my own point, and you are likewise about your own point. That's why there are forums like this: where conflicting ideas can be pitted against each other.

I don't believe that the Union just wanted "equality." The struggle to abolish slavery was certainly a political one, hence Lincoln's famous remarks about "if I could have ended the war without freeing one slave..." It was a power struggle between the system of the industralized capitalist North and the agricultural slave system in the South.

Along with this came the arguments for and against slavery (see: John Brown).

[Smilin' Dave]

Did you know Lincoln was not the champion of African Americans that the history books in school portray? Lincoln planned on deporting Black Americans because he felt blacks and whites could never live together in this country, but his plans were cut short do to his assassination. Lincoln had Zero concern over equality, his only concern was maintaining the union. Because if the country were to split it would take to much power away from the bloating federal Government. It would have made making the empire we know the USA to be today impossible.

I could be wrong, but while Lincoln didn't care much about inter-racial equality wasn't he a subscriber to the theory that the 'slave power' was something to be feared in American society and politics? He appears to call forth such rhetoric in his 'House Divided' speech.

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

Kurt makes a good point about states rights as an argument, in that it doesn't define the specific issues (the states' right to do what?). A similar point could be made with reference to accusations of an over reaching Federal government. What exactly did the Federal government want to do that was so objected to by the states?

[capnhook]

States rights to govern themselves. It was not intended for the federal government to be big brother, and set national morals. Whether you are talking about slavery, gay marriage, or abortion. It should be up to each state to govern these moral issues not big brother federal government.

Sure it is easy to say slavery was morally wrong so the federal government was right to wage war and force states to abolish it.

But what if the federal government decides abortion is immoral?

Personally I don't like the precedence that was set by the Civil war. And to focus just on slavery and hold on to it like the holy grail of the Civil war, is narrow minded to say the least.

[MB.]

It should be up to each state to govern these moral issues not big brother federal government.

Personally I don't like the precedence that was set by the Civil war. And to focus just on slavery and hold on to it like the holy grail of the Civil war, is narrow minded to say the least.

.....aaaaand your apologist bias is clearly displayed.

[KurtFF8]

States rights to govern themselves. It was not intended for the federal government to be big brother, and set national morals. Whether you are talking about slavery, gay marriage, or abortion. It should be up to each state to govern these moral issues not big brother federal government.

Intended by who? The Founders were not speaking with a unified voice. Some wanted the Federal government to be supreme while others wanted the States to. This political battle continued (and to some extent still continues today) but it is that: a political battle

In the case of the Civil War, that background battle was brought to the forefront by slavery

Why should any state be allowed to permit slavery? Shouldn't that just be an obvious "right" that a state shouldn't have?

And to focus just on slavery and hold on to it like the holy grail of the Civil war, is narrow minded to say the least.

You've failed to point to any other issue that was equally as important during that conflict.

[Smilin' Dave]

Weren't attempts to extend slavery into new territories effectively an attempt by certain parties to transcend (or perhaps exploit) state based politics? Aside from the economic aspect the creation of new slave states (which is what Bleeding Kansas amounted to) meant more votes for slave holders in Congress. Thus it seems that the southern states were more than happy to use the machinery of the Federal government when it suited them, and that the problem was broader than what states were doing inside their own borders.

[capnhook]

Expansion was a big issue as well, which brings up the question of rights to American Indian.

Whether you want to talk about blacks or native Americans or any race outside of whites, we were all seen as sub-human.

Slavery was an excuse to go to war, the real reason was the expansion of power for the federal government. It had nothing to do with human rights, and I would love for Kurt to show some solid evidence that shows where the Civil war was fought for Civil rights.

Believing the Civil war was fought over slavery, is like believing the Iraq war today is about terrorism.

[Smilin' Dave]

Expansion was a big issue as well, which brings up the question of rights to American Indian.

Whether you want to talk about blacks or native Americans or any race outside of whites, we were all seen as sub-human.

I'm sorry I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Could you clarify what you are getting at?

Slavery was an excuse to go to war, the real reason was the expansion of power for the federal government.

I'm still waiting for an expansion on this idea. Why did the federal government want to expand its power, and what was it hoping to do with it?

It had nothing to do with human rights, and I would love for Kurt to show some solid evidence that shows where the Civil war was fought for Civil rights.

I've actually explained several reasons why a war over slavery didn't have to be one about civil rights
- Fear by certain elements that slave states would pervert the course of the American political system or way of live ('The Slave Power' theory).
- The economics of slave agriculture in the US required its expansion and carried a unique social barrier, preventing reform.
Thoughts?

[KurtFF8]

Slavery was an excuse to go to war, the real reason was the expansion of power for the federal government. It had nothing to do with human rights, and I would love for Kurt to show some solid evidence that shows where the Civil war was fought for Civil rights.

I didn't say it was for human rights. The Abolitionist movement had to do with more than just some abstract notion of morality. The industrialist capitalists in the North argued that freed labor was better (and thus extended the power of capital). As was pointed out earlier, the South was trying to expand its own power as well, trying to make new territories in the US Slave States as opposed to "Free States."

Believing the Civil war was fought over slavery, is like believing the Iraq war today is about terrorism.

You've failed to demonstrate why states rights' were the issue over slavery. Please at least begin to address my earlier argument. You keep just saying "nuh uh!" and ignore the points I previously brought up.

[capnhook]

What points?

All you do is disrespect anything I say, and keep repeating the age old slavery was the only thing that mattered in the Civil war. Show me where I am wrong isntead of just insulting me.