While I can't document it, at least right now, I think we would be foolish if we thought that the only reason for the civil war was salvery. It was one among many issues. One of the primary ones was the right of states to govern themselves and their own commerce. Even to day these are often issues between states and the federal government. The move by the government to end slavery was a manifestation of this issue. It could have just as easly been a different issue.
Many of the people fighting in the South had problems with slavery, but believed that the Federal government had no right to deside such a thing across the board. My minor was history in college, and I left TWI long before the reign of Martindale. You might check out the PBS Documentry series "The Civil Wary" by Ken Burns. It gives and pretty good insite to all of the different causes of the Civil war. You local library is likely to have a copy of it.
Actually, while slavery wasn't the ONLY issue governing the cause of the Civil War, it was the main one; the 'states rights' argument often being used as a prop by the southern states to continue the institution of slavery. Yes, Virginia, that's the facts.
And if you don't believe that, here's a question for you to consider. If slavery wasn't the big issue that the south had against the north, then why was it that the south wanted to secede from the union if Lincoln got elected, hmmm? I'll wait after others post back before I give you the answer, if you don't know it already.
The debate about slavery was one of THE big issues going back and forth all over the country ever since just shortly after the Revolutionary War. Incidents like the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the debate as to which states were admitted to the union as either free states or slave states, the riots in Nebraska-Kansas territories during the 1850s, etc. And yet there are those who want to downplay the slavery issue (as much as they can) to near non-existence when it comes to its relevance to the Civil War. The story that really makes me guffaw is the one where some folks say that the south was winding down slavery and fixing to end it because it was supposedly 'cost prohibitive' to them by the time the war started. <_< ... Yeah, right! Sell me another bottle o' snake oil.
The move by the government to end slavery was a manifestation of this issue. It could have just as easily been a different issue.
Ahh no, the move by the government to end slavery was in response to the increasing number of groups, organizations (many of them religious), and individuals to do away with slavery in all of the states, and that on moral and ethical grounds. No doubt the government often used the campaign against slavery to its own ends, including using it to fire people up to increase the support for the war effort. But that doesn't eliminate the genuine motivations that powered the campaign against slavery that has been going on for decades previous to the Civil War.
And yes, it was the federal government's right to tell the states that they had to eliminate the ownership of human beings. Well, D-U-H-H! That can't be that hard to figure out! Just because there were southerners who got ape-.... over the 'gummint' telling them that doesn't change the need to eliminate slavery any.
It's worth noting that most grade school and junior high history books of the 50's framed the civil war as a states' rights issue with little or no reference to slavery. It wouldn't be too great of a stretch for LCM to drop back to that simplistic and sanitised view of history to meet some real or imagined need.
The Civil War was not about slavery. Slavery had begun to end before the Civil War started. In fact, from my research, it was the north who started the "slavery" concept. But I digress. The Civil War was about the rights of the states to govern themselves, among other issues.
I would not doubt LCM's claim to be true. I recall him also saying that both Lee & Grant were Masons & that this "fact" had alot to do with the outcome of the war.
In regard to "Garth's" thoughts on it being false"some folks say that the south was winding down slavery and fixing to end it because it was supposedly 'cost prohibitive' to them by the time the war started. " I believe that quoted portion to be true. Slaves were an expensive thing in that day. Not every house had them. Typically only the wealthy did.
The Civil War was much more than slavery. There are a couple of links worth looking at that you may or may not already have:
That all said, I do not condone slavery. No human should ever have to be subject to that. However, I feel that I must defend my homeland, the south. We were not the only participants in the war. It was a two sided war & the north has its share of responsibility also.
If you do manage to prove any of LCM's ramblings, let me know please as I'd like to find out how much was true & how much was false.
In regard to "Garth's" thoughts on it being false"some folks say that the south was winding down slavery and fixing to end it because it was supposedly 'cost prohibitive' to them by the time the war started. " I believe that quoted portion to be true.
No sir, that is not true. Slavery was not being wound down, even by the time the war came. Remember, cotton was king, as it were, and was THE main income producer in the south. And while owning slaves was indeed expensive, w/o the slaves to pick the cotton, it would have even been more expensive for the plantation owners, and even for many of the other cotton farmers. The southern leaders knew this, and fought tooth and nail to not only keep the institution going, but to expand it to as many new states as they could. Why else was there the continuous fight to include more slave states when territories became states, as the Missouri Compromise and other agreements like it clearly illustrates?
The Civil War was much more than slavery.
And I noted that in my post. But slavery was the big issue of the day for at least 50-60 years prior to the Civil War. There is WAY too much documented historical proof showing this to say otherwise.
However, I feel that I must defend my homeland, the south.
Your loyalty to your 'homeland' has no bearing upon historical facts, none whatsoever. And when people use their loyalty to change/dismiss those facts, that is loyalty misapplied. It would be like anyone of us denying the fact of the near extermination of the American Indians done to them by the white man throughout American history because we needed to 'defend our homeland'.
We were not the only participants in the war. It was a two sided war & the north has its share of responsibility also.
Agreed. And I also covered that in my previous post. I never did say that the south was the only one responsible. But that does nothing to eradicate the slavery issue, and its relation to the war. Not one bit.
Oh, and it wasn't the 'north' who started slavery, as it were, as the colonies were pretty much bringing in the slaves on their own. Ie., it wasn't where the north brought in slaves at one time, and the south brought them in at a different time. But the northern states did eradicate slavery well before the south did.
And keep in mind that your sources aren't exactly objective, independent sources either. Not when their goal, their agenda, is to 'defend the south', as it were. (Altho' the Slavenorth site does provide some interesting info as to the race related issues that people in the north still had to deal with.) So next time you give your sources, make sure that it isn't from some advocacy site please, but from real historians.
One thing this all shows is that the North wasn't the only one 'sanitizing' their side, and condemning the other. <_<
By the way, the reason the South got serious about seceding from the union (despite whatever talk was going on before then), was when the election of 1860 came around, they clearly stated that if Lincoln got elected, they were "outta here" secession wise. That was because they feared (and rightly so) that Lincoln would take strong steps against slavery, and allow no more slave states into the union, and very possibly work to eradicate slavery in total. Lincoln was elected, and South Carolina started the secession ball rolling by saying "Adios!"
Garth is right that the tensions that led to the war were brewing in Revolutionary War times. There are lots of misconceptions.
1. Was it about state's rights? Certainly. About a state's right to set their policy re. slavery. And, as war approached, about a state's right to secede, but that was ancillary. But it's also true that the tensions were economic. There were duties and tariffs that rewarded northern states and punished southern states, exacerbating the existing antipathy. But, if you look at the actual events that led to war the 10-15 years before shots were fired, the hottest fights were over whether territories & incoming states would allow slavery. Read about Bloody Kansas. Surprised, Garth?
2. Slavery was on its way out? Depends. The transcontinental slave trade to the US was kaput by then, yes. But slave markets in both the north & south were still thriving. After all, slaves are people & do have children. Many speculate slavery would have ended on its own. It's an argument not without merit, but no telling how long it would have lasted.
Incidentally, the war was never about ending slavery. The only Northerners who thought that were the most radical of the Abolitionists in the Republican Party. But it was largely about the advancement, propagation and protection of slavery. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was only a war tactic and applied only to "rebel states" (a misnomer in my book as the states definitely had a right to secede).
The South recovered economically from the after-effects only in the 1980's. There was a strong desire to punish the Rebs and lots of property was either confiscated or appropriated at give-away prices. Lincoln ran roughshod over the constitution like no other president and it permanently altered the balance between federal and states, shifting the lever of power to the feds forever. And IMO it set the US on its course to imperialism, a fact history seems to support. Whether it was an incidental result, you decide.
As in all transitions, things were gained and things were lost. From where I sit, more was lost than gained, much more.
Forgive my cynicism, but I think the PRIMARY reason for the Civil War was the
secession of the Confederate States, and the PRIMARY reason for their
secession was their ownership of slaves-which they wished to continue,
and the PRIMARY reason for that was money.
Having studied and taught this topic for years , your conclusions sound very similar to mine. Lincoln stated he would do whatever he had to to preserve the union and he didn't lie when he said that. It is also documented that he said he would not let the Southern states go because the feds couldn't do without their revenue (money) to run the government.
I stress PRIMARY because I believe that people who do not wield the power
and have a vested interest in something can be tricked into supporting it
against their own self-interest, if they are given a compelling sales pitch
that gives them entirely unrelated reasons to support it.
My heart has always gone out to those Southern farm boys/men who fought to preserve their homeland and the constitution (they thought) and were ruined financially.
Evan, well thought out and excellent summary, imo!
Garth is right that the tensions that led to the war were brewing in Revolutionary War times. There are lots of misconceptions.
1. Was it about state's rights? Certainly. About a state's right to set their policy re. slavery. And, as war approached, about a state's right to secede, but that was ancillary. But it's also true that the tensions were economic. There were duties and tariffs that rewarded northern states and punished southern states, exacerbating the existing antipathy. But, if you look at the actual events that led to war the 10-15 years before shots were fired, the hottest fights were over whether territories & incoming states would allow slavery. Read about Bloody Kansas. Surprised, Garth?
2. Slavery was on its way out? Depends. The transcontinental slave trade to the US was kaput by then, yes. But slave markets in both the north & south were still thriving. After all, slaves are people & do have children. Many speculate slavery would have ended on its own. It's an argument not without merit, but no telling how long it would have lasted.
Incidentally, the war was never about ending slavery. The only Northerners who thought that were the most radical of the Abolitionists in the Republican Party. But it was largely about the advancement, propagation and protection of slavery. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was only a war tactic and applied only to "rebel states" (a misnomer in my book as the states definitely had a right to secede).
True, but I now believe it was more about slavery than I used to. The part that cannot be documented but I believe is true is that many of the slaves became Christians and prayed for their deliverance and many whites prayed for it too on both sides. Because of this, the Lord granted their requests and the north had to win in order for their collective prayers to be answered, imho.
The South recovered economically from the after-effects only in the 1980's. There was a strong desire to punish the Rebs and lots of property was either confiscated or appropriated at give-away prices. Lincoln ran roughshod over the constitution like no other president and it permanently altered the balance between federal and states, shifting the lever of power to the feds forever. And IMO it set the US on its course to imperialism, a fact history seems to support. Whether it was an incidental result, you decide.
As in all transitions, things were gained and things were lost. From where I sit, more was lost than gained, much more.
One quote I like and I'll paraphrase is: The War Between the States was when the Federal Government conquered the American people.
I was referring to an Advanced Class session where LCM explained that the British or French financed both sides in an attempt to undermind and collapse the country.
This is a complete fabrication. LCM apparently was just following in the footsteps of his spiritual "dad" finding obscure and non-scholarly sources to teach something to tickle the ears and lead people to believe you've got to stay with The Way if you want the real skinny on any topic. NOT!
I guess I should clarify my earlier statment. where I said "It could have just as easily been another issue." The ending of Slavery was a big issue - but it had there not been slavery, it would have been a different one. The real issue was the state control over national control. Slavery was the biggest of the issues that the national government was trying to control, but there were many smaller issues that the national government was trying to control as well. The issue of Slavery linked many of the Southern States. It was common to all of them, while many of the other issues were not. All of them them affected their power and bottom line. However the war was not about Slavery, but about states rights, slavery being the prime example and often the unifying one.
One Comment that hasn't been adress from the first post is the French and English involment in the Civil War and CM's comment about them trying to undermine the US. I have not ever read any information to support this idea. But then again we may never know what the leadership of those countries really thinking, but I doubt this destabilization of the US was the reason for their help. I would be willing to bet though that they did have financial reasons for being involved.
Because he clearly understood the profoundly devastating effect that doing so would have on the economy of The South. With no workforce to keep the economy afloat, submission was inevidable.
It was military strategy at work, plain and simple.
I would not doubt LCM's claim to be true. I recall him also saying that both Lee & Grant were Masons & that this "fact" had alot to do with the outcome of the war.
Interesting. I remember him saying the Spanish War was affected by Sam Houston being a Mason and the leader of the Mexican side being a Mason as well.
as to the civil war being financed by france and england (i feel like no caps today)... it wouldn't doubt wouldn't surprise me if there was some support from them for both sides much like contributors to political campains contribute to both sides... they want to make sure they're in favor of the winning side.
I would not doubt LCM's claim to be true. I recall him also saying that both Lee & Grant were Masons & that this "fact" had alot to do with the outcome of the war.
Vyctory, hi! True, about 1/3 of U.S. Presidents have been freemasons, but are you sure Grant was one of them? I don't think he was or he would be on the lists. Lee is also not on any freemasons list I've ever seen. If you know of some secret list, please fill us in.
Where did this information supposedly come from?
About the only benefit to owning a home in the South and being a freemason was if you had the freemason logo painted on the side of your home, as some did, your house was still there when you returned from the war or if you didn't return your widow and kids still a roof over their heads. Why? This applied only if the commanding officer of the troops was also a freemason and noticed some evidence of a fellow freemason owning the home they were planning to burn.
Reading the posts re: states rights here, I cannot avoid the impression that some of those posting in support of said states rights are including the right to own slaves (ie., owning human beings, ok?) as part and parcel of the states rights package, or at least are implying that the issue of states rights ought to take precedent over the need for the abolishment of slavery (ie., owning human beings, ok?). As tho' the federal government had no right to come in and tell the states that they had no right to own human beings as slaves.
Tell me I'm wrong please, ..... and demonstrate why.
Damn right, the federal government had the right to put the kabosh on the ((cough)) 'states right' (((gag))) of owning slaves, Lincoln's abuses of the Constitution notwithstanding. It should be anyone's right to do this. Because owning slaves, ie., human beings, is _nobody's_ right, ... federal, state, or local.
P.S., LCM's claims as regards the Civil War, and the causes thereof, are clearly the result of some serious brain damage. But then again, we all know that.
as to the civil war being financed by france and england (i feel like no caps today)... it wouldn't doubt wouldn't surprise me if there was some support from them for both sides much like contributors to political campains contribute to both sides... they want to make sure they're in favor of the winning side.
IIIII"m gonna have to disagree with ya here, Tom. LCM must have read that the South wanted help from both England and France
Here's a link that will explains Europe's involvement in more detail:
Catton and McPherson's The American Heritage New History of the Civil War, chapter 6
Actually Waterbuffalo, England was involved in an active trade with the South, mainly for its cotton. When the North put up a blockade around the South to cut it off from trade with other countries, England and the Confederacy valiantly tried using blockade runners to get through the blockade, and sometimes they were successful.
As an aside note: The Civil War provided the catalyst for Canada to declare its independence, as they didn't want the North to invade it in case they declared war on Great Britain for their support of the South. ... just a freebie. Doesn't cost ya extra. :)
Actually Waterbuffalo, England was involved in an active trade with the South, mainly for its cotton. When the North put up a blockade around the South to cut it off from trade with other countries, England and the Confederacy valiantly tried using blockade runners to get through the blockade, and sometimes they were successful.
But, of course. How else would Rhett have made all of that money?????
As an aside note: The Civil War provided the catalyst for Canada to declare its independence, as they didn't want the North to invade it in case they declared war on Great Britain for their support of the South. ... just a freebie. Doesn't cost ya extra. :)
Cool extra.
Back to whether England and France financed the Civil War per LCM, two cabinet members in England were going to present a recognition proposal (of the South) IF IF IF Lee won when he took his campaign north. The result was Gettysburg, hence never brought before Parliament.
I posted a great link from Catton and McPherson's history book while you were posting your above comments to me. Anyway, I think they are two of the best on War Between the States. Take a look at their chapter 6 if you're so inclined. It goes along with everything else I've read on that subject and imho a great summary. I think it's pretty clear European countries were looking and waiting, but to say they financed the war is preposterous, imo. Just another way to keep people interested in staying in a cult.
Yeah, the Civil War is fun--lots of freebies out there.
Hmmmm, your comparison of Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions vis-a-vis the Homeland Security Dept. in this respect is flawed.
Why?
Dubya is doing nothing to eliminate slavery. Also linking of Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions to the need to eliminate slavery is also likely flawed.
I suggest that next time you want to come up with a challenging counterpoint, do so with logic that withstands scrutiny. This one of yours was so easy to shoot down, I could do it in my sleep. ... Not only that but your counterpoint was as kneejerk as your illustration shows.
Recommended Posts
Keith
While I can't document it, at least right now, I think we would be foolish if we thought that the only reason for the civil war was salvery. It was one among many issues. One of the primary ones was the right of states to govern themselves and their own commerce. Even to day these are often issues between states and the federal government. The move by the government to end slavery was a manifestation of this issue. It could have just as easly been a different issue.
Many of the people fighting in the South had problems with slavery, but believed that the Federal government had no right to deside such a thing across the board. My minor was history in college, and I left TWI long before the reign of Martindale. You might check out the PBS Documentry series "The Civil Wary" by Ken Burns. It gives and pretty good insite to all of the different causes of the Civil war. You local library is likely to have a copy of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Actually, while slavery wasn't the ONLY issue governing the cause of the Civil War, it was the main one; the 'states rights' argument often being used as a prop by the southern states to continue the institution of slavery. Yes, Virginia, that's the facts.
And if you don't believe that, here's a question for you to consider. If slavery wasn't the big issue that the south had against the north, then why was it that the south wanted to secede from the union if Lincoln got elected, hmmm? I'll wait after others post back before I give you the answer, if you don't know it already.
The debate about slavery was one of THE big issues going back and forth all over the country ever since just shortly after the Revolutionary War. Incidents like the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the debate as to which states were admitted to the union as either free states or slave states, the riots in Nebraska-Kansas territories during the 1850s, etc. And yet there are those who want to downplay the slavery issue (as much as they can) to near non-existence when it comes to its relevance to the Civil War. The story that really makes me guffaw is the one where some folks say that the south was winding down slavery and fixing to end it because it was supposedly 'cost prohibitive' to them by the time the war started. <_< ... Yeah, right! Sell me another bottle o' snake oil.
Ahh no, the move by the government to end slavery was in response to the increasing number of groups, organizations (many of them religious), and individuals to do away with slavery in all of the states, and that on moral and ethical grounds. No doubt the government often used the campaign against slavery to its own ends, including using it to fire people up to increase the support for the war effort. But that doesn't eliminate the genuine motivations that powered the campaign against slavery that has been going on for decades previous to the Civil War.
And yes, it was the federal government's right to tell the states that they had to eliminate the ownership of human beings. Well, D-U-H-H! That can't be that hard to figure out! Just because there were southerners who got ape-.... over the 'gummint' telling them that doesn't change the need to eliminate slavery any.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
It's worth noting that most grade school and junior high history books of the 50's framed the civil war as a states' rights issue with little or no reference to slavery. It wouldn't be too great of a stretch for LCM to drop back to that simplistic and sanitised view of history to meet some real or imagined need.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vyctorya911
The Civil War was not about slavery. Slavery had begun to end before the Civil War started. In fact, from my research, it was the north who started the "slavery" concept. But I digress. The Civil War was about the rights of the states to govern themselves, among other issues.
I would not doubt LCM's claim to be true. I recall him also saying that both Lee & Grant were Masons & that this "fact" had alot to do with the outcome of the war.
In regard to "Garth's" thoughts on it being false"some folks say that the south was winding down slavery and fixing to end it because it was supposedly 'cost prohibitive' to them by the time the war started. " I believe that quoted portion to be true. Slaves were an expensive thing in that day. Not every house had them. Typically only the wealthy did.
The Civil War was much more than slavery. There are a couple of links worth looking at that you may or may not already have:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederatecauses.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/index.html
That all said, I do not condone slavery. No human should ever have to be subject to that. However, I feel that I must defend my homeland, the south. We were not the only participants in the war. It was a two sided war & the north has its share of responsibility also.
If you do manage to prove any of LCM's ramblings, let me know please as I'd like to find out how much was true & how much was false.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I still say "follow the money."
The economy of the "slave states" was tied up in plantations-meaning it was based on the
cheap labour of SLAVES.
Freeing slaves means the plantation owner has less money.
I doubt most of them were idealogically-enlightened enough to voluntarily
free their slaves at the cost of making a lot less money.
Of course, any plantation owner COULD free any slave on his plantation-
or all of them. Yet slavery continued as an institution.
Forgive my cynicism, but I think the PRIMARY reason for the Civil War was the
secession of the Confederate States, and the PRIMARY reason for their
secession was their ownership of slaves-which they wished to continue,
and the PRIMARY reason for that was money.
I stress PRIMARY because I believe that people who do not wield the power
and have a vested interest in something can be tricked into supporting it
against their own self-interest, if they are given a compelling sales pitch
that gives them entirely unrelated reasons to support it.
So, you have people who don't own slaves, who are told up and down
"it's about states' rights!", and if they're told this enough times, they will
say "this is all about states' rights", and they will support slavery
almost accidentaly, in their attempt to support states' rights...
which is what the slave-owners wanted, and THEY don't care about the
non-slaveowners so long as they do what they're told.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Vyctorya911,
No sir, that is not true. Slavery was not being wound down, even by the time the war came. Remember, cotton was king, as it were, and was THE main income producer in the south. And while owning slaves was indeed expensive, w/o the slaves to pick the cotton, it would have even been more expensive for the plantation owners, and even for many of the other cotton farmers. The southern leaders knew this, and fought tooth and nail to not only keep the institution going, but to expand it to as many new states as they could. Why else was there the continuous fight to include more slave states when territories became states, as the Missouri Compromise and other agreements like it clearly illustrates?And I noted that in my post. But slavery was the big issue of the day for at least 50-60 years prior to the Civil War. There is WAY too much documented historical proof showing this to say otherwise.
Your loyalty to your 'homeland' has no bearing upon historical facts, none whatsoever. And when people use their loyalty to change/dismiss those facts, that is loyalty misapplied. It would be like anyone of us denying the fact of the near extermination of the American Indians done to them by the white man throughout American history because we needed to 'defend our homeland'.Agreed. And I also covered that in my previous post. I never did say that the south was the only one responsible. But that does nothing to eradicate the slavery issue, and its relation to the war. Not one bit.
Oh, and it wasn't the 'north' who started slavery, as it were, as the colonies were pretty much bringing in the slaves on their own. Ie., it wasn't where the north brought in slaves at one time, and the south brought them in at a different time. But the northern states did eradicate slavery well before the south did.
And keep in mind that your sources aren't exactly objective, independent sources either. Not when their goal, their agenda, is to 'defend the south', as it were. (Altho' the Slavenorth site does provide some interesting info as to the race related issues that people in the north still had to deal with.) So next time you give your sources, make sure that it isn't from some advocacy site please, but from real historians.
One thing this all shows is that the North wasn't the only one 'sanitizing' their side, and condemning the other. <_<
By the way, the reason the South got serious about seceding from the union (despite whatever talk was going on before then), was when the election of 1860 came around, they clearly stated that if Lincoln got elected, they were "outta here" secession wise. That was because they feared (and rightly so) that Lincoln would take strong steps against slavery, and allow no more slave states into the union, and very possibly work to eradicate slavery in total. Lincoln was elected, and South Carolina started the secession ball rolling by saying "Adios!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
didn't paper money have something to do with it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Garth is right that the tensions that led to the war were brewing in Revolutionary War times. There are lots of misconceptions.
1. Was it about state's rights? Certainly. About a state's right to set their policy re. slavery. And, as war approached, about a state's right to secede, but that was ancillary. But it's also true that the tensions were economic. There were duties and tariffs that rewarded northern states and punished southern states, exacerbating the existing antipathy. But, if you look at the actual events that led to war the 10-15 years before shots were fired, the hottest fights were over whether territories & incoming states would allow slavery. Read about Bloody Kansas. Surprised, Garth?
2. Slavery was on its way out? Depends. The transcontinental slave trade to the US was kaput by then, yes. But slave markets in both the north & south were still thriving. After all, slaves are people & do have children. Many speculate slavery would have ended on its own. It's an argument not without merit, but no telling how long it would have lasted.
Incidentally, the war was never about ending slavery. The only Northerners who thought that were the most radical of the Abolitionists in the Republican Party. But it was largely about the advancement, propagation and protection of slavery. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was only a war tactic and applied only to "rebel states" (a misnomer in my book as the states definitely had a right to secede).
The South recovered economically from the after-effects only in the 1980's. There was a strong desire to punish the Rebs and lots of property was either confiscated or appropriated at give-away prices. Lincoln ran roughshod over the constitution like no other president and it permanently altered the balance between federal and states, shifting the lever of power to the feds forever. And IMO it set the US on its course to imperialism, a fact history seems to support. Whether it was an incidental result, you decide.
As in all transitions, things were gained and things were lost. From where I sit, more was lost than gained, much more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
This is a complete fabrication. LCM apparently was just following in the footsteps of his spiritual "dad" finding obscure and non-scholarly sources to teach something to tickle the ears and lead people to believe you've got to stay with The Way if you want the real skinny on any topic. NOT!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Of course I missed the point of the post and the reason it was posted in this forum. Yes, totally bogus.
"Conspiracy, Conspiracy saith the Lord, all is Conspiracy!!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
removed for not having read 'what is written'.
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
I guess I should clarify my earlier statment. where I said "It could have just as easily been another issue." The ending of Slavery was a big issue - but it had there not been slavery, it would have been a different one. The real issue was the state control over national control. Slavery was the biggest of the issues that the national government was trying to control, but there were many smaller issues that the national government was trying to control as well. The issue of Slavery linked many of the Southern States. It was common to all of them, while many of the other issues were not. All of them them affected their power and bottom line. However the war was not about Slavery, but about states rights, slavery being the prime example and often the unifying one.
One Comment that hasn't been adress from the first post is the French and English involment in the Civil War and CM's comment about them trying to undermine the US. I have not ever read any information to support this idea. But then again we may never know what the leadership of those countries really thinking, but I doubt this destabilization of the US was the reason for their help. I would be willing to bet though that they did have financial reasons for being involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Why did Lincoln free the slaves?
Because he clearly understood the profoundly devastating effect that doing so would have on the economy of The South. With no workforce to keep the economy afloat, submission was inevidable.
It was military strategy at work, plain and simple.
Just my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Interesting. I remember him saying the Spanish War was affected by Sam Houston being a Mason and the leader of the Mexican side being a Mason as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well... those masons sure get around!
as to the civil war being financed by france and england (i feel like no caps today)... it wouldn't doubt wouldn't surprise me if there was some support from them for both sides much like contributors to political campains contribute to both sides... they want to make sure they're in favor of the winning side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Vyctory, hi! True, about 1/3 of U.S. Presidents have been freemasons, but are you sure Grant was one of them? I don't think he was or he would be on the lists. Lee is also not on any freemasons list I've ever seen. If you know of some secret list, please fill us in.
Where did this information supposedly come from?
About the only benefit to owning a home in the South and being a freemason was if you had the freemason logo painted on the side of your home, as some did, your house was still there when you returned from the war or if you didn't return your widow and kids still a roof over their heads. Why? This applied only if the commanding officer of the troops was also a freemason and noticed some evidence of a fellow freemason owning the home they were planning to burn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Reading the posts re: states rights here, I cannot avoid the impression that some of those posting in support of said states rights are including the right to own slaves (ie., owning human beings, ok?) as part and parcel of the states rights package, or at least are implying that the issue of states rights ought to take precedent over the need for the abolishment of slavery (ie., owning human beings, ok?). As tho' the federal government had no right to come in and tell the states that they had no right to own human beings as slaves.
Tell me I'm wrong please, ..... and demonstrate why.
Damn right, the federal government had the right to put the kabosh on the ((cough)) 'states right' (((gag))) of owning slaves, Lincoln's abuses of the Constitution notwithstanding. It should be anyone's right to do this. Because owning slaves, ie., human beings, is _nobody's_ right, ... federal, state, or local.
P.S., LCM's claims as regards the Civil War, and the causes thereof, are clearly the result of some serious brain damage.
But then again, we all know that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
IIIII"m gonna have to disagree with ya here, Tom. LCM must have read that the South wanted help from both England and France
Here's a link that will explains Europe's involvement in more detail:
Catton and McPherson's The American Heritage New History of the Civil War, chapter 6
http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm
Edited by waterbuffaloLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Actually Waterbuffalo, England was involved in an active trade with the South, mainly for its cotton. When the North put up a blockade around the South to cut it off from trade with other countries, England and the Confederacy valiantly tried using blockade runners to get through the blockade, and sometimes they were successful.
As an aside note: The Civil War provided the catalyst for Canada to declare its independence, as they didn't want the North to invade it in case they declared war on Great Britain for their support of the South. ... just a freebie. Doesn't cost ya extra. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Hmmm, after all your ranting about Homeland Security.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hmmmm, your comparison of Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions vis-a-vis the Homeland Security Dept. in this respect is flawed.
Why?
Dubya is doing nothing to eliminate slavery. Also linking of Lincoln's Constitutional transgressions to the need to eliminate slavery is also likely flawed.
I suggest that next time you want to come up with a challenging counterpoint, do so with logic that withstands scrutiny. This one of yours was so easy to shoot down, I could do it in my sleep. ... Not only that but your counterpoint was as kneejerk as your illustration shows.
<_<
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.