Tags for Sons of Confederate Vets.

[Rudy]

--Absolutely agree... The meaning has changed greatly, especially the battle flag, which is the one most often used by hate groups. I too lost a relative [gr-gr-grandfather] who died on some unknown battlefield and lies in an unmarked grave somewhere. The war ended and he never came home and the letters had stopped. I dislike the fact that racist groups use that flag, but they do, so I would never fly it at my house because of that. .

You hit the nail on the head. I had a long reply typed up partially involving this yesterday, but it got deleted, and I didn't have the life force to type it again. The Confederacy was not fighting to keep slavery, and the battle flag does not stand for slavery, but thanks to some asshat racist hate groups using the flag, the Confederate Battle Flag has come to be associated with racism and hate.

[Censored by Laurie]

The Confederacy was not fighting to keep slavery

Uhhh...let's tap the breaks. If you want to add the word "just" or "only" or "exclusively" to this statement, cool...but, let's be serious.

[Rudy]

Uhhh...let's tap the breaks. If you want to add the word "just" or "only" or "exclusively" to this statement, cool...but, let's be serious.

Technically, they were fighting for the right for each state to decide for themselves. The Union wanted the federal government to decide, the Confederacy wanted the decision to be left up to each state.

This is one of my favorite things to study. Personally, I think that if the Confederacy had won, both sides would have sat down and realized that if the nation remained split, one or more forces would have invaded. Thus both sides would have come to a mutal understanding that slavery needed to be ended. Instead of the slaves being freed immediately, I think it would have been a slower process in order for the slaveowners to adjust the way they conducted business on their farms, and to educate the freedmen so they would be able to adjust to life more easliy. Many leaders of the Confederacy were already doing this at the time the Civil War broke out, by teaching them reading, writing, and math.

[Censored by Laurie]

Technically, they were fighting for the right for each state to decide for themselves. The Union wanted the federal government to decide, the Confederacy wanted the decision to be left up to each state.

This is one of my favorite things to study. Personally, I think that if the Confederacy had won, both sides would have sat down and realized that if the nation remained split, one or more forces would have invaded. Thus both sides would have come to a mutal understanding that slavery needed to be ended. Instead of the slaves being freed immediately, I think it would have been a slower process in order for the slaveowners to adjust the way they conducted business on their farms, and to educate the freedmen so they would be able to adjust to life more easliy. Many leaders of the Confederacy were already doing this at the time the Civil War broke out, by teaching them reading, writing, and math.

I'm sorry..."decide" on what, exactly?

It is a fascinating topic of study...that's why I pursued it both in my undergraduate and graduate course work...and was, at a time, ready to dedicate a career to Civil War history...more specifically to race relations in Antebellum America (both North and South) with a specific focus on violent abolitionism and slave insurrections. The idea that a Confederate victory, after nearly five years of bloody fighting, would've eventually led to civilized (yes, I noted the irony in this word selection) and cordial discussion on the topic of slavery...and that from this, southern, landholding, slave-owning plantation dependent gentry would've said "yeah, I see both the moral dilemma of slavery and the economic viability in it's abolishment" is BEYOND ridiculous.

Slave numbers increased steadily through the 1860 census...slave costs rose with increased demand and plantations were becoming the only vehicle through which an agrarian economy could be profitable. Slaves were in peak demand when Lincoln took office...and were owned (in record numbers) primarily by plantation owners and and other land-owning gentry (fewer slave-owners, yet more slaves). Read, those who would also be making the legislative decisions.

And yes, SOME (you want to give me Stonewall Jackson as example, don't you?) slave owners were teaching "them" to read and write...but if they were doing so from about the mid 1830s on, they were in violation of a variety of anti-literacy laws for slaves enacted throughout the South following slave led and slave organized insurrections like those of Denmark Vesey in Charleston and Nat Turner in Virginia.

Had the Confederacy won (yes, purely speculative...), baring any foreign influence (invasion, wars...I don't know, terrorism(?)), the most likely event is that the nation would've remained split in two...the North likely would've remained as some semblance of a "Nation" with a central government, so the map would still have a "United States of America", it would just be about 15-20 states.

The CSA, however, would not have remained unified under a loose set of articles of confederation (remember, we tried this tact initially...Nation Fail!) and likely each state government would've declared itself independent in time. South Carolina would today have it's own national anthem. The President of Tennessee could declare Dolly Parton's birthday a national holiday. The country of Georgia probably would've gone to war with the country of Georgia over naming rights.

One can sugar coat things all they want...the root cause of the Civil War, however, was slavery.

[Rudy]

Thats the great thing about history. There is so much gray area open to interpretation. You have your opinions and I have mine.

[SilverEagle]

I'm sorry..."decide" on what, exactly?

It is a fascinating topic of study...that's why I pursued it both in my undergraduate and graduate course work...and was, at a time, ready to dedicate a career to Civil War history...more specifically to race relations in Antebellum America (both North and South) with a specific focus on violent abolitionism and slave insurrections. The idea that a Confederate victory, after nearly five years of bloody fighting, would've eventually led to civilized (yes, I noted the irony in this word selection) and cordial discussion on the topic of slavery...and that from this, southern, landholding, slave-owning plantation dependent gentry would've said "yeah, I see both the moral dilemma of slavery and the economic viability in it's abolishment" is BEYOND ridiculous.

Slave numbers increased steadily through the 1860 census...slave costs rose with increased demand and plantations were becoming the only vehicle through which an agrarian economy could be profitable. Slaves were in peak demand when Lincoln took office...and were owned (in record numbers) primarily by plantation owners and and other land-owning gentry (fewer slave-owners, yet more slaves). Read, those who would also be making the legislative decisions.

And yes, SOME (you want to give me Stonewall Jackson as example, don't you?) slave owners were teaching "them" to read and write...but if they were doing so from about the mid 1830s on, they were in violation of a variety of anti-literacy laws for slaves enacted throughout the South following slave led and slave organized insurrections like those of Denmark Vesey in Charleston and Nat Turner in Virginia.

Had the Confederacy won (yes, purely speculative...), baring any foreign influence (invasion, wars...I don't know, terrorism(?)), the most likely event is that the nation would've remained split in two...the North likely would've remained as some semblance of a "Nation" with a central government, so the map would still have a "United States of America", it would just be about 15-20 states.

The CSA, however, would not have remained unified under a loose set of articles of confederation (remember, we tried this tact initially...Nation Fail!) and likely each state government would've declared itself independent in time. South Carolina would today have it's own national anthem. The President of Tennessee could declare Dolly Parton's birthday a national holiday. The country of Georgia probably would've gone to war with the country of Georgia over naming rights.

One can sugar coat things all they want...the root cause of the Civil War, however, was slavery.

And does anyone think that if the "powers that be" on both sides had said..

"Hey lets go to war, and potentially die on the battlefield, to free the slaves....OR so that rich land owners could keep their slaves"....there would be near as many troops out there fighting on both sides?

[eulesseagle]

I'm sorry..."decide" on what, exactly?

It is a fascinating topic of study...that's why I pursued it both in my undergraduate and graduate course work...and was, at a time, ready to dedicate a career to Civil War history...more specifically to race relations in Antebellum America (both North and South) with a specific focus on violent abolitionism and slave insurrections. The idea that a Confederate victory, after nearly five years of bloody fighting, would've eventually led to civilized (yes, I noted the irony in this word selection) and cordial discussion on the topic of slavery...and that from this, southern, landholding, slave-owning plantation dependent gentry would've said "yeah, I see both the moral dilemma of slavery and the economic viability in it's abolishment" is BEYOND ridiculous.

Slave numbers increased steadily through the 1860 census...slave costs rose with increased demand and plantations were becoming the only vehicle through which an agrarian economy could be profitable. Slaves were in peak demand when Lincoln took office...and were owned (in record numbers) primarily by plantation owners and and other land-owning gentry (fewer slave-owners, yet more slaves). Read, those who would also be making the legislative decisions.

And yes, SOME (you want to give me Stonewall Jackson as example, don't you?) slave owners were teaching "them" to read and write...but if they were doing so from about the mid 1830s on, they were in violation of a variety of anti-literacy laws for slaves enacted throughout the South following slave led and slave organized insurrections like those of Denmark Vesey in Charleston and Nat Turner in Virginia.

Had the Confederacy won (yes, purely speculative...), baring any foreign influence (invasion, wars...I don't know, terrorism(?)), the most likely event is that the nation would've remained split in two...the North likely would've remained as some semblance of a "Nation" with a central government, so the map would still have a "United States of America", it would just be about 15-20 states.

The CSA, however, would not have remained unified under a loose set of articles of confederation (remember, we tried this tact initially...Nation Fail!) and likely each state government would've declared itself independent in time. South Carolina would today have it's own national anthem. The President of Tennessee could declare Dolly Parton's birthday a national holiday. The country of Georgia probably would've gone to war with the country of Georgia over naming rights.

One can sugar coat things all they want...the root cause of the Civil War, however, was slavery.

You do make valid points on the issue.

I would like to add that it was the Congress that was a northern majority that was, essentially, making almost exclusively, shipping ports in the north where all foreign goods were to be shipped and received leaving the south without a legitimate port to enhance any foreign trade. This forced the south to transport a majority of their goods to northern cities.

The congress passed tax laws that were unfavorable to the south. The average southerner was having to pay at least two to three times as much in taxes as their norther counter part.

Congress made it almost impossible for the south to build manufacturing plants to produce goods made from cotton...ect.....by the time the war began the south, i believe, only had a handful of plants to make cannon and arms.

The United States was the only place in the western hemispher where slaves were able to procreate. By the time that slavery was prohibited in the U.S. there were approximately 400k (or so slaves) & mostly in the south, naturally, even though they were in all the other states and territories. By the time the war began the number grew to over 2 million. Strangely enough the worst of the slave owners were themselves black freemen who were once themselves slaves. Most of these slave owners were in Louisiana and Mississippi. I would like to add that the cost of a slave to a regular owner would almost equate to a year's wages of an average white man. To me it would be hard to justify abuse of such property. CBL is correct in stating that most plantations had schools and churchs errected to the education of their slaves. Even though this was against the law the south did turn their head the other way, en mass, and I do not ever recall, in my readings, that anyone was ever prosecuted for this act.

Essentially, the U.S. Congress forced the south into an agrarian state and forced the south to transport those goods north for sale and export. Southerners were overtaxed by a northern majority that felt that the populace down south were hicks and were there for their own financial gains. One only has to research northern archives to get the true feelings of the north against the south.

The north did want to send a militia force through Virginia and North Carolina to collect back taxes of South Carolina on two occasions in the mid to late '50s and Virginia and N.C. told the north that they were not marching through our states to get to South Carolina. The north backed down both times.

[Censored by Laurie]

You do make valid points on the issue.

I would like to add that it was the Congress that was a northern majority that was, essentially, making almost exclusively, shipping ports in the north where all foreign goods were to be shipped and received leaving the south without a legitimate port to enhance any foreign trade. This forced the south to transport a majority of their goods to northern cities.

The congress passed tax laws that were unfavorable to the south. The average southerner was having to pay at least two to three times as much in taxes as their norther counter part.

Congress made it almost impossible for the south to build manufacturing plants to produce goods made from cotton...ect.....by the time the war began the south, i believe, only had a handful of plants to make cannon and arms.

The United States was the only place in the western hemispher where slaves were able to procreate. By the time that slavery was prohibited in the U.S. there were approximately 400k (or so slaves) & mostly in the south, naturally, even though they were in all the other states and territories. By the time the war began the number grew to over 2 million. Strangely enough the worst of the slave owners were themselves black freemen who were once themselves slaves. Most of these slave owners were in Louisiana and Mississippi. I would like to add that the cost of a slave to a regular owner would almost equate to a year's wages of an average white man. To me it would be hard to justify abuse of such property. CBL is correct in stating that most plantations had schools and churchs errected to the education of their slaves. Even though this was against the law the south did turn their head the other way, en mass, and I do not ever recall, in my readings, that anyone was ever prosecuted for this act.

Essentially, the U.S. Congress forced the south into an agrarian state and forced the south to transport those goods north for sale and export. Southerners were overtaxed by a northern majority that felt that the populace down south were hicks and were there for their own financial gains. One only has to research northern archives to get the true feelings of the north against the south.

The north did want to send a militia force through Virginia and North Carolina to collect back taxes of South Carolina on two occasions in the mid to late '50s and Virginia and N.C. told the north that they were not marching through our states to get to South Carolina. The north backed down both times.

Paragraph 1 - I know.

Paragraph 2 - The House of Reps was a northern majority b/c the North had the larger population...and the South actually had a larger proportional representation in the house than their tax-paying, voting-eligible populace should've given them due to the 3/5th's Compromise...apparently slaves were viewed as people rather than property people only when it was beneficial.

New Orleans, Mobile and Charleston were some of the most active ports in Antebellum America...handling the bulk of the cotton, tobacco and sugar trade...oh, and all of the very profitable slave trade.

Paragraph 3 - show me documents.

Paragraph 4 - This argument is like saying the federal government has hindered the surfing industry in Nebraska. The South had next to zero manufacturing because the South saw no need for manufacturing. Statements like this go back to Silver Eagle's revisionist point.

Paragraph 5 - There is so much inherent racism here it's laugh/cry - able. Also, I said "some" slave owners were willing to disregard anti-literacy and anti-gathering laws. As for prosecution, you might be right and that it wasn't enforced on slave-owners. A literate and educated slave certainly would've faced consequences. A congregation of slaves, say at an AME church, would've faced consequences. A slave owner had little to no culpability.

Paragraph 6 - The first sentence is utter bullshit. The second sentence is taking two separate ideas...opinion and policy...and thinking there is any sort of linkage between the 2. So really, the whole paragraph is more utter, revisionist bullshit.

Paragraph 7 - Pretty sure that "northern militia" would've been federal troops...since in the 1850s we still had a "nation"

[eulesseagle]

Paragraph 1 - I know.

Paragraph 2 - The House of Reps was a northern majority b/c the North had the larger population...and the South actually had a larger proportional representation in the house than their tax-paying, voting-eligible populace should've given them due to the 3/5th's Compromise...apparently slaves were viewed as people rather than property people only when it was beneficial.

New Orleans, Mobile and Charleston were some of the most active ports in Antebellum America...handling the bulk of the cotton, tobacco and sugar trade...oh, and all of the very profitable slave trade.

Paragraph 3 - show me documents.

Paragraph 4 - This argument is like saying the federal government has hindered the surfing industry in Nebraska. The South had next to zero manufacturing because the South saw no need for manufacturing. Statements like this go back to Silver Eagle's revisionist point.

Paragraph 5 - There is so much inherent racism here it's laugh/cry - able. Also, I said "some" slave owners were willing to disregard anti-literacy and anti-gathering laws. As for prosecution, you might be right and that it wasn't enforced on slave-owners. A literate and educated slave certainly would've faced consequences. A congregation of slaves, say at an AME church, would've faced consequences. A slave owner had little to no culpability.

Paragraph 6 - The first sentence is utter bullshit. The second sentence is taking two separate ideas...opinion and policy...and thinking there is any sort of linkage between the 2. So really, the whole paragraph is more utter, revisionist bullshit.

Paragraph 7 - Pretty sure that "northern militia" would've been federal troops...since in the 1850s we still had a "nation"

there is no, what you call bullshit, in any of the statements you disagree with. if you have problems with any of the statements then you need to take some time and look it up because i have. Besides this is "very" basic information and common knowledge.

Edited June 29, 2011 by eulesseagle

[Censored by Laurie]

there is no, what you call bullshit, in any of the statements you disagree with. if you have problems with any of the statements then you need to take some time and look it up because i have. Besides this is "very" basic information and common knowledge.

You're wrong. None too surprisingly, though.

[All About UNT]

And does anyone think that if the "powers that be" on both sides had said..

"Hey lets go to war, and potentially die on the battlefield, to free the slaves....OR so that rich land owners could keep their slaves"....there would be near as many troops out there fighting on both sides?

That would lead to a similar reaction to how the populace of the US (and what Allies fought with us) would react to "hey guys...some very wealthy Kuwaiti gentleman just spent millions on a PR firm that made up lies about Iraqi atrocities within their home country......but hey lets go kick their butts anyway.....and then.....10 years later we can come back in and really settle the score under some fictitious and widely believed intelligence report that suggests that this now beatdown and incapable nation-state is actually a giant threat to America and the west"

And on top of that.....it doesn't matter about how they sold the war. They started one. Political agitators (dubbed Fire-Eaters in the South)were going to see to it that a war...a "gentleman's war" would be started and of course at the expense of the common man who did not know any better and was naive enough to go rush off and fight a war they didn't need to be in (by and large).

One such Fire-Eater named Laurence Keitt has an excerpt on his wiki page worth mentioning:

" In 1860, Congressman Keitt said, "The anti-slavery party contends that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States."[1] On February 5, 1858, Keitt started a massive brawl on the House floor during a tense late-night debate. Keitt, offended by Pennsylvania Congressman (and later Speaker of the House) Galusha A. Grow having stepped over to his side of the House chamber, dismissively demanded that Grow sit down, calling him a "black Republican puppy". Grow responded by telling Keitt that “No negro-driver shall crack his whip over me.” Keitt became enraged and went for Grow's throat, shouting that he would "choke him for that". A large brawl involving approximately 50 representatives erupted on the House floor, ending only when a missed punch from Rep. Cadwallader Washburn of Wisconsin upended the hairpiece of Rep. William Barksdale of Mississippi. The embarrassed Barksdale accidentally replaced the wig backwards, causing both sides to erupt in spontaneous laughter.[2][3]"

Once a war starts and shots are fired most people forget about why it started and moreso are concerned with "winning". It is almost like a schoolyard fight when you and another student disagree about something and the "agitators" start up with their "OoooOOOOooooooooooOOOO" and the like which of course puts you into a position where you two are staring at each other and are both realizing that even if you didn't want to fight.....the others around you may force your hand. Before you know it you are trading swings with the person in front of you and a circle of agitators have formed around you for their own pleasure.

But I digress. The fact is that for the reasons that others had mentioned.....why as a proud TEXAN would you want to be thrown in with the same lot of the people we have little in common with from Virginia, Alabama, Georgia...etc? Or more importantly....why would you leave yourself exposed to the perception that you are hick, redneck, white supremacist, ultra-fan of Lynard Skynard (I attached a photo for you to see them in person)?

The fact is that few of those that "fly the Stars and Bars" know very much about the overall Civil War experience. A very visible minority of flag-wavers have hijacked any historical significance about the Confederacy and have turned it into a way for them to project their racist ideologies onto others.

Let this be the ONLY LICENSE PLATE YOU CONSIDER GETTING:

[eulesseagle]

You're wrong. None too surprisingly, though.

i am correct again....but....like always you do not want to admit that you are incorrect in your facts.......look it up on the computer.....my son learned the info in high school.

[All About UNT]

i am correct again....but....like always you do not want to admit that you are incorrect in your facts.......look it up on the computer.....my son learned the info in high school.

I mean no offense but adding that your son would have learned this in high school doesn't validate your point for obvious reasons

[eulesseagle]

I mean no offense but adding that your son would have learned this in high school doesn't validate your point for obvious reasons

meaning no disrespect but your lack of information on the subject does not mean it did not happen......you have a computer....type in some key words and look it up.

[Censored by Laurie]

i am correct again....but....like always you do not want to admit that you are incorrect in your facts.......look it up on the computer.....my son learned the info in high school.

Welp, looks like your kid is wrong too...a whole flock of misguided and confused eulesseagles.

And in case you missed it...this was my area of study...and I've had the advantage of studying and researching it in both the North and the South so I've a rather diverse base of knowledge on the topic. More than you can get from a quick google search on the interwebz.

So, no, I don't need to "look it up on the computer."

[Quoner]

meaning no disrespect but your lack of information on the subject does not mean it did not happen......you have a computer....type in some key words and look it up.

meaning no disrespect (meme alert!), the last time you pointed us to internet references, it did not end well for anyone, especially Chone Figgins or even the well-educated Phil and Joe Niekro.

[Shuke-D]

you have a computer....type in some key words and look it up.

If we are expected to deal with all of life's mysteries, conundrums, and complexities only by consulting a computer, then Skynet has already won. Jeeeeeeeshhhhh.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Shuke-D

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- Just my opinion , but if the South had won... I think that Texas would have split off eventually.... Not a lot similarities with the other southern states and not a huge slave population. I doubt that they would have agreed with Richmond or others trying to tell us what to do. There were a lot of people in Texas that did not support it--- recent immigrants, and even Sam Houston. The Denton, Sherman, north Texas area had a lot Southern deserters and dissidents.... so many that Southern army personal would not try to catch them.... outnumbered. There was even a battle near ?Kerrville? between Rebel forces and German settlers who would not join the Confederate army.

--- I am very Southern (especially Texan).... and I think the Southern army was better but just had less resources..... but I am glad we didn't win because America would not be what it is today. I agree with what my father always said... it was "a rich man's (slave-owners) war but the poor man's fight". Most in the South did not own slaves (85-90%) but they fought because it was their home were not very fond of those arrogant funny talking people from the north [much more regional accents than today with mass communications] . Some up there still think they are better, smarter, etc. than "those southern hicks".

---Those who claim it was about state rights are trying to gloss over the real reason...slavery... no doubt there were other issues but slavery and the economic system it supported was #1. The war started after Lincoln was elected but had not been inaugurated.... it was no secret he opposed slavery.... and they feared what would happen.

Edited June 29, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[eulesseagle]

Welp, looks like your kid is wrong too...a whole flock of misguided and confused eulesseagles.

And in case you missed it...this was my area of study...and I've had the advantage of studying and researching it in both the North and the South so I've a rather diverse base of knowledge on the topic. More than you can get from a quick google search on the interwebz.

So, no, I don't need to "look it up on the computer."

instead of making personal attacks on myself and my family you should be looking up this "basic information".....in your area of study.....

[meangreendork]

meaning no disrespect but your lack of information on the subject does not mean it did not happen......you have a computer....type in some key words and look it up.

If you know anything about the internet, you know that a simple search won't do all of the filtering through conjecture, opinions, and lack of recordkeeping to find what you want, especially when it refers to history that is hundreds of years old.

So about your sources:

Either put up or shut up.

I can sit here and say all sorts of junk about the Civil War and say "durrhurr, look it up." That means nothing without actually citing something, and since what you're putting up has some iffy statements, the burden of proof is on you.

Also, CBL: slavery is A cause, but not THE cause. Especially when many in the northern US didn't much care about abolition or were against it, or just didn't care. Don't forget how long it took for abolition to occur, and then how long it took for the US Army to create units composed of former slaves.

Edited June 30, 2011 by meangreendork

[Censored by Laurie]

instead of making personal attacks on myself and my family you should be looking up this "basic information".....in your area of study.....

Nope...having much more fun my way now...I was drawn offside by the hard count...was unaware it was possible for someone to be so wrong, so revisionist...nay, so apologist-ic...and still believe so solemnly that they're right, citing the internet as their source of knowledge. You're beyond the point of engaging in an actual scholarly, intelligent or even coherent discussion...it's as if within this one thread you've managed to excede...become a charactcerture even of the ridiculous person so many on here, myself included, feel you are.

So no, I'm going back to assuming everything you write is satirical...it's the only interpretation one can make that doesn't leave one assuming you need a live-in hospice work to assist with putting on your pants in the morning.

[Censored by Laurie]

Also, CBL: slavery is A cause, but not THE cause. Especially when many in the northern US didn't much care about abolition or were against it, or just didn't care. Don't forget how long it took for abolition to occur, and then how long it took for the US Army to create units composed of former slaves.

Absolutely...I think I said the "root cause" or some-such wording...but that was in response to the people who try to create a whole laundry list of causes to supersede slavery, or, as ee has done so satirically (hilarious stuff, BTW) to attempt to lessen or downplay the significance of the slavery issue. I, and a large number of respected Civil War historians, believe that the slavery issue was the elephant in the room that fired on Ft. Sumter. All other issues (state's rights, economics, demographics, cultural differences, etc) are either secondary or have the common thread of slavery woven throughout.

[UNTflyer]

Regardless of the arguments of what the flag stands for, who was fighting for what reasons....

Why would anyone want to be associated with these dipshits?

[SilverEagle]

Absolutely...I think I said the "root cause" or some-such wording...but that was in response to the people who try to create a whole laundry list of causes to supersede slavery, or, as ee has done so satirically (hilarious stuff, BTW) to attempt to lessen or downplay the significance of the slavery issue. I, and a large number of respected Civil War historians, believe that the slavery issue was the elephant in the room that fired on Ft. Sumter. All other issues (state's rights, economics, demographics, cultural differences, etc) are either secondary or have the common thread of slavery woven throughout.

Pretty much the case. You could also make an academic case for Eli Whitney unintentionally causing the conflict through his invention of the cotton gin. It made cotton growing much more profitable, and caused the demand for slaves, to work on these cotton farms/plantations, to rise significantly. Otherwise, slavery might have died out somewhere around 1825..or sooner.

Many people talk about what caused the conflict, but what set it up to erupt into a conflict was two events. The publication of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and the hanging of John Brown. Those events served to polarize the country, and caused them to suspend their greatest political skill.....the ability to compromise.

Something that is making an alarming comeback in our present society.

[eulesseagle]

Nope...having much more fun my way now...I was drawn offside by the hard count...was unaware it was possible for someone to be so wrong, so revisionist...nay, so apologist-ic...and still believe so solemnly that they're right, citing the internet as their source of knowledge. You're beyond the point of engaging in an actual scholarly, intelligent or even coherent discussion...it's as if within this one thread you've managed to excede...become a charactcerture even of the ridiculous person so many on here, myself included, feel you are.

So no, I'm going back to assuming everything you write is satirical...it's the only interpretation one can make that doesn't leave one assuming you need a live-in hospice work to assist with putting on your pants in the morning.

always personal attacks....you should use some of your energy to humble yourself to look up the information.

the difference between you and posters like Silver Eagle, Screaming Eagle and EulessIsMore is that they engage in intellectual conversation and no personal attacks on members and their families. You, CBL, have a history of attacking the person instead of the post.....we call it "Intellectual Bankruptcy." I would much rather sit down and have burgers and beer with Silver, Screamin', and Euless knowing that the conversation would be civil than someone like you who would degerate into personal attacks when they discover that they are wrong. Perhaps one day you will learn that lesson.