TOTALLY GEEKED!

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

I live here. I grew up here. Living in the middle of history.

But sure. Go ahead and believe your tainted version.

---

EVERYONE in the U.S. has been affected by the Civil War. 

 

You were wrong on dates.

You can't point to ANY economics OTHER THAN the economics of slavery.

You don't seem to know anything about important ante-bellum events such as the Kansas/Nebraska act, Lincoln's position on it, and how it affected the secession.

You don't seem to think there was even another candidate in the 1860 election, let alone who it was or how his election rather than Lincoln's might have affected the potential for secession.   

---

 Slavery is not an economic.  Economics are supply/demand balance and profit margins to encourage a business to continue to be in business.  Sure slavery was a factor in the profit margin.  But economics drives the vote, then and now.

---

 LOL!!!!  The southern econimy was dependent on slavery.  Much of the wealth of the south was tied up in slaves.  Without slavery being an issue, there would not have been a civil war.  What law of supply and demand caused the war?  None.  

---

 The wealth was not tied up in slaves, it was tied up in farming.  Slavery was a tool used to expedite the produce and such to the market.  But Husker, during the civil war, any slave that fought for a certain amount of time was given his freedom.  Yeah, I don't agree with slavery, but it was the way of the world, and I mean world, hundreds of years ago.  And you want to talk about the economics of slavery?  Go talk to the African tribes that captured their rival tribesman and sold them into slavery to people all over the world.

---

 You are dead wrong.  Slaves held in the south were worth over 30 million dollars--and that is 1860 dollars.  Plus having access to slave labor made their investment in land worth more.  

---

 You just gave the text book definition of economics. 

The North didn't give 2 shakes about slaves. It was the wealth of the south that bothered them.

The North needed the South. 

---

LOL!!!!!  The north was FAR wealthier than the south.In 1860.  Plus, it wasn't the north that seceded. 

huskerbb wrote:

---

burns07 wrote:

---

You haven't even posited another reason.
__________________________________

sorry, am not inclined to argue with a fool, especially an ignorant one

---

 Younare the ignorant one.  EVERY historian on the subject agrees with me.

---

 You keep saying that like if you say it enough it will be true.  That's not how it works.

Perhaps the best place to look for the causes of the secession--is in the individual states declaration of secession themselves.

This one is from Mississippi. These are the ACTUAL words put together by those who made the decision in those states to secede.  Note the words in bold:


A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

All other seceding states have similar language in the first paragraphs of their Declarations of secession. 

Therefore, those seceding states DIRECTLY STATE that the reason for their secession revolves around the institution of slavery. 

burns07 wrote:

---

yet the Southern leaders ( Lee included as well as Lincoln himself ) ALL state in various documents ( personal and private ) that the war was NEVER about slavery--it was, instead, about the federal government's interference in COMMERCE both domestic and international and the TAKING OF PROPERTY ( land, minerals, crops and exports, not just slaves ) without redress or compensation--it was the overreaching ambitions of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that finally moved the South to secession--a fact confirmed to me by many of my ancestor's personal communications within our family ( both here in Texas and in Virginia--where my ancestors arrived in the 17th century ) as well as many of those in the public domain

---

Yet those same leaders, in their very declarations of the official reasons why they were seceding--prominently featured slavery.  

burns07 wrote:

---

you can't seem to understand that all that nonsense was crafted by POLITICIANS--writing to validate their own eminence, assure their place in history or advance their own agenda as it were ( not unlike politicians of today ) and WAS NOT crafted by the ordinary citizens of the era--remember, the majority of ordinary southerners did not own slaves or necessarily approve of the practice ( it had already been around in the Americas for over two centuries by then )

---

It wasn't ordinary citizens who made the decision to secede.  It was their leaders.  They may have been following the will of the people--but then the reasons they then gave were the reasons of the people.   

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

The civil war was not started in an office.

It started on a farm.

---

No, it began with the secession--and it definitely began in an office where Lincoln decided not to let the secession stand.   

huskerbb wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

The civil war was not started in an office.

It started on a farm.

---

No, it began with the secession--and it definitely began in an office where Lincoln decided not to let the secession stand.   

---

 No. Wrong again.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

The civil war was not started in an office.

It started on a farm.

---

No, it began with the secession--and it definitely began in an office where Lincoln decided not to let the secession stand.   

---

 No. Wrong again.

 

---

It's laughable that you refuse to believe the very declarations of secession made by each state at the time.  They are recorded historical documents.  They are fact.   

flan327 wrote:

---

I like cheese.

flan

---