I think I have an interesting question for you US bods...

[JudgeDredd]

Thx for the replies.
 
KG, That book is about £15 shipped. I may well get it. My wifes a bit like "Why do you buy books when you canget them from the library" and generally I agree (I hope my wife's view doesn't conflict with ravinhoods, otherwise she could end up on his ever growing list of ignored people), but when it comes to Histroical Reference books, I like to have my own copy.
 
Thx to all else for the replies. Mostly, it seems that the underlying issue was more than slavery, but it seems that oppression, peoples rights, slavery, political power...the souths resentment to the norths over zealous "sticking in of the preverbial nose"...seems it wasn't simply a case of slavery.
 
I had received this idea from an American I used to work with. When I said to him about the Civil War being about the abolition of Slavery, I think he wanted to hit me. It seems not being educated in the civil war has narrowed my view of it's causes.
 
So, now that it's over, what do people think about the US now? Does it seem that the Civial War was a "necessity" to get the US to where it is now? Are there still issues? Resentment? Is it a case that the North and South have benefited mutualy from the outcome? What if the outcome had been different? What if the South won it's right to independence?
 
I know these questions lead to speculation, but I'd be interested to know all your views.
 
I'd like to thank you all for not getting into the "he did it...no he did it" argument. I know it's still a touchy subject and can flare up...As I said, I'm playing a ACW game at the moment and wanted some background to the war.
 
It's been very focused and informative.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

What if the South won it's right to independence?

I know these questions lead to speculation, but I'd be interested to know all your views.

It would still be legal for Southern municipalities to have nativity scenes [:D]

[jkBluesman]

Another issue was the question wheather slavery should be allowed in territories that would become new states, see "Bloody Kansas". If slavery could not be expanded, then the slave states would lose political power they needed to keep the institution.
I believe that there was not only one reason but different ones. And by the way it is another matter what the people fought for. Custer fighting for the Union does not mean that keeping the Union was the main issue. Lincoln used it because it was the label under which he tried to unite the North for the war effort.

[jkBluesman]

It is very likely that there would have been another war or at least diplomatic attempts to re-unite both countries. After all the economic relations would have remained strong although Britain would have gained a huge profit and probably enlarged her influence in North America.

[Twotribes]

The war was fought because of economics and the view by the south that the North was taking away their life style. ( note this view would be that of the rich powerful whites in the south).

However the specific "economic" problem was the fear that slavery would be outlawed eventually. Read the articles of succession by the different States most of them specifically state their grievance was the preceived threat to slavery.

The war was fought over States rights, but the specific RIGHT in jeopardy was Slavery.

The argument the war was not about slavery is a red herring, an attempt to pretty up the brave out numbered principled Southerners fighting against the tyranical Northern impersonal bad guys. Makes a much better read then admitting the southern cause was to ensure slaves were around to run the Southern economy.

The rich slave holders manipulated the rest of the southern population by couching the argument as a States rights issue. And it continues today. Yes it WAS about States rights.... but the specific right was slavery.

[Rooster]

Hi - Have not read What This Cruel War Was Over, but listend to the podcast (link below) of the author giving a talk.  The book is a rather scholarly look at thousands of letters of the soldiers and why they believe they fought.  If, like me, you don't have time to read a lot but you have a long commute, these podcasts are really really good.
 
http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/events/2007-10-20-CivilWarSaturday.jsp

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

I do not think that anybody is infallible but according to the Constitution the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law in the US. So either you believe in the Constitution or you do not. It seems you agree with it when it is convenient and abandon it when it says something you do not like.

According to the constitution, they are the arbiter in certain cases, not in others. They assumed power in those 'other cases' with the madison vs marbury decision.

I believe in the constitution and not necessarily in a robed man's opinion of the constitution.

Again I come to the decision of some guy one a message board|The United States Constitution and the Supreme Court. I go with the Constitution. [:)]

I also go with the constitution which is why I don't always side with the supreme court.

I guess you're the type that would have agreed with the dredd scott decision of the supreme court given your argument above. The decision ruled that all blacks, slaves or free, could never become citizens of the US. I think the decision was wrong and was not constitutional. Oh well, given your line above: guy on message board|Supreme court and the constitution, I guess you would have just sided with the supreme court and the constitution. [X(]



In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

As I have stated I do not always agree with every decision the court makes. A notable recent decision would be the recent eminent domain decision. But I am mature enough to understand that I may not like all of the decisions of everyone. This includes my closest friends. I do not stop being friends with people I disagree with. I do not label them evil. With the Government I do not hate it because I do not agree with everything they do or how they do it. It is still the best government out there and if people do not like they are certainly welcome to leave. But they do not.

Now for the Dred Scott decision. I feel it was the correct decision at the time. The Supreme Court decided the case based on what the Constitution stated. Then it was up to Congress to change the law. The 13th and 14th Amendments did not overturn the courts decision but changed the Constitution itself. That is the way it should work according to the Constitution. [:)]

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

The North had their own slaves - they were called "Irish immigrants".  And unlike slaves, they weren't required to be fed, clothed, or housed.  The Civil War was not as simple as 'freeing the slaves".  Slavery was already on it's way out.

Your sig suits you well.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
As I have stated I do not always agree with every decision the court makes. A notable recent decision would be the recent eminent domain decision. But I am mature enough to understand that I may not like all of the decisions of everyone. This includes my closest friends. I do not stop being friends with people I disagree with. I do not label them evil. With the Government I do not hate it because I do not agree with everything they do or how they do it. It is still the best government out there and if people do not like they are certainly welcome to leave. But they do not.

Ah yes, the tired love it or leave it refrain... [8|]

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." -- Thomas Paine

You mean you don't always agree with every decision the supreme court makes? Oh my... so suddenly, you, the guy on a message board and the supreme court are at odds. I guess you'll need to side with the supreme court in those areas you disagree with, because hey, using your earlier logic, 'guy on message board|supreme court - constitution' you'll go with the supreme court - constitution.

Now for the Dred Scott decision. I feel it was the correct decision at the time. The Supreme Court decided the case based on what the Constitution stated.

Care to show me where the constitution stated black people could not ever be citizens? [&:]

Then it was up to Congress to change the law. The 13th and 14th Amendments did not overturn the courts decision but changed the Constitution itself. That is the way it should work according to the Constitution. [:)]

No, it wasn't the way it should work according to the constition, it worked according to the way taney wanted it to work.

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
As I have stated I do not always agree with every decision the court makes. A notable recent decision would be the recent eminent domain decision. But I am mature enough to understand that I may not like all of the decisions of everyone. This includes my closest friends. I do not stop being friends with people I disagree with. I do not label them evil. With the Government I do not hate it because I do not agree with everything they do or how they do it. It is still the best government out there and if people do not like they are certainly welcome to leave. But they do not.

Ah yes, the tired love it or leave it refrain... [8|]

You mean you don't always agree with every decision the supreme court makes? Oh my... so suddenly, you, the guy on a message board and the supreme court are at odds. I guess you'll need to side with the supreme court in those areas you disagree with, because hey, using your earlier logic, 'guy on message board|supreme court - constitution' you'll go with the supreme court - constitution.

Now for the Dred Scott decision. I feel it was the correct decision at the time. The Supreme Court decided the case based on what the Constitution stated.

Care to show me where the constitution stated black people could not ever be citizens? [&:]

Then it was up to Congress to change the law. The 13th and 14th Amendments did not overturn the courts decision but changed the Constitution itself. That is the way it should work according to the Constitution. [:)]

No, it wasn't the way it should work according to the constition, it worked according to the way taney wanted it to work.

The case law is there and available. I certainly cannot explain it better than the Supreme Court. I could post information on this but you will ignore it anyway. I do not have time to deal with bitter, angry people. There are a lot around that have a good and mature head on their shoulders to deal with and they are usually more fun than some whiney failure anyway.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

The case law is there and available. I certainly cannot explain it better than the Supreme Court. I could post information on this but you will ignore it anyway. I do not have time to deal with bitter, angry people. There are a lot around that have a good and mature head on their shoulders to deal with and they are usually more fun than some whiney failure anyway.

Agreed with dealing with more mature folks than those who think the dredd scott case was appropritely decided due to the constitution of the time. The case law surrounding the decision has been widely criticized as well as taney and rightly so.

Maybe next time you try to have a discussion with others, you can do so without resorting to strawmen and childish remarks throughout.

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

The case law is there and available. I certainly cannot explain it better than the Supreme Court. I could post information on this but you will ignore it anyway. I do not have time to deal with bitter, angry people. There are a lot around that have a good and mature head on their shoulders to deal with and they are usually more fun than some whiney failure anyway.

Agreed with dealing with more mature folks than those who think the dredd scott case was appropritely decided due to the constitution of the time. The case law surrounding the decision has been widely criticized as well as taney and rightly so.

Maybe next time you try to have a discussion with others, you can do so without resorting to strawmen and childish remarks throughout.

I found those to be your tactics. But I believe to expect more from you may be unfair. You made several clear statements that you later tried to twist.

Have a good life. Maybe it will get better for you when you learn how to play with others and you will not blame everyone else for your failures.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
I found those to be your tactics. But I believe to expect more from you may be unfair. You made several clear statements that you later tried to twist.

Have a good life. Maybe it will get better for you when you learn how to play with others and you will not blame everyone else for your failures.

You were caught twice with your strawmen arguments (that I recall offhand) in which you had to admit your wrong doing.

It's a shame that instead of having a discussion, you instead had to resort to strawmen and childish antics such as 'love it or leave it' and other such non-sense.

Oh well, given your childish responses to others as well as to myself, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

[ORANGE]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
I found those to be your tactics. But I believe to expect more from you may be unfair. You made several clear statements that you later tried to twist.

Have a good life. Maybe it will get better for you when you learn how to play with others and you will not blame everyone else for your failures.

You were caught twice with your strawmen arguments (that I recall offhand) in which you had to admit your wrong doing.

It's a shame that instead of having a discussion, you instead had to resort to strawmen and childish antics such as 'love it or leave it' and other such non-sense.

Oh well, given your childish responses to others as well as to myself, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

I was not caught twice. I thought you said a few southern states and you did not. You said a few states. You have still only posted a couple of states and not a a few. Then you stated the below:

Nah... I hate the government (for among other reasons) because it has the monopoly on force. Disagree with the credit card company's final decision on an issue involving you and you can go to court over the issue to seek a remedy. Disagree with the government's final decision on an issue involving you and you will go to jail, then you can try to remedy the issue in court.

Which I pointed out was not true. You may go to jail but it is not a 1005 certainty that you try to portray. [:-]

[JWW]

I've never seen a discussion of the causes of the Civil War that ended well.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

I was not caught twice.

Sure you were. Southern states comment and then said I feared the government which I don't. You misrepresented my position on my views towards the government and then proceeded to make an argument against that false charge of fear. I said I hated the government, not feared it. Thus the second strawman.

You have still only posted a couple of states and not a a few.

Yep, because I also said that I was interested in a conversation, not a debate and that if you wanted to look it up, you're more than welcome to enjoy the learning experience.

Which I pointed out was not true. You may go to jail but it is not a 1005 certainty that you try to portray. [:-]

And that's why I pointed out that you were wrong and that when the final verdict comes in, if you do not abide by the final verdict, a warrant for your arrest will be issued. This of course does not happen with a credit card company when they make a final verdict on a dispute with you unlike the government.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: JW

I've never seen a discussion of the causes of the Civil War that ended well.

True... I think I will bow out with orange now. [;)]

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: JW

I've never seen a discussion of the causes of the Civil War that ended well.

That's generally because it will end with one blaming another or perceiving his/her view to be more practical/importnat than his/her opponents.

However, I hoped, being an outsider to the US and my very personal and sincere request for it to steer away from the "you did it...no you did it" arguments that it might get somewhere. It seems for the most part sensible discussion which I hoped for...I wanted to hear both sides, not judge them.

And, to be fair to all here, I think Reiryc and Orange are carrying over some fight from another thread.

The rest is very informative and helpful.

[junk2drive]

Thanks to those who posted informative observations and opinions. Twas enlightening.

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: jnier

It's quite true that that the civil war was not as simple as freeing the slaves. But your other two statements are absurd. Slavery was not "on its way out." Its true that mechanization would eventually make slavery obselete,

Read what you wrote. Slavery was on it's way out, with or without a Civil War. Women's sufferage and child labor laws were also enacted without resorting to war, even though both concepts were not popular in the North.

but this would not have happened for decades. And to equate the situation of slaves with Irish immigrants - who granted, worked under truly deplorable conditions - is ridiculous.

It cost several thousand dollars to buy a slave. Irish immigrants were cheap and plentifull. If one got killed in coal mines or building railroads, the northern industrialist simply hired another one and he wasn't out any money. The only difference between an indentured servant and a slave is indentured servants had to figure out some way to feed and house themselves while they worked for nothing.