^ that's nothing. Mississippi, ol Dixieland itself, makes it even more clear in the very second sentence: n. The most obvious thing though is that they didn't refer to themselves in the Declarations of Secession as "The South" or "The Southern States" or "The Confederacy" or "ESS EEE CEEE" - rather, they referred themselves as: "The Slaveholding States" Self-identification FTW. Love them some good ol' slaveholding.
Yes, we have posts from the age of slavery and states that seceded from the union stating the cause was in fact slavery. yet we also have some people on here who will still argue that wasn't really the cause. It's pretty amazing how some folks refuse to acknowledge facts and then want to call others unintelligent.
Who is suggesting that the Southern states did not secede largely due to slavery? The more intelligent posters point out it was a very complicated time period politically and to make it a black and white issues is not entirely accurate. You're using cause and effect to bridge over to something that isn't entirely accurate. The war was fought over bringing the South back into the North. You're free to say that if slavery wasn't the issue, then the war would have never happened. But the facts remain, the North has no intention on freeing the slaves at the beginning of the war. If the South had freed the slaves 50 years earlier and still seceded simply because they hated Yankees, the north would have still attacked. The Civil War was fought because the North could not afford to lose the southern plantations and risk the South allying with foreign powers such as Mexico.
There is some truth to this but on the flip side what the dominant / occupying power does tends to sway opinion quite a bit. In 1916 most of the Irish were against independence and it was considered a fringe view point. The Easter Uprising in Dublin and more importantly the summary execution of 16 participants in that uprising changed Irish opinion. Somewhat similarly in Syria while most Syrians were against overthrowing Assad his brutal crackdown of democracy protests soured that opinion.
I'm not claiming anything at all about the North. That isn't even relevant. We had posters here claiming the main issue why Southern States seceded wasn't slavery, and that it was really state's rights. This was is claim, and it is proven false by the Southern States own records. Of course if the South seceded for any reason the North would have fought to keep the union. That wasn't the claim of posters like houactuar that I was saying wasn't accurate. We can talk about how awful the North handled reconstruction, and the disgraceful behavior of Sherman and others in the Union during the war. I'll agree with all of that. But to pretend like slavery wasn't the main issue that cased the South to secede isn't accurate according to the South at the time of the civil war.
SamFisher is a fine upstanding gentleman whose knowledge and wit are seldom surpassed. I'm honored by your comment. Thank you! Spoiler
Think about the guys who own the shopping centers or run the school boards in a small town, now imagine those assholes confirming federal judge-ships, authorizing defense spending and voting on treaties. The more local a government the more stringently economic opportunities and social roles are enforced and assigned through favoritism, ostracism and intimidation, with less and less scrutiny from educated, informed and independent press and legal advocates.
On the other hand though more local control means the political leaders are more responsive to local concerns while locals might be more involved in the government. Consider in a system where power is mostly centralized in a remote capital people have less impetus to get involved with the government and feel more alienated from it.
The circular logic cluster **** express is picking up passengers here like Mumbai rush hour commuter trains, except that it stinks far worse. Honestly this reminds me a bit of Sarah Palin in that there's a an individual of modest attainment that deems themself to be intelligent on some level and then wanders around vomiting word soup and being completely dumbfounded as to why everyone else can't figure out exactly what she means The north attacked the south because they were afraid of being invaded by Mexico rather than slavery - i would explain the wrongness but I'd have to don an Adrian Peterson jersey and **** that guy already. #keepposting
Spoiler <iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/txfqWzGMgmY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Intelligent and exceptional 'mercan. It's almost like a sassy empowered blonde doing the girl power thang
Yes Sam. Please quote me where I stated Mexico was going to invade the north? Reading comprehension fail or just a troll? Perhaps a little of both. Your simple mind, like many Americans, believe that nothing outside of America is important. You are really stuck into believing that the Americans in the 1800's were too incompetent into understanding global affairs and that the fine puritan Americans of the North just had to root out the evil racist plantation owners and forever end slavery once and for all. Its just a shame those southerners hated Africans so much that they imported them just to oppress them. Feel free to read up what was going on with Mexico in the mid 1800's. The Mexicans just ended their civil war in the 1850's. The day after South Carolina broke from the Union, France invaded Mexico and sequentially held it until 1865 with the help of Mexican conservatives. 1865 is no coincidence. Immediately after the Civil War ended, Lincoln lifted an arms ban that he had set during the war that would help the Mexican Liberals drive out the French. If the South won, the French would still be in Mexico. The South would have been in complete disarraying, fighting with each other, leaving France to interfere or out right occupying much of the South. The rest of the world preferred the Union preserved for economical reasons. The South never had a chance to win and it was amazing they held on for four years. The war was fought to preserve the Union. Lincoln didn't give 2 ****s about slavery.
Lincoln understood that moving to end slavery would have provoked war and of course the priority was to preserve the Union. However, the Republican Party was specifically formed to assume the abolitionist stance that Whigs couldn't agree on and Northern Democrats like Buchanan wouldn't adopt. To insinuate that Lincoln didn't care about slavery, to imply that Southerners didn't secede then attack Sumter to defend both slavery and their just as loudly vocalized suspicions of white Northerners' belief in racial equality is crap. Everyone believed blacks were inferior, but only Southerners were willing to kill for it, before and after the damn war. Wealthy Southerners needed slavery because they lagged in industrializing, white non-planters feared abolition because they didn't want to compete with blacks for paid labor.
It surprised me a lot, too. I assumed that at the moment of casting their votes, independence would prove to be irresistible. It's seems so seductive to me. Devolving control to a more immediate level. Scotland as its own nation again, not an important region of a nation. Clearly, a majority of Scots wanted what amounts to an improved version of the status quo and I'm pleased. It would have been really messy, and weakened NATO, in my opinion, which NATO really doesn't need. Still, yeah, I'm surprised that they didn't go for it. Are we re-fighting the Civil War in the midst of Scottish turbulence? Duck and cover!
It would've recked their economy in the long run and had a chance of destabilizing Europe's too. I'm glad sounder minds prevailed in spite of idiot politicians false promises that a simple peg to the pound would make their economy flexible enough to withstand national pressures coming from one.
