The Decemberists

The South may have had the legal right to own slaves, but not the moral right. Hence my use of quotaton marks when talking about rights. I'm sure you agree with this. Yeah, morally of course it's wrong. But it was their legal right to do it, so I personally wouldn't use quotation marks. But anyway. I would point you towards Dr. Thomas E Woods book 'American History', written and published in 2004. He's from the North, a New Yorker I think, and he supports all I've been saying. So you cannot just disregard all history written which doesn't lay the fault entirely at the South. And some slaves were, if not happy, relativly content with their lives. There are documented slave accounts where the ex-slave speaks highly of their former owners and were treated fairly. Of course not all were happy, quite the opposite i'd imagine. To presume all slave owners were evil and automaticly mistreated their slaves is not fair at all. I didn't mean public education specifically. I was just trying to think of anything that could have been in the power of the State. I probably should have made that clear. Sorry. Yes, the only impact slavery had on the war was the economics of it, but again, that is not enough for a war. Every other country in the world that had slavery got rid of it without a Civil War, but the US couldn't. That alone suggests there was more to it than that. I took it to mean there was a grass roots populist anti-slavery movement, which there wasn't. But yes, those rich enough with enough influence to form a new political party did want to get rid of slavery intially to be able to make more money for themselves in the new lands in the west. I said Lincoln was pro-slavery, because he was. You said that he only said all his pro-slavery statements because it would harm his career if he didn't. Then you said that people said they were pro-slavery to help their careers. And how can you say the Douglas-Lincoln debates show he's anti-slavery??? I've already quoted, at length, from Lincoln's side of the debates which shows he was pro-slavery. If you're just going to ignore the evidence I'm giving you then there's no point arguing this. And yes he was in the "anti-slavery" party, but look back at what I've written before about him voting in favour of making slavery purely a state issue. I've told you all this, and you're ignoring it! And how can you say that outlawing slavery was politically impossible when it was done by President Johnson after the war?

That's wrong to start with... I mean there's the... erm, well, I guess some people might come to see the... ok, hang on... .... Damn.

The quotaton marks denoted my belief that they did not have the right to own slaves, in spite of what the Constitution says. I'm ignoring the bits that would suggest that Lincoln was responsible for the war because they are not true. Lincoln's responsible for the war in one way only: he wouldn't let the South leave. The South chose to leave. The South chose to attack Fort Sumner. What!? "Despite what the Consitution says"!? What the hell are you talking about!? Your and mine own opinions on whether it is right or not for people to have slaves is pointless. OUR opinions are not what this is about. The Constitution says THREE TIMES that it's ok to have slaves! So how the hell do you come up with the idea they weren't allowed to have them!? If Lincoln hadn't sent a ship to Fort Sumter then the South would have had nothing to fire at. If Lincoln hadn't been a hypocrit about people being allowed to remove governments they disagreed with, there wouldn't have been a war. That verson of events has no basis in historical fact. Yes it does. Just because it's not something you've read doesn't mean it had no base to it. That is what happened. Do some research, get some modern books on Lincoln and the war. That is what happened. Lincoln needed an excuse to attack the South, as he was desperate to keep the Union together but couldn't say "It's because they seceded" for his exuse as it they were fully entitiled too. And I'm saying you're wrong. The majority of the people who make a living from researching the past and who have concentrated on the Civil War have came to the conclusion that slavery WAS the key issue in the war. Then why the hell are you not naming or quoting any!? Give me some proof other than "it's what I think"! Yeah, they wanted make sure they continued to have the right to won slaves. Of course they did! I've never said they didn't want to keep their slaves! What I'm saying is, that was just the result of keeping the state power. It was not about slavery itself, there was more to it than that, and you're just refusing to see it. If they're not allowed to have slaves, then the next thing is they're not allowed to decide on education issues at state level, then on medical issues, then on trade issue etc etc. THAT is what the fear was. Not just a bucnch of rich white guys wanting to keep blacks under lock and key. The South wanted slaves because it made them money. The North didn't want slavery because they had no use for it. Certain northern politicians saw slavery as an issue they could use to further their political careers by exploiting the growing anti-slavery sentiment in the North. Slavery, like gay marriage was in 2004, was a wedge issue used to further a political agenda that was exploited by politicians on both sides. What growing anti-slavery movement in the North? And give me some of these politicans that saw slavery as something they could further their career with. But doesn't that contradict what you said about Lincoln always being publicly pro-slavery so not to hinder his career? You cannot have it both ways. The South favored states rights because it was their way of justifying slavery. That has nothing to do with why George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolf, St. George Tucker and John Taylor supported states rights. People can ebleive the same things, but have different reasons for doing so, you know. OK, to start with they did not need to justify slavery. IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION. For your last point, I know that full well. So why won't you agree that maybe the belief in state rights was not just about having slaves. You're whole argument consists of your opinion that all the Southern states wanted state rights just so they could keep slavery, yet now you're talking about how people can believe in things for different reasons. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really think that fits together too well.

As a fellow Protestant, I don't see a reason. But I don't see why the UK has a monarchy, either. -=Mike Did a paper on that my first year of college. Hands down the best non-article I ever wrote. It's about tradition. It serves no purpose to Canadians, but it's just a way of saying thanks and honouring tradition. It would be cold and un necessary to just up and say the hell with it, as then Interim PM John Manley suggested doing in October 2002. It would also show that Canada is its own country and not the property of the UK. Just saying. Just remember, you'll be having King Charles in the near future as your monarch. That's worse than President Jimmy Carter. -=Mike Well, Charles won't be able to actually do anything... But yes, it will be bad

Oasis - Fade In-Out

The Smiths - Unhappy Birthday

REM - Crush With Eyeliner

Morrissey- Margaret on the Guillotine

The Jam - Start!

Firstly, why do you keep putting "right" in speach marks? It was there right to have slaves, it's mentioned three times in the Consitution. What more proof do you want to show it was a right they had? I'm pretty sure I haven't been doing that. What I'm saying it you can't make this as simple as North vs South = Abolisionist vs Slavery because it wasn't that simple. Just as you agree with it, doesn't mean that the leaders of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas agreed with it, which is the point... Lincoln postitioned the south into making them fire pot shots at Sumter, Lincoln did not have to reprovision the fort, he did it just to antagonise the South, and to try and force them to fire so he'd have an excuse to call a rebellion. I'm repeating myself now as you seem to be ignoring the bits that would suggest the North and Lincoln more responsible for the war and not quite as saintly as maybe you would like them to be. This isn't exactly me saying "all my mates think Creed rock so they're great!" is it? All I'm saying is that vast majority of people who make a living from researching the past and who have concentrated on the Civil War have came to the conclusion that slavery was not the key issue in the war. And it's been me who's been backing up my argument with quotes etc, rather then you're argument which seems to be "it was slavery" without any evidence, other than you're own opinion. Like I said, slavery was without doubt a problem, but not the main problem at all, and not the route of all the other problems. The tariffs disagreements were not at all due to slavery, but just opposing economic views. And this played a big role in the war being supported in the Northwest. The Ohio congressman Clement Vallandigham wrote soon after the war that Money and political dominence was a far far greater issue than slavery in the war. The people in the North who had the power and influence to start the Civil War couldn't care less about slavery as an institution, but did care about the Confederates from being more powerfull and richer than the Union. Point taken. Although why people should have problems with a draft I don't know... I mean Lincoln did it and he's almost a God Although, again, slavery was not the issue at the heart of this. The South were scared their way of life would be destroyed, and yes, for a minority of them of course slavery was part of that life, but ultimatly slavery was a minority issue in the decision to secceed. A decision that, of course, was legal for them to do, but that isn't really the point, but is still worth keeping in mind. They wanted free trade and to keep the States rights and power. And of course if it was up to them they would not have got rid of slavery, but that was not the be all and end all of the South's thinking. There were far more important issues, and issues that effected far more people, at stake than slavery. If you think that MONEY was less important than slavery to both the North and South then you have a far higher opinion of the Human race than I have. And of course there was the basic issue of States rights and opposing centralised government, and before you start about States Rights = Slavery. Do some research and it's clear that the five men who were the most vigorous in keeping a constructionist interpretation of the Consitution, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Randolf, St. George Tucker and John Taylor, only one of them could even remotly be described as pro-slavery, John Taylor, and even he, according to Eugene Genovese,

Except for the method by which slaves would be counted under the census, the Constitution is silent on the issue. Oh dear oh dear, an Englishman lecturing on Constitutional history, who'd have thought it... That is three mentions of slavery. The Consitiution is NOT silent on slavery, the Constitution says slavery is a-OK - go for it. And if they run away, we'll make damn sure those niggers get put right back in their proper place. It was a Consitutional right to have slaves - fact. How is that irrelevant? This is an historical debate, and anyone with any knowledge of history and historiography knows that things don't just happen. All events have long and short term causes. If the feelings of Southerners in 1826 is irrelevent to events less than 30 years later, then how the hell are the feelings and beliefs of the founding fathers, and therefore the Constitution relevent to modern life in America!? Or infact, relevent to 1860s life in America. You cannot have it both ways. The fact that there was considerable amount of anti-slavery feelings in the South less than thirty years before the Civil means that you cannot say "Oh yeah, the US Civil War. All cos those bastard Southerners loved having slaves do all the hard work for them" or whatever. Put it this way, does what happened in, say the Music industry in the 1970s have any impact on music today? Oh course it does. Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas left after the Fort Sumter incident. And yes, the first shots fired were by Southerners, but there were no casualities at Fort Sumter. And there was no need to Lincoln to declare a rebellion and call up 75,000 militiamen. That was what casused Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas. And it was Lincoln, in a admittadly pretty damn clever piece of gamesmanship, who forced the shots to be fired by sending a ship to Fort Sumter to reprovision the federal troops there. If South Carolina's secession was to mean anythere Lincoln knew there was no way they could allow a federal mitiary base there, so the shots were fired as an act of resistance against the North building and suppling it's own mitilary in what, as far as South Carolina was concerned, a foreign country. Although if you read the notes about this from the Union military, Fort Sumter did not need any reprovsions for months... the ship was sent purely and simply to antagonise the South, and force them to act. I'm not saying that slavery had nothing to do with it, and if that's how it's appearing I'm sorry for not making it clearer in my previous writing. Of course it did have some impact, as it was a big difference between the North and South. My argument, and the argument of the vast majority of historians who have studied the causes of the Civil War, is that slavery was not the most important issue by far, and certainly not the only one. Yes, secceeded because of fear that there way of life would be destroyed. But that fear was not brought about just because of slavery, or even mainly because of slavery. The fact that the South wanted free trade and North wanted high tariff's was a much much greater issue than slavery. That Lincoln was openly against State rights in favour of greater federal control was a much much greater issue than slavery. Plus you cannot push aside all the problems and arguments and disagreements between North and South in the previous 10, 20, 30, 50 or a 100 years. And as for your assertation that Lincoln was seen as an opponent of slavery, if you can find any quotion of his, or infact any action he took as being evidence of that, then you'll have done better than any journalist or historian in the last 150 years... and obviously, the Emancipation Declaration does not count, as a) it didn't free anyone, and b) it was a war measure, pure and simple to gain support from the Southern slaves and to encourage rebellion from them. And it was there right to have slaves, and it's written right there in that wonderfull Constitution you have over there

I didn't mention the Delaware's, erm, specialness, but yes you're right of course. But it was technically a slave state, and did not leave the Union, so I do think it's relevent to the point, if not as relevent as the other three states.

I think that's a stretch. It's what happened in Brazil, and it's what William Lloyd Garrison thought would happen at the time. A reasonable number of slaves were already escaping, and with the guarantee of not being sent back it should be obviously more would try. And after than it's simple supply and demand economics. It was the constitution right to have slaves if you lived in a slave state. The modern equivalent is a war between pro and anti firearm states. It's stupid. They had a right in the constitution to have slaves. Slavery was used as a way of playing one-up-man-ship. Why the hell were there furious arguments over where slavery should be allowed in New Mexico in the 1840s when no one in his right mind would want to bring slaves there to start a plantation. In 1827 there were four times as many anti-slave societies in the South as there was in the North. Slavery was used to mask the real issue of the stuggle for power in the Union. Of course slavery was an issue, but not even for secession or war. Even Republicans of that time acknowledged that political power was at the root of debates over slavery. The more slave states there are, the more powerfull the South is in Congress, the more free land states the more powerfull the North is. Plus as well as the four slave states that remained with the Union, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas only left after war had started - not in a desperate attempt to keep their slaves, but because the use of force against fellow Americans was, they believed, utterly opposed to traditional American beliefs.

One more thing, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky were all slave states and STAYED IN THE UNION. Which I think is important...

In order for Lincoln to know what worked in Brazil in 1884, he'd have to have precognitive psychic powers. Lincoln's been credited with many things, but that's not one of them. Lincoln's intial goal in fighting the war was not to free the slaves, but that doesn't change that the war was foguht over slavery. The South THOUGHT Lincoln's election endangered their "institution". In the end, ironically, it was their very own seccession that caused the very thing they wanted to prevent. Yes, states' rights was a cause of the war. The states' right to let people own slaves. Yes, tariffs were a cause the war. The reason the South didn't want tarriffs is because slavery made agriculture so profitable that they didn't need slavery to still make money. Grant's fundamentally inability to understand the political causes of an important issue might also explain why he made such a crappy president. Lee fought for the South because he was loyal to his home, right or wrong. I wouldn't require precognitive psychic powers. It would require common sense. If the South leaves and becomes it's own country, then there's no more fugitive slave act. Therefore enough slaves can escape, or at least try and escape to make slavery economicly unworkable. Simple stuff, and for supposedly such a great guy like Lincoln it shouldn't have been too much for him to have worked out. Slavery did become an issue in the war, but no untill it had already been going for eighteen months. Even if the only reason the South left was to keep slavery, that did not mean the North had to go to war. The South's motives to secede are of much lesser importance than the Norths motives to declare war, and slavery was not one of them. From the beginning the Senate declared that slavery was not an issue, passing a resolution on the 26th July 1861 that the war was soley fought Slavery, as you should know, was allowed in the Constitution! The North were fighting for the Constitution, and therefore, it could be argued, for slavery. Congress members pleaded with Lincoln to make the war expressivly about slavery in order to gain foreign support, particularly British and French support, but he refused do to so, as his sole concern was the Consitiution and the Union.

Check out this article from his website Ah... Now he didn't say during his speach. I stand corrected. Warrior's an idiot.

Edited last post to go back to civil war.

World War II was the attempt to stop that happening... it was not Hitler who started the war. I'm sorry.... Did you just say that Hitler didn't start World War II? Yikes. The war started because Hitler invaded Poland after Hitler was told not to. Therefore, Hitler started World War II. Hitler did not declare war on anyone though. Legally the war was started by Britain. And Hitler had no reason to think we'd declare war on him anyway, as we'd already warned him about Austria and Poland and everywhere else he kept threatening. Edit: Fair enough, back to civil war chat. Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves anyway, his only goal was to save the Union, and if he could do that freeing no slaves, some slaves, or all slaves he'd do it. In the end he managed it without ever freeing anyone. If he really wanted to free slaves he would've let the South go, as what happened in Brazil in after the outlawing of slavery in 1884 in the state of Ceara would have almost certainly happened in the South. It make no sense for the South to go to succeed and go to war over slavery. They were not that stupid.

World War II was the attempt to stop that happening... it was not Hitler who started the war. And it was more about German power than an racial purification. Of course in Hitler's thinking was that in order for the German race to thrive non-Aryan races had to be gotten rid off, but again, that wasn't the purpose of the War. It was about German expanding and challenging the traditional power structure of Europe.

I'm with Ripper on this one. Except for the problem that the general in the Civil War who was most supportive of racial equality was Robert E. Lee. -=Mike Actually, that doesn't create a problem at all in what I said, now does it. What creates a problem with what you said was that WWII was not about saving the Jews, it was about stopping German expansion and keeping the status quo. The whole Jew thing was thrown in as an after though, a la slavery

I'm with Ripper on this one. Except for the problem that the general in the Civil War who was most supportive of racial equality was Robert E. Lee. -=Mike And on the Union side there was...

JJ72 - Formulae

Erin McKeown - Cosmopolitans

The Monkees - (I'm Not Your) Stepping Stone

Lou Reed - Goodnight Ladies