On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841

In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841

I read these unconvincing arguments by a neurophysiologist
and an economist. I prefer historians. One example:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-
civilwar_04-12/
But I can't tell you where to get your information.
I never bought into other reasons for the war, because they
go against facts.

On 4/19/2016 7:35 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841

I read these unconvincing arguments by a neurophysiologist
and an economist. I prefer historians. One example:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-
civilwar_04-12/
But I can't tell you where to get your information.
I never bought into other reasons for the war, because they
go against facts.


No, they go against what you read in Social Studies class in the sixth
grade.

"Slavery" became the talking point issue but there were many more
pressing reasons that 11 states elected to secede from the Union. The
war was fought to prevent them from seceding. In those days state
citizenship was much more important than being a citizen of the nation.
The 11 southern states felt the federal government was becoming too
intrusive and wanted no part of it. Abolitionism, led by the newly
founded Republican Party was only one of many bitches. Lincoln himself
was far from being a true abolitionist even though he led the Republican
movement.


He

https://www.learningthings.com/images/product/large/JWS0764552449.jpg

In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 7:35 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841

I read these unconvincing arguments by a neurophysiologist
and an economist. I prefer historians. One example:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-
civilwar_04-12/
But I can't tell you where to get your information.
I never bought into other reasons for the war, because they
go against facts.


No, they go against what you read in Social Studies class in the sixth
grade.


That's very doubtful. Since I had sixth grade in the
'50's, they were still spouting your rubbish "ideas."

"Slavery" became the talking point issue but there were many more
pressing reasons that 11 states elected to secede from the Union. The
war was fought to prevent them from seceding. In those days state
citizenship was much more important than being a citizen of the nation.
The 11 southern states felt the federal government was becoming too
intrusive and wanted no part of it. Abolitionism, led by the newly
founded Republican Party was only one of many bitches. Lincoln himself
was far from being a true abolitionist even though he led the Republican
movement.


Don't be obtuse. The legislatures of the seceding states clearly
said their reason for seceding was to "defend slavery."
Go read them, and cast off your ignorance.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

On 4/19/2016 8:24 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 7:35 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841

I read these unconvincing arguments by a neurophysiologist
and an economist. I prefer historians. One example:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-
civilwar_04-12/
But I can't tell you where to get your information.
I never bought into other reasons for the war, because they
go against facts.


No, they go against what you read in Social Studies class in the sixth
grade.


That's very doubtful. Since I had sixth grade in the
'50's, they were still spouting your rubbish "ideas."

"Slavery" became the talking point issue but there were many more
pressing reasons that 11 states elected to secede from the Union. The
war was fought to prevent them from seceding. In those days state
citizenship was much more important than being a citizen of the nation.
The 11 southern states felt the federal government was becoming too
intrusive and wanted no part of it. Abolitionism, led by the newly
founded Republican Party was only one of many bitches. Lincoln himself
was far from being a true abolitionist even though he led the Republican
movement.


Don't be obtuse. The legislatures of the seceding states clearly
said their reason for seceding was to "defend slavery."
Go read them, and cast off your ignorance.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html


Today they would be called "talking points". It was a very good excuse
to justify seceding from the Union. You seem to like to ignore any
evidence, including what leaders like Lincoln actually *said*.

On 4/19/16 12:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 8:24 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 7:35 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the
Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html


http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841


I read these unconvincing arguments by a neurophysiologist
and an economist. I prefer historians. One example:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-
civilwar_04-12/
But I can't tell you where to get your information.
I never bought into other reasons for the war, because they
go against facts.


No, they go against what you read in Social Studies class in the sixth
grade.


That's very doubtful. Since I had sixth grade in the
'50's, they were still spouting your rubbish "ideas."

"Slavery" became the talking point issue but there were many more
pressing reasons that 11 states elected to secede from the Union. The
war was fought to prevent them from seceding. In those days state
citizenship was much more important than being a citizen of the nation.
The 11 southern states felt the federal government was becoming too
intrusive and wanted no part of it. Abolitionism, led by the newly
founded Republican Party was only one of many bitches. Lincoln himself
was far from being a true abolitionist even though he led the Republican
movement.


Don't be obtuse. The legislatures of the seceding states clearly
said their reason for seceding was to "defend slavery."
Go read them, and cast off your ignorance.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html



Today they would be called "talking points". It was a very good excuse
to justify seceding from the Union. You seem to like to ignore any
evidence, including what leaders like Lincoln actually *said*.



The "declaration of causes" is pretty good evidence.
Like everyone else, Lincoln said lots of things.

On 4/19/16 6:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html


http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841




Slavery and the many issues attached to it, including economics, were
the cause and rationale for the Civil War. History revisionists and
apologists don't like to acknowledge the fact that at times in its
history, the United States was no better than many other countries in
its treatment of people of color. It's the same sort of argument you get
from Christian apologists who claim the horrors committed in the name of
that religion were somehow less horrible than the horrors committed in
the name of other religions.

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

On 4/19/2016 7:48 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/19/16 6:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html



http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841





Slavery and the many issues attached to it, including economics, were
the cause and rationale for the Civil War. History revisionists and
apologists don't like to acknowledge the fact that at times in its
history, the United States was no better than many other countries in
its treatment of people of color. It's the same sort of argument you get
from Christian apologists who claim the horrors committed in the name of
that religion were somehow less horrible than the horrors committed in
the name of other religions.

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

We will never know. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't end
slavery. He made exceptions. He even publicly stated that blacks
should not have the full citizenship rights of whites.

There were many reasons for the Civil War. Abolishing slavery is a
simple and convenient explanation but it isn't the full story. It was
really seeded in state's rights as interpreted by the south and the
feeling that the federal government was becoming too intrusive.

On 4/19/16 8:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 7:48 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/19/16 6:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil
War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html




http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841






Slavery and the many issues attached to it, including economics, were
the cause and rationale for the Civil War. History revisionists and
apologists don't like to acknowledge the fact that at times in its
history, the United States was no better than many other countries in
its treatment of people of color. It's the same sort of argument you get
from Christian apologists who claim the horrors committed in the name of
that religion were somehow less horrible than the horrors committed in
the name of other religions.

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

We will never know. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't end
slavery. He made exceptions. He even publicly stated that blacks
should not have the full citizenship rights of whites.

There were many reasons for the Civil War. Abolishing slavery is a
simple and convenient explanation but it isn't the full story. It was
really seeded in state's rights as interpreted by the south and the
feeling that the federal government was becoming too intrusive.





There have been many books written and discussions held about the causes
of the Civil War.

Some years ago, PBS had such a discussion that produced the following
comments. From the PBS site:

Drew Gilpin Faust: (President, Harvard University): "Historians are
pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery."

Walter Edgar (Professor of History, University of South Carolina): "the
169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, in their
declaration of causes, that it was ... [to] protect slavery and their
other domestic institutions ... and the men of 1860 and 1861 in other
Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing [also]"

Edna Medford (Professor of History, Howard University: "there was that
.... Southern perspective about the war: 'We may have lost the war, but
.... it was such a noble cause for which we fight' ... now, to take that
position, you're sort of on the fringes of historiography."

Slavery was the major cause of the Civil War. And as Gary Stein put it,
the "States' Rights" that people talk about as an alternative cause were
first and foremost about allowing states to perpetuate the institution
of slavery.

On 4/19/16 8:14 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/19/16 8:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 7:48 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/19/16 6:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil
War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html





http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841







Slavery and the many issues attached to it, including economics, were
the cause and rationale for the Civil War. History revisionists and
apologists don't like to acknowledge the fact that at times in its
history, the United States was no better than many other countries in
its treatment of people of color. It's the same sort of argument you get
from Christian apologists who claim the horrors committed in the name of
that religion were somehow less horrible than the horrors committed in
the name of other religions.

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

We will never know. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't end
slavery. He made exceptions. He even publicly stated that blacks
should not have the full citizenship rights of whites.

There were many reasons for the Civil War. Abolishing slavery is a
simple and convenient explanation but it isn't the full story. It was
really seeded in state's rights as interpreted by the south and the
feeling that the federal government was becoming too intrusive.





There have been many books written and discussions held about the causes
of the Civil War.

Some years ago, PBS had such a discussion that produced the following
comments. From the PBS site:

Drew Gilpin Faust: (President, Harvard University): "Historians are
pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery."

Walter Edgar (Professor of History, University of South Carolina): "the
169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, in their
declaration of causes, that it was ... [to] protect slavery and their
other domestic institutions ... and the men of 1860 and 1861 in other
Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing [also]"

Edna Medford (Professor of History, Howard University: "there was that
... Southern perspective about the war: 'We may have lost the war, but
... it was such a noble cause for which we fight' ... now, to take that
position, you're sort of on the fringes of historiography."

Slavery was the major cause of the Civil War. And as Gary Stein put it,
the "States' Rights" that people talk about as an alternative cause were
first and foremost about allowing states to perpetuate the institution
of slavery.


Forgot to include the Declaration of Causes from the South...and there's
no doubt after reading it that slavery was the cause of the Civil War:

http://www.civilwar.org/education/hi...nofcauses.html