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 4/19/16 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 Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, 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.

What a liar!

You and Krause must get a kick out of putting words into the mouths of others.

Do you feel that enhances your 'argument'?
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, juvenile name-callers, and narcissists...not guns!

On 4/19/16 7:08 AM, Keine Keyserschei�e wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, 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.

What a liar!

You and Krause must get a kick out of putting words into the mouths of others.

Do you feel that enhances your 'argument'?
--


As if you had a clue...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:10:42 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/18/16 10:56 AM, wrote:

Nobody is trying to rewrite history, I am only pointing out that the
civil war was a huge mistake, much like Vietnam and Iraq.
You say it was worth it to stop slavery but the fact is, we lived with
slavery for over 200 years and if we could have had a less destructive
solution, it would have been worth a few more years of transition.
Slavery was going to fall from it's own weight, war or not.
All the war did was create a national divide that has not really
healed and it certainly did not assure the integration of the former
slaves into society. It only made it harder.


Fine. I don't think the civil war was a mistake. I agree that Vietnam
and Iraq II were mistakes. The reasons for the civil war far outweigh
any rationales for Vietnam or Iraq II.


The real reason for the civil war was to preserve the union and
prevent 13 states from leaving. You say we should have let them go at
every opportunity here and act like you would let them go if they
wanted to today.

Your statements are contradictory

On 4/18/16 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:10:42 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/18/16 10:56 AM, wrote:

Nobody is trying to rewrite history, I am only pointing out that the
civil war was a huge mistake, much like Vietnam and Iraq.
You say it was worth it to stop slavery but the fact is, we lived with
slavery for over 200 years and if we could have had a less destructive
solution, it would have been worth a few more years of transition.
Slavery was going to fall from it's own weight, war or not.
All the war did was create a national divide that has not really
healed and it certainly did not assure the integration of the former
slaves into society. It only made it harder.


Fine. I don't think the civil war was a mistake. I agree that Vietnam
and Iraq II were mistakes. The reasons for the civil war far outweigh
any rationales for Vietnam or Iraq II.


The real reason for the civil war was to preserve the union and
prevent 13 states from leaving. You say we should have let them go at
every opportunity here and act like you would let them go if they
wanted to today.

Your statements are contradictory


I'm not sure how I would have felt about the confederate states back
then. Today, I wouldn't mind Texas falling back into Mexico's hands, and
the Carolinas, Mississippi, and Alabama forming The Nation of Hate. I do
have a soft spot in my heart for Louisiana, Hilton Head Island, and SE
Florida.