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 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:06:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.

The Emancipation Proclamation ONLY applied to the confederate states.
There were still slaves in Southern Maryland, until the Maryland
legislature freed them.
Since there was not really a war there, you see the same kind of
integration I was referring to. Until the white flight of the 60s, the
counties in southern maryland had plenty of black owned farms, right
next to white owned farms and they people got along just fine. It
wasn't until the "white flight" people from DC moved there that they
had problems.




There are quite a few black owned farms still being worked in Southern
Maryland, and in my years here I have encountered a handful of these
farmers and was delighted to hear them relate some of their family
history. I usually meet a few I haven't met before at the county
agricultural fair every fall. I've met others at the several nice
roadside produce stands they operate in the summer and fall.

We have a number of roads in the county named after prominent black
farming families.

You haven't lived in the DC area in how many years?

On 4/19/16 12:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:14:42 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


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.

You don't think "Howard University" might have a little bit of a
slant?
What does Cornell West say? ;-)


I don't know, as I don't pay much attention to Professor West.

I understand you skipped college and are down on institutions of higher
education.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:52:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



At a certain point you have to define slavery.


Oh, please...what the hell is the matter with you?

So are we done hearing about how horrible working conditions were
before the labor unions?

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 Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:10:48 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/19/16 12:00 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:48:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

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

I agree but that was really an economic question for the plantation
owners and if the civilized world customers simply refused to buy
"slave" cotton, they would have an incentive to free the slaves and
hire them back for a salary that would cost them a similar amount
since they would be relieved of the obligation of room and board.
How much do you figure the income was for a freed slave in 1870
Mississippi? Was it much better 50 years later? What were you
protesting 100 years after they "won" their freedom in the war?


Perhaps you don't fully understand the horrors of slavery perpetrated
against the blacks.

As for what "civilized world" customers might have done, well, they
didn't do it.

As I have stated previously, I would have preferred far more draconian
treatment of the former slave owners after the south surrendered.

How much more draconian could it have been. Their homes were burned,
property taken away from them, sons killed in the war and women raped
by union soldiers. They were left with scorched earth and a total
destruction of their economy and an occupying force that prevented
things from getting much better for over a decade.

On 4/19/16 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:52:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



At a certain point you have to define slavery.


Oh, please...what the hell is the matter with you?

So are we done hearing about how horrible working conditions were
before the labor unions?


I suspect you are really unfamiliar with the horrors of the sort of
slavery that was practiced in the south.

11:26 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
I suspect you are really unfamiliar with the horrors of the sort of
slavery that was practiced in the south.
........

Harry, were you there? If not then youre no more familiar than anyone else for that matter.

On 4/19/16 12:54 PM, Tim wrote:
11:26 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
I suspect you are really unfamiliar with the horrors of the sort of
slavery that was practiced in the south.
.......

Harry, were you there? If not then youre no more familiar than anyone else for that matter.



I've read a lot about it. That makes me more familiar with it than those
who haven't read as much or have read little or have read nothing at all.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:17:30 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/19/16 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:06:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


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.

The Emancipation Proclamation ONLY applied to the confederate states.
There were still slaves in Southern Maryland, until the Maryland
legislature freed them.
Since there was not really a war there, you see the same kind of
integration I was referring to. Until the white flight of the 60s, the
counties in southern maryland had plenty of black owned farms, right
next to white owned farms and they people got along just fine. It
wasn't until the "white flight" people from DC moved there that they
had problems.




There are quite a few black owned farms still being worked in Southern
Maryland, and in my years here I have encountered a handful of these
farmers and was delighted to hear them relate some of their family
history. I usually meet a few I haven't met before at the county
agricultural fair every fall. I've met others at the several nice
roadside produce stands they operate in the summer and fall.

We have a number of roads in the county named after prominent black
farming families.

Pretty much confirming what I said.

You haven't lived in the DC area in how many years?

33 but I still have plenty of family there. (PG, Charles and St Marys
county)