Lincoln had to invade because of cotton, so he fabricated a claim that the South had slaves that were ready to launch within 45 minutes... :hmmm:

Garbage, he couldn't fabricate it because you need cotton for fabric.;)

But in seriousness when I read this stuff here then I'm completely astonished how European countries and people can get along as they do just 70 years after the greatest BS this planet has ever seen, while the US still seems to be divided over stuff on a much smaller scale that happened 150 years ago.:hmm2:

There were about a dozen reason for the CW.

For the Union it was about high tariffs (mostly on the South}, big industry and protectionism. The North wanted the South to buy it's products, not lower priced products from Europe and tax Southern products at a higher level.

For the South it was about low taxes, free trade and economics. The south economics were based off agriculture/farming in which slaves played a major role.

The truth is tariffs had decreased in many aspects to low levels by the 1850's and many were seeking to raise them back up. The bigger issue was how the collected tariffs were spent, mostly to support the northern projects. This is what ticked off many a southern politician.

To say it wasn't about slavery, isn't quite correct. It was about ecomomics based on slavery. Certainly some in the North were against slavery, but not to the point it would interfere with economics. As long as the North got the tariffs from slave labor, it would be business as usual.

Lincoln never thought slavery a good idea, "free labor on free soil" doesn't work well in capitialism. Free labor doesn't create a tax base, you can't tax free labor. Lincoln wasn't radical, but he was against slavery on moral grounds as well. Lincoln worked the politcal climate when he could to support his beliefs against slavery. Certainly Lincoln saw blacks as inferior to whites and we see little of this on TV, but he didn't believe in enslaving man, nor did Robert Lee.


Protective Tariffs "Benefits For The North"
"From the time of the first Congress in 1789 to the outbreak of the Civil War there was dissension between the northern and the southern states over the matter of protective tariffs, or import duties on manufactured goods. Northern industries wanted high tariffs in order to protect their factories and laborers from cheaper European products. Demanding that "American laborers shall be protected against the pauper labor of Europe," tariff proponents argued that the taxes gave "employment to thousands of [American] mechanics, artisans, [and] laborers."
The vast majority of American industry was located in the northern states, whereas the economies of the agricultural southern states were based on the export of raw materials and the importation of manufactured goods. The South held few manufacturing concerns, and southerners had to pay higher prices for goods in order to subsidize northern profits.
The collected tariffs were used to fund public projects in the North such as improvements to roads, harbors and rivers. From 1789 to 1845, the North received five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects. More than twice as many lighthouses were built in the North as in the South, and northern states received twice the southern appropriations for coastal defense. The sectional friction caused by the tariffs bills eventually led the country to the nullification controversy of 1832, during which South Carolina declared the tariff laws null and void. John C. Calhoun, the father of nullification, developed the theory of secession and detailed the steps by which a state could sever its relationship with the Union and remove itself from the unfair power of the central government. Federal authority prevailed in the nullification crisis of 1832, but the theories developed by Calhoun would be invoked again when the country split apart in 1861. "

The fact remains the majority of "hicks" that fought in the war didn't own slaves. Many of these poor farmers would suffer from higher tariffs, but few truly understood the issue. They mostly heard radical speeches and would not stand for Northern Armies to invade their states. Like most wars, it was "rich men talking, poor men dying."

We should have the right to honor the history and heritage of those that fought and died.

Our big melting pot over here runneth over......

A Yankee was traveling through South Carolina when a car ran into him, wrecking both cars.
Both got out, neither was hurt.
The SC man looked at the Yankee and said
" I'm glad neither of us were hurt, let's have a toast to celebrate"
The Yankee agrees.
The Reb gets a bottle out of the trunk and says "to our good health"
and gives the bottle to the Yank who takes a few swigs.
The Yankee passes the bottle back to the Reb "aren't you gonna take a drink"
"No" says the Reb, I just called the cops.

That's not what they said.

And yet he didn't free them until he had to.
Some of Lee's slaves loved him.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoun...es%20slave.htm

Others not so much.
http://www.crossroadsofwar.org/disco...l-war-stories/

You didn't provide a source for that lengthy quote.

We should honor the people who fight and die in any cause, since most of them never know the real reasons. On the other hand if young people refused to fight and die the old people would have to find some other way to settle their differences.

of a little from the current discussion trend but my 2 cents
My opinion is an unpopular one to say the least. and even though i am a yankee (live in ohio) my family fought on both sides and i proudly display both flags stars and stripes on top stars and bars on the bottom why the heritage. at first the simpletons would accuse me of being racist then saying i condoned slavery you know the whole shabang. finally i got the neighborhood educated enough that they have no probleme with it and infact send their children to borrow from my civil war library for papers but i do get the accasional knock at the door by another simpleton that isn't local who decided to take offense.
Edit forgot to mention state rights which many felt where being trampled on by the north but that is another subject that will take to much time. to discuss

Now there were many reasons for the civil war. much of it as with any war was econamics. slavery is claimed often by those who do not understand what actually happened during during the war and during some battles and after. even president Lincon made some contrary decisions about the treatment of slaves; some captured slaves where assigned to the northern units as "pillage" and "tactical assets" but this was as much to keep them from returning to their masters and being sent back to the lines. but to the average person yeah the war was about slavery and the politicians knew this and used it for propaganda.

anyways done with my 2 cents.

Actually there were only two main causes: Politics and Secession. Politics going back to the Constitutional Convention. Funny that the whole argument between North and South at that time was over slavery...no, excuse me, it was over representation. Representation involving slaves.

Secession was mainly over slavery. Before you argue with that assessment go back and read what they said at the time. Slavery, period.

An easy out, but what they said shows that you are wrong.

Also to anyone who actually reads what they said at the time.

And we thought the cause of WWI was complicated enough, eh Schroeder? :haha:

i could argue all day but i am not going to. simply because i hate using the internet to find sources for an argument and rather use books. i gave my 2 cents worth and forgot to mention state rights which i will conceed was primarily about slavery. all my good books are on loan at the moment (or not in thier proper shelf possition but a title i would suggest for reading are "Major Problems in the Early Republic" but then again my professor loved that book because it made you infer your own conclussions and he would make us argue them funny thing we learned more by him running the class like a debate class. for that matter "Major Problemes in American History" i would have to recommend as well and "What They Fought For".

thopugh i will say thanks for reminding me to track the people down who borrowed my books and forgot to return them and to go through the personal library and find books out of place.

I would agree, but you could look for years before finding a book that contained a listing of the Causes of Secession or the writings of Robert E. Lee's slaves. The internet has its uses. On the other hand the Web has nothing about my favorite subjects, like the complete armor layout of HMS Dreadnought and how it changed over the years. :sunny:

I was briefly a member of the History Book Club long ago, and I still have the little gift they gave me when I joined - a real leather bookmark with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "I cannot live without books".

Yeah, I read it.
And yes there are Blacks in the Republican Party. But they were and are only a handful of the general Black population.
The Democrates started the "Freemans Bureau" which later morphed into the Federal Welfare Department. In an attempt to buy votes no doubt.

So? Does that make him a bad guy?
The guy you quoted is an old white Republican (Allen Guelzo) who jumped on the Lincoln bandwagon not all that long ago and now can't pump out enough books about Lincoln. I guess your guy is better than mine!:nope:
Well here is some very respected people who don't think his info is that correct.

Allen Guelzo Misinforms the World Socialist Movement About Lincoln
By Thomas DiLorenzo
April 8, 2013
LewRockwell.com

And "Dixiecrats"? Who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948 has what to do with the Civil War? As I said there are Blacks in the Republican Party, Rice, Powell,ect. But no where near the number that are Democrates.
Anyway, you can have the last word now. I'm done with this.:salute: And no, I'm not a Republican.

I am glad that they put the flag up. IMO I think we should burn Lincoln Memorial to the ground because former President Lincoln committed a genocide upon the southern by declaring war against them. The southern states had the right to secede the union as stated in COTUS. Unfortunately, the north won the war so they had the right to write the history in the north's best interest. That is why most of Americans are giving the glory to Lincoln based on the "propaganda history" by the North.

The CSA flag should remind us of what Lincoln did to us and to the COTUS, so that way we could prevent that ever to happen again.

Long Live CSA Flag!
http://www.scv674.org/Jack.gif

Former President Lincoln is in the same league as with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, et al by committing the politicide (an act of genocide upon the people based on their political standing).

NOTE: The civil war wasn't all about the slaves. It was all about the states and the federal. There are well documentations that the southern slaves did fight along with the southern soldiers, voluntary.

It wasn't all about slaves. It had a long history that the North states exploited the South on the economical levels (the slaves was the smallest part of the problem in the economical levels). Therefore, the Southern states had enough with the exploits by North and the slaves issue spark the fire and it had caused Lincoln to invade Southern states.

Don't you know that President Lincoln is a really ugly President in USA?

Read more on this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/10/t...coln-unmasked/

So am I. It's all about liberty.

I'm glad you said it was your opinion, because advocating the destruction of anybody else's property, private or public, is frowned upon here.

Again, only your opinion. You need to show that he committed genocide with facts. Also, he didn't declare war. That would have implied admitting they were a separate country. He "called for volunteers to put down a rebellion", and then only after they fired the first shot. This has all been covered before. You should read the thread sometime.

This too is a matter of opinion. whether the States have the right to seceed has been argued since some New England States talked about it in 1812. If the best scholars and experts in the country don't agree, you claiming it doesn't make it so.

Also, do you know how to spell "Constitution"? I'm sure you do, but I have a strong distaste for the new anagrams: POTUS, SCOTUS and now COTUS are to me cheap and easy ways to not have to actually type something. It's not wrong, but it certainly is lazy.

But that's just my opinion. :sunny:

What Lincoln did to you? You weren't even around then, and neither was I. If you're going to take that attitude though, what about what "you" did to countless people who should have been free to live their own lives? I include myself in that statement, because my great-great-grandfather was a slave-owner.

I know and that's why I said, IMO. However, I live about a hour away from that landmark and every time I pass this place and it made me really mad.

There are many facts everywhere but the North states doesn't want you to know those facts.

You might want to buy this book.

http://www.amazon.com/THE-UNPOPULAR-...=IP19INU6UYO5N

See above for the book link.

LOL, I am on several forums and it seems everyone like to use COTUS, POTUS, SCOTUS, et al.

What did Lincoln brought to us? We lost our true liberty. I can go much longer on this but to sum it up, we lost our liberty and we cannot enforce our Gov't to the COTUS at all. The Gov't can do whatever it pleases themselves. Maybe you want to buy ammo, guns, water filter, and to be ready for a second civil war or revolutionary 2.0. Maybe you want to buy a tinfoil hat in this discussion... :)