While his statemnt is partially true, it ignores a lot too. The North used a shit ton of cotton from the South for their factories (also in my quotes above). Here is one to stare you in the face; https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/history-of-mechanical-engineering/how-the-cotton-gin-started-the-civil-war Before the cotton gin, slavery had been on its way out-farmers realized it was more expensive to maintain slaves, compared to the value of what they could produce. Cotton was a troublesome crop anyway; its fiber could only be separated from the sticky, embedded seeds by hand, a grueling and exhausting process. This changed dramatically, of course, with the advent of the cotton gin. Suddenly cotton became a lucrative crop and a major export for the South. However, because of this increased demand, many more slaves were needed to grow cotton and harvest the fields. Slave ownership became a fiery national issue and eventually led to the Civil War.
This proves nothing. There are probably thousands of websites that repeat this popular myth, as with all popular myths. If you want to be taken seriously start researching scholarly papers about the subject, not any possible reference that backs up your claim from any website that has it. It just proves my point. You don't value truth. If you did you would look around at the current scholarly work on the subject, like any rational person would do, unless they weren't interested in the truth.
OK I don't value truth, but you just make up stuff to "prove" your point. The simple truth is the South fought the war because they were butt hurt that slavery going away would hurt their plantations. Show me any credible refutons.
I'm against the South seceding , yet I'm supportive of the states seceding. Secession as a principle is dependent upon its circumstances. As agreed, circumstances of each war was different. Because of the differences, each case of secession is different. You can't really broadly claim that you support or oppose all secessions.
"Slavery" itself was not the issue. The rite of the states to abolish itself was the issue. The north kept their slaves. Proving the war wasnt really about slavery. It was a power grab Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
You posted a "credible refutation." Did you read your own link? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
There were very few slves in the North at the start of the war. States rights was a sideline to try and keep their slaves. Once Northerners no longer returned run away slaves and new States would not be allowed to become States, the shit hit the fan. During and after the American Revolutionary War, between 1777 and 1804, anti-slavery laws or constitutions were passed in every state north of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line. By 1810, 75 percent of all blacks in the North were free. By 1840, virtually all blacks in the North were free.<sup>[30]</sup> Vermont's 1777 constitution made no allowance for slavery. In Massachusetts, slavery was successfully challenged in court in 1783 in a freedom suit by Quock Walker as being in contradiction to the state's new constitution of 1780 providing for equality of men. Free blacks were subject to racial segregation in the North, and it took decades for some states to extend the franchise to them.<sup>[31]</sup> Most northern states passed legislation for gradual abolition. As a result of this gradualist approach, New York did not free its last slaves until 1829, Rhode Island had five slaves still listed in the 1840 census, Pennsylvania's last slaves were freed in 1847, Connecticut did not completely abolish slavery until 1848, and slavery was not completely lifted in New Hampshire and New Jersey until the nationwide emancipation in 1865.<sup>[32]</sup> The principal organized bodies to advocate these reforms in the north were the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and the New York Manumission Society. The emancipation of slaves in the North led to the growth in the population of northern free blacks, from several hundreds in the 1770s to nearly 50,000 by 1810.<sup>[33]</sup> Also a very good view on the cause of the war; http://american-history.yoexpert.com/civil-war/the-civil-war-and-slavery-did-slavery-cause-the-ci-1376.html Which link?
The 2 were similar enough to each other to be treated the same. Both were caused by the same thing, taxation without representation. Abolishing slavery was not a cause, unless you listen to ICGreen. So since slavery was not the issue, why do you think all the horrible atrocities of war (and terrorist style war, many civilians were ruthlessly killed) that resulted in over 1 million dead and the bloodiest war in US history was justified? Yes you can. I support all secessions.
The right to leave an opressive leader is absolute. If the leader chases you and says you cant leave, then it proves the leader is oppressive. The civil war was a control fix. Power hungry men wanted to secure the "union" and establish a powerful federal government. Some of the founding fathers were federalists. Thays why the constitution was written. It was a compromise to satisfy the federalists, while still allowing the principles of freedom. The tenth ammendment was especially important. But more important still is in the very beginning. The constitution literally sais that humans have not only the right, but also the obligation to drop the chains of opressive leaders. This combined with the tenth ammendment was designed to prevent exactly what we have now. The states are not free to make their own laws. And they are not free to nulify federal power. The civil war was the beginning of the end for america. The federal government is openly against nulification and has made it clear that ignoring gun regulations and drug laws will result in armed intervention. Another civil war is innevitable. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Blaming the war on drugs on Lincoln? What hyperbolic nonsense. You can't compare Slavery to the war on drugs... The fact is that African Americans should have been treated equally under the constitution, but they weren't because they were believed to be sub-human. Denying them that right to equal treatment on the premise of "states rights" doesn't make any sense.
Yuri is making assumptions based upon nothing more than his disdain for central government. Although everything that he says certainly is a possibility, he can not give us evidence to back it up. His reasoning is that the government government acted unconstitutionally when it went to war over secession, an argument which can be proved (although there are also arguments to the contrary). However, when he states that the federal government acted in this way deliberately, in order to grab power, he is making an unprovable and wild guess as to the intentions of the major actors. He bases this guess solely upon the fact that he believes that government can't be trusted (which, in many cases, it can't). No matter what, he still lacks the evidence to back up the claim.
While his statemnt is partially true, it ignores a lot too. The North used a shit ton of cotton from the South for their factories (also in my quotes above). Here is one to stare you in the face; https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/history-of-mechanical-engineering/how-the-cotton-gin-started-the-civil-war Before the cotton gin, slavery had been on its way out-farmers realized it was more expensive to maintain slaves, compared to the value of what they could produce. Cotton was a troublesome crop anyway; its fiber could only be separated from the sticky, embedded seeds by hand, a grueling and exhausting process. This changed dramatically, of course, with the advent of the cotton gin. Suddenly cotton became a lucrative crop and a major export for the South. However, because of this increased demand, many more slaves were needed to grow cotton and harvest the fields. Slave ownership became a fiery national issue and eventually led to the Civil War. </blockquote> Slavery was just the political.issue. The war broke out over the souths rite to secede. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Yuri is making assumptions based upon nothing more than his disdain for central government. Although everything that he says certainly is a possibility, he can not give us evidence to back it up. His reasoning is that the government government acted unconstitutionally when it went to war over secession, an argument which can be proved (although there are also arguments to the contrary). However, when he states that the federal government acted in this way deliberately, in order to grab power, he is making an unprovable and wild guess as to the intentions of the major actors. He bases this guess solely upon the fact that he believes that government can't be trusted (which, in many cases, it can't). No matter what, he still lacks the evidence to back up the claim. </blockquote> I already admitted that my conspiracy theory was not proven by the evidence. I cant prove the whole thing was a plot to create a dictatorship. But the FACT remains that the war was fought over secession. And the result was the destruction of the tenth ammendment. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
That was simply one of their excuses to try and keep slaves. </blockquote> It was a lot more then that man. Even you posted an article talking about the causes. It was a terrible bloody war with many casualties. You really think all those people were fighting for slavery? They were fighting to protect their way of life. Their right to be free. Slavery was one issue that lead to sessession, but the reason the war happened was because of sesession. Lincoln set the precident that sessession is not an option. If slavery was the only issue, then there were other ways to solve it. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
If another civil war is fought, freedom will be gone regardless of which side wins. We should use our first amendments rights so we never have to fall back on our second amendment rights. If we wait to use our second amendment rights, we will end up with no rights.
How so? The founding fathers disagreed. Theu knew that history repeats itself. And they predicted many of the things happening in america today. If you dony fight back you will lose your rights Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Violence creates instability. If the people lose, which is most likely, they will lose all freedoms. If they fight and win, whomever assumes power may not be good. Castro fought for democracy in Cuba and he led a successful campaign. Once he took power, he changed and turned it into what it is now. Same can be said for the French Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. The french revolted and they got a new government. The new governments did not satisfy those classes. So the middle and poor would have to rise again. This instability allow Napoleon Bonaparte to take power and he created the military industrial complex. A civil war would bring to much instability and someone would assume power in the chaos, if that person's greed overpowers their will to help, we will be worse off. WE could not know what we would get until the dust settles. The odds of the people winning, and getting freedom and all their rights back is very slim.