"Slavery was the primary, central, cause of secession"

[chri'stina 190]

One group of people's slavery and hardships can benefit another group of people, but that doesn't make it morally right or an acceptable blemish on society.

The reason I believe that the Civil War was not about slavery is not that secession was not about slavery. It more or less was. However, neither Lincoln as an individual nor the North collectively went to war to free the slaves or stop slavery. The North went to war to assert the authority of the federal government and to assert that states did not have the authority to secede. Further, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation as a measure of economic warfare, not as an assertion of human rights.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so 1 guy holds a copy of 1 document from among the thousands of ducuments that were created in a tumultuous time, and suddenly this means that everybody has been lying about the truth for 150 years. yeah, serious historians agree, but nobody else agrees with them.

this is like saying that michelle obama's note in memo from yesterday that she does not like rockey road ice cream will be interpreted 150 years from now to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that her dislike for rocky road is the only reason that obama was a 1 term president. i mean, shoot, EVERYBODY likes rocky road!

Good grief, it's not one single document. The Southern states were crying foul over state's rights, not in favor of them, but against them because their gripe was over the Northern states ignoring the existing Federal laws regarding slaves. Then it was basically, "Well if the Northern states can ignore Federal law, the hell with it, we'll secede then."

The fact that this even being debated so strongly by modern Americans is both amusing and troubling. I grew up in Arizona and this is what we taught in history - that the Civil War was over slavery. My mother was born and raised in Texas and was taught the same. My father was born and raised on the Arizona/Mexico border, was also taught the same. He later got his Masters in History and will tell you that the Civil War was over slavery. I don't how any could have gone through school without being taught that the Civil War was over slavery.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes. You don't understand the difference?

He must be a communist.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Good grief, it's not one single document. The Southern states were crying foul over state's rights, not in favor of them, but against them because their gripe was over the Northern states ignoring the existing Federal laws regarding slaves. Then it was basically, "Well if the Northern states can ignore Federal law, the hell with it, we'll secede then."

The fact that this even being debated so strongly by modern Americans is both amusing and troubling. I grew up in Arizona and this is what we taught in history - that the Civil War was over slavery. My mother was born and raised in Texas and was taught the same. My father was born and raised on the Arizona/Mexico border, was also taught the same. He later got his Masters in History and will tell you that the Civil War was over slavery. I don't how any could have gone through school without being taught that the Civil War was over slavery.

Do you believe everything you were taught in school?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you believe everything you were taught in school?

Following that logic, Holocaust deniers and those who refuse to believe that man has ever stepped onto the moon, have equally valid viewpoints contrary to our conventional understandings of history.

Edited March 29, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Following that logic, Holocaust deniers and those who refuse to believe that man has ever stepped onto the moon, have equally valid viewpoints contrary to our conventional understandings of history.

In all fairness, he who wins the war, get to tell the story of what took place.

Revisionist history has been taking place since the earliest battles/wars.

You have to dig between the ilnes to get the truth usually.

History is rarely told through actual accounts of what happened these days especially. More told through newspaper articles than actual fact-based instances.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Do you believe everything you were taught in school?

For those that do, there is alway's James Loewen's other well known book, "Lies my teacher told me".

Among the 12 high school history texts he surveyed for that book, 11 now list slavery as the primary cause of the civil war. Before the civil rights movement, those textbooks listed anything but slavery as the cause.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In all fairness, he who wins the war, get to tell the story of what took place.

Revisionist history has been taking place since the earliest battles/wars.

You have to dig between the ilnes to get the truth usually.

History is rarely told through actual accounts of what happened these days especially. More told through newspaper articles than actual fact-based instances.

You're welcome to challenge the fact that the Southern states were griping over the Northern states ignoring Federal laws. You can also, challenge the facts as to why South Carolina seceded.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

In all fairness, he who wins the war, get to tell the story of what took place.

Revisionist history has been taking place since the earliest battles/wars.

You have to dig between the ilnes to get the truth usually.

History is rarely told through actual accounts of what happened these days especially. More told through newspaper articles than actual fact-based instances.

What do you consider revisionist in the scheme of things? For instance, do you believe the US started the war between Japan in WW2? There is a large crowd that do.

(Pat Buchanan has this view I think)

Edited March 29, 2011 by Sousuke

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What do you consider revisionist in the scheme of things? For instance, do you believe the US started the war between Japan in WW2? There is a large crowd that do.

(Pat Buchanan has this view I think)

The US did enough to piss off Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.

Sometimes economic/trade sanctions are enough to piss off your enemy to force their hand as well.

While no one forces anyone to 'attack,' the provocation was there.

The question that many ask to this day is how much did we really know before the attack happened. There are accounts of people in other nations who said that they warned the US, but who knows.

I don't play much on conspiracies or WWII. I do on WWI and our involvement and/or stubborness, but that's a different story entirely. We won't even get into Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin incident...

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The US did enough to piss off Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.

Sometimes economic/trade sanctions are enough to piss off your enemy to force their hand as well.

While no one forces anyone to 'attack,' the provocation was there.

The question that many ask to this day is how much did we really know before the attack happened. There are accounts of people in other nations who said that they warned the US, but who knows.

I don't play much on conspiracies or WWII. I do on WWI and our involvement and/or stubborness, but that's a different story entirely. We won't even get into Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin incident...

I don't buy into the embargo - war argument. But I do sometimes question why the modern aircraft carriers were at sea and basically WW1 era ships were in harbor. There was a warning from the British Government that never made it to Pearl Harbor btw.

Whats up with WW1 though? Are you referring to the attacks on the last day of the war? (Basically commanders forced men to make attacks in the final hours of the war - all for medals and promotions. - Something like 40,000 died that day for nothing)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Even following the argument of the revisionists on the Civil War: (assuming that was in fact over states' rights)

Y: The Civil War was over slavery.

X: Hogwash! The Civil War was over states' rights.

Y: The right to do what?

X: Own slaves.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't buy into the embargo - war argument. But I do sometimes question why the modern aircraft carriers were at sea and basically WW1 era ships were in harbor. There was a warning from the British Government that never made it to Pearl Harbor btw.

Whats up with WW1 though? Are you referring to the attacks on the last day of the war? (Basically commanders forced men to make attacks in the final hours of the war - all for medals and promotions. - Something like 40,000 died that day for nothing)

I'm more talking along the lines in the sinking of the Lusitania.... That was a clear cut educational piece of False Flag 101. Well more like Sacrificial Lamb 101 I suppose when you get down to it all. Germany warned and warned against sending ships into those waters and said that any vessel sent into those waters would be destroyed... Of course it was sent in any way, and served her purpose in swaying public opinion of the war.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Following that logic, Holocaust deniers and those who refuse to believe that man has ever stepped onto the moon, have equally valid viewpoints contrary to our conventional understandings of history.

It's called critical thinking, something schools are supposed to teach. Appeal to authority is a fallacy my logic-seeking friend. Verify the source.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It's called critical thinking, something schools are supposed to teach. Appeal to authority is a fallacy my logic-seeking friend. Verify the source.

Nasa lost the source, or did they find it?