I think I have an interesting question for you US bods...

I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

JudgeDredd -> I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 12:25:52 PM)
It's about the civil war. I'm currently playing a civil war game at the moment and want to know why it happened (it's often perceived that it was simply a "slave" issue, but I hear that is incorrect) and what people think the benfits, if any, of the outcome were. Do you think it's was a "good" thing it happened? I mean, would the US be a worse off place if it wasn't united? I'd appreciate if the thread could stay objective....no name calling. Each could have their say. To anyone who may think so, this is not an ambush or a thread to generally get a fight going....I am genuinely interested in people views on this and being as Matrix forums are predominantly US and there are a couple of Civil War games, I wanted to throw the question to you. Thx

Sarge -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 4:17:35 PM)
Lincoln’s final issue of the Emancipation Proclamation ( 1863) was two-fold . 1) Emphasizes the enlisting of black soldiers in the Union Army 2) The war to preserve the Union now becomes a revolutionary struggle for the abolition of slavery

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 4:55:26 PM)
The civil war was inevitable IMHO. Eventually some state somewhere would have eventually wanted to withdraw for some reason. This now is not possible. There are people who will say it was bad because it made the federal government more powerful. I think it was good because it made the federal government viable. I just cannot fathom how the world would be if a United States of America joined the allies in WWI or WWII and the Confederate States of America joined the Axis. The world would be a very different place. I also think China will go through some kind of civil war this century. [:o]

Dennistoun -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 5:29:43 PM)
Hello Your Honor, I think that is a really interesting question you asked there. As a schoolboy and a young teenager, I was taught that the War was about slavery, that the entire South were essentially very bad for wanting to keep slaves and that the Federal Govt. were really good for wanting to abolish slavery. When I was 22 I found the good fortune to live in Florida for over 5 years and asked the Southerners who I worked with and socialised with (those I could find as Centr. Fla has lots of Northern and Foreign folks living down there) about the War and their thoughts and most of them liked the blacks very much and thought that too much emphasis was put on that particular issue as THE cause of the War. They reckoned that slavery was A cause as most of the people who lived in the Southern States were essentially workers of every sort and that a small, rich minority ONLY could afford and keep slaves. General Custer really couldn't give a damn about slavery, it was the Union and only the Union he fought for. Look at Lee, Picket and Jackson. They didn't want an armed presence on their Virginia. Etc Etc. While I was living in Fla., there was the constancy of right-wing extremists who thought that the Federal Govt had too much say in day-to-day life in America and wanted to fight against that, and most of that feeling eminated (from the right-wing extremists that is) from the South. Anyway, like I said, I only lived there for 5 years and the above is an observation from that time only. As far as Central Floridians have got to do with it, well they like all over America for the very most part, get on well with each other whether there are transplanted Northerners, Southerners or Foreigners. God bless them all!

Reiryc -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 5:37:34 PM)
The idea of separation of states was not new with the civil war. During the war of 1812, there was a movement in the north for a few northern states to secede from the union. Additionally, a few states, virginia for instance, stated that when they ratified the constitution, that they reserved the right to withdraw from the union. Now regarding the civil war, it was fought over states having the right to decide for themselves whether or not they would retain slavery. So slavery was an issue, but the larger issue was the debate over the power of who should decide if a state can have slavery, the federal government or the states themselves. The civil war didn't make the federal government viable, as it has been viable for over 70 years already. What it did do was to increase the power of the federal government over states.

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 5:42:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc The idea of separation of states was not new with the civil war. During the war of 1812, there was a movement in the north for a few northern states to secede from the union. Additionally, a few states, virginia for instance, stated that when they ratified the constitution, that they reserved the right to withdraw from the union. Now regarding the civil war, it was fought over states having the right to decide for themselves whether or not they would retain slavery. So slavery was an issue, but the larger issue was the debate over the power of who should decide if a state can have slavery, the federal government or the states themselves. The civil war didn't make the federal government viable, as it has been viable for over 70 years already. What it did do was to increase the power of the federal government over states. Which in my opinion made it viable. BTW, What southern states reserved the right to withdraw from the union? [&:]

JudgeDredd -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 5:43:58 PM)
Sarge I gather by your answer you are suggesting that slavery was a "side issue". That is what I've been led to believe of late. I get what you all say, about slavery being a side issue and whther it's good or bad. I agree with all posters. So what was the real cause of the war? Was it economic? Political?

JudgeDredd -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 5:45:49 PM)
Reiryc I just posted before I read your pos. So it was about political power, really?

Reiryc -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 6:07:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc The idea of separation of states was not new with the civil war. During the war of 1812, there was a movement in the north for a few northern states to secede from the union. Additionally, a few states, virginia for instance, stated that when they ratified the constitution, that they reserved the right to withdraw from the union. Now regarding the civil war, it was fought over states having the right to decide for themselves whether or not they would retain slavery. So slavery was an issue, but the larger issue was the debate over the power of who should decide if a state can have slavery, the federal government or the states themselves. The civil war didn't make the federal government viable, as it has been viable for over 70 years already. What it did do was to increase the power of the federal government over states. Which in my opinion made it viable. BTW, What southern states reserved the right to withdraw from the union? [&:] virginia: "WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction, that, whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification: We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following: -- which included a copy of the constitution -- reiryc" http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html

Reiryc -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 6:09:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd Reiryc I just posted before I read your pos. So it was about political power, really? Yes, that was the overall problem. Who had the power to make slaverly illegal, the federal government or each state was the over-riding issue.

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 6:09:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc The idea of separation of states was not new with the civil war. During the war of 1812, there was a movement in the north for a few northern states to secede from the union. Additionally, a few states, virginia for instance, stated that when they ratified the constitution, that they reserved the right to withdraw from the union. Now regarding the civil war, it was fought over states having the right to decide for themselves whether or not they would retain slavery. So slavery was an issue, but the larger issue was the debate over the power of who should decide if a state can have slavery, the federal government or the states themselves. The civil war didn't make the federal government viable, as it has been viable for over 70 years already. What it did do was to increase the power of the federal government over states. Which in my opinion made it viable. BTW, What southern states reserved the right to withdraw from the union? [&:] virginia: "WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction, that, whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification: We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following: -- which included a copy of the constitution -- reiryc" http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html One state. Lets see some state(s). [:D]

Reiryc -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 6:16:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE One state. Lets see some state(s). [:D] Nah... don't feel like looking up the other 2. If you want to discount it as one state feel free. I was trying to have a conversation not a debate so if you feel inclined to believe it's only one state because I'm not in the mood to look up the other 2, that's fine with me. The point made isn't diminished. edit: I believe new york was one of the other states.

Sarge -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 6:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd Sarge I gather by your answer you are suggesting that slavery was a "side issue". That is what I've been led to believe of late. I get what you all say, about slavery being a side issue and whther it's good or bad. I agree with all posters. So what was the real cause of the war? Was it economic? Political? Slavery was indeed a leading issue between Free States and Slave States and things started to heat up as early as The Compromise acts of 1850 . Laws that attempted to resolve territorial and slavery controversies on lands gained by Mexican-American War. Reiryc is correct in his comments of State Rights and indeed being a major contributor that sparked the conflict. Many of the Northern Leaders believed the minority Southern slave States and its large plantations (Plantation economy) controlled government. Northern states abolished slavery in 1776, so its economic systems were based on free labor. So yes in a way it was a play for power/control . Also as a side note, In today’s day and age its easy to take the mindset of State rights of the time out of context. When one was asked in 1860 the controlling government one would answer with his State, not Washington .

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 6:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE One state. Lets see some state(s). [:D] Nah... don't feel like looking up the other 2. If you want to discount it as one state feel free. I was trying to have a conversation not a debate so if you feel inclined to believe it's only one state because I'm not in the mood to look up the other 2, that's fine with me. The point made isn't diminished. Yes, slander evil government. Job done. [:D] BTW: Texas v. White Found that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". [:)]

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 6:40:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE One state. Lets see some state(s). [:D] Nah... don't feel like looking up the other 2. If you want to discount it as one state feel free. I was trying to have a conversation not a debate so if you feel inclined to believe it's only one state because I'm not in the mood to look up the other 2, that's fine with me. The point made isn't diminished. edit: I believe new york was one of the other states. New York is a southern state? Do you live in Canada? [:'(]

junk2drive -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 6:45:34 PM)
Slavery was already on it's way out. Mechanised farming was coming into favour. Cotton was king, England was a big customer, England had recently abolished slavery in the CW, putting pressure on the South. States (or countries if that makes it easier) rights was the issue. Like the EU, the USA was supposed to be a way to standardise commerce and defense. Recent history has Arizona not wanting Martin Luther King day as a holiday. The Feds threatened to withhold road tax payments. Next fight will be over medical cannibus.

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 6:50:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: junk2drive Slavery was already on it's way out. Mechanised farming was coming into favour. Cotton was king, England was a big customer, England had recently abolished slavery in the CW, putting pressure on the South. States (or countries if that makes it easier) rights was the issue. Like the EU, the USA was supposed to be a way to standardise commerce and defense. Recent history has Arizona not wanting Martin Luther King day as a holiday. The Feds threatened to withhold road tax payments. Next fight will be over medical cannibus. DUDE! [image]http://www.survivinggrady.com/spicoli.jpg[/image]

Reiryc -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 7:20:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE One state. Lets see some state(s). [:D] Nah... don't feel like looking up the other 2. If you want to discount it as one state feel free. I was trying to have a conversation not a debate so if you feel inclined to believe it's only one state because I'm not in the mood to look up the other 2, that's fine with me. The point made isn't diminished. edit: I believe new york was one of the other states. New York is a southern state? Do you live in Canada? [:'(] I believe the southern state issue is your strawman... My statement was, "Additionally, a few states, virginia for instance, stated that when they ratified the constitution, that they reserved the right to withdraw from the union." Hmm... don't see southern in that statement. Oh well, nice try. [:D]

Reiryc -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 7:21:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE Yes, slander evil government. Job done. [:D] BTW: Texas v. White Found that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". [:)] Wow, what a shock... you mean after the civil war, it was found that states didn't have a right to secede? [8\|]

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 8:12:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE One state. Lets see some state(s). [:D] Nah... don't feel like looking up the other 2. If you want to discount it as one state feel free. I was trying to have a conversation not a debate so if you feel inclined to believe it's only one state because I'm not in the mood to look up the other 2, that's fine with me. The point made isn't diminished. edit: I believe new york was one of the other states. New York is a southern state? Do you live in Canada? [:'(] I believe the southern state issue is your strawman... My statement was, "Additionally, a few states, virginia for instance, stated that when they ratified the constitution, that they reserved the right to withdraw from the union." Hmm... don't see southern in that statement. Oh well, nice try. [:D] You are right. You never said southern. You did say a few. We have two. Where is the third? [:D]

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 8:14:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE Yes, slander evil government. Job done. [:D] BTW: Texas v. White Found that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". [:)] Wow, what a shock... you mean after the civil war, it was found that states didn't have a right to secede? [8\|] They based their decision on the Constitution which may surprise you preceded the Civil War. [;)]

Reiryc -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 8:23:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE They based their decision on the Constitution which may surprise you preceded the Civil War. [;)] Yeah, they usually say they do when they make decisions [8D]... but of course the constitution doesn't forbid secession.

Reiryc -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 8:25:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE You are right. You never said southern. You did say a few. We have two. Where is the third? [:D] Yes, I am right. Additionally I also said that you can look up the rest if you feel so inclined. [:)] If you do feel inclined, then enjoy the learning experience. [8D]

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 8:28:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE They based their decision on the Constitution which may surprise you preceded the Civil War. [;)] Yeah, they usually say they do when they make decisions [8D]... but of course the constitution doesn't forbid secession. Well they said it does and why. Who am I to believe? Supreme Court Justices empowered by the Constitution to make the decision or some guy on a message board? Supreme Court Justices\|guy on a message board guy on a message board\|Supreme Court Justices Hard to weigh that.

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 8:29:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reiryc quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE You are right. You never said southern. You did say a few. We have two. Where is the third? [:D] Yes, I am right. Additionally I also said that you can look up the rest if you feel so inclined. [:)] If you do feel inclined, then enjoy the learning experience. [8D] Case law says you are wrong. [:)]

KG Erwin -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 9:12:09 PM)
Judge, I'd recommend that you read James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" , which explains the development of the US in the years leading to the Civil War, and covers the war itself. This volume is part of the Oxford History of the United States, so it should be available in a local library. This book is in my home library, and it is perhaps the best one-volume account of the Civil War ever written. It won a Pulitzer Prize for Dr. McPherson.

Reiryc -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 9:19:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE Well they said it does and why. Who am I to believe? Supreme Court Justices empowered by the Constitution to make the decision or some guy on a message board? Supreme Court Justices\|guy on a message board guy on a message board\|Supreme Court Justices Hard to weigh that. So then you think supreme court judges are infallible? Do you only think that some guy on a message board thinks this way and there are no examples from both folks in the north and south, persons in power, who felt differently? I guess it's just easier for some to do away with thinking and just go with whatever those guys in black robes say... after all, they do get to wear the black robes, so that must mean they are right! [:D]

Reiryc -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/12/2008 9:20:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ORANGE Case law says you are wrong. [:)] Case law says that I said 'southern states'? Got a link to that? [8\|]

ORANGE -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/13/2008 12:16:53 AM)
I do not think that anybody is infallible but according to the Constitution the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law in the US. So either you believe in the Constitution or you do not. It seems you agree with it when it is convenient and abandon it when it says something you do not like. Again I come to the decision of some guy one a message board\|The United States Constitution and the Supreme Court. I go with the Constitution. [:)]

Frido1207 -> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods... (1/13/2008 12:24:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin ... I'd recommend that you read James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" , ... Hi Judge, i can just strongly second KG Erwins recommendation. Been actually reading this book (in english, although not my mother tongue, there was no translated editon available here in Germany), I would say its one of the most informative & well written history books I´ve read so far. I got the paperback edition for about €18.-, thats almost nothing for this full package of information. (Oxford University Press, 1988, ISBN: 0-19-516895-X paperback edition)

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75