Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
395runner
()
Date: January 19, 2014 04:57PM
Most of our north/south threads end up with some sort of Civil War was not about slavery comments, as some sort of defense... for example for naming roads after Davis (from Mississippi) and not after Langston (Virgina Black Federal Congressman).
In 1865, after it was pretty darn obvious the South was going to lose, and Lee was getting run down, AFTER the March to the Sea...
Lincoln in person went to the Hampton Roads Peace Conference, and offered amnesty and $400,000,000 in Union money for the South, if they came back into the fold and freed the slaves. That's all they had to do. The leadership in the South knew he would follow through, because in DC the feds paid cash money to the slaveholders who had their slaves set free.
Nope, screw you. Kept the troops in the field to fight and retreat and die, all over slaves. Murdered Lincoln, for slaves.
There are good reason to remember the troops who fought for their states, their towns, their fellow soldiers, but the underlying cause was slavery. Let's stop lying in these threads about that, and concentrate on debating the truth about how locally to recall the soldiers and their service.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2014 04:57PM by 395runner.
In 1865, after it was pretty darn obvious the South was going to lose, and Lee was getting run down, AFTER the March to the Sea...
Lincoln in person went to the Hampton Roads Peace Conference, and offered amnesty and $400,000,000 in Union money for the South, if they came back into the fold and freed the slaves. That's all they had to do. The leadership in the South knew he would follow through, because in DC the feds paid cash money to the slaveholders who had their slaves set free.
Nope, screw you. Kept the troops in the field to fight and retreat and die, all over slaves. Murdered Lincoln, for slaves.
There are good reason to remember the troops who fought for their states, their towns, their fellow soldiers, but the underlying cause was slavery. Let's stop lying in these threads about that, and concentrate on debating the truth about how locally to recall the soldiers and their service.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2014 04:57PM by 395runner.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
isbs
()
Date: January 19, 2014 06:47PM
395runner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of our north/south threads end up with some
> sort of Civil War was not about slavery comments,
> as some sort of defense... for example for naming
> roads after Davis (from Mississippi) and not
> after Langston (Virgina Black Federal
> Congressman).
>
>
>
> In 1865, after it was pretty darn obvious the
> South was going to lose, and Lee was getting run
> down, AFTER the March to the Sea...
>
> Lincoln in person went to the Hampton Roads Peace
> Conference, and offered amnesty and $400,000,000
> in Union money for the South, if they came back
> into the fold and freed the slaves. That's all
> they had to do. The leadership in the South knew
> he would follow through, because in DC the feds
> paid cash money to the slaveholders who had their
> slaves set free.
>
> Nope, screw you. Kept the troops in the field to
> fight and retreat and die, all over slaves.
> Murdered Lincoln, for slaves.
>
> There are good reason to remember the troops who
> fought for their states, their towns, their fellow
> soldiers, but the underlying cause was slavery.
> Let's stop lying in these threads about that, and
> concentrate on debating the truth about how
> locally to recall the soldiers and their service.
Bullshit.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of our north/south threads end up with some
> sort of Civil War was not about slavery comments,
> as some sort of defense... for example for naming
> roads after Davis (from Mississippi) and not
> after Langston (Virgina Black Federal
> Congressman).
>
>
>
> In 1865, after it was pretty darn obvious the
> South was going to lose, and Lee was getting run
> down, AFTER the March to the Sea...
>
> Lincoln in person went to the Hampton Roads Peace
> Conference, and offered amnesty and $400,000,000
> in Union money for the South, if they came back
> into the fold and freed the slaves. That's all
> they had to do. The leadership in the South knew
> he would follow through, because in DC the feds
> paid cash money to the slaveholders who had their
> slaves set free.
>
> Nope, screw you. Kept the troops in the field to
> fight and retreat and die, all over slaves.
> Murdered Lincoln, for slaves.
>
> There are good reason to remember the troops who
> fought for their states, their towns, their fellow
> soldiers, but the underlying cause was slavery.
> Let's stop lying in these threads about that, and
> concentrate on debating the truth about how
> locally to recall the soldiers and their service.
Bullshit.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Top Five Causes of the Civil War
()
Date: January 19, 2014 06:49PM
Top Five Causes of the Civil War
Leading up to Secession and the Civil War
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.
2. States versus federal rights.
Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where pro-slavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence, Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when anti-slavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
Leading up to Secession and the Civil War
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.
2. States versus federal rights.
Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where pro-slavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence, Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when anti-slavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Bill.N.
()
Date: January 19, 2014 06:58PM
Just in case we didn't have enough threads on this subject.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Gerrymanderer retard
()
Date: January 19, 2014 07:00PM
Don't forget abortion and gay rights.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
395runner
()
Date: January 19, 2014 07:15PM
The problem is we have too many that end up the same way...
There were very brave men on both sides. Let's cut the crap about why the states were fighting, and talk about how to honor them.
There were very brave men on both sides. Let's cut the crap about why the states were fighting, and talk about how to honor them.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
WELL...
()
Date: January 19, 2014 07:22PM
395runner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is we have too many that end up the
> same way...
>
> There were very brave men on both sides. Let's cut
> the crap about why the states were fighting, and
> talk about how to honor them.
Let's honor them by changing all the names on parks, roads, and memorials dedicated to those slave owners.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is we have too many that end up the
> same way...
>
> There were very brave men on both sides. Let's cut
> the crap about why the states were fighting, and
> talk about how to honor them.
Let's honor them by changing all the names on parks, roads, and memorials dedicated to those slave owners.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Yankie
()
Date: January 19, 2014 07:33PM
The true cause of the Civil War was the refusal of of the United States to allow the Southern states to secede from the union. There would have been no war if Lincoln had allowed the Southern states to break away. This is inarguable. The Southern States would gladly have formed a separate nation, and no hostilities would have ensued (at least not in 1861). I'm not passing judgement either way, just stating the fact.
As for Lincoln initiating hostilities, it is clear he did so to preserve the Union...
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
As for Lincoln initiating hostilities, it is clear he did so to preserve the Union...
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Well Actually...
()
Date: January 19, 2014 07:35PM
Yankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The true cause of the Civil War was the refusal of
> of the United States to allow the Southern states
> to secede from the union. There would have been
> no war if Lincoln had allowed the Southern states
> to break away. This is inarguable. The Southern
> States would gladly have formed a separate nation,
> and no hostilities would have ensued (at least not
> in 1861). I'm not passing judgement either way,
> just stating the fact.
>
> As for Lincoln initiating hostilities, it is clear
> he did so to preserve the Union...
>
> "My paramount object in this struggle is to save
> the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy
> slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing
> any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
> freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I
> could save it by freeing some and leaving others
> alone I would also do that."
I disagree, the states should have worked with the Congress to hammer out a compromise, rather than secede from the Union. Seceding is an act of treason.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The true cause of the Civil War was the refusal of
> of the United States to allow the Southern states
> to secede from the union. There would have been
> no war if Lincoln had allowed the Southern states
> to break away. This is inarguable. The Southern
> States would gladly have formed a separate nation,
> and no hostilities would have ensued (at least not
> in 1861). I'm not passing judgement either way,
> just stating the fact.
>
> As for Lincoln initiating hostilities, it is clear
> he did so to preserve the Union...
>
> "My paramount object in this struggle is to save
> the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy
> slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing
> any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by
> freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I
> could save it by freeing some and leaving others
> alone I would also do that."
I disagree, the states should have worked with the Congress to hammer out a compromise, rather than secede from the Union. Seceding is an act of treason.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Henry Box Brown
()
Date: January 19, 2014 07:46PM
They had a few compromises throughout the time period: Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act... States rights was the main objective and once Lincoln was elected it took power away from the South. Pretty simple, 6th graders learn this
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 004
()
Date: January 19, 2014 08:01PM
Well Actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree, the states should have worked with the
> Congress to hammer out a compromise, rather than
> secede from the Union. Seceding is an act of
> treason.
So the founding fathers should have worked out a compromise with England?
The only difference between the two groups is that one group won their war the other lost. The issues were very similar
Also they had tried that route. The Civil War didnt happen over night and the didnt leave the Union based on a whim that they hadnt been considering for a significant amount of time.
Every nation has civil wars at some point, werent not an exception
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree, the states should have worked with the
> Congress to hammer out a compromise, rather than
> secede from the Union. Seceding is an act of
> treason.
So the founding fathers should have worked out a compromise with England?
The only difference between the two groups is that one group won their war the other lost. The issues were very similar
Also they had tried that route. The Civil War didnt happen over night and the didnt leave the Union based on a whim that they hadnt been considering for a significant amount of time.
Every nation has civil wars at some point, werent not an exception
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Check the Facts Jack!
()
Date: January 19, 2014 08:27PM
Liberal Logic 004 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Actually... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I disagree, the states should have worked with
> the
> > Congress to hammer out a compromise, rather
> than
> > secede from the Union. Seceding is an act of
> > treason.
>
>
> So the founding fathers should have worked out a
> compromise with England?
>
> The only difference between the two groups is that
> one group won their war the other lost. The
> issues were very similar
>
> Also they had tried that route. The Civil War
> didnt happen over night and the didnt leave the
> Union based on a whim that they hadnt been
> considering for a significant amount of time.
>
> Every nation has civil wars at some point, werent
> not an exception
There was a BIG difference. The Revolutionary war was between colonists finding for their independence from the British Empire, ruled by a king. Prior to and leading up to the Civil War the states still had alot of rights. The south was just too dependent on blacks and others for slave labor. Black people weren't the only ones enslaved, so were American Indians and other "imported" groups.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Actually... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I disagree, the states should have worked with
> the
> > Congress to hammer out a compromise, rather
> than
> > secede from the Union. Seceding is an act of
> > treason.
>
>
> So the founding fathers should have worked out a
> compromise with England?
>
> The only difference between the two groups is that
> one group won their war the other lost. The
> issues were very similar
>
> Also they had tried that route. The Civil War
> didnt happen over night and the didnt leave the
> Union based on a whim that they hadnt been
> considering for a significant amount of time.
>
> Every nation has civil wars at some point, werent
> not an exception
There was a BIG difference. The Revolutionary war was between colonists finding for their independence from the British Empire, ruled by a king. Prior to and leading up to the Civil War the states still had alot of rights. The south was just too dependent on blacks and others for slave labor. Black people weren't the only ones enslaved, so were American Indians and other "imported" groups.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 004
()
Date: January 19, 2014 08:53PM
Check the Facts Jack! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was a BIG difference. The Revolutionary war
> was between colonists finding for their
> independence from the British Empire, ruled by a
> king. Prior to and leading up to the Civil War the
> states still had alot of rights. The south was
> just too dependent on blacks and others for slave
> labor. Black people weren't the only ones
> enslaved, so were American Indians and other
> "imported" groups.
The big difference is one won and the other didnt. Both were groups fighting for their independence from their country at time. About 1/3rd of colonists didnt even want independence and actively supported the British.
As far as the south was concerned they were being ruled by a King as well since national elections could be won entirely on the northern vote. Had the south won their leaders would have been viewed the same as the founding fathers.
History is written by the winners. If you win you were fighting for independence from a tyrannical government, if you lose you were a traitor to your country.
Trying to say there was a huge difference is trying to make history fit the narrative you want. The Founding Fathers had far more common causes with the South than they did with the Union.
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was a BIG difference. The Revolutionary war
> was between colonists finding for their
> independence from the British Empire, ruled by a
> king. Prior to and leading up to the Civil War the
> states still had alot of rights. The south was
> just too dependent on blacks and others for slave
> labor. Black people weren't the only ones
> enslaved, so were American Indians and other
> "imported" groups.
The big difference is one won and the other didnt. Both were groups fighting for their independence from their country at time. About 1/3rd of colonists didnt even want independence and actively supported the British.
As far as the south was concerned they were being ruled by a King as well since national elections could be won entirely on the northern vote. Had the south won their leaders would have been viewed the same as the founding fathers.
History is written by the winners. If you win you were fighting for independence from a tyrannical government, if you lose you were a traitor to your country.
Trying to say there was a huge difference is trying to make history fit the narrative you want. The Founding Fathers had far more common causes with the South than they did with the Union.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Amy K
()
Date: January 19, 2014 10:09PM
If the war was about slavery, why did the South fire the first shot?
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Amy K
()
Date: January 19, 2014 10:15PM
If they want to make the road names politically correct, they should:
1. Remove the names of all Presidents who owned slaves.
2. Remove the names of all Presidents prior to when women were given the right to vote. (That would be everyone before Woodrow Wilson.)
So Wilson Boulevard can stay, but Washington Street and Jefferson Street have to be renamed. They will need to rename the capital also, call it Wilson, DC or maybe Reagan, DC.
1. Remove the names of all Presidents who owned slaves.
2. Remove the names of all Presidents prior to when women were given the right to vote. (That would be everyone before Woodrow Wilson.)
So Wilson Boulevard can stay, but Washington Street and Jefferson Street have to be renamed. They will need to rename the capital also, call it Wilson, DC or maybe Reagan, DC.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
stoneballs
()
Date: January 19, 2014 11:28PM
Pictures or it didn't happen!
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
Head Nigger
()
Date: January 20, 2014 09:02AM
Fuck you crackers!!!
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
exam proctor
()
Date: January 20, 2014 10:09AM
From the Simpsons
Citizen Exam Procter: All right, here's your last question: What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors, both domestic and international, played a significant...
Exam Procter: Hey, Mate.
Apu: Yeah.
Exam Procter: Just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir. Yes, I am a citizen!\
Since the end of the nineteen century, some have tried to change the narrative for the cause of the Civil War. It was slavery. Now, move on.
Citizen Exam Procter: All right, here's your last question: What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors, both domestic and international, played a significant...
Exam Procter: Hey, Mate.
Apu: Yeah.
Exam Procter: Just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir. Yes, I am a citizen!\
Since the end of the nineteen century, some have tried to change the narrative for the cause of the Civil War. It was slavery. Now, move on.
Re: All of the Civil War was not about slavery...therefore local issue X should...threads
Posted by:
get it together man
()
Date: January 20, 2014 10:42AM
Yankie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The true cause of the Civil War was the refusal of
> of the United States to allow the Southern states
> to secede from the union.
This was hardly a novel issue in 1860; it had been hotly debated since the earliest years of the Republic.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The true cause of the Civil War was the refusal of
> of the United States to allow the Southern states
> to secede from the union.
This was hardly a novel issue in 1860; it had been hotly debated since the earliest years of the Republic.