W/out slavery, would the Civil War taken place?

"I am curious, if slavery was not part of the equation, would the civil war eventually have happened anyway?"

By the above, I assume that you refer to the American war of Northern Agression?

If so, then if slavery was not a part of the equation, then the "war" might well have happened in or about, 1929-1939!

But, what do I know? Speculation is speculation!

Regards,

Originally posted by sureshot3137  I am curious, if slavery was not part of the equation, would the civil war eventually have happened anyway?

Edited by Cryptic - 18-Feb-2010 at 09:08

Dear TGS,

Many thanks for your un-considered remarks! You wrote above;

"Many whites supported the richer, and far far fewer slave holders because, pure and simple, they were racists."

Just how do you know the inner feeling of persons long dead? Are you able to read their minds?
But it is a fact that most of the leaders of those times in politics and religion did have an elitist attitude towards Africa and Africans in general. To have these leaders promote the sub-human nature of Africans made it easier to stomach the slavery of them in general.

You answer was simple.

But, you still might well be correct?

Regards,


Edited by opuslola - 20-Feb-2010 at 03:36

Perhaps that is my failure? I have always leaned towards another scholar of the War Between the States, that of a man that I knew, his name was Shelby Foote;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062800723.html

But, he is not your "cup of tea", I would expect?

By the way TGS, you would not have had any ancestors who actually fought in this great struggle would you?

Since I have numerous ancestors who did, and whose histories I have persued, then maybe, just maybe, I might have more "real" intuitive reason to make my opinion than you might?

So, you would state that McPherson is really the one who made the following statement;

"Many whites supported the richer, and far far fewer slave holders because, pure and simple, they were racists."

You have the source(s), not me!

I don't really think that Mr. Foote would agree!

My best regards to you, as always!

Oh! I almost forgot!
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0h&oq=shelby+foo&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS315US315&q=shelby+foote+civil+war

Edited by opuslola - 20-Feb-2010 at 15:15

TGS wrote the following;

"Well Opuslola, most serious historians and those interested in history, dont just make up history to suite their own beliefs, they do research and use reliable sources and so on."

But, Great Simba, I do believe the above! Suiting one's on beliefs is "part and parcel" of any historian's work!

There exists such a range of positions across the board in real history discussions, that you cannot believe! Unfortunately a lot of these really deep discussions occur on sites like "JSTOR!", where, unless you have access to a collegiate library, you must "Pay to View!"


So, since I cannot afford such access, I am denied the most current and the most admired views! How about you?

Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 10-Mar-2010 at 18:51

Dear TGS,

I do not deny that "Racism" existed in the South in 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 CE, etc.

In fact "racism" exists "everywhere!", even today! Even at Harvard, and Yale, and in the halls of education arround the world! Some of them even hate theirselves / themselves!, etc.

Please find me anyone, who is "impartial?" I certainly don't know any such!, that is unless they are in a coma!

You are certainly not impartial, nor am I! Heck, try to find an "impartial" newman or woman! They don't really exist, it is much like finding an impartial RC Priest, or a impartial Rabbi, or Iman!

Hey! They don't exist!

Jesus reportedly said "turn the other cheek" when you are struck, but it seems he went wild when throwing the "money-changers" out of the Temple! Was he "impartial?"

Find me an "impartial" historian who writes a glowing history of Adolph Hitler, and I will state with forcefulness, that he or she will be called a "racist", a "fascist", and a "baby killer", etc.!

No, most people with a modicum of intelligence and some education, almost always have a set of opinions! And for most,these are opinions which they will mostly believe for the rest of their lives! Anyone who might claim that they are "impartial" can well be classified as "idiots!"

Just think of a world of people who were always "impartial"? Just ask them any question? What would a totally "impartial" person have to answer? Would he or she say; "I feel nothing in either direction!" Ask them; "Would you rather be roasted slowly to death, or given a lethal injection?" A "impartial" person whould have to answer "I don't care, I have no opinion about that! I'll happily go with what ever you feel is correct!" Laugh!

So, please find me an "Impartial" historian? Please?

Or do you even have an opinion about it? chuckle!

And please do not bore us with "facts!"

Regards,

Of course there supposedly exists that great crowd of people who are supposedly "middle of the roaders" in politics, but in my not too humble opinion, they are mostly "ignorant!", much like the Proverbable sheep! Or as the word is commonly used "sheeple!"

Regards, (I think? or maybe I should say; What-ever!)

By the way, there should be some facts involved in this discourse! So;
"Ads by GoogleMortgage refinancing 4.125%
Apply For Goverment Mortgage Refinance. 4.34% APR
www.FHA.com/Refinance
Refinance Now 4.25% FIXED
No Hidden Fees - 4.5% APR! Get 4 Free Quotes. No SSN reqd.
MortgageRefinance.LendGo.com
Current Mortgage Rates
Mortgage Rates Hit 46 Month Lows! See Rates - No Credit Check Needed.
www.CompareInterestRates.com
im·par·tial (m-pärshl)
adj.
Not partial or biased; unprejudiced. See Synonyms at fair1.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

impar·ti·ali·ty (-sh-l-t), im·partial·ness n.
im·partial·ly adv.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
impartial [ɪmˈpɑːʃəl]
adj
not prejudiced towards or against any particular side or party; fair; unbiased
impartiality , impartialness n
impartially adv
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj. 1. impartial - showing lack of favoritism; "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge"
fair, just - free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules; "a fair referee"; "fair deal"; "on a fair footing"; "a fair fight"; "by fair means or foul"
partial - showing favoritism
2. impartial - free from undue bias or preconceived opinions; "an unprejudiced appraisal of the pros and cons"; "the impartial eye of a scientist"
unprejudiced
receptive, open - ready or willing to receive favorably; "receptive to the proposals"

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
impartial
adjective neutral, objective, detached, just, fair, equal, open-minded, equitable, disinterested, unbiased, even-handed, nonpartisan, unprejudiced, without fear or favour, nondiscriminating They offer impartial advice, guidance and information to students.
unfair, prejudiced, biased, partial, influenced, swayed, unjust, bigoted
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002"

Therefore, "Justice" that lady with the scales, is considered as 'impartial', and every jurist is also supposed to leave their 'partialitiy', out of the courtroom!

Nah!




Edited by opuslola - 21-Feb-2010 at 19:15

Slavery was just one of the many rights in question for the states that led to the civil war.Without it there prolly wouldnt have been a war.But the same fights in the Senate and House would of surely happened.

Originally posted by TheGreatSimba Its called research. Read Mcpherson's book on the Civil War, he is regarded as the most reputable Civil War scholar in the world.

One book - Along with my text books and the research for my paper I must have read at least 10-11 books on this topic. I think McPherson was one of them but that was in 2001. Take a class on this subject and then I will respect you. Then again My brother in law has read god knows how books- you should see his collection. Dr Conlin was the only one more fanatical about this period in history, my Instructor.

Edited by eaglecap - 13-Mar-2010 at 16:25

Dittos!

I could not have said it better! But, TGS, a close reading of my posts will show you that in some ways, I already "said it!"

What most of you do not really understand is the fact that a great deal of the biggest "slave owners" in the South, were in fact "from the North!" Even today some of the most reverred Sotherners were, in fact, born Yankees!

But, do not trouble yourself with "facts!"

TGS most politely wrote the following;
"@Opuslola, I've stopped reading your "posts" a long time ago... actually, thats not true, I give some of them a quick read for a quick laugh."

Well, from an expert in American Civil War history, that is high praise indeed! Thanks so much!

I will continue, on occasion, to provide you with small tid-bits of humor! Since, you seem to like it!

I am almost sure that "eaglecap" will also entertain you as well!

My regards as always,