Has someone's consciousness been raised?

By the way, "no," your duck and dodge is a classic symptom of someone with a short attention span. This learning problem comes from excessive TV-watching and the unwillingness to read, especially the unwillingness to read anything that doesn't confirm prior biases.

Your default has you supporting the enslavement of human beings.

Oh, yeah, it's a game alright. It's a game you lost. You lost not because you competed; but because you didn't have the wherewithal to play. You lost by default. You lost because you have nothing to support your claim.

Is it a conspiracy that has the the Civil War called the Civil War?

TL;DR I was correct in stating that the American "Civil War" was not a civil war at all. Thanks for playing.

You’d be correct in not predicting that the Brewers would go undefeated based solely on winning a game by 12-0. However, the prediction that slavery would still exist in 1890 and at that time the price of slaves would increase by 50% requires that the “baseball” comparison be something like: Major League baseball has existed for over 100 years; therefore, it is reasonable to predict that it would still exist in 30 years. Furthermore, it would be reasonable to predict that at that 30 year mark, the price of a ticket to a ballgame and the cost of purchasing an MLB team would at least increase by 50%.

You are correct in being repulsed by reducing humans to the status of products in the market place. But to remain consistent with your repulsion, you must reject that the problem be left to the market place and a bunch of idiots to resolve. The very nature of human slavery does not lend itself to the comparisons you resorted to it. The absence of a problem of comparable magnitude is a clue that the solution to the problem cannot be found in a relatively non-human forum. It is to be found in the idea that some things are worth fighting for; and that the will to fight for those things keeps us out of an eternal dark age.

In the matter of comparing the North and the South with you and your sane board members and the half that are idiots, sure, let them go. But what other action would you take against them if their goofy ideas included enslaving people for even a short period of time? I suspect that you’d take some additional action either directly or indirectly other than just “letting them go.”

Your depiction of the post-war South is accurate. Yet, shouldn’t you compare that situation with slavery itself rather than comparing it to how things would be if slavery and racism never existed? I think if you really did, you’d conclude that slavery was much, much worse. As horrible as the post-war South was, along with the abolition of slavery, that situation was among the first steps in the long effort for equality. Why do you think it would have been any easier if the South were allowed to abolish slavery at its whim or by some economic necessity? All you would be doing is delaying the post slavery phase and replacing it with a continuation of slavery.

Again, if Lincoln and the nation in general saw this country as the vanguard for world democracy and you don’t want to give him credit for being reasonable in that vision because it required that we militarily oppose the South and slavery, then, you have to let him off the hook for the war based on his “stupidly” -just like you did with the South.

As far as population stats go, I never put any credence in numbers that are totally EXTRAPOLATED. It's like watching one Brewer game, where they win 12-0, and saying they will go undefeated for the year. You just can't ever take a small sample of stats, and project them out 50-100 years out with any accuracy. Your very lucky if you are able to make accurate projections for just a year out. So many circumstances play into making any such complex projection.
.
As far as markets go, my point was that from a pure cost stand point (which I really don't like to do, since you ARE talking about human soles here, and not just some commodity)...If the price of a slave gets so high (because the supply has been cut off, and countless others all ready here are revolting, and leaving for the North, which they were at that time)you eventually get to a point where the cost of simply doing the slave work yourself, or paying someone a wage to do the labor for you, is more cost effective then buying a slave.
.
A good modern day example... something I know a bit about, is the oil market. Eventually we WILL reach a "peak oil" state..A point where we are using more oil then can be produced, or pumped out of the ground, and where they supply of oil will come to a total end...When that happens (the estimates vary from a few years to decades) you will have a situation where oil EXPLODES in price, and the explosion in price will force another form of fuel to take it's place. So all the people who believe oil is the root of all evil (much like slavery) will eventually get their wish, as the market will ultimately price it so high, that it's not even economically feesable to use.

Just like any event that is obvious to happen in the future as the result of present circumstances, you have to have FOR-SITE, and VISION. Obviously very few people do, even in today's world. The one's who do, are your very great leaders, and the ones who ultimately achieve much success in life. So yes, the vast majority of the southern people were to stupid to see the obvious.
.
My basic point of all this discussion was to simply let the cry babies secede. My God, they did you a FAVOR by seceding. It was BEYOND idiotic for the north to not recognize the succession, and force war. And I hope you are not disputing that if the North recognized secession, there would have been no war? The south sure as hell was not going to attack. They simply defended their territory from what they believed was a lawful secession from the Union.
.
To me this is about the biggest no brainers of all no brainers, if I'm the executive (President). It's like if I run a business, and half my board, who is like family to me, wants to leave and start their own business. Except they want to with grossly unjust, and unethical conduct-policy-labor. My God, they are doing me a favor by resigning, and when their business is exposed for it's gross misconduct-ethics, and ultimately collapses, no doubt they come begging to come back to me. And I just might consider it, since I did once see them as family.
.
Many in the North actually DID feel this same way. Lincoln was VERY vulnerable in his own party; as many took the same view as me. To me Lincoln was just a war monger who had no vision at all. History has really been revised like no other era to make him out as this icon. He got very lucky that the union won the war; and the cost was well over 300,000 union deaths...Countless more maimed, paralyzed-walking dead, ext. All that carnage and you hardly accomplished ANYTHING. If you were a southern black, you were hardly free, post war. Good luck voting. Good luck going to a restaurant, or public place. In war you SHOULD always way the costs before hand with vigilance (something hardly ever done, unfortunately). In this case the cost was not even close to being worth it. They should have just let them go. As I said before, where is becoming a state in this union a blood oath, where you can not leave, if the majority citizenry wants to? Let the idiots go. They'll either be begging to come back, or if their to prideful to ever ask to come back, their new nation state will become a poor-economically deprived hell hole..A modern day Haiti.

Well, I hope you slept ok despite the fact that you wrote three posts that render your stance very vulnerable.

So, by your account, the North "knew" that slavery wouldn't last long but the Confederacy didn't. How could this be? Didn't they keep up on current events down there? Seems that a faction that wishes to form a country that thrives on slavery and is to dumb to know that slavery is doomed, by those two things alone, should not be allowed to exist.

And even if it's true that the global slave trade was in jeopardy, you are ignoring the fact that slaves already in this country had a birth rate. I recall reading that in 1861 there was concern that the number of slaves in this country would be incredibly high by 1961 -a hundred years later. I couldn't find that source. And I usually don't go to the web to support a stance on this site; but I did find this one:

EH.net

"EH.net is owned and operated by the Economic History Association with the support of other sponsoring organizations."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...

Here is a relevant quote from that site:

"Slavery remained a thriving business on the eve of the Civil War: Fogel and Engerman (1974) projected that by 1890 slave prices would have increased on average more than 50 percent over their 1860 levels. No wonder the South rose in armed resistance to protect its enormous investment."

And I would respond to your comment re: the cost of slavery eventually being prohibitive with: You should know that a dynamic of the market place is: Whatever the market will bear: The price of slavery would have to adjust to the market.

Slavery was important to the economy of the South. Slavery kept costs low throughout that economy, directly and indirectly. Also, there was dread that the status of poor whites would be damaged if the slaves were freed and regarded as equals to those whites.

The alleged short-term demise of slavery is revisionist.

Just a interesting thing if you look at slavery from a PURE economic stand point. If the price of slavery exponentially goes up (which it was mid 1800's), slavery will ultimately stop, simply because it's not cost effective, and your better off paying people for the work, or developing technology to do the work better, then you are buying ultra high priced slaves to do it.
.
One of the most fascinating figures of ancient history IMO, is Hero of Alexandria. A man that was a mathematical-engineering genius who was literally CENTURIES ahead of his time. He developed things that even by today's standards are pretty mind boggling. In his manuscripts he actually had blueprints for steam power, which he never bothered to develop. Something that if developed, would have made for piston drove transportation, steam powered generators, ext...Technology that would not happen for almost 2000 years later!! The reason why his blue prints for steam innovation were never put into practice? Slave labor was so cheap then, that it made no economic sense.
.
Just a fascinating random late night thought...
Now I can go to bed! haha

I also never said I was "defending" the south.
I just simply don't think they did anything wrong by succeeding. Again I am not defending any aspect of enslavement. I just don't think the terms of becoming state is a contact that you can't terminate. If any state wishes to break away from the union, I say HAVE AT IT(even to this day). If you think you can do better without the laws and defense of the US government, and the people want there own sovereign nation state (which the people of all the succeeding southern states did) I say GO FOR IT. What many in the south did not realize is that breaking away would have been economic suicide, and their stand of living would have fallen into depression like state. Eventually many of the states would have been begging to come back into the union, that was doing much better economically. Instead there was unheard of bloodshed, and the results of the war really didn't "free" any slave. You had a total FLOP of reconstruction after the war...The south became a massive underground society of KKK, Jim Crowe laws, ext that terrorized the blacks for decades to come.

YES, that is exactly what I am asserting...
The north simply should have waited it out. Slavery was going to die. You seriously don't think if the south was broke away without war, and the confederacy was recognized, that slavery would still exist there today, I hope?
.
It would die because the supply of slaves was literally cut off, and stopped. The Royal navy had devoted huge resources to blockading the coast of West Africa. All of Europe had turned against slavery. No international trade would have been recognized with a slave country. The economy of the south would have collapsed, and when a economy collapses, the people rise up and over throw the governmnet, and their policies. It was totally doomed, and Presidents prior to Lincoln all knew that. Some people just can't see things that are obvious to happen in the future, and instead prefer war (this has also happened countless time was modern day presidents). In this case a BRUTAL war that saw well over 600,000 die, in today's terms of % of population, that would be over 6 million dead.
.
So yeah, I would have waited it out. The cost simply was not worth it, and if the sole objective truly was to end slavery (a very debatable objective to say the least) it was on a sure course to end anyway.

Since the Union didn't accept succession, the shots fired by the South landed on Union territory.

And, either your account of the economics of the slave trade and the alleged imminent demise of that trade is revisionary reasoning or both the North and the South really missed the boat on avoiding war. In order for your posts not to be revisionary both sides would have had the knowledge that you spelled-out. If both sides did have that knowledge, then, the North should have just waited it out, right? The trade-off for the North would have been that slavery would last only a little longer but six hundred thousand lives would be saved. And/or, with your aforementioned knowledge and reasoning, the South should have concluded: Well, slavery's going to end soon, so why don't we end it now and avoid war and all that death.

The problem is: Your reasoning was supposed to be in defense of the South; however, even if your reasoning is sound, that reasoning leaves the South at least as culpable for the war as the North.

Knowing a bit about markets (wink)...
The price was going up because the slave SUPPLY was all but GONE. The Europeans and even our own navy was patrolling the coasts of Africa, and seizing all slave ships. Any slave captain caught trafficking slaves on the open seas had very server consequences (often death). Many captured slaves by our Navy, or the Europeans on open seas were returned to bases set up in Monrovia-Liberia, or Sierra Leone (to the town still known as Freetown to this day). The price on the open market for places that still honored slavery obviously was going to explode since the supply was all but gone from the international crack down. The party really was over with the sin of slavery. Europe was the huge power in that era (the US was still no where even close to a major world power), and they were cracking down on slavery in a big time way.

Lee choose what he believed was the right side. That was to back his own state that his family had deep roots in (his father was the VA Governor). In that time loyalty to ones state was FAR more paramount then it is today. People would always refer to them self as a "Virginian, a New Yorker, ext" and hardly ever an American. Lee was of course not the immediate commander of the Confederacy. Joseph Johnston had command of the south's forces when the war broke out. Lee is regarded as such a great general (rightfully so) because he won many battles where he was WAY over matched in every strategic sense. The great generals throughout history are often losing generals in the long run (Napoleon, Hannibal) but they are so highly regarded because they won battles in the face of overwhelming odds, and MASTERFUL strategy to over come superior force. If Lee would have chose the Union, the war would have likely been over in no time. The Union had very poor leadership, which Lincoln was literally replacing by the week.
.
The south did not really "start" the war. They fired the 1st shots at Fort Sumter, but that was simply to get union troops out of a base that was part of their own territory, who refused to leave. Lincoln was a master politician, and realized he could use the incident to use as brilliant PR to claim the south started the war, by firing the 1st shot. It was very much a defensive war for the south. Almost every single battle was fought on their own turf, simply defending off the attacking north.
.
Slavery was doomed to fail as it did across the entire world. All of Europe had abolished it, and soon would not have recognized any trade with a slave nation. It would have died off on it's own, as it did everywhere.

Correction: first sentence, second paragraph should read:

...does NOT relieve....

It's too bad that Lee's masterful generalship didn't aid him in choosing the correct side.

What the North should have or should not have done does relieve the Confederacy of its responsibility for the war. The war started when the Confederacy attacked the Union.

Your Lincoln quote is accurate. As a matter of fact, I think he said even more spurious things back then. Back then, without electronic media, it was easier for a politician to play the crowd.

However, Lincoln's vision transcended the economics of the friction between the North and the South. Lincoln regarded this country as the vanguard for world democracy. Preserving the Union and its democracy would ultimately end slavery. The South knew this and chose war.

As for slavery ending: Just before the war began the price of a slave was at a historical high. The dynamic of the "efficient market" would have factored-in all the available information and wisdom to determine the price of a slave, or any other "product," for that matter. In other words, the slave trade priced slaves based on the belief that slavery would continue.

As far as the slavery question, I am obviously not promoting any moral justification for slavery. Unfortunately slavery STILL does exist to this day (in the form of human trafficking-sex trade, which is a multi billion $$$ black market business), and it is something that really needs to be addressed more by the world community to end.

Slavery in the south would have been crushed out of existence by simple economics. If the south would have succeeded with out a war, and the North simply refused to honor any trade with the South, and all other nations of the world did the same, their economy would have collapsed, and slavery would have ultimately imploded from within, in no time. It's very much like modern day sanctions upon immoral countries. As long as you have world support on the sanctions (which quite often you don't...ie Iran) no country can really survive on it's own with any real success, or standard of living to it's citizenry, and ultimately a coup- overthrowing of the governmnet by it's citizenry will be the result.

The real fact is that the North needed the south far more then the south needed them. To say it's was all a moral war to end slavery is ridiculous. Lincoln even said when he took office: "If I could win the war by freeing all the slaves, I will do it, if I could win the war and not free a single slave, I would do that too." That's a direct quote. History has revised the "iconic" Lincoln as being this great moral person who went to war solely for moral reasons to end slavery. Slavery was what it was all about, but ECONOMICS (which slavery was a huge part of in the south's economy) was the real reason.

IMO Lincoln is the figure that has had SERIOUS revisionist history, and been idolized way to much over. He was really the closest thing to a total dictator this country has ever seen. It's rather funny, but nonetheless true, that people are OBSESSED with dictators. So many of the most known and wrote about leaders in history were dictators-tyrants.

I'm not one to necessarily idolize Lee either, but you can not neglect the fact that he was a GREAT general. If not for one of the biggest military blunders of all time, he may be up there with the likes of a Hannibal, or Alexander, who most consider the greatest military generals ever. Many of the greatest generals throughout world history are not to be "idolized", they should just be recognized for being great leaders-strategists. Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barca, Julius Caesar , Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte are some of the most famous generals in history. Most all were not exactly magnanimous people, but simply great military minds who often won victory against overwhelming odds. Lee was a brilliant military mind. I believe at West Point he is still regarded as the only cadet to never get a single demerit. The fact that he was one of West points finest was the reason why the war went on as long as it did. When it broke out, everyone in the North believed it would be just a "rebellion", and rebellions are crushed in the matter of days. Lee was FAR from a war monger who just jumped onto the south bandwagon to engage in military glory. The accounts are that he spent days agonizing over the decision of whether to honor the country he fought for (in the Mexican American war, and the country who trained him at West Point), or to honor his beloved state of Virginia who had called upon him to serve.

As far as the North "conquering", you can call it what you wish, but in every aspect of what are considered "rules and engagement" of war among civilized society, the North would have been guilty of countless war crimes. Most civilized societies do not believe in taking war to civilian populations.

username "no," take note of how someone should respond in a debate. Well done, kiowamohican.

kiow....., the accoutrement of a nation does not necessarily make a nation. The bottom line is that the Confederacy was an organized element for the purpose of continuing the enslavement of human beings. Therefore, the North did not conquer, instead, it did what was necessary to liberate those humans. If what the North did was in excess of what was necessary to liberate enslaved people, that excess could have been prevented by the Confederacy's freeing of the slaves. The proper cause should be attributed to its natural effect.

As for Lee and the vicissitudes of war, I'm one of those people who reject the idolization of Lee. Reluctant or not, he deserves no respect for what he did. Whenever I'm in the South, I find it odd that there are statues and busts in his honor. I can only respect him for his statement, to the effect, that it was his fault that thousands of men were killed.

I also don't buy the revisionists that it was not about slavery. Of course it was, just look at the south's constitution. Slavery is mentioned OVER AND OVER. I just simply don't buy the notion that a state cannot succeed from the union, if the majority of the PEOPLE of that state want it. Just because they succeeded because of something you don't agree with, or find morally wrong is not a reason to go to war, IMO. And make no doubt it was the North who was the aggressor, and went to war. And yes, they were much like conquerors when you look at Sherman's march through the south, with ravaged CIVILIAN populations. And yes the Americans were very much conquerors in the Mexican-American war. We invaded a sister state for her land..Went right to the heart of their capitol in Mexico City, and forced them to surrender and give us their land. It's all in the history books...Many simply just choose not to read those pages.

All I'm saying is that I'm like many...I'm all for a war to stop aggression, or DEFEND yourself upon attack...Or fight for your independence-basic freedom-liberty; like we did in the revolution. I just don't believe in wars of conquest, or frivolous wars that have no national interest; like SO MANY of recent have.

g-fan:
You can argue this all day. There is a HUGE difference between a rebellion, and an actual succession where you for a sovereign state-nation. If organized crime broke away, and claimed sovereignty, that is WAY different then an ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT with the support of the public-voting majority behind it. Today you have nut groups like "sovereign citizens" and militia groups, who claim to be separate nations, and therefor the laws of the US do not apply. That is obviously NOT recognized, nor should it be. It is far different when you have an organized governmnet behind the succession.

To say the south did not break away and was it's own nation is beyond ridiculous. You had everything that is necessary to be a nation...Namely an organized governmnet with a recognized head of state by the people of the state-nation. A national Capitol, a military, a currency, a national flag....NONE of that would be the case in a rebellion. As I stated in my 1st posting on this, if Lee did not make a MAJOR tactical mistake (many believe that he had a a mild stroke before the battle of Gettysburg) the North was all but lost....The public support would have fallen apart (it all ready was after huge wins by the south at Fredricksburg, ext), and some sort of truce would have been made that allowed for a sovereign south to end the mass blood shed.

no, your problem is: you don't know the difference between a civil war and a revolution. Also, my posts overwhelmed you with clear reasoning and a lot to think about. You couldn't handle the challenge of actually responding to them with any intelligence. That's why you dissembled and took the easy way out by responding with rudeness and ignorance. Try to give a challenge more effort.

Gazettefan is clueless. By his logic, the American Rebellion against the British Crown fits his definition of a "civil war".

It's too bad they don't teach kids how to think anymore.

kiow……, the fact that the terms of surrender that ended the Civil War did not even fathom sovereignty for the South supports the claim that succession never really happened. The Union denied it from the beginning. Why didn’t Lee or Davis even make the offer that the Confederacy would abolish slavery if sovereignty were permitted? Because even those principals knew that the entire attempt at succession was an effort to avoid the criminalization of slavery. No more slavery, then why even bother being a separate nation? was the thinking.

kiow……, in the matter of favorable representation for the South over the North by Hollywood, I should have pointed out that that misrepresentation is always on a small scale. Except for movies like Gone With The Wind and Birth of a Nation, on the grand scale, the North and the South tend to be represented accurately by Hollywood. My point is that Hollywood is blindly on the side of the underdog to the point that sometimes clear reasoning goes out the window.

While you are correct in the matter of Native Americans, your assessment of our history would be better framed by comparing us to regimes like Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and the Soviet Union. In your assessment you should also consider how our military ventures abroad were generally for the purpose of self-preservation and rescuing others from tyrannical regimes. And note that all our wrongs were and are being corrected internally. We never needed to be invaded by another country to make progress. Accordingly, during the Civil War, the correction in the matter of slavery was internal; or, if you are correct and the South was a sovereign nation, then, a military invasion by us was necessary. Take your pick.

kiow………, there is nothing in the Constitution that says an attempt at succession can’t be challenged. And I don’t abide by the revisionism that claims slavery wasn’t the main issue in the matter of the Civil War. (By the way, is “Civil War” a misnomer in your mind?) Succession and slavery were certainly inextricably tied; therefore, the Union had every right to challenge an organized element whose main goal was to avoid the criminalization of slavery. This is why the succession failed. The Union had a moral obligation to deny succession just as it would have the same obligation to deny an attempt at succession by Organized Crime in this country, if such an attempt were ever made, especially if turf were involved. A better example is the de facto attempt at succession by the Catholic Church in the matter of its claim to “police our own,” for the purpose of avoiding the full force of our law, especially if turf were involved, like the Vatican in Vatican City. “To police our own” is intended to hide and defend the Church’s criminal enterprise that is best described as the institutionalization of child rape.

kiomohican~ again, it all boils down to the headline of this article.

"And, every time one side wins a war does not automatically mean that the other side is no longer exists as a separate nation. "
.
No,of course not.
It all depends what the terms of surrender are.
The victors dictate all the terms, if the surrender is unconditional. The union obviously was not going to let the confederacy nation remain as a separate sovereign country upon their surrender, considering that was the whole point of them going to war in the 1st place.

Many portray the north as the "bad guys" simply because most civilized people today do not believe in a war of aggression. That is why the Spanish American war is LONG FORGOTTEN in American history, because it really shows America as a conqueror. I mean we invaded a fellow neighbor to gain territory. Ironically, many US generals who would fight each other later on(Lee-Grant) in the Civil War-war of northern aggression, served together in the Spanish-American war.

Most like to think of the US as a country who will defend itself. One who will fight for it's freedom and liberty, not one that will just attack and conquer it's fellow neighbor like so many tyrannical civilizations of the past did. In my opinion, that is why the Spanish-American war is almost erased from history now, as well as many skirmishes and blatant treaty violations with countless native American tribes that we destroyed. And also why the south is often pictured as the good guys in most films. Americans do not like to be thought of as conquerors, but more of people who will respect their fellow man, their neighbor, and his-her beliefs, no matter how much you may disagree with them. Unfortunately that really is NOT our history, and why we try to hide so much of it, IMO.

You can call it whatever you wish. In Arkansas it is still referred to as: "The war of northern aggression". A term that is probably the most accurate of any. My point was just that the confederacy WAS a separate nation, like it or not. The fact that it was not recognized by the north does not mean it wasn't a nation. Hell, many countries today do not recognize Israel as a nation, but that does not give the claim merit. If you have a organized, central governmnet, with a recognized leader-head of state by the people of that country, a military, a constitution, your own national currency, a nation capitol, a national flag (all of which the confederacy had). All that certainly makes it a credibly nation, no matter if some on the outside recognize it, or not. The fact that they broke away from another country (the union) means nothing. MANY countries have broken away to start their own nation. The USSR broke into many many nation states, all of which are fully recognized countries now, separate from the former country they were part of.

gazettefan- in today's world, you could say, the first generation builds the business and uncle sam gets the most benefit out of it! (And the third generation isn't even aware that there was a business!)

Good points, winstonchill. I would only add that it appears that the first generation builds the business; the second generation gets the most benefit out of it; and the third generation runs it into the ground.

In the matter of history, it seems that a certain political-bent in Hollywood is so much in favor of the underdog that it chronically portrays the North as the bad guys in Civil War movies. Ironically, that political-bent should be on the side of the North. In any case, this weird representation of the North feeds into the claim that the South was somehow attached to a righteous cause.

It's great that people are up on their history. Sad part is, most American's aren't. Much of it has been diluted through time and many key leaders and events aren't even taught in the school ciriculum. The point is, everyone loves freedom, however, if you don't understand how those freedoms came to be, you have no idea how to defend them. That's what we're looking at today with the generations. It's like giving an 18 year old a family business that the parents built with blood, sweat and tears that became very successful, only to have it run into the ground because the kid didn't understand that before the business became successful, there were many struggles and challenges to overcome. Dream, struggle, victory isn't being learned by many today. Everyone want's the dream and everyone wants the victory, but what people don't realize is that the struggle is the ingredient that makes the victory taste so sweet.

More on point: It was no's claim that it's invalid to refer to the war as the Civil War because the South was a separate nation.

The Confederacy considered itself a separate nation. But Lincoln and the U.S. rejected that claim. Among other things, Lincoln's rationale for the denial of sovereign nation status had to do with the fact that the U.S. would eventually abolish slavery within its own borders. The South's claim that slavery was justified was as invalid as its claim of sovereignty.

And, every time one side wins a war does not automatically mean that the other side is no longer exists as a separate nation. The war was also referred to as the war between the states. To stay on point: It's valid to call the war the Civil War.

Of course the Confederacy was not recognized by the union; hence why a war was fought. And of course they were not able to form a sovereign governmnet after because they LOST the war. The winning side dictates the terms of surrender. To say they the Confederacy was not a separate nation state is absurd. They had broken away. They had formed their own Centralized governmnet, a national Capitol (in Richmond), there own currency, own constitution, and all ties to the former Union were cut. Once the Union won the war, THEN the Confederacy nation was no longer.

Lee's surrender did not include the condition that the South would have the status of a sovereign nation.

I should also add: The fact that the South was not allowed to operate as a separate nation when the war ended supports what I said in my previous post.

no, I respectfully disagree. Though some southern states formed a central government, Lincoln, his administration, and the U.S. in general did not recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. The southern states in question were still considered part of the Union. The unwillingness to accept the Confederacy as a separate nation bolstered the rationale for quelling what was labeled the rebellion.

*Also, the fact that this country had a civil war is not interpretation, *

Actually, you're wrong by definition. A civil war is fought within one nation-state between its own citizens. The South had seceded and formed its own government and state. The USA fought the CSA. It was a war between two separate nation-states at that point.

*Also, the fact that this country had a civil war is not interpretation, *

Actually, you're wrong by definition. A civil war is fought within one nation-state between its own citizens. The South had seceded and formed its own government and state. The USA fought the CSA. It was a war between two separate nation-states at that point.

kiowamohican-- exactly! It's a good thing America had sound leadership in that era. It's scary to think of what this country would look like under the guidance of people like Geo. W Bush or Obama. In those days and prior, we were led by men who had courage to do the right thing and were focused on their duties, not their "rights".

Right on coast2coast
I always ponder what would have happened if the US backed Germany (which we seriously considered doing)? Imagine how different world history would have been shaped then? You may have had a WWII where France-Britain was the aggressor (because they were punished so harshly from the victorious Germans)and we went to fight with the liberating Germans.

I always wonder that about the Civil War to. If Lee did not make his worse tactical move in his entire distinguished military career, by making a futile charge from the low ground at Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg, but instead bypassed the ridge, and went straight for DC, how would the country be shaped now? If his troops would have made DC (being on a string of victories all ready) the union would have have folded up it's pursuit of winning the war, and some sort of truce would have been made. Public opposition was growing very strong in the union public with all the deaths and carnage, and an offensive attack would have been much like the tet-offesive of a century later. Where it showed that the war was no where even close to an end, and the public would turn against it in mass. And of course once the public turns against a war, it is LOST. You'd likely have two separate countries to this day, and everything in history would be DRASTICALLY different.

It's quite fascinating how just one little event, and or mistake, can so drastically change the course of history.

sigma, I hope you gave no's post a good read.

Also, the fact that this country had a civil war is not interpretation, it's fact. It's also fact that there are varying points of view as to the nature of that war and the reasons for which it was fought. Different accounts and different interpretations of the Civil War are elements of its history.

The fact that we can never have an absolute consensus of a historical fact like our Civil War does not render that war's history as something not worth studying. We'd have a serious void in our national consciousness if we didn't have a history of the Civil War.

As for the internet, the internet overly appeals to the stultifying trap of confirmation basis. The internet also comes with the seductive ease at which facts are mined which, in turn, contribute greatly to a false sense of comprehension.

I think someone proved that a poli/sci prof should not pretend authority on historical subjects if he tries to link the treaty of Versailles and teachers paying a portion of their retirement and some other budgetary considerations...maybe he means that the Hun teachers who lost a war they started are now being harshly treated by France who will then occupy the Ruhr when WEAC members fall behind in their contributions to their retirement and that this event will one day give birth to the National Socialist teachers party who then invade Poland?

Exactly.. History is different from every persons perspective. So to think you've majored in it you are ignorant, it cant be majored in unless you've seen it from everyones eyes (impossible). What you learned in school is just the few random things someone picked out to teach you.....needles in haystacks. Historians are in the constant process of learning new history... therefore since its "in process" they can not say they majored in it.

The big problem is that everyone interrupts history different. It's often said that the WINNERS (of war and conflict) are the ones who write the history. And that history is often very much distorted, and open to much interpretation, and countless flaws by the authors. Any event that happens, you can dig up some era of history, and CLAIM that it's happening all over again. Most of the time if you actually read ALL the details of that era in history, you will find that the actual situations were FAR different. Like comparing the recession of today to the great Depression is ABSURD. The two eras are so different, that it's comparing apples and oranges.

Just the Author of this article distorts history himself in this blog. Somehow thinking the depression was the result of policy of the Republicans of that era. The far greater cause of it was Wilson getting us into WWI. The dumbest war the US has ever entered into (well, debatable with the war of 1812). We did not even know what side to back when the thing broke out, and only took a side because a passenger ship with US citizens was accidentally sunk by the German U-boats, and we got a hold of a bogus letter that was supposedly sent by the Germans to Mexico (likely was actually sent by the allies to get us to back their side). That war literally set the seeds to break our economy in years to come. We were no super power back then, and it put us so far in debt to finance the thing that a massive depression loomed on the horizon. Much like the massive debt we take on now will result in economic catastrophe down the road. When it happens 10-20 years down the road; however, people will say it was the result of CURRENT things, and current administrations, when in fact the seeds were planted LONG AGO.

*Majoring in History is like majoring in walking or breathing. History is something we created and lived.. so it takes no special skills to look back and see what happened. *

Absolutely incorrect and titanically ignorant. The study of history is a whole lot more than "look[ing] back [to] see what happened"--it's a multidisciplinary endeavor that can combine everything from sociology to economics to anthopology to environmental science.

To be a historian, you need to be able to think critically, first and foremost--apparently that disqualifies you right off the bat.

Now you know.

gazettefan - What was I thinking? Majoring in History is like majoring in walking or breathing. History is something we created and lived.. so it takes no special skills to look back and see what happened. Anyone can do it. Prior to the internet this might have been a little more challenging. Today anyone with a little curiousity and some time can look stuff up. To say you "majored" in it is kind of ignorant seeing past common knowledge (on todays level) there is a lot of guess work as to what happened because there is insufficient documentation on a lot of things.

Learning from the past is much different than living in it. ;)

sigma, what were you thinking when you wrote your last post?

Everything it takes to save this country is encompassed by the headline of this article. Of course, it's one thing to read and acknowledge, it's another to get into activity mode and actually do something...

Another lesson from history: the Left uses the economic crises created by the Right to enact unconstitutional social programs that ensure that there will be even worse fiscal crises in the future, see: Wilson [income tax], FDR [Social Security] and Obama [health care "reform"].

We did learn from our history John. How soon you forget the DEMOCRATIC DOMINANCE which led to the REPUBLICAN DOMINANCE. We learned our lesson last fall, we learned it this past April, and we'll show you again how much we learned when the recall elections come around.
-
And how soon you forget that 39% of House Democrats and 58% of Senate Democrats voted FOR the war on Iraq - but I suppose that was just a oversight on your part, along with the war on Afghanistan and the war on Libya.
-
Also, to quote MLK and to use his Civil Rights message and compare that to whatever political battles people are entwined with is just absurd. It belittles the struggles of African-Americans who just wanted to be treated like human beings. To equate basic human rights with the fight of public service unions to keep riding the gravy train is just moronic.

Well, I guess your partisanship has been fully revealed now, John. All recessions are the fault of Republicans? Is economics really that big a mystery to you? I guess all that post election talk from you about how the public employee unions had gotten too powerful was just what, a lot of hot air? Just how did you think those powerful unions were going to be tamed? By negotiation? Did you really think those unions would acknowledge that they really are too powerful and then agree to give some up? Perhaps you wrote those things without thinking it all through. Maybe you were feeling overly bi-partisan that day. In any case, you've obviously changed your tune now that change is underway. Nothing changes a man's perspective like perceived threats to his self-interests. Those who make their living off other peoples' taxes don't like governmental austerity. They like tax increases and higher government spending, hence all the budget protests of late. Furthermore, the powerful don't usually willingly give up any of their power. Public employee unions are no exception to that axiom as their hysterical reactions of late prove. Those are lessons from history too, by the way.

lakennedy - How do you major in History? So you know something that already happened? There is no training involved.

“These fools have bought into the right wing radio garbage …” That’s right NV, anyone who disagrees with your perfectly reasoned views is clearly an ignorant fool, eh? If you don’t like the concept of public unions, why, you must be a brainwashed zombie, victimized by the “right wing radio”. Sorry old girl, but unlike some annoying out-of-staters, the voters in this state made a resounding demand to reverse the excesses and problems caused by years of liberal policies.

By the way, every time you libbies invoke Hitler, you not only demonstrate your appalling ignorance of history, but also your laughable lack of perspective. Nicht wahr?

" Repeal of “collective bargaining rights” with REPUBLICAN DOMINANCE of public policy."
-
Sad that the partisan public employees are so blind to party loyalty they are unaware of the news from other parts of the country.

Dems limit collective bargaining in Mass, Illinois, and Connecticut: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breakin...
http://www.businessinsider.com/now-democ...

Shhh don't tell them the truth, their heads might explode.

I majored in history, and once had an excellent professor who said:
+
"The past provides no simple answer for the present. We must be on guard against anyone who claims that it does. We do not have to believe Santayana when he said that "those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it." Still, those who do not remember are in jeopardy of suffering at the hands of those who say they do."
+
I think this is a very legitimate concern.

I think we repeat history constantly.... because everyone is to affraid to change and do something new.

Well said John! And one response to your assertions: "The removal of collective bargaining rights is a step forward to our state, not backwards." These fools have bought into the right wing radio garbage that works against their own middle class standings and they don't even know it! The would line the pockets of the corporate elites while watching their own socioeconomic class slide into oblivion. Hitler loved the blind allegience of such people. It is certainly no wonder that Michelle Bachmann has emerged as one of the top two Republican candidates!! These ignorant folk will believe anything.

Concernedperson.......According to you, an attempt by our government to bring excessive state expenses under control is moving us toward the "hole of oblivion"?? Keep fighting the good fight there genius:)

I disagree. Our state is moving backwards one day at a time into the hole of oblivion.

John your Democratic party biased rants have continued to get so far off line it boarders on insanity. The removal of collective bargaining rights is a step forward to our state, not backwards. May I remind you that this was one actually a key idea from the Obama administration to save money? Your blind support of Democrats in the face of their evil motives just is an insult to your readers intelligence. Please change your blog to "How to slam anything and everything the Republican party does, while blindly following the Democrats."

The nice long lull in postings made me think that Eyster had defected to a worker’s paradise like North Korea, to live his life seeing his ideals manifested close at hand daily. Alas, it was too much to hope for.

So, where to start with this particularly odious partisan ranting? It’s certainly interesting to learn that our current “depression” is entirely the fault of a “REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION”. I can only be thankful that my children were never subject to “teaching” from a self-styled political expert who doesn’t know the difference between the executive and legislative branches. Because the folks holding the purse strings during this “genesis” were the Democrats. Yep, that would be the same party who has been spending like the proverbial drunken sailors since Obama took office.

“Repeal of collective bargaining rights”? We’ve cut back on union power in the public sector, which is a far cry from your Chicken Little statement. Think of it more as a repeal on the forced funneling of tax dollars to the Democratic Party via union leadership, which can only be a good thing.

If you want to learn from history, take a look at the Greek example. When you try to provide social services well beyond your economic means, you go broke. And then bad things happen, possibly very bad things. That’s where Obama is taking us today, full speed ahead. As William F. Buckley, Jr. noted, “Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.” But you can’t learn anything from a conservative, now can you?

As for the Treaty of Versailles, what on earth does that have to do with the rest of the blog? These postings are becoming more of a random stream of consciousness than a coherent political analysis.

The problem here is not the “strident clamor of the bad people”, but the ceaseless caterwauling of socialists who demand more than any society can possibly afford.