Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

Alvin Toffler wrote an excellent book called The Third Wave that addressed the cause of The Civil War. It is not an easy read, some net searches would get the ideas for you.

There were wars all around the world about at the same time and they were all fought for about the same reasons. The nature of wealth and wealth building were changing and there were struggles to grab a share.

If slavery in the US was ended by The Civil War, what ended slavery in much of the rest of the world about the same time?

McCormick got the write-up in the history books but many men were working on the same ideas around the world at about the same time as advances in technology made the industrialization of agriculture possible. The trend would not have stopped, for lack of one man. The names in the history books would have been different and the timing somewhat different.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

actually there is still slavery today. but your point has some merit.

that does not make lincoln's courage and risks any less, though. anyone can see the price he paid.

greed will always be around.

tom w

Originally Posted by Botnst

Slavery was an issue, not because slavery was illegal or unconstitutional, but because ownership of slaves was one 'right' implicitly reserved to the states. That particular argument seems to us modern folks well-educated by the history of the victors, to be a bit of sophistry.

But if slavery were the central issue, what cause of slavery was it that resulted in South Carolina's army firing on federal troops? Secondly, why did it take Lincoln until 1863 to issue the Imancipation Proclamation and why was it not enacted as a law through Congress?

Look, I'm not going to fight the Civil war again. The South argued as I am (and lost the argument). By losing that argument the southern states lost the perogative of writing the history. So now we believe just as you say, the Northern argument as to the reason for the war is The Reason.

Look at it this way, had the Axis Powers won WWII, would the Allied history have been written? Who would have been tried for war crimes? Which atrocities of war would we remember? Probably even more interestingly, many of us would now feel good that the science of eugenics in the hands of the State was ridding humanity of the subhuman types.

Bot

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

I would say nearly the same thing about lincoln as churchill. He was a great man and was the right man for the job. Did the ends justify the means? We'll never know.

And yes, there has always been slavery and probably always will be. The slave mentality is frighteningly pervasive. There is a theory that modern history is going in 80? year cycles and we are on a downtrend now.

Originally Posted by TwitchKitty

I am not trying to exlosively derail this thread so this will be my last post on the 1860s for now.

It is my understanding that the Constitution of the Confederate States banned the importation of slaves long before the US considered the issue.

The importation of slaves was a corporate endeavor and the corporations responsible were never penalized or punished.

Originally Posted by A264172

I thought the civil war ended February 3rd and April 8th 1913.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

there are a lot of folks who like to argue now and back then that it was not about slavery.

there were a lot more men that fought for the southern side that never sniffed at ownership of a slave that (baffling to me) were convinced to fight. they felt they were defending their homes (and they were). but the whole war benefitted them not at all. (sounds a lot like the present war in iraq).

the men who fought on the side of the south were by and large good decent men who fought courageously and effectively against a better equipped and larger northern army.

the bad part was that the north had to invade the south to win. if both armies just stayed in their own territory the south would have won by default.

so any of you think slavery should still be allowed here?

there were many who argued that slavery was actually more expensive than having freed men do the work and pay them. but you can bet that the slave owners didn't believe that for a minute.

course, the argument about it being more economical to use freed men must be true. cause that is how it is now! and the wages of blue collar folks continue to decline.

tom w

Originally Posted by Botnst

They, like Robert E. Lee, fought for their country. In his case, Virginia. Lee was offered command of Federal forces but declined and chose Virginia, to whom he felt the greater loyalty. And the same with all of the southern states, and many in the north. For example, it wasn't too many years previous that the New England states threatened secession.

Also, can you name any army component on the Federal side that did not owe allegiance to his state first?

The primary benefit accrued by citizens from the Civil War was the concept of truly universal equality of Mankind. The great loss was political. We were transformed from a government with political power balanced between the several states and the central government to one dominated completely by the federal government.

One outcome of that is the current ease with which the central government involves the states in international adventures. Before 1865, it was damn-near impossible to get all of the states to support a military adventure and provide soldiers and so forth. Now look at us.

Bot