Re: Civil War (was RE: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated)
Nick Arnett wrote: Slavery wasn't an end unto itself, however. Surely there is little disagreement that the South's desire to preserve slavery was motivated by the economics of operating plantations. No, and don't call me Shirley. 8^) Seriously, I would disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. If economics was the driver, the South would have rejected slavery long before the Civil War. What I've read suggests that slavery was terribly inefficient because of its coercive nature and the requirement that a slave owner support his slaves from cradle to grave no matter how productive they were. So I can't see how slavery could be seen as the root of the issues. Seems to me that money (the love of it, as usual) was at the root, with power (the southern states' right to determine the legality of slavery) running a close second. Read more about ante-bellum Southern culture. I think you'll find that secession had more to do with honor than anything else. The idea that they were fighting for economic reasons probably would have seemed absolutely repulsive to them. Page Smith* writes of the complexity of the Southern culture: Slaves and slavery were not new to history, but nowhere else, in no other time, had a culture, or subculture taken the form of the South's peculiar institution, with such contrasting racial types wove into so intricate and intimate unity, one so full of unresolvable tension and tragic paradoxes.It defies any simple description so I can only suggest that you find a good reference and read more about it. It seems also that we agree that religion was not at the root, but used only to rationalize the horrors of American slavery. No, I have never read that religion was the/a root cause, of the Civil War. When I was younger, that episode of history seemed ancient. As I've grown older, especially as I've looked at my family genealogy, I've been quite struck by how recently this happened. Our *close* relatives were involved; those who imagine that we have really evolved much since then is kidding themselves. How many of us considered reading about dead people as the most boring subject imaginable? I first became interested when I found the first volume of Smith's history in a book locker onboard ship. I remain fascinated and have really only scratched the surface. Doug *Trial by Fire, A Peoples History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (volume five in his History of the United States.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Civil War (was RE: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated)
At 10:48 PM 11/25/02 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: if you're south of the Mason-Dixon line, the War Between the States Wrong. It's called The War of Northern Aggression. ;-) --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Civil War (was RE: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated)
Ronn said: It's called The War of Northern Aggression. Didn't the US Civil War start with the Confederacy firing on Fort Sumter? And wouldn't that make it The War of Southern Aggression? Rich GCU Hazy Knowledge ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Civil War (was RE: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated)
At 05:46 AM 11/27/2002 -0600 Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 10:48 PM 11/25/02 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: if you're south of the Mason-Dixon line, the War Between the States Wrong. It's called The War of Northern Aggression. In Boston, they call it The Rebellion - which is more accurate, IMHO. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Civil War (was RE: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:50 PM ... That's the succinct answer. Obviously it is difficult to accurately summarize the determinant of any great human conflict in a few sentences, but I feel confident in my assessment that slavery lies at the root of all of the issues discussed as causes. Slavery wasn't an end unto itself, however. Surely there is little disagreement that the South's desire to preserve slavery was motivated by the economics of operating plantations. So I can't see how slavery could be seen as the root of the issues. Seems to me that money (the love of it, as usual) was at the root, with power (the southern states' right to determine the legality of slavery) running a close second. It seems also that we agree that religion was not at the root, but used only to rationalize the horrors of American slavery. When I was younger, that episode of history seemed ancient. As I've grown older, especially as I've looked at my family genealogy, I've been quite struck by how recently this happened. Our *close* relatives were involved; those who imagine that we have really evolved much since then is kidding themselves. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Civil War (was RE: religion is evil, why it must be eradicated)
Nick Arnett wrote: I wasn't, so please amplify. I was a lousy history student. I've made up for a lot of that in regard to the Renaissance and Reformation, but not U.S. history, I fear. What *was* the Civil War (or, if you're south of the Mason-Dixon line, the War Between the States) about? I thought the big issue was secession in response to the abolitionist movement. The final straw for the South was the election of Lincoln, who incidentally, was not an abolitionist. But if there is one thing that you can't get around if you're arguing the causes of the Civil War is that had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. If you argued that the war was not fought to _free_ the slaves I would agree. Lincoln had pledged to halt the spread of slavery, but repeatedly said that he was not trying to end the institution. The problem was that the South, which held a disproportionate share of power in the Federal Government prior to the war, knew that once the spread of slavery was curtailed, their hold on the government would weaken. Once weakened, they could no longer protect their peculiar institution or its associated culture. Beyond that there was the problem of a large number of African Americans no longer enslaved - a problem that Lincoln was very concerned with as well. That's the succinct answer. Obviously it is difficult to accurately summarize the determinant of any great human conflict in a few sentences, but I feel confident in my assessment that slavery lies at the root of all of the issues discussed as causes. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
