Dockside Chat - What caused the Civil War?

So what was the MAIN reason for the Civil War? Was it slavery, state sovereignty issues, economic issues.... etc?

I moved several times growing up and really never thought about it until recently, but I was taught different things based on my geographic location.... I think. So first post your location, I don't care if you don't want to post exactly (N or S of the Mason-Dixon line will work), then tell us the MAIN reason the war started.

I'm gonna go with guns, but it coulda been bayonets.

The Mason Dixon line is 200 yds southwest of my property. So since I am probably the most neuteral due to location...the answer is.......


Lots of reasons.


Now get me some popcorn. 15 pages....

Those Damn Yankees started it...:jk:

Currently Alabama, raised in Louisiana.


To give the North something to be happy about.:grin:

economics.

the root cause of any war.

Found this on a Google search:

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

We were always taught in school that it was about slavery, but my grandfather and his father used to talk about how it had little to do with slavery and more to do with the rights of states and their role in federal government. Slavery was a very tidy way of justifying the war.

Suburbs of Richmond VA, capital of the "south". Don't remember exactly what I learned in school vs what I've learned since but I believe we touched on states rights and the economic issues more than slavery itself (although that had to be talked about). Might be surprising to read that since my history teacher for the civil war was a black lady.

disestablishmentarianism

Same thing every war starts over......the struggle for power. It's always about power. Power to practice your religion. Power to govern yourself. Power to control of natural resources.

"Too cold up here to fish in winter. Let's head South."

...

"Bob, dem northerners are gonna be takin' all our fish!"

paper vs. plastic

What ports did the slave traders use to enter America?

Did you know slaves helped to build the WH?

Did you know the 1st slaves sent to America where white children?

Slavery wasn't just in the South. Yankees had slaves too. For this reason I'm not sure how this could have caused the country to split.

We try to make it sound like we are all enlightened and it was all about slavery, but that was merely a political football - it was all about state's rights, economic differences between the north and south, and a troll on a web forum somewhere. :)

I want to revise my answer.

I'm going with a lack of imagination or excessive testosterone. More likely some combination of both. Or something else entirely. I'm really not sure.

Bet this one may surprise you! Yes, slavery was also in the Northern states. From the University of Virginia Library has a historical census browser where you can get a variety of statistics relating to the census including slave statistics. One of these tables even lists slaves by state, county and the number of slaves that each county had in a particular census year (remember, the census was done every 10 years starting in 1790.)

Guess what, Connecticut had slaves in 1790! Every county. So did Delaware. As a matter of fact, Delaware had slaves in every county, every census, until slavery was abolished.

Alabama's first slave wasn't until the 1820 census! And then it wasn't even in every county. Georgia, of course, had some slaves in 1790 but certainly not every county, only a handful.

Illinois, land of Lincoln, had slaves! Yes, several counties in Illinois owned slaves up until the 1850 census and even a handful of counties in Indiana were slave owners.

We're well aware that Louisiana, Mississippi and the Carolinas were big slave owning states. But did you know that Maryland, except for Howard County, (until 1860) and one or two others owned slaves! That's right.

New Hampshire had a handful of slaves. Most counties in New Jersey were slave owning, New York and Pennsylvania until 1850 HAD SLAVES!

These northern states owned slaves before the southern states. The Northern States owned slaves starting from the 1790 census. Some Southern States started later, the Carolinas were by 1790, so was Virginia. Georgia and Tennessee had a handful by 1800, but others didn't start their slave ownership until the 1820 census.

So what does this prove? That slavery started in the industrial north. It was not a southern invention. The southern economy may have depended on slavery but the northern states benefited from slavery as well.

Don't believe us? Check it out for yourself. http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/index.html

It's a matter of perspective, but secession, or more precisely, a state's right to secede from the Union, was the catalyst for the war.

The Confederate states put State's rights before those of the Union, whereas (most) Union states believed that the Union's interests overshadowed those of the individual states.

But what really drove it? I'd say that it was money. In simplistic terms, mill owners in the North did not want to lose their supply of cheap raw materials (namely, cotton). Plantation owners and shipping companies in the South wanted the flexibilty to set prices, by selling their commodity to the highest bidders, which were usually English mill owners. It quickly went downhill from there.

This thread is definitely more fun than the other one about a preacher putting up a lynching photo. :)

What I've learned about slavery, Lincoln and the Civil War is that Lincoln essentially used slavery as a bargaining chip to:
1. Prevent the secession of the Southern States and, when that failed,
2. As a bargaining chip to try bringing the Confederate States back into the Union, which also failed.

It certainly appears that Lincoln was willing to accept continued practice of slavery as the price of keeping the Union together.

And I agree with Fubar- money was a root cause of the war.

Interestingly, in 1670 the Lords Commissioners of Foreign Plantations enquired of the Governor of Virginia on the status of the colony. Sir William Berkeley answered in 1671.

15. What number of planters, servants and slaves; and how many parishes are there in your plantation?

Answer. We suppose, and I am very sure we do not much miscount, that there is in Virginia above forty thousand persons, men, women, and children, and of which there are two thousand black slaves, six thousand Christian servants (slaves), for a short time, the rest are born in the country or have come in to settle and seat, in bettering their condition in a growing country.

16. What number of English, Scots, or Irish have for these seven yeares last past come yearly to plant and inhabite within your government; as also what blacks or slaves have been brought in within the said time?

Answer. Yearly, we suppose there comes in, of servants, about fifteen hundred, of which, most are English, few Scotch, and fewer Irish, and not above two or three ships of negroes in seven years.

17. What number of people have yearly died, within your plantation and government for these seven years last past, both whites and blacks?

Answer. All new plantations are, for an age or two, unhealthy, 'till they are thoroughly cleared of wood; but unless we have a particular register office, for the denoting of all that died, I cannot give a particular answer to this query, only this I can say, that there is not often unseasoned hands (as we term them) that die now, whereas heretofore not one of five escaped the first year.

At the end of the seventeenth century approximately 200,000 people inhabited the British colonies in North America. The following century saw an explosion in numbers with the population doubling about every 25 years. The majority of these new immigrants were Scotch-Irish, Germans or African slaves. Between 1700 and the beginning of the American Revolution, approximately 250,000 Africans, 210,000 Europeans and 50,000 convicts had reached the colonial shores.

White/black slaves were about even in number.

Enjoy your public re-education camps.


:grin:

States's rights, tariffs, and the fact that the north and south were light years apart from one another. Sectionalism and conflicts grew. Manufactured goods from the north went from a value of 30-40 million dollars in 1820 and jumped to almost 400 million by 1840! Meanwhile cotton was king in the south.

I think you often hear slavery related to the civil war, because that was the only positive thing that came from the war.

, and a troll on a web forum somewhere. :) :rofl: :thumbsup:

Testosterone.

Each side thought the other was a bunch of pussies who would fold at the first volley.

Bet this one may surprise you! Yes, slavery was also in the Northern states. From the University of Virginia Library has a historical census browser where you can get a variety of statistics relating to the census including slave statistics. One of these tables even lists slaves by state, county and the number of slaves that each county had in a particular census year (remember, the census was done every 10 years starting in 1790.)

Guess what, Connecticut had slaves in 1790! Every county. So did Delaware. As a matter of fact, Delaware had slaves in every county, every census, until slavery was abolished.

Alabama's first slave wasn't until the 1820 census! And then it wasn't even in every county. Georgia, of course, had some slaves in 1790 but certainly not every county, only a handful.

Illinois, land of Lincoln, had slaves! Yes, several counties in Illinois owned slaves up until the 1850 census and even a handful of counties in Indiana were slave owners.

We're well aware that Louisiana, Mississippi and the Carolinas were big slave owning states. But did you know that Maryland, except for Howard County, (until 1860) and one or two others owned slaves! That's right.

New Hampshire had a handful of slaves. Most counties in New Jersey were slave owning, New York and Pennsylvania until 1850 HAD SLAVES!

These northern states owned slaves before the southern states. The Northern States owned slaves starting from the 1790 census. Some Southern States started later, the Carolinas were by 1790, so was Virginia. Georgia and Tennessee had a handful by 1800, but others didn't start their slave ownership until the 1820 census.

So what does this prove? That slavery started in the industrial north. It was not a southern invention. The southern economy may have depended on slavery but the northern states benefited from slavery as well.

Don't believe us? Check it out for yourself. http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/index.html

You just learning US History now are ya? Nothing here surprises anyone I'd guess. Well, other than the part about slavery "starting" in the North. Slavery started in Africa, where most of the slaves were bought from their African slave masters by whites on their way to America.

You just learning US History now are ya? Nothing here surprises anyone I'd guess. Well, other than the part about slavery "starting" in the North. Slavery started in Africa, where most of the slaves were bought from their African slave masters by whites on their way to America.

Not accurate.




A slave's journey to a life of servitude often began in the interior of Africa with his or her capture as a prize of war, as tribute given by a weak tribal state to a more powerful one, or by outright kidnapping by local traders. European slave traders rarely ventured beyond Africa's coastal regions. The African interior was riddled with disease, the natives were often hostile and the land uncharted. The Europeans preferred to stay in the coastal region and have the natives bring the slaves to them.

"Most of the Negroes shipped off from the coast of Africa are kidnapped."

Dr. Alexander Falconbridge served as the surgeon aboard a number of slave ships that plied their trade between the West African coast and the Caribbean in the late 1700s. He described his experiences in a popular book published in 1788. He became active in the Anti-Slavery Society and was appointed Governor of a colony established for freed slaves on the coast of modern-day Sierra Leone. His service was brief as he died in 1788 shortly after his appointment. We join his story as he describes the process through which the native African looses his freedom:

"There is great reason to believe, that most of the Negroes shipped off from the coast of Africa, are kidnapped. But the extreme care taken by the black traders to prevent the Europeans from gaining any intelligence of their modes of proceeding; the great distance inland from whence the Negroes are brought; and our ignorance of their language (with which, very frequently, the black traders themselves are equally unacquainted), prevent our obtaining such information on this head as we could wish. I have, however, by means of occasional inquiries, made through interpreters, procured some intelligence relative to the point. . . . From these I shall select the following striking instances: While I was in employ on board one of the slave ships, a ***** informed me that being one evening invited to drink with some of the black traders, upon his going away, they attempted to seize him. As he was very active, he evaded their design, and got out of their hands. He was, however, prevented from effecting his escape by a large dog, which laid hold of him, and compelled him to submit. These creatures are kept by many of the traders for that purpose; and being trained to the inhuman sport, they appear to be much pleased with it.

I was likewise told by a ***** woman that as she was on her return home, one evening, from some neighbors, to whom she had been making a visit by invitation, she was kidnapped; and, notwithstanding she was big with child, sold for a slave. This transaction happened a considerable way up the country, and she had passed through the hands of several purchasers before she reached the ship.

A man and his son, according to their own information, were seized by professed kidnappers, while they were planting yams, and sold for slaves. This likewise happened in the interior parts of the country, and after pass*ing through several hands, they were purchased for the ship to which I belonged. It frequently happens that those who kidnap others are themselves, in their turns, seized and sold.

. . . During my stay on the coast of Africa, I was an eye-witness of the following transaction: a black trader invited a *****, who resided a lit*tle way up the country, to come and see him. After the entertainment was over, the trader proposed to his guest, to treat him with a sight of one of the ships lying in the river. The unsuspicious countryman read*ily consented, and accompanied the trader in a canoe to the side of the ship, which he viewed with pleasure and astonishment. While he was thus employed, some black traders on board, who appeared to be in the secret, leaped into the canoe, seized the unfortunate man, and dragging him into the ship, immediately sold him.

The preparations made at Bonny by the black traders, upon set*ting out for the fairs which are held up the country, are very consider*able. From twenty to thirty canoes, capable of containing thirty or forty Negroes each, are assembled for this purpose; and such goods put on board them as they expect will be wanted for the purchase of the number of slaves they intend to buy.

When their loading is com*pleted, they commence their voyage, with colors flying, and music playing; and in about ten or eleven days, they generally return to Bonny with full cargoes. As soon as the canoes arrive at the trader's landing place, the purchased Negroes are cleaned, and oiled with palm-oil; and on the following day they are exposed for sale to the captains.

When the Negroes, whom the black traders have to dispose of, are shown to the European purchasers, they first examine them rela*tive to their age. They then minutely inspect their persons, and inquire into the state of their health, if they are afflicted with any infirmity, or are deformed, or have bad eyes or teeth; if they are lame, or weak in their joints, or distorted in the back, or of a slender make, or are narrow in the chest; in short, if they have been, or are afflicted in any manner, so as to render them incapable of much labor; if any of the foregoing defects are discovered in them, they are rejected. But if approved of, they are generally taken on board the ship the same evening. The purchaser has liberty to return on the following morning, but not afterwards, such as upon re-examination are found exceptionable.

The traders frequently beat those Negroes which are objected to by the captains, and use them with great severity. It matters not whether they are refused on account of age, illness, deformity, or for any other reason. At New Calabar, in particular . . . the traders, when any of their Negroes have been objected to, have dropped their canoes under the stern of the vessel, and instantly be headed them, in sight of the captain.

As soon as the wretched Africans, purchased at the fairs, fall into the hands of the black traders, they experience an earnest of those dreadful sufferings which they are doomed in future to undergo. . . . They are brought from the places where they are pur*chased to Bonny, etc. in canoes; at the bottom of which they lie, hav*ing their hands tied with a kind of willow twigs, and a strict watch is kept over them. Their usage in other respects, during the time of the passage, which generally lasts several days, is equally cruel. Their allowance of food is so scanty, that it is barely sufficient to support nature. They are, besides, much exposed to the violent rains which frequently fall here, being covered only with mats that afford but a slight defense; and as there is usually water at the bottom of the canoes, from their leaking, they are scarcely ever dry."

References:
This eyewitness account appears in Falconbridge, Alexander, An Account of the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa (1788); Curtin, Phillip D. Atlantic Slave Trade (1969); Matheson, William Law, Great Britain and the Slave Trade, 1839-1865 (1967).

How To Cite This Article:
"Slave Trade: the African Connection, ca 1788" EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2007).

A Boehler started it, then left and watched as everyone got ripped apart.

Do y'all here the crickets now after reading the facts from our Captain Willie? Good job Sir. :thumbsup:

mary ann vs. ginger

mary ann vs. ginger


Mary Ann. :thumbsup:



Big Al

Mary Ann. :thumbsup:



Big Al

She started a number of wars--- I remembering arguing with other kids about which one was hot and which one not.

Mary Ann won.

mary ann vs. ginger

Mary Ann. :thumbsup:



Big Al


Sorry guys- Ginger all the way. Red heads....mmmm good. :thumbsup:

Sorry guys- Ginger all the way. Red heads....mmmm good. :thumbsup:

Are you kiddin'?

Ginger looked like a dude.



Big Al

Anybody that has graduated High School knows the Civil War started after the Chinese attack on Pearl Vision Center.

I think the SEC winnin all the Football NC had somethin to do with it

Anybody that has graduated High School knows the Civil War started after the Chinese attack on Pearl Vision Center.
I thought the Germans attacked Pearl Baily

I thought the Germans attacked Pearl Baily

That was Bill Bailey. That is why he wouldn't come home. The nazi's killed him.

here's mary ann the day we met

http://www3.allaroundphilly.com/blogs/pottstown/openmike/uploaded_images/dawn-wells-758284.jpg

Tastes Great versus Less Filling

How many slaves were in America? About 500,000


Many--but not like millions--like most people think.

American accounted for less than 5% of the accounted for slave trade.


http://africanhistory.about.com/od/slavery/tp/TransAtlantic001.htm
/

Arizona.

Beleive it or not, we actually had one battle in the Civil War, at Picacho Peak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Picacho_Pass

I grew up in Pennsylvania though, and walked the fields and woods at Gettysburg many times as a kid. The reason I was taught in school for all the killing was -- slavery. I remember lots of emphasis on Harriet Tubman and the underground railroad and how the slaves reached freedom when they crossed from Maryland into Pennsylvania (Mason-Dixon line).

Oddly enough, my family tree includes Jeb Stuart, a famous Confederacy officer known for his mastery of reconnaissance and the use of cavalry in support of offensive operations. He got separated from General Lee and the South blamed him for their loss at Gettysburg, although historians have failed to agree on whether Stuart's exploit was entirely the fault of his judgment or simply bad luck and Lee's less-than-explicit orders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Stuart

here's mary ann the day we met

http://www3.allaroundphilly.com/blogs/pottstown/openmike/uploaded_images/dawn-wells-758284.jpg

You met her as she was leaving my house? :grin:

Found this on a Google search:

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

We were always taught in school that it was about slavery, but my grandfather and his father used to talk about how it had little to do with slavery and more to do with the rights of states and their role in federal government. Slavery was a very tidy way of justifying the war.

Winner! This is the correct answer!!

Arizona.

I grew up in Pennsylvania though, and walked the fields and woods at Gettysburg many times as a kid. The reason I was taught in school for all the killing was -- slavery. I remember lots of emphasis on Harriet Tubman and the underground railroad and how the slaves reached freedom when they crossed from Maryland into Pennsylvania (Mason-Dixon line).

Oddly enough, my family tree includes Jeb Stuart, a famous Confederacy officer known for his mastery of reconnaissance and the use of cavalry in support of offensive operations. He got separated from General Lee and the South blamed him for their loss at Gettysburg, although historians have failed to agree on whether Stuart's exploit was entirely the fault of his judgment or simply bad luck and Lee's less-than-explicit orders.


Funny that you mentioned Gettysburg, as this song (from 1987) was playing in my head all morning long:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAtqUG63wRk

Same thing every war starts over......the struggle for power. It's always about power. Power to practice your religion. Power to govern yourself. Power to control of natural resources.


Bingo, powerand nothing more. Slavery is just a cover, just like that movie everyone is talknig about today.

Are you kiddin'?

Ginger looked like a dude.



Big Al

I disagree. A red muff can drive me crazy....sultry eyes and that Marilyn Monroe type talk too. See ya headed to watch reruns now. :)

See ya headed to watch reruns now. :)

is that what the kids are calling it these days?

See ya headed to watch reruns now. :)

I can't see my reruns. I have a crick in my neck.


Oh wait--let me set the laptop down.


Turning around slowly........



Good thing I don't have a laptop cam----that crap is greenish....

is that what the kids are calling it these days?


Hey, hey watch it now. :grin:

Mary Ann. :thumbsup:



Big Al
Mary Ann for sure.

I guess I get enough of Mary Ann at home... :thumbsup:

Here's a closer look...I've never had the pleasure of a red head so maybe it's all in my head. ;?

http://i1148.photobucket.com/albums/o569/jefftwilco/mary-ann-ginger.jpg

Gilligan doesn't mind as you can see...he's probably had both while taking a bong hit. :grin:

I'd go with MaryAnn too. Last night watched Flashdance on the boob tube.. Jennifer Beals... Now that woman had some kinda body.

Maybe sweet tea vs unsweet?....might catch the scorn of the THT for this....with out Lincoln holding the Union together...we might look alot more like Europe today than we would like to admit....oh and GINGER for sure....she has the arm reach and bitch attitude that would make the difference....

.she has the arm reach and bitch attitude that would make the difference....

You forgot to mention the Adam's apple:o:grin:



Big Al

now here's a redhead i can get behind

http://www.karibyron.com/uploads/gallery/img_6759.jpg

Not accurate.

Um, no, actually, accurate.

In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved. In early Islamic states of the western Sudan, including Ghana (750–1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275–1591), about a third of the population were enslaved. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century about half of the population consisted of enslaved people. In the 19th century at least half the population was enslaved among the Duala of the Cameroon and other peoples of the lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third of the population consisted of enslaved people. The population of the Kanem (1600–1800) was about a third-enslaved. It was perhaps 40% in Bornu (1580–1890). Between 1750 and 1900 from one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of enslaved people. The population of the Sokoto caliphate formed by Hausas in the northern Nigeria and Cameroon was half-enslaved in the 19th century.[7]
When British rule was first imposed on the Sokoto Caliphate and the surrounding areas in northern Nigeria at the turn of the 20th century, approximately 2 million to 2.5 million people there were enslaved.[8] Slavery in northern Nigeria was finally outlawed in 1936.[9]

These are all the Western African states. The reality is that the muslims got to Africa first and enslaved the people. When the Europeans came along later on, they largely bought existing slaves from their current masters.

I'm in no way discrediting the fact that Europeans kidnapped many Africans and enslaved them, but history shows that slavery began LONG before America was settled. So again, your statement that slavery began in the north is completely false. Hell, there was slavery, albeit limited, in Europe before our founders left.

now here's a redhead i can get behind

http://www.karibyron.com/uploads/gallery/img_6759.jpg

Yes Sir now we're talking! Plus she's also smart...if that matters. :thumbsup:

Um, no, actually, accurate.


I'm in no way discrediting the fact that Europeans kidnapped many Africans and enslaved them, but history shows that slavery began LONG before America was settled. So again, your statement that slavery began in the north is completely false. Hell, there was slavery, albeit limited, in Europe before our founders left.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

No--no....

We are talking about slavery in America. Did it begin in the North or South--of America. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Slavery still exists today......the plantation is run by the Democrat Party.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

No--no....

We are talking about slavery in America. Did it begin in the North or South--of America. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

That's easy- Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery- in 1641.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/timeline/index.html

:thumbsup:Slavery still exists today......the plantation is run by the Democrat Party.:thumbsup:

here ya go swifty...christina hendricks

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/hendricks-photo1.jpg

Another note about slavery, most people think that slaves were treated badly, and in a small percentage of cases that's true. However, on a whole slaves were treated very well. Owning a slave was a big investment to a plantation or an individual. Treating a slave bad would be like running your John Deere low on oil. You had to treat them decent to make them work well. They were housed and fed, albeit the scraps of hogs and what not.

I know a little bit about this, my dad's side of the family were Eastern European slaves who later became fisherman in South LA. My moms side of the family once upon a time owned a Plantation. My Grandafther 4 times over lost it gambling.

Are you a cochame? :grin:

Naw-- must be a LaRoach. :grin: or is it LaRoche? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

No--no....

We are talking about slavery in America. Did it begin in the North or South--of America. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh, okay, then legally it was Virginia. Not sure if you consider them North or South. The first legally recognized slave in Colonial America was a guy named John Casor, in 1654, by a Northampton County judge in Virginia.

The funniest part of it all? He was owned by a black man, Anthony Johnson.

So that's the first legally owned slave in America. In Virginia. By a black man.

Of course everyone knows though, that the first non-legally recognized slaves brought by the British to the new colonies were in Virginia in 1619.

Either way, that long assed diatribe stating that the north had slaves too wasn't an eye opener. Everyone learned that in the 5th grade. Well, everyone except some retired DA that needs to look it up on google in 2012.

Oh, okay, then legally it was Virginia. Not sure if you consider them North or South. The first legally recognized slave in Colonial America was a guy named John Casor, in 1654, by a Northampton County judge in Virginia.

The funniest part of it all? He was owned by a black man, Anthony Johnson.

So that's the first legally owned slave in America. In Virginia. By a black man.

Yep--there was a lot of that. I just haven't posted it yet.

Found this on a Google search:

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

We were always taught in school that it was about slavery, but my grandfather and his father used to talk about how it had little to do with slavery and more to do with the rights of states and their role in federal government. Slavery was a very tidy way of justifying the war.

Excellent short answer- to which I would add one more point: the invention of the cotton gin served to add to the Northerner's view that slavery needed to end- which only inflamed the Southerner's view that they should be left alone-

Randy

here ya go swifty...christina hendricks

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/hendricks-photo1.jpg


Yummy. :thumbsup:

Jennifer Beals... Now that woman had some kinda body.

Popping Afish's bubble... you do know that all of Jennifer Beal's dance scenes in that movie were done by a body-double, right?

I'd go to Civil War over a different "Beal"... Jessica Biel. Hubba-hubba. :rofl:

The Civil War started when someone suggested what a good idea it would be to elect an African American as president and then have a National health care system...
O.K...I am just teasing of course.

Oh, okay, then legally it was Virginia. Not sure if you consider them North or South. The first legally recognized slave in Colonial America was a guy named John Casor, in 1654, by a Northampton County judge in Virginia.

The funniest part of it all? He was owned by a black man, Anthony Johnson.

So that's the first legally owned slave in America. In Virginia. By a black man.

Of course everyone knows though, that the first non-legally recognized slaves brought by the British to the new colonies were in Virginia in 1619.

Either way, that long assed diatribe stating that the north had slaves too wasn't an eye opener. Everyone learned that in the 5th grade. Well, everyone except some retired DA that needs to look it up on google in 2012.

political power over the northern factory and farm economy. This is the only country that did not end slavery by compensating the slave owners monetarily for the loss to their business interest. Every other country ended slavery peacefully. Then most of those wealthy northern business owners paid LEGALLY common northern citizens a paltry few pennies To take their place in uniform,so they could be safe and others would loose their lives for what those chickens believed was their right? How many died in the civil war? Way to many because of money and nothing else. Read about the prisons in england around the 1500 and 1600s and how bad conditions were !!!! Then the trumped up charges of common english citizens that were not favored to the powerful. They had one escape. Indentured service in the americas for 7 years if they lived that long? or even made it across the ocean back then.

1) Wasn't it "The war of northern aggression"?

2) Capt. Willie..Everyone knows Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in Savannah..actually a plantation up the river past Pt. Wentworth. This invention GREATLY increased the need for manpower to grow and pick cotton, thus the need for slaves was greatly increased. Is there ANY monument in Savannah commemorating this momentous development? Hell no! Y'know where the ONLY monument is?


It's next to the parking lot in the convenience store on the NE corner of Highway 21 and I-95. An obscure concrete post with a plaque which says essentially "at (can't remember the name) plantation north of here, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin". A friggin' convenience store parking lot!

1) Wasn't it "The war of northern aggression"?


It kind of depends on where you went to school now doesn't it?

( I think Zig Ziglar said that!)

The plantation was Mulberry Grove, owned by the widow of Nathaniel Greene. Mulberry trees were common in Savannah, as there was a silk industry there (Silk Hope plantation, etc.)

Do y'all here the crickets now after reading the facts from our Captain Willie? Good job Sir. :thumbsup:


I agree. Great,informative read.:thumbsup:

Recommended reading on origins of the Civil War for those who like American History:

Battle Cry of Freedom

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347664977&sr=8-1&keywords=battle+cry+of+freedom

Oh, okay, then legally it was Virginia. Not sure if you consider them North or South.

Do what? Richmond happened to be the capital. Ever hear of Fredricksburg? You are kidding right?

When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor :mad:

The Civil War was caused by George Bush ....... It's true, Barack Obama said so.

When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor :mad:

Okay, I can't take it anymore! I keep looking at this post and I'm just not getting it. What am I missing?

Toga, Toga!

Toga, Toga!

AH HA, okay, I get it: (the mad emoticon was throwing me off)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

It's a matter of perspective, but secession, or more precisely, a state's right to secede from the Union, was the catalyst for the war.

The Confederate states put State's rights before those of the Union, whereas (most) Union states believed that the Union's interests overshadowed those of the individual states.

But what really drove it? I'd say that it was money. In simplistic terms, mill owners in the North did not want to lose their supply of cheap raw materials (namely, cotton). Plantation owners and shipping companies in the South wanted the flexibilty to set prices, by selling their commodity to the highest bidders, which were usually English mill owners. It quickly went downhill from there.


x2

AH HA, okay, I get it: (the mad emoticon was throwing me off)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwIWell they might have throw in some money to the cause:mad:

AH HA, okay, I get it: (the mad emoticon was throwing me off)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI


I love that scene.

How about the horse in the office

The Civil War was caused by George Bush ....... It's true, Barack Obama said so.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: