Morons who believe the civil war wasn't about slavery - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SeattleUte · 12-05-2007, 07:41 PM

Here's a book for you. I know what the CW was about and I'm still going to get this. It looks like gripping stuff. I wonder how the manuscripsts were recently discovered. An interesting tale itself no doubt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/bo...ks&oref=slogin

Indy Coug · 12-05-2007, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Here's a book for you. I know what the CW was about and I'm still going to get this. It looks like gripping stuff. I wonder how the manuscripsts were recently discovered. An interesting tale itself no doubt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/bo...ks&oref=slogin

Obviously, it was the result of the intertwining of many issues, but slavery was an integral part of it.

K-dog · 12-05-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Here's a book for you. I know what the CW was about and I'm still going to get this. It looks like gripping stuff. I wonder how the manuscripsts were recently discovered. An interesting tale itself no doubt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/bo...ks&oref=slogin

Slavery was a factor but if you believe it was the largest factor you either 1) buy into unionist propoganda or 2) are the moron you believe others to be.

SeattleUte · 12-05-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K-dog

Slavery was a factor but if you believe it was the largest factor you either 1) buy into unionist propoganda or 2) are the moron you believe others to be.

No, I can see you're a moron. No other issue would have actually brought the country to war.

woot · 12-05-2007, 08:06 PM

It's interesting that "United States" was still a plural noun before the civil war. It seems as though the civil war accomplished much more than freeing the slaves, regardless of its causes.

K-dog · 12-05-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No, I can see you're a moron. No other issue would have actually brought the country to war.

A very simplistic view. You probably believe US involvement in WWII was started by Pearl Harbor too.

SeattleUte · 12-05-2007, 08:11 PM

K-Dog, you should know me well enough to expect that I accept the Union perspective as gospel.

Here's a different, more interesting question. In terms of preserving the union, are the northern states any better off for having won the Civil War? Are they worse off? Clearly, the wealthiest, most educated, most productive parts of our country generally lie in the former Union states, and/or non-former slave states. I think the primary beneficiaries of the Civil War outcome were the slaves and the Confederate states. There's irony for you. The other states would be just as or more materially better off had the north just said so long southern states, or que sera sera. Which is what the London Times thought was the smart thing for them to do.

SeattleUte · 12-05-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K-dog

A very simplistic view. You probably believe US involvement in WWII was started by Pearl Harbor too.

No, I don't. That is not a subtle point.

K-dog · 12-05-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

K-Dog, you should know me well enough to expect that I accept the Union perspective as gospel.

Here's a different, more interesting question. In terms of preserving the union, are the northern states any better off for having won the Civil War? Are they worse off? Clearly, the wealthiest, most educated, most productive parts of our country generally lie in the former Union states, and/or non-former slave states. I think the primary beneficiaries of the Civil War outcome were the slaves and the Confederate states. There's irony for you. The other states would be just as or more materially better off had the north just said so long southern states, or que sera sera. Which is what the London Times thought was the smart thing for them to do.

That is an interesting question. I think the London Times had it correct. The benefit has been to the southern states which the northern states have carried ever since.

UtahDan · 12-05-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woot

It's interesting that "United States" was still a plural noun before the civil war. It seems as though the civil war accomplished much more than freeing the slaves, regardless of its causes.

Being a state used to mean a lot more. It is interesting to me, for example, how friendly the courts and government in Illinois were to Joseph for a time at least in some measure because he was a Illinoison and Missouri was trying to screw with him.

12-05-2007, 07:41 PM	#1
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	Morons who believe the civil war wasn't about slavery Here's a book for you. I know what the CW was about and I'm still going to get this. It looks like gripping stuff. I wonder how the manuscripsts were recently discovered. An interesting tale itself no doubt. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/bo...ks&oref=slogin __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

12-05-2007, 08:11 PM	#7
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	K-Dog, you should know me well enough to expect that I accept the Union perspective as gospel. Here's a different, more interesting question. In terms of preserving the union, are the northern states any better off for having won the Civil War? Are they worse off? Clearly, the wealthiest, most educated, most productive parts of our country generally lie in the former Union states, and/or non-former slave states. I think the primary beneficiaries of the Civil War outcome were the slaves and the Confederate states. There's irony for you. The other states would be just as or more materially better off had the north just said so long southern states, or que sera sera. Which is what the London Times thought was the smart thing for them to do. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

12-05-2007, 08:06 PM	#5
woot Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Denver Posts: 1,502	It's interesting that "United States" was still a plural noun before the civil war. It seems as though the civil war accomplished much more than freeing the slaves, regardless of its causes.