12-05-2007, 07:41 PM | #1 |
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, 07:48 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Quote:
|
|
12-05-2007, 07:58 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 699
|
Quote:
__________________
He's down by the creek, walkin' on water. K-dog P.S. Grrrrrrrrr |
|
12-05-2007, 08:04 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
No, I can see you're a moron. No other issue would have actually brought the country to war.
__________________
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 |
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.
|
12-05-2007, 08:08 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 699
|
A very simplistic view. You probably believe US involvement in WWII was started by Pearl Harbor too.
__________________
He's down by the creek, walkin' on water. K-dog P.S. Grrrrrrrrr |
12-05-2007, 08:11 PM | #7 |
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, 08:15 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
No, I don't. That is not a subtle point.
__________________
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, 08:20 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 699
|
Quote:
__________________
He's down by the creek, walkin' on water. K-dog P.S. Grrrrrrrrr |
|
12-05-2007, 08:23 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
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.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
Bookmarks |
|
|