The American Civil War (or the Southern Rebellion) was entirely over the issue of slavery, with the - General

In the middle of the 19th century, the Southern States broke out into a rebellion, ultimately resulting in defeat for the rebellion and restoration of order to the southern states. This rebellion had been the result of a large number of factors, not just limited to events in the United States itself, but to events abroad that influenced the lead up to, and eventual end of the rebellion. I will put forward several arguments as to why slavery was the most crucial issue rather than states rights, as to why the rebellion was at a disadvantage economically, militarily, and was subject to diplomatic isolation. 1: Slavery had established itself as the backbone to the Southern economy, and was integral to the Southern States. Hence an attack on slavery (direct or indirect), resulted in an attack on the economic and political power of the Southern landowners who dominated the political scene. In the late 18th century, British cotton imports increased from 3,069,284 kg of cotton in 1780 to an astounding 25,406,040 kg of cotton in 1800. Britain was rapidly becoming the worlds largest producer of cotton cloth and consumer of raw cotton as the industrial revolution proceeded. India however, was not a suitable place to import from, and the mills of Europe were to become increasingly dependent on the cotton plantations of the American south. From 1791 to 1801, the production of cotton in the United States rose from 900,000kg to 22,000,000 kg, and by the 1830s was the main supplier of cotton. ([url]http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TEXcotton.htm[/url]) ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cotton#Pre.E2.80.93Civil_War[/url]) [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/A_Days_Work_Ended.jpg[/img_thumb] This explosive rise in the growth of the cotton industry was spurred by high demand, the invention of the cotton gin, and cheap availability of labour and land that whilst possible in the south, was difficult in the north (due to lack of cheap labour or suitable climate). By the time of the mid 19th century, cotton was a big producer of wealth, creating a virtual aristocracy of wealthy landowners, with a very high population of slaves and smallholders who were locked into this system. Very little industrial development took place in the south, due in part to the large focus on the expansion and development of cotton at the expense of other industries. Any industrial development (such as shipyards and railways) were built around the movement of goods rather than their actual production. With this considerable degree of wealth of power, the southern states were all too keen to expand further. The rising demand for cotton encouraged plantations to expand westwards, one of the major political issues of the day being around resolving conflict between the expansion of free and slave states to the west. The compromises that followed were intended to keep both free and slaveholding states happy, but failed to keep both sides happy. One of the major factors was the tariff of 1828 (and subsequent tariffs). These tariffs were mainly designed to protect Northern industry, which had been doing poorly due to foreign competition. Whilst these tariffs did protect Northern industry, it forced the price of manufactured goods up in the process, harming the southern states (reliant on the importation of manufactured goods). They were quick to notice that this harmed the growth of cotton industry whilst stimulating industrial growth in the north. South Carolina declared such tariffs null and void ([url]http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ordnull.asp[/url]), resulting in the nullification crisis, which narrowly avoided armed conflict. As the Industrial revolution continued, economic development in the north rapidly advanced much faster than that of the south. Before the rebellion, this had been pointed out. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impending_Crisis_of_the_South[/url]) The author of this book, argued that the South was ruled by a tiny minority of wealthy slave owners, whom not only oppressed the slaves, but indeed the entire population. The result of their political power had resulted in economic, social, and political retardation that spelt backwardness and poverty for all but the landed. Such a system was similar to how the medieval kingdoms were ran, but the landowners were free of obligations to even ensure the physical safety of their slaves. Indeed, when the book was published, the southern states were unanimous in banning it, with 3 men hung in Arkansas for possession of it. Similar events occurred when Uncle Toms Cabin was published. Surely the fact of the matter is that this whole thing didn't have a single thing to do with states rights, but was primarily to secure the privileged position of the landed aristocracy who ruled the southern plantations like crude dictatorships. Using their considerable political sway, they censored media (such as the two examples above) that criticised them. Much of the history regarding the expansion of states was based around the southern states attempting to expand west, bringing the institution of slavery along with it. Kansas was a prime example of where they attempted to use violence and migration to try and expand slavery. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas[/url]) [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/US_Secession_map_1865.svg/500px-US_Secession_map_1865.svg.png[/img] (Red states and Yellow states permitted slavery, Kansas is the Grey state. For the war, Red states were the location of the insurrection). When the movement to abolish slavery started to gain ground as the 1850s wore on, as servitude was banned or heavily restricted (under some pressure by the British Empire), and as the north grow steadily more powerful, the southern landowners felt under increasing threat. The price of cotton fell during this time, reducing the revenue of plantation owners. The supply of slaves then declined due to foreign navies cracking down on the slave trade, despite increased demand for slaves because the slave states were expanding, which forced up prices of slaves. The position of the southern landowners was becoming especially precarious as their profits declined and outside hostility continued to mount up. By the 1860s, the Republican party was steadily climbing in power, and the growth of free states was steadily outstripping the growth of slave states. Southern landowners felt the election of Lincoln to be the last straw, seeing it as a tipping point where the abolition movement would inevitably reach its goals. It was with this, that in order to preserve their political power, the southern landowners had to defend the institution of chattel slavery at all costs. It was the need to protect slavery, and not states rights, that the southern rebellion erupted. 2. The southern states were at a disadvantage economically, militarily, and was subject to heavy diplomatic isolation, that made independence in the long term impossible. At the outset of the war, the United States possessed a far larger population, industrial base, shipyards, manufacturing capability, infrastructure networks and thus was able to commit a total war of attrition much more capably than the rebellion could. Indeed, the shipyards of the north were capable of constructing a large number of steam powered, screw-driven, ironclad naval vessels. This was something the South was incapable of, and although several attempts were moderately successful (such as CSS Virginia), their abilities to maintain a navy were doomed to failure. The United States maintained a tight blockade on the entire south through the superiority of their navy, and by 1863 the rebellion was suffering from economic collapse. Cotton exports had declined by 95%, and shipments of manufactured goods, food, and other needed goods had become next to impossible. Blockade runners were unable to supply all the goods needed, and bread riots were soon breaking out. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Bread_Riots[/url]) [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Apr2_richmond_riot.jpg[/img] Whilst on land, the rebellion was able to temporarily hold off the United States, they were unable to win any decisive victories, and on the water they did abysmally. The only ports left open by the end of 1862 were those of Wilmington, Charleston and Mobile. Control of the Mississippi river was eventually secured with the battle of Vicksburg in 1863, and by this point, the Red, Tennessee, Cumberland, Mississippi, and Ohio rivers had also been secured. With the loss of sea access, naval ports, and then the rivers, the rebellion was doomed. Inflation (caused by poor mismanagement of fiscal policy and lack of food) made the situation worse. When Sherman had the famous “march to the sea”, which involved dismantling of the railways, freeing slaves, and destruction of the agricultural and industrial base which had survived the blockade, the final nail had been sealed in the coffin. The rebels were thinned by disease, desertion, malnutrition and lack of supplies, forcing a surrender by General Lee. Once the news spread, the insurrection was over. [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Civil_war_1861-1865.jpg[/img_thumb] Diplomatic problems were another major factor in seeing the demise of the rebellion. Not a single state outside the United States recognised the existence of the rebellion or its legitimacy. The south tried to blackmail the British and French through “Cotton diplomacy”, a cotton embargo on Europe. This was a failure however, due to a slump in the cotton industry during the early 1860s and then eventual replacement of the United States as a cotton source (India and Egypt eventually began to take over cotton production). Harvest failures at the same time, alleviated by American corn imports, were also a strong factor in preventing France and Britain from going to war with the United States. Britain and France had already banned slavery by this stage, with the British going so far as to put pressure on other nations to ban slavery, and to have the Royal Navy capture slaving ships. The Battle at Antietam ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antietam[/url]) further proved that the rebellion was unable to achieve a decisive victory. The Emancipation Proclamation also showed that the United States was intent on ending slavery. Showing support to the opposition (I.e those that wished to preserve it) would be showing support of chattel slavery. The diplomats of the rebellion were never recognised by any sovereign state, and diplomacy was over by 1863, when the rebellion began to collapse in on itself as their economy imploded. Given that no foreign support would be given to the rebellion, and the diplomatic support so desperately needed never materialized, it never had a chance of succeeding.

This has to be the greatest OP you've ever done, Sobotnik, I applaud you. Though I'm not quite certain on the "south ruled by a minority of slave-holding elitists". There was a strong aristocracy in the south at the time, but I find it hard to believe such a small group could have persuaded the entire populace of the south to rise against Washington for their independence. Do you have a source or explanation as to how such a small elite controlled the south like that? Also, I've always been told, or at least eluded to the idea, that the Emancipation Proclamation was solely a political move to gain the "moral high ground" in the war which the Union didn't achieve. The main goal of the Union during the war was always to "keep the union" intact. Slavery worked itself up toward a good second, but to keep the nation whole was [I]always[/I] the primary objective.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38907808]This has to be the greatest OP you've ever done, Sobotnik, I applaud you. Though I'm not quite certain on the "south ruled by a minority of slave-holding elitists". There was a strong aristocracy in the south at the time, but I find it hard to believe such a small group could have persuaded the entire populace of the south to rise against Washington for their independence. Do you have a source or explanation as to how such a small elite controlled the south like that? Also, I've always been told, or at least eluded to the idea, that the Emancipation Proclamation was solely a political move to gain the "moral high ground" in the war which the Union didn't achieve. The main goal of the Union during the war was always to "keep the union" intact. Slavery worked itself up toward a good second, but to keep the nation whole was [I]always[/I] the primary objective.[/QUOTE] One of the main unifying among the white population in the south was slavery. In the south(before the war and some time into the war), poor, middle class, and rich white people were able to be unified in a way over the idea of owning slaves, even if the poor people would never be able to own a slave in their life. However this unification started to fall when the Confederacy started to do things like conscription. Conscription served to stratify the classes in the south because it was a very contrary to the states rights and rich people could buy out of the conscription.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38907808]Though I'm not quite certain on the "south ruled by a minority of slave-holding elitists". There was a strong aristocracy in the south at the time, but I find it hard to believe such a small group could have persuaded the entire populace of the south to rise against Washington for their independence. Do you have a source or explanation as to how such a small elite controlled the south like that?[/QUOTE] I would blame [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise[/url] for that. Although it did reduce the power of slaveholders when you look at what they originally wanted (slaves to be counted completely, instead of 3/5), once you went into the southern states which had high numbers of slaves, the slaveholders held a considerable degree of power in local politics. This is further reinforced by the official reasons for why a state left: [url]http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi[/url] [quote]Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.[/quote] [quote]The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[/quote] Once the north began to industrialize and undergo heavy economic and demographic, this started to present a problem for the southern landowners. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38907808]Also, I've always been told, or at least eluded to the idea, that the Emancipation Proclamation was solely a political move to gain the "moral high ground" in the war which the Union didn't achieve. The main goal of the Union during the war was always to "keep the union" intact. Slavery worked itself up toward a good second, but to keep the nation whole was [I]always[/I] the primary objective.[/QUOTE] Preservation of the Union was the primary goal by the United States, although the south was wishing primarily to preserve slavery (by seceding). Preserving the Union would no doubt have resulted in slavery coming to an end eventually, due to the growing hostility towards that institution and the south starting to decline.

This is still a debate?

The Civil War was over state rights, one of those "rights" was slavery

While slavery was a factor, it wasn't the main reason. In fact, it was more of a scapegoat. Lincoln didn't give two shits about slavery one way or the other, he was a tyrant and wanted nothing more than to regain control of his collapsing Union. Think I'm wrong? Where in the Constitution does it say states aren't allowed to secede?

[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;38919802]While slavery was a factor, it wasn't the main reason. In fact, it was more of a scapegoat. Lincoln didn't give two shits about slavery one way or the other, he was a tyrant and wanted nothing more than to regain control of his collapsing Union. Think I'm wrong? Where in the Constitution does it say states aren't allowed to secede?[/QUOTE] Lincoln in the very least was opposed to slavery being passed on to the western territories. Slavery was the biggest issue in the nation during the 1850s, leading up to the war. You have to be extremely ignorant to not know this.

[QUOTE=download;38919676]The Civil War was over state rights, one of those "rights" was slavery[/QUOTE] Which states rights was these? Slavery seemed like it was the biggest factor, given that criticizing slavery in those states was met with harsh penalties. It actually seems very difficult to find a reason that wasn't linked to slavery in some way. [editline]21st December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;38919802]While slavery was a factor, it wasn't the main reason.[/quote] What was? [QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;38919802]In fact, it was more of a scapegoat. Lincoln didn't give two shits about slavery one way or the other, he was a tyrant and wanted nothing more than to regain control of his collapsing Union. [/QUOTE] Actually he came from a anti-slavery background, and the states seceded before he was even inaugurated.

[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;38919802]While slavery was a factor, it wasn't the main reason. In fact, it was more of a scapegoat. Lincoln didn't give two shits about slavery one way or the other, he was a tyrant and wanted nothing more than to regain control of his collapsing Union. Think I'm wrong? Where in the Constitution does it say states aren't allowed to secede?[/QUOTE] Slavery was obviously the main reason for secession. Take a look at South Carolina's reasons for secession. It specifically mentions slavery about six or more times in it. So really, to say slavery was not a reason does not make any sense. [url]http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Declaration_of_the_Causes_of_Secession[/url] Don't know about you, but that makes it seem like a main reason to me if it is listed in their official reasons to secede.

[QUOTE=Valnar;38908241]One of the main unifying among the white population in the south was slavery. In the south(before the war and some time into the war), poor, middle class, and rich white people were able to be unified in a way over the idea of owning slaves, even if the poor people would never be able to own a slave in their life.[/QUOTE] From what I recall of my AP US History class, it was this and the traditionalist Southern culture. Honor was a huge thing, and it was rare to let even small slights go unchallenged by things such as duels or other forms of reprisal. The slaves also provided a kind of "base" for this system of personal honor; even the poorest of Southerners was considered a free man, and those in poverty were able to console themselves by saying that at least they were white, that they weren't slaves, etc. Poor southerners supported slavery because in many cases it contributed to their personal sense of worth.

I've always thought the slavery issue was only thrown into to get black freedmen in the Union army and deter foreign countries from helping the South.

[QUOTE=download;38919676]The Civil War was over state rights, one of those "rights" was slavery[/QUOTE] That's right, mate. Most people fail to recognize that slavery was on its way out, anyways. Even if the South did secede, I speculate that by [B]AT LEAST[/B] the late 1800s the government would ban slavery. Even then, Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate army, was a known abolitionist and Carpet-Bagger, so you can see his view on slavery already. Most soldiers were yeomen who had no idea what it was like to own a slave, so essentially, most men in the Confederate army didn't give a shit about slavery one way or the other. The plantation owners and officers are a completely different story, however.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38921061]It actually seems very difficult to find a reason that wasn't linked to slavery in some way.[/QUOTE] My family has lived in the state of Florida for over six generations, during the time of the civil war members form both sides of my family served in the confederate armies. During the latter years of the war Union troops and Calvary raiders entered the southern portion of Georgia and the still developing scrubs of North Florida, when the raiders came they burned everything in sight, houses, churches, plantations, whole settlements. During theses attacks some of my family join the local regiments and militia in order to protect their homes and family's. To imply that the war was fought over slavery alone would be to take a shit on the graves of men defending their homes. Please stop.

Sobotnik I'd just like to mention that when you state the insurrection happened in the red, that's not entirely correct. There was fighting in Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Ohio among other places. In your write-up you also keep referring to the "United States" as the north and the "Rebels" as the south. That Definitely sounds like much more of a European clarification. For the sake of accuracy I'd write the "Union" and the "Confederacy". Another slight picking is the way you write of D.C makes it sound like its own state. The distance between D.C and Richmond is only about 170km / 105 miles. Virginia was a major battleground for clear reasons. All that said, I wasn't trying to pick apart bits of your argument for kicks. I think you wrote this very well. I can't honestly say I think the war was only because of Slavery. Personal and communal defense immediately comes to mind. However, I will say you presented your argument in a way that's difficult to contradict. Coming from a legacy of history majors / professors, I have to say "well done."

[QUOTE=snapshot32;38929356]My family has lived in the state of Florida for over six generations, during the time of the civil war members form both sides of my family served in the confederate armies. During the latter years of the war Union troops and Calvary raiders entered the southern portion of Georgia and the still developing scrubs of North Florida, when the raiders came they burned everything in sight, houses, churches, plantations, whole settlements. During theses attacks some of my family join the local regiments and militia in order to protect their homes and family's. To imply that the war was fought over slavery alone would be to take a shit on the graves of men defending their homes. Please stop.[/QUOTE] This, mostly. My family has lived in Virginia since just after Jamestown became a decent place, so one of the first few boats over here. Supposedly we have ancestors who fought in the revolution, and we know for a fact that I have at least one uncle who was a Confederate Soldier :v: I personally think with a Civil War you can't only take into account the "official" reasons, if you want to call them that. From what I've learned growing up in Fredericksburg, I'd wager that most of the soldiers fighting for the Confederacy were defending their homes and land the best they could from the Union, personally. We have a local civil war museum here with transcripts from Journals of soldiers on both sides of the war, and most of them talk about what most of the people who were fighting wanted was for the war to be over and to have their family and homes safe. I think that when it comes to a Civil War anywhere, especially in a time like that when most if not all of your life was localized to one small area, you should definitely think about why the common man would join up with his local militia, not exclusively what Jefferson Davis or any other official said about it. But if you want to disregard that, then yeah, most of the issues it was waged over could tie back to slavery I suppose if you went back and connected the dots in the right way. I definitely wouldn't say it was completely over slavery like you're saying, however, hell, in my US/VA history Class in High School we had a chapter dedicated to reasons that were completely isolated from slavery more or less, but that's all anecdotal of course.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;38929356]My family has lived in the state of Florida for over six generations, during the time of the civil war members form both sides of my family served in the confederate armies. During the latter years of the war Union troops and Calvary raiders entered the southern portion of Georgia and the still developing scrubs of North Florida, when the raiders came they burned everything in sight, houses, churches, plantations, whole settlements. During theses attacks some of my family join the local regiments and militia in order to protect their homes and family's. To imply that the war was fought over slavery alone would be to take a shit on the graves of men defending their homes. Please stop.[/QUOTE] Except when the states seceded, they did actually declare their reasons for leaving, was to protect slavery. For instance in here: [quote][url]http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Declaration_of_the_Causes_of_Secession[/url][/quote] When you talk about those various men fighting to protect their homes, I would say they just had the misfortune of living in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;38929356]My family has lived in the state of Florida for over six generations, during the time of the civil war members form both sides of my family served in the confederate armies. During the latter years of the war Union troops and Calvary raiders entered the southern portion of Georgia and the still developing scrubs of North Florida, when the raiders came they burned everything in sight, houses, churches, plantations, whole settlements. During theses attacks some of my family join the local regiments and militia in order to protect their homes and family's. To imply that the war was fought over slavery alone would be to take a shit on the graves of men defending their homes. Please stop.[/QUOTE] that's what happens in war. every war until very recently in fact. by your reasoning, world war 2 wasn't about (proximally) the annexation of poland or (ultimately) nationalism gone mad, because the allies committed war crimes when they liberated europe

Anyone who does not believe the cause of the war was slavery, please name one other reason. Name a [b]specific[/b] cause besides slavery.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;38941555]Anyone who does not believe the cause of the war was slavery, please name one other reason. Name a [b]specific[/b] cause besides slavery.[/QUOTE] Slavery was [B]PART[/B] of the root problem. The reasons were more based around whether or not slavery should spread to the territories. Not to mention a wide difference in the economies of the North and South, most Southerners did their own work while plantation owners sat around with a free workforce, whilst in the North, the Industrial movement was in full-swing, and railroads were starting to form all over the North. So yes, slavery was part of the problem, and basically were most of the other issues stemmed from.

The north and south, up to that point, were essentially two nations of people stuck in one country. Their cultures were very extremely different, even before the American Revolution and conflicted with each other from the beginning in 1787, not always about slavery. The south historically always had felt that states retained a form of sovereignty even after the Articles of Confederation were thrown out - just look into the disputes between the Federalist Party and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party. While on the political front and in DC, the main issue on the war was slavery, many people in the south (and probably some in the north as well) felt that they were separate peoples. To focus solely on a singular cause in any war, let alone this one, is a bit ignorant. I cannot recall one war in the history of mankind that was commenced due to one single issue or incident. For a war to break out, there has to be a contempt for each other long before the two parties conflict. Slavery was a giant catalyst for the North and South to finally light the fuse.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;38941588]Slavery was [B]PART[/B] of the root problem. The reasons were more based around whether or not slavery should spread to the territories. Not to mention a wide difference in the economies of the North and South, most Southerners did their own work while plantation owners sat around with a free workforce, whilst in the North, the Industrial movement was in full-swing, and railroads were starting to form all over the North. So yes, slavery was part of the problem, and basically were most of the other issues stemmed from.[/QUOTE] OK, so I see you failed to answer my question in the slightest way. I asked for [b]specific reasons[/b] why the war started [b]besides[/b] slavery. What you did is: a. Give another example of the war being started because of slavery ("The reasons were more based around whether or not slavery should spread to the territories.") b. Make a vague statement about the economic differences besides the North and South, which I am already aware of. You did not in any way give a reason (besides slavery) why the war was started. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38941791]The north and south, up to that point, were essentially two nations of people stuck in one country. Their cultures were very extremely different, even before the American Revolution and conflicted with each other from the beginning in 1787, not always about slavery. The south historically always had felt that states retained a form of sovereignty even after the Articles of Confederation were thrown out - just look into the disputes between the Federalist Party and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party. While on the political front and in DC, the main issue on the war was slavery, many people in the south (and probably some in the north as well) felt that they were separate peoples. To focus solely on a singular cause in any war, let alone this one, is a bit ignorant. I cannot recall one war in the history of mankind that was commenced due to one single issue or incident. For a war to break out, there has to be a contempt for each other long before the two parties conflict. Slavery was a giant catalyst for the North and South to finally light the fuse.[/QUOTE] So are you saying that the war was started because the North and South had different cultures? But why does having different cultures mean you need to make war? Mexico and China have different cultures, and yet you don't see them fighting. Or are you saying that the war was over state sovereignty, an issue which had been resolved by the Supreme Court since the Nullification Crisis and Ableman v. Booth? If this is the case, then where is the evidence of this cause? Can you name Southern figures or leaders who cite these issues are the cause of the war? And why is it ignorant to focus on a single cause when there is only a single cause? I will agree that there were other supporting [b]issues[/b] that were the catalysts of the war, such as Bleeding Kansas and Lincoln's election. But all of these issues were related to or caused by the institution of slavery and the South's wish to continue its practice.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;38941855] So are you saying that the war was started because the North and South had different cultures? But why does having different cultures mean you need to make war? Mexico and China have different cultures, and yet you don't see them fighting. Or are you saying that the war was over state sovereignty, an issue which had been resolved by the Supreme Court since the Nullification Crisis and Ableman v. Booth? If this is the case, then where is the evidence of this cause? Can you name Southern figures or leaders who cite these issues are the cause of the war? And why is it ignorant to focus on a single cause when there is only a single cause? I will agree that there were other supporting [b]issues[/b] that were the catalysts of the war, such as Bleeding Kansas and Lincoln's election. But all of these issues were related to or caused by the institution of slavery and the South's wish to continue its practice.[/QUOTE] Wow. I thought I made myself very clear, yet someone still completely missed the point of my post. No where did I say "different cultures means definite fighting". There was a mentality that the two groups, North and South, were distinct people. It doesn't mean they will fight, but it does increase the probability if there is a right catalyst - such as slavery and the election of Lincoln to the presidency.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38942210]Wow. I thought I made myself very clear, yet someone still completely missed the point of my post. No where did I say "different cultures means definite fighting". There was a mentality that the two groups, North and South, were distinct people. It doesn't mean they will fight, but it does increase the probability if there is a right catalyst - such as slavery and the election of Lincoln to the presidency.[/QUOTE] ... So then you admit that the cause of the war was slavery? FYI the whole "Lincoln's election" IS slavery because the reason why the South didn't like him was because they though he was going to ban slavery. The reason I replied to your post in the way I did was because you didn't really say anything or give any actual other causes of the war beside vague intentions with no evidence.

What does it mean in the map when Kansas is shown as the 'Grey State'? Were they both Confederate and Union? [editline]23rd December 2012[/editline] "The author of this book, argued that the South was ruled by a tiny minority of wealthy slave owners, whom not only oppressed the slaves, but indeed the entire population." for ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imp...s_of_the_South[/url]) I would like some direct quotes from this book that supports your claim of yours so I can acknowledge it as evidence to support your thesis. The Wikipedia page does not help, as it is using some 'common knowledge' without proper citations to acknowledge what page, and what quote to support its claim.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;38941855]Or are you saying that the war was over state sovereignty, an issue which had been resolved by the Supreme Court since the Nullification Crisis and Ableman v. Booth?[/QUOTE] what that's like saying that discrimination in the UK has been resolved by the 2010 Equality Act

[QUOTE=shackleford;38942423]What does it mean in the map when Kansas is shown as the 'Grey State'? Were they both Confederate and Union? [editline]23rd December 2012[/editline] "The author of this book, argued that the South was ruled by a tiny minority of wealthy slave owners, whom not only oppressed the slaves, but indeed the entire population." for ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imp...s_of_the_South[/url]) I would like some direct quotes from this book that supports your claim of yours so I can acknowledge it as evidence to support your thesis. The Wikipedia page does not help, as it is using some 'common knowledge' without proper citations to acknowledge what page, and what quote to support its claim.[/QUOTE] [url]http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=gXgFAAAAQAAJ&dq=compendium+%22Hinton+Rowan+Helper%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=eCByDH_LIh&sig=gq8JhdpzxFkhrBbLOrf8N_bhQL4&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y[/url] Here is the google books source for it. [quote]There are few Southerners who will not be astonished at the disclosures of these statistical comparisons, between the free and the slave States. That the astonishment of the more intelligent and patriotio non-slaveholders will be mingled with indignation, is no more than we anticipate. We confess our own surprise, and deep chagrin, at the result of our investigations. Until we examined into the matter, we thought and hoped the South was really ahead of the North in one particular, that of agriculture; but our thoughts have been changed, and our hopes frustrated, for instead of finding ourselves the possessors of a single advantage, we behold our dear native South stripped of every laurel, and sinking deeper and deeper in the depths of poverty and shame; while, at the same time, we see the North, our successful rival, extracting and absorbing the few elements of wealth yet remaining among us, and rising higher and higher in the scale of fame, fortune, and invulnerable power. Thus our disappointment gives way to a feeling of intense mortification, and our soul involuntarily, but justly, we believe, cries out for. retribution against the treacherous slaveholding legislators, who have so basely and unpatriotically neglected the interests of their poor white constituents and bargained away the rights of posterity. Notwithstanding the fact that the white non-slaveholders of the South are in the majority, as six to one, they have never yet had any uncontrolled part or lot in framing the Jaws under which they live. There is no legislation except for the benefit of slavery, and slaveholders. As a general rule, poor white persons are regarded with less esteem and attention than negroes, and though the condition of the latter is wretched beyond description, vast numbers of the former are infinitely worse off. A cunningly devised mockery of freedom is guaranteed to them, and that is all. To all intents and purposes they are disfranchised, and outlawed, and tho only privilege extended to them, is a shallow and circumscribed participation in the political movements that usher slaveholders into office.[/quote] [url]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gXgFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA25&dq=compendium+%22Hinton+Rowan+Helper%22&output=text#c_top[/url] Also by grey state, it meant that it had yet to decide on slavery. Slavers and free-ers migrated to the state to press for legislation favouring their side. Eventually it became a free state.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;38942223]... So then you admit that the cause of the war was slavery? FYI the whole "Lincoln's election" IS slavery because the reason why the South didn't like him was because they though he was going to ban slavery. The reason I replied to your post in the way I did was because you didn't really say anything or give any actual other causes of the war beside vague intentions with no evidence.[/QUOTE] Yes? I never said slavery was not a cause of the war. My post was not an answering to yours a few above mine. It was just a general statement made to add to the overall debate.

Imagine that France and GB actually started a war against USA. That war would be WW1,WW1 would be WW2,WW2 would be WW3

[QUOTE=IPK;38945745]Imagine that France and GB actually started a war against USA. That war would be WW1,WW1 would be WW2,WW2 would be WW3[/QUOTE] The definition of a "WW" is "[I]WORLD[/I] war". Such a war would only occur on the North American continent, mostly in the east of such at that. The reason WWI is a "world war" is because an overwhelming majority of the world was at war with itself via the many, many colonies of Europe going to war with each other, from the Americas to Africa to Asia. Hell, even Japan joined in WWI against the Central Powers and sent two frigates into the Mediterranean Sea to help combat the Turkish naval forces there.