Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Mainiac, do you know you're sexy when you dig up sources to argue a point?

[PTTG??]

If we do have a civil war, I think California will win so long as we bring L.A. with us. Which admittedly makes the whole project kind of counter-productive, but still, at least we're free from the South.

It would be nice to get Oregon and Washington to join us, but I think the Oregonians are pretty close to building their own border wall as it is.

[itisnotlogical]

It would be nice to get Oregon and Washington to join us, but I think the Oregonians are pretty close to building their own border wall as it is.

We're just kind of miffed about ultra-conservatives wanting to turn the clock back a century or two on societal values, is all. I mean, aside from the large "I drive a pickup truck and wear a cowboy hat, but was too lazy to join Yall Qaeda" demographic, but city Oregonians don't like to talk about those guys.

[Frumple]

Y'all don't get to leave. The possibility of escape from florida is the only reason many of us here haven't burnt it and everything else to the ground. Take away the escape route, and you've got millions on death ground with nothing but oodles of PCP, launchable alligators, and nothing left to lose. You don't get to leave the union until we get to leave the state, and unfortunately people keep breeding so we never all get to leave.

[Baffler]

If current trends continue the vast majority of Florida will be reclaimed by the sea within our lifetimes anyway, so I guess you've got that to look forward too, heh.

Nevermind, misplaced a decimal place. RIP New Orleans, but Florida is fine.

[smjjames]

Considering that the US is over a third the size of all of Europe congregated into a single country, the fact that the country hasn't permanently crumbled over regional differences says a lot about the combination of government structure and ideals of the country.

It took an extremely controversial subject, Slavery, to divide the country. And no, abortion and marriage and gay rights and other current hot-button issues) don't come within LIGHT YEARS of being that divisive. Even then, it was a slow proccess which ended up at a breaking point.

Fortunately, we were able to pull ourselves together after that.

[Rolan7]

Because it wasn't exactly slavery.  It was a question of sovereignty...  Did states have a right to secede, if the alliance was no longer beneficial?  The Union, dominated by the Northern industrial states, was demanding that the South abandon slavery yet continue to produce just as much raw material, and not ship it overseas for a better price (prevented by excessive tariffs, I think).  The North wanted the South to be its vassal farmland, but took hypocritical offense at outright slavery.

I think one of the most amazing things about America is that we recovered from such a rift.  It's as if the bloody war helped the North realize that they went too far.  In most cases throughout history such a war would cause an ever-deeper blood feud.  But Americans were, well, better than that.  I'm proud.

[Sheb]

It was pretty much slavery. That's like... right in the various declaration of independence.

Another thing to note though, is that politics has, by and large, become much less violent nowadays.

[Mephansteras]

Well, it was a lot of things tied into slavery and sovereignty and all that. At the root, though, it was about money and a bunch of very rich people with a single thing making them rich who didn't want it to go away. That, more than anything, is what caused it to erupt into actual civil war.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

IT WAS MOSTLY SLAVERY GUYS. Srsly. "Lost Cause" revisionism is responsible for the common misconception of it being about states' rights and sovereignity and whatnot. Sure, they wanted to secede. BUT IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SECEDE IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM, HUH?

[Mephansteras]

Sure, but it was mostly about money. Because if slavery wasn't making them all their money they wouldn't have been so against abolishing it to go to war over it.

[Strife26]

IT WAS MOSTLY SLAVERY GUYS. Srsly. "Lost Cause" revisionism is responsible for the common misconception of it being about states' rights and sovereignity and whatnot. Sure, they wanted to secede. BUT IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SECEDE IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM, HUH?

Not how I'd put it, but lost causers are historical revisionists of the worst kind.

[Sheb]

Sure, but it was mostly about money. Because if slavery wasn't making them all their money they wouldn't have been so against abolishing it to go to war over it.

That's a gross simplification. Lots of ferocious proponents of slavery didn't own slaves.

[PTTG??]

Sure, but it was mostly about money. Because if slavery wasn't making them all their money they wouldn't have been so against abolishing it to go to war over it.

That's a gross simplification. Lots of ferocious proponents of slavery didn't own slaves.

Eh. Just because you don't currently own slaves doesn't mean you won't when you've finally got the bank off your back, which is always next summer. It's the same reason people with $2 in their savings account vote against estate taxes that only kick in at $10,000,000.

[penguinofhonor]

In the same way, isn't "It was pretty much about slavery" a gross oversimplification? Lots of southerners weren't ferocious proponents of slavery.

I think people generally do a disservice to the war when they try to boil it down to one cause. I think everyone who's mentioned a cause so far has had good arguments for why it contributed. I'd say they might have all contributed.