while detractors will just as fervently claim that they're a roadmap to his inner psyche
We will?
Which is going to resonate with a lot of people who wonder why we're sending billions in foreign aid overseas at a time when they can't find work
So it's going to resonate with people with people who don't know that it's less then %1 of the budget?
Which is a LOT of people. Most folks aren't concerned with actual numbers or pragmatic logic, it's the principle of the thing--to them, sending even one dollar to help a foreigner when there are people here that need it is just wrong (of course, many of them would also resist sending that dollar to help the poor here, but that's beside the point).
The Civil War is something that is quite open to interpretation, and states' rights was a large factor in it.
In the same way that global warming or evolution is.
Seriously? See, this is why I hate the way history is taught in public schools. Let me clue you in on something: most of history is open to interpretation. That's why there are so goddamned many history books. That's why people go to school for years to learn how to study history. Yes, the Civil War (like most complicated, multi-facted events in history) is open to interpretation.
While I'm sure you love your popular culture history that says the Civil War happened because everyone in the South was an evil slavemaster who wanted to be able to oppress black people in peace, reality just isn't that simple.
No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.
You ever read the various state declarations of independence? Please do so, it's illuminating.
Have a link: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
Gee, how fascinating. I just looked up the North Carolina ordinance of secession. Guess what, Sparky? There's
no mention of slavery. Not even a euphemistic mention.
In fact, only Alabama, Texas and Virginia even *mention* the word slave. Even South Carolina, the initial seceder and the one I'd expect to mention slavery, makes no mention whatsoever of it.
Perhaps you should read your own link before you see fit to pontificate. And we should take this to a seperate thread (or let it die in peace) before we invoke the frowny dog.
EDIT: Sorry, can't let this go unchallenged.
The Republican party first took control of the country after the south seceded. Kinda hard to see how they neglected the south for years.
....What?
The president before Lincoln was pro-southern. 8 of the 15 presidents before Lincoln were from the south. The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by southerners. Yeah, the south was really shut out of political life there.
Yes, in the entire history of the United States before the civil war, there was a period in which the South and the North had decently balanced representation in government and were similar enough to stay together. That didn't last forever. And that's when the civil war happened.
The south started seceding in December of 1860. Lincoln took office in 1861, along with the first republican majority. This is what we who like history call "research".
What you are doing on the other hand is called "idle speculation".
You do realize *when* we have elections, right? By December 1860, Lincoln had already WON the Presidency. It was in fact, his victory that started the ball rolling on secession. Or were you too busy doing "research" to connect those two things?