Taste great, less filling.

Oh boy.......I'll stay away from this one and just watch, except to say this....everyone had their own biased opinion. Obviously the southerners opinion is going to be biased, and same for the northerners. Instead of asking biased people, go back and study the history of it.

Just read the seceding documents that the states put out when they seceded. Those documents are the states own words as to why they seceded. Most of them cite protecting the institution of slavery for the reason for sececion.

For the powers that were, it was about money. For the rest of the folks it was how beaverpeeler explained it. IMO.
Ultimately the victors created the strong centralized government we have nowadays. Which will lead to the destruction of this great nation.

You think if the labor force that operated the textile mills that processed southern cotton would have been legislatively "taken" from them by Federal government that northerners would have acted differently?

Good but I'd add pride. Pridefulness has been the start of many, many, many a war.

You can believe anything you want but it boiled down to money and any excuse to create a federal currency, Bowers book goes into great detail on the southern banks and the northern banks, States rights vs federal, it started with Hamilton and how to pay for the Revolutionary war; Federal Currency a requirement for a unified country, SAME AGENDA FOR GLOBALIZATION.

One of the big items in the foundation of our country was England would not allow us to have currency, there fore each state made its own. same agenda for the civil war.


https://www.money.org/ana-blog/QDBobsoletepapermoneybook

1861 to 1865
On the eve of the Civil War in 1861, the financial and banking system in the United States bore little resemblance to current institutions and practices. There was no central bank. The Federal Reserve System had yet to come into existence. Banking was largely a state regulated function
As in many other areas of national development, it was the Civil War which prompted radical change in the country's financial system. To pay for the men and material needed to fight the war, the government needed to increase revenue. There are three ways to do this: increasing taxes, borrowing funds, or printing money
The National Banking Era Begins, 1863
The National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864
The National Banking era was ushered in by the passage of the National Currency (later renamed the National Banking) Acts of 1863 and 1864. The Acts marked a decisive change in the monetary system, confirmed a quarter-century-old trend in bank chartering arrangements, and also played a role in financing the Civil War.
Provision of a Uniform National Currency
As its original title suggests, one of the main objectives of the legislation was to provide a uniform national currency. Prior to the establishment of the national banking system, the national currency supply consisted of a confusing patchwork of bank notes issued under a variety of rules by banks chartered under different state laws. Notes of sound banks circulated side-by-side with notes of banks in financial trouble, as well as those of banks that had failed (not to mention forgeries). In fact, bank notes frequently traded at a discount, so that a one-dollar note of a smaller, less well-known bank (or, for that matter, of a bank at some distance) would likely have been valued at less than one dollar by someone receiving it in a transaction. The confusion was such as to lead to the publication of magazines that specialized in printing pictures, descriptions, and prices of various bank notes, along with information on whether or not the issuing bank was still in existence.
Under the legislation, newly created national banks were empowered to issue national bank notes backed by a deposit of US Treasury securities with their chartering agency, the Department of the Treasury’s Comptroller of the Currency. The legislation also placed a tax on notes issued by state banks, effectively driving them out of circulation. Bank notes were of uniform design and, in fact, were printed by the government. The amount of bank notes a national bank was allowed to issue depended upon the bank’s capital (which was also regulated by the act) and the amount of bonds it deposited with the Comptroller. The relationship between bank capital, bonds held, and note issue was changed by laws in 1874, 1882, and 1900 (Cagan 1963, James 1976, and Krooss 1969).

Humans kill each other over all sorts of things we hold dear. It is our history.
The most marvelous "wonder" of the 7 wonders of the ancient world, the Greek Temple of Artemis (Diana in the language of the Romans - Latin) was the pinnacle of human achievement at that time.



The rural folks adored Diana because she was the goddess of the forest, the animals, and fertility. The peasants would stare for days at the wonder of the temple and be the first to sign up to go to war to protect the daughter of Zeus' honor. Many of their ancestors had been slave labor who suffered and died to create a great wonder.

Here's what's left of their blood, sweat, and tears in Ephesus, Turkey today.

Nothing. Rust and moths do consume.
The single column was recently erected to show where the monstrous temple had been.

History is fascinating to those who ponder the things of old - as we watch modern day slave labor advocated, modern day wonders adored, and modern day wars fought.
Ain't much changed has there?

Blessings,
Mark

I’m more concerned about why the next one will be fought.

Oh I suppose HT, it'll be fought over those things humans hold dear.
Wonder what Americans hold dear? I remember "90 days same as cash!" but I think those days as behind us.
Seems more like I buy - you pay today, and more and more folks are signing that check.
It'll have consequences.
Human decisions always do.



Blessings,
Mark

James M McPherson, a renowned US historian, has written at least 2 excellent books on the Civil War: "Battle Cry for Freedom" and "For Cause and Comrad." McPherson makes the point that the causes of the war and the reasons men fought may be different.

James made an excellent point regarding the reasons for the attempted secession of the southern states. Nothing makes their mindset more clear than the arguments made for and against secession in the state legislatures. However, as the old saying goes, it takes two to tango. The north could have let the initial seven states that formed the confederacy to secede, so there is more to be looked at to get a better understanding.

The more you read and learn about the Civil War the more you come to understand that the times were different, peoples values and mindsets were different, and we cannot fairly judge what people did then by our current values and mindsets.

Very insightful EdP. Very.

Any time you wonder if the War between the States (there is no civil war) was because of slavery, first remember during that time there were many slaves in the north also.....Then ask yourself now in modern times without slavery, what would happen if several states succeeded and tried to form their own government.


If your not smart enough to see that, you would have caught a musket ball right between the eyes on the first day, lol.

Modern days without slaves? We have countless millions of slaves, both sexual and indentured, in the world and in this nation.

They estimate we have 600,000 "slavs" in Texas currently; about 75-80% indentured and the rest sexually exploited.
If you think us moderns have irradicated the human slave trade you simply don't know what is occurring around you.

I don't know about dodging musket fire.

Yeah okay, great way to try and twist it, everybody knows what I meant Mark.

It was fought because of arrogance & stupidity.

On both sides.

w

What I want to know is ,when will the next one kick off.

Already has at T-Man, Lol

Twist? I read your post which states; "Then ask yourself now in modern times without slavery.."
We're only as good as the information provided and you were the provider.
Blame me for reading your words?
Let me re-read it and see if I come up with another interpretation.
Nope. It says "without slavery" every time I read it.
But the internet is a Al Gore contraption so maybe your line of thought didn't come through loud and clear.

"Founding of Liberia, 1847

The founding of Liberia in the early 1800s was motivated by the domestic politics of slavery and race in the United States as well as by U.S. foreign policy interests. In 1816, a group of white Americans founded the American Colonization Society (ACS) to deal with the “problem” of the growing number of free blacks in the United States by resettling them in Africa. The resulting state of Liberia would become the second (after Haiti) black republic in the world at that time."

"Lincoln desired to return former slaves to Africa or other tropical regions, with their consent and the accord of the authorities of the country where they were to be settled. He repeated his support for colonization numerous times, including during the American Civil War."