Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2017, 11:44 PM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,922,871 times
Reputation: 3461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ciceropolo View Post
Thomas E Woods Jr's The Politically incorrect Guide to American History is a fine read which touches on many aspects of US History from pre-Revolution to 20th century. I would highly recommend it as it has excellent "Civil War/ War For Southern Independence" content.


As to your question most elementary and secondary educational materials on history is very limited. In University it (depending on the periods covered in a classroom) can often be so. Most history is written by the victors so there is always some inherent skewing based upon selective interpretation. The old one man's revolutionary is another's terrorist type thing.


Also a balanced well researched approach is often to difficult for the vast majority of people who want to 'be entertained' to take the time to digest and put themselves into another era in 'mindset' and review the events through a multiple of views.


Tangentially, I am currently reading The Aviators by Winston Groom, which covers the lives of Eddie Rickenbacker, Charles Lindbergh and Jimmy Doolilttle. It is an exceptionally written and researched book which would give anyone interested in history a lot of great insights into the period from WW1 to WW2 as it pertains to aeronautical developments and the psyche of the country at the time.
Not so tangentially, Mr. Woods is a founding member of the League of the South:

Quote:
...HAVING FINISHED this absurd manifesto, I was curious to learn more about its author. All the book tells you is that he has a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Columbia. A quick Internet search reveals that he is an assistant professor of history at Suffolk County Community College on Long Island, and a founding member of the League of the South. According to its website, the League "advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic." As an interim step before this glorious goal is achieved, the League urges its members to "fly Confederate flags at your residence or business every day" and to "become as self-sufficient as possible"--"if possible, raise chickens and keep a cow to provide eggs and dairy products for your family and friends." The League also counsels "white Southerners" that they should not "give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants."...
Incorrect History
Reading Thomas Woods's "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History."

Incorrect History | The Weekly Standard
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2017, 04:59 AM
 
Location: western East Roman Empire
9,362 posts, read 14,304,816 times
Reputation: 10081
Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid View Post
If you have any book or movie / mini series recommendations let me know
Then you would go down from one rabbit hole to another.

You must do your own secondary and primary research.

Your secondary research could include dozens of academic studies from every possibly angle that you could digest, including a broad historical context and it doesn't hurt to have an emphasis on economic and business history; e.g. the history of the railroads. Then you have to do your own original thinking.

My own take is that the general purpose of the civil war, from mostly the northerners' perspective, was to pave the way for a continent-wide industrialized, consumer-oriented economy for which wage labor is more conducive than slave labor, among other practical considerations.

Of course within that general scheme there were at the time dozens of special interests - no goddamn "-isms", but real people with names and addresses competing and cooperating with each other -, each one with its own goddamn "-ism", i.e. party, propaganda or ideology to sell, even to this day.

Good Luck!

Last edited by bale002; 09-20-2017 at 05:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 05:51 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,922,871 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by westsideboy View Post
Here is the crazy thing.............I don't remember being taught in high school (mid-90s) that slavery caused the Civil War. Our teacher was very much of the "it's complicated" school of thought and presented us with the many factors (including slavery) that contributed to the conflict. I specifically remember also being told that in "the old days" slavery was presented as a simple answer to the question.

I went to private school and had an outstanding teacher, so maybe that is the difference. There was no set curriculum he had to teach by in our school.

In all honesty, I think 99.9% of Americans miss the mark on the Civil War because we don't understand nationalism. That is what the war was, our war of Nationalism. The South were experiencing an ethno-genesis caused by the radical changes immigration and industrialization was having on the North. The Southern states had always seen themselves as different, but by the 1860s saw themselves as a 'nation' apart from their neighbors to the north. To this end, slavery was very important in causing the war. The peculiar institution was a common bond in these states and their support of it was a common cause that forced them together. They saw themselves as the "Americans" and the North as some strange new creation that would be the end of their culture and society.

If you understand the war from this POV, the "lost cause" mentality makes perfect sense and needs no pivot to hidden motives or racial hate. The ethno-genesis was completed, even though the war was lost. The common heroes, landmark events, and shared history had been formed even in defeat. The South lost the war, but maintained the distinct identity they created.

What Lincoln proposed for the USA, and what most Americans still consider to be our MO today, is that of a crown-state without a king. We owe our allegiance not to shared blood, religion, or even heritage, but to our unique system of government. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution function as our King. Regardless of where we come from, or where we are going, we all agree that these documents expresses our feelings about ourselves and each other, and govern how we act and what freedoms we possess. It was a stroke of genius by Lincoln, one that built upon the ideas of the Founders, and was a salve for a country at war and unsure of what we really were.

Fast forward 150+ years, and America is undergoing another ethno-genesis. Nationalism is grass-roots right now in our country..............and it isn't hard to see how many citizens, and nearly all establisment politicians are simultaniously horrified by the concept, and mostly ignorant as to what why it is happening.
From a poll of American people in 2011, 'complicated' & divisive:

Civil War at 150: Still Relevant, Still Divisive

Overview

"As the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War approaches, most Americans say the war between the North and South is still relevant to American politics and public life today. ..."

Quote:
What Caused the Civil War?

By a 48%-to-38% margin, more Americans say states’ rights rather than slavery was the main cause of the Civil War.

Asked their impression of the main cause of the Civil War, a 48%-plurality of Americans say it was mainly about states’ rights. Just 38% say the Civil War was mainly caused by slavery. Another 9% volunteer that it was about both equally. Young people are more likely than older Americans to say that the war’s main cause was states’ rights — 60% of those younger than age 30 express this view, the highest percentage of any age group. Those ages 65 and older, by a 50%-to-34% margin, are the most likely to say that slavery rather than states rights was the main cause of the Civil War. Nearly half of whites (48%) say states’ rights was the war’s main cause, but so do 39% of blacks. Read More ...
What Caused the Civil War? | Pew Research Center
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 06:01 AM
 
18,129 posts, read 25,278,015 times
Reputation: 16835
State rights?
That's complete BS ... all articles of secession say that they seceded because northern states were passing laws that contradicted the fugitive Slavs clause in the constitution

Anybody that says that civil war started because Southern states were fighting for state rights is rewriting history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 07:50 AM
 
32,021 posts, read 36,777,542 times
Reputation: 13300
Quote:
Originally Posted by drinkthekoolaid View Post
I am really thinking that American civil war Was the South being angry and feeling mistreated over states rights issues.
State's rights to preserve slavery. Slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 08:08 AM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,944,788 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
State rights?
That's complete BS ... all articles of secession say that they seceded because northern states were passing laws that contradicted the fugitive Slavs clause in the constitution

Anybody that says that civil war started because Southern states were fighting for state rights is rewriting history.
I have to wonder what the motivations are behind people that try to dumb down and simplify the causes of war. Claiming state’s rights had no part in the cause is just as ignorant as saying slavery played no role. This seriously the only war where people accuse each other of rewriting history in any attempt to deep dive into specifics. This just comes across as trying to defend old outdated narratives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 09:13 AM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,819,047 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
Why can't people admit that the civil war started because northern states weren't returning runaway slaves to the South as stipulated in the constitution, Southern states left the union and Lincoln wanted to preserve the union at any cost?

All the articles of secession for each state that seceded say that that's the reason they seceded

Why can't people admit it?
So you agree it was about slavery...

Sorry but that made me kind of giggle. Other posters have already mentioned the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and other items that occurred after the passage of that law.

In regards to "northern states" it actually wasn't the states themselves, it was specific citizens of those states. Northern states like Ohio, where I'm from and where there was a lot of abolitionist activities and those who did not agree with slavery, had a lot of vocal people and even active people but the majority of the populace was not active in the anti-slavery movement, they didn't like runaways living in their state, and they did assist southern states/slave owners in getting slaves back. This happened more often than not.

After 1850 many blacks who had runaway to Ohio in particular, moved to "safer" areas in northern Ohio, MI and on to Canada. Even free blacks left the state because there were media stories of free blacks being kidnapped in "free states" (I am aware of these stories being a factor in some of my ancestors communities in particular in IN, OH, and PA - my 4th great grandmother had an article written up in a paper in 1851 of being nearly kidnapped into slavery with a neighbor of hers as they walked down the street after work - she was free born as she was from PA, which endured a "gradual emancipation" of slaves starting in 1780. She was born in 1823 so was born free and was never a slave) and being made slaves when they nor their parents had ever been slaves before.

This caused a galvanizing of the free black communities in particular who lobbied their white allies to assist runaways and they also lobbied state legislatures and executives to protect the rights of citizens who did not want to be complicit in returning people to slavery and the rights of of potentially free blacks who may be kidnapped just because they were black. So there were processes put into place whereas owners had to go before a judge in the free state to ensure that the person they were attempting to re-enslave actually was their chattel slave. Southerners didn't want to go through this process even though there are actually a lot of cases where free blacks were kidnapped and made into slaves after the passage of the Fugitive Slave law in 1850.

I agree with previous posters that you need to look at the "origins" of the war if that's what you want to call it. Those origins and political activity occuring on both sides were the reasons for the war. Those reasons were centered on the system of chattel slavery and the south wanting to protect that system at all costs, even to the detriment of the rights of free black citizens and free white citizens who did not want to participate in an institution that was not legal in their geographic area and which they felt was a moral sin. Some whites in free states were beaten and /or killed for even speaking out against the Fugitive Slave law or writing articles that other whites in free states felt was supportive to blacks so the idea that the free states never helped the south in their cause is incorrect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 09:22 AM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,819,047 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
I have to wonder what the motivations are behind people that try to dumb down and simplify the causes of war. Claiming state’s rights had no part in the cause is just as ignorant as saying slavery played no role. This seriously the only war where people accuse each other of rewriting history in any attempt to deep dive into specifics. This just comes across as trying to defend old outdated narratives.
On this, I honestly have no motivations in simplifying the cause of the war. IMO and the opinions of most people, the defining, primary cause of the war was political disagreements over slavery.

I think people who deny this particular motivation, when it is in fact a primary reason for the war, are odd. I don't think they want to "re-write history" but I do think that they are looking at minor issues of that era and trying to make them bigger than they actually were (and they also ignore the fact that those minor issues are indeed "slavery" based - like the states rights thing and the property rights thing and the economic issue thing).

From your own posts on the subject, I know that you know that slavery was the primary cause of the war. The idea that K-12 school education in America should teach that there was some other primary cause is kind of ridiculous to me since everyone knows (unless they are being wilfully ignorant) that that is the primary cause - disagreements over slavery.

I also agree that there are hundreds of thousands (millions actually) experiences of soldiers and lay persons and all other types of Americans on both sides. But the cause of the war was a political disagreement over slavery and that is a simple reason. History cannot be re-written on this incident in our nation considering we have the documents that state the reasons for secession, by the secessionist themselves, along with the constitution of the CSA all of which highlight those political reasons being over protecting "property rights" of owners of slaves and the institution itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 09:42 AM
 
18,129 posts, read 25,278,015 times
Reputation: 16835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
I have to wonder what the motivations are behind people that try to dumb down and simplify the causes of war. Claiming state’s rights had no part in the cause is just as ignorant as saying slavery played no role. This seriously the only war where people accuse each other of rewriting history in any attempt to deep dive into specifics. This just comes across as trying to defend old outdated narratives.
Ok, let's clear everything up
Go ahead and explain exactly why the civil war was about the South's state rights
No BSing, it has to be clear explanation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,115,388 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thulsa View Post
I meant exactly what I said, and I include just about any war in that advice.


90% of understanding a war is understanding what happened leading up to the first shot being fired.
The other 10% that matters is the after effects.


A person can study and memorize everything that happened between April 1861 to April 1865 and come out knowing nothing that matters about the Civil War other than the outcome. That's why we keep having this thread.
I suppose you are unaware that you are making no sense. Your 90 % formula is your own invention, taken from the University of the Atmosphere, and backed by nothing beyond your assertion.

Further, a person studying the events of 1861-1865 would learn about General Butler's "contraband" policy concerning seizing runaway slaves, they would learn about the confiscation act passed by the US Congress, they would learn about the emancipation proclamation and ultimately the amendments which freed the slaves. That person would learn about President Lincoln's efforts to get the loyal slave states to cooperate with a compensated emancipation program, and getting turned down. That person would learn about the arming of former slaves by the North and the 11th hour attempt to do so as well by the South.

A person could learn all that, things someone who stopped studying the war after 1860, would not know about. And according to you, that person would "come out knowing nothing that matters about the Civil War other than the outcome."


So, as is manifest, your original statement is wrong. If you wish to have your positions taken seriously by anyone, you need to learn to avoid such sweeping and obvious absurdities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:06 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top