PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues LOL @ CNN and civil war poll


mlyonsd
04-12-2011, 12:24 PM
Civil War still divides Americans

Washington (CNN) - It has been 150 years since the Civil War began (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/08/civil.war.today/index.html?iref=allsearch) with the first shots at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, and in some respects views of the Confederacy and the role that slavery played in the events of 1861 still divide the public, according to a new national poll.

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/11/rel6b.pdf) released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

When asked the reason behind the Civil War, whether it was fought over slavery or states' rights, 52 percent of all Americas said the leaders of the Confederacy seceded to keep slavery legal in their state, but a sizeable 42 percent minority said slavery was not the main reason why those states seceded.

"The results of that question show that there are still racial, political and geographic divisions over the Civil War that still exists a century and a half later," CNN Polling Director Holland Keating said.

When broken down by political party, most Democrats said southern states seceded over slavery, independents were split and most Republicans said slavery was not the main reason that Confederate states left the Union.

Republicans were also most likely to say they admired the leaders of the southern states during the Civil War, with eight in 10 Republicans expressing admiration for the leaders in the South, virtually identical to the 79 percent of Republicans who admired the northern leaders during the Civil War.

The survey polled 824 adults via telephone between April 9 and April 10.

The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.


Yes, we're still divided on the subject. Republicans sympathize with racists.

orange
04-12-2011, 12:31 PM
Republicans sympathizing with the Confederacy.

http://www.microformatinc.com/images/lincoln.jpg

HonestChieffan
04-12-2011, 12:56 PM
Amazing. Ask 20 Civil War Historians and you would get the same answer.

KC Dan
04-12-2011, 12:59 PM
Republicans sympathizing with the Confederacy.
Are you including the Republican President at the time in that as well? sometimes.....

HonestChieffan
04-12-2011, 01:01 PM
Another interesting poll:


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kf6lNoGjDuw/TaM7l-VCqZI/AAAAAAAAG7c/h2GUm7ssQaU/s400/BHN+chart.jpg

WV
04-12-2011, 01:03 PM
People are still divided about the Civil War because of ignorance about the Civil War.

orange
04-12-2011, 01:03 PM
Are you including the Republican President at the time in that as well? sometimes.....

Look carefully at the picture I posted; see if you can identify him; then answer why he's crying.

Deberg_1990
04-12-2011, 01:06 PM
Clinton News Network doing its best to help keep bigotry alive and well!

LOCOChief
04-12-2011, 01:09 PM
"I don't ask for pardon for what I was or am
I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn"

KC Dan
04-12-2011, 01:13 PM
Look carefully at the picture I posted; see if you can identify him; then answer why he's crying.Because you posted him online...

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 01:52 PM
Republicans sympathizing with the Confederacy.

http://www.microformatinc.com/images/lincoln.jpg

Look at the two objects on either side of his legs and arms that are part of the chair. What do you call those objects orange?

trndobrd
04-12-2011, 01:54 PM
Look carefully at the picture I posted; see if you can identify him; then answer why he's crying.

The cartoon was done by Bill Mauldin in response to the JFK assasination.

Chief Faithful
04-12-2011, 01:55 PM
So, what percentage of people believe both issues and more were the reason.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2011, 02:01 PM
"I don't ask for pardon for what I was or am
I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn"

Wow. A Johnny Reb fan, eh? :hmmm:

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 02:02 PM
There were a number of reasons for the Civil War, but the primary one was a fundamental concern by the South that they were going to have their socio-economic structure steadily eroded as a result of the fact that they had seemingly irretrievably lost control of Washington DC to the North, and the most fundamental concern that they were fighting to protect was, unfortunately, slavery.

Causes and effects are pretty much always complicated issues, and it is usually very difficult to identify one cause for anything so compliated as a Civil War. But it's pretty difficult to argue that any factor was AS BIG a cause for the Civil War as slavery. Not that the Union went to war to end it, but that the South seceded to protect it.

trndobrd
04-12-2011, 02:10 PM
Republicans sympathizing with the Confederacy.





If you take a look at the actual report, it shows that 20% of Democrats (+/-6.0%), 24% (+/- 5.0%) of Independents and 28% (+/-6.5%) of Republicans sympathize with the Confederacy.

Even more interesting 14% of Liberals, 29% of Moderates, and 25% of Conservatives sympathize with the Confederacy.

Kind of a suprise to see only 38% of Southerners sympathizing with the Confederacy.

Without the full crosstabs, there is know way to know if the

suzzer99
04-12-2011, 02:12 PM
The north's failure to vigorously enforce the Fugitive Slave Act was one of the big tipping points that led to war. Kinda hard to say slavery wasn't one of, if not the, major factor.

Vaspar
04-12-2011, 02:12 PM
People, why does everyone not understand that today's politicians do not have in their best interest to help unite the Americans citizens. The politicians on both sides of the isle do not care about the American citizen, and will keep enacting legislation intended to keep us divided in order to keep the good ole two party system in place by demonizing any legitimate 3rd party that would weaken the party. [B]Get it straight America, [B]Our politicians no longer care about the constitution, Equal Civil Rights for EVERYONE, or for the American citizens to get along and be unified. Remember a house united stands, as house divided [B]will fall.[B]

ClevelandBronco
04-12-2011, 02:16 PM
People, why does everyone not understand that today's politicians do not have in their best interest to help unite the Americans citizens. The politicians on both sides of the isle do not care about the American citizen, and will keep enacting legislation intended to keep us divided in order to keep the good ole two party system in place by demonizing any legitimate 3rd party that would weaken the party. [B]Get it straight America, [B]Our politicians no longer care about the constitution, Equal Civil Rights for EVERYONE, or for the American citizens to get along and be unified. Remember a house united stands, as house divided [B]will fall.[B]

I beg your forgiveness; this is one of my pet peeves. What ****ing "ISLE," Gilligan???

Otherwise a fine post.

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 02:20 PM
The north's failure to vigorously enforce the Fugitive Slave Act was one of the big tipping points that led to war. Kinda hard to say slavery wasn't one of, if not the, major factor.

True in a certain sense, but you're kind of pointing to the front edge of the tidal wave that caused the problem. The North's failure to vigorously enforce the Fugitive Slave Act was mostly because the thing was completely anathema to a majority of the citizens of the North.

The failure to enforce the FSA was itself yet another effect of the main cause of the Civil War -- the dispute over slavery, slaveholders rights, etc.

Vaspar
04-12-2011, 02:21 PM
I beg your forgiveness; this is one of my pet peeves. What ****ing "ISLE," Gilligan???

Otherwise a fine post.

My bad, "aisle". I keep reading the subject matter in the forums, and while I certainly have a conservative point of view, that does not mean that I consider every one an the left Looney Toons any more than those that claim to represent the right.

RedNeckRaider
04-12-2011, 02:22 PM
I beg your forgiveness; this is one of my pet peeves. What ****ing "ISLE," Gilligan???

Otherwise a fine post.

I have made that same dang mistake :banghead: work with us here! You are killing me smalls~

Vaspar
04-12-2011, 02:23 PM
What ****ing "ISLE," Gilligan???

By the way, if we as taxpayers were to send all the members of congress and the executive branch to Gilligans Ilse. just perhaps we might get a couple of years of tranquility in this country. That is all for now.

orange
04-12-2011, 02:28 PM
Without the full crosstabs, there is know way to know if the

Interesting point you started - I suppose - but I don't know what you mean by "full crosstabs." The report looks pretty complete to me.

I find page 6 a lot more to the point. Out of 35 columns, there are only 2 where "slavery was not main reason" has a majority. I think that illustrates the divide very clearly.

p.s. and Lincoln weeps.

ClevelandBronco
04-12-2011, 02:36 PM
How 'bout we take the citizens of South Carolina in 1860 at their word:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Adopted December 24, 1860

Vaspar
04-12-2011, 02:36 PM
One last thing that I'm sure everyone can agree on. What happened 150 years ago is water under the bridge, and there in NOTHING anyone today can do to make things right for people who were actually oppressed at that time. Today, ALL minorities, with the exception of Native Americans, have more liberties, freedoms, and opportunities for success than in any other country in the world! It is time EVERY individual remember that and at the very least show appreciation for that.

chiefsnorth
04-12-2011, 02:41 PM
You libs should stop lamenting ignorance and start lamenting that our public school system culture of suck allows people to graduate with notions like the civil war being fought over slavery.

Surely some of the ones who identify more with the CSA and it's resistance to perceived government oppression are racists, but the res are probably the few who have any clue what the war was about.

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 02:44 PM
You libs should stop lamenting ignorance and start lamenting that our public school system culture of suck allows people to graduate with notions like the civil war being fought over slavery.

Surely some of the ones who identify more with the CSA and it's resistance to perceived government oppression are racists, but the res are probably the few who have any clue what the war was about.


I graduated from that "culture of suck", but I've read a snippet or two about it since then. Debate with me, then.

Tell me -- what was the war about then?

EDIT -- and perhaps, before you go down this road, you should answer CB's post regarding the SC Articles of Secession....

RedNeckRaider
04-12-2011, 02:49 PM
You libs should stop lamenting ignorance and start lamenting that our public school system culture of suck allows people to graduate with notions like the civil war being fought over slavery.

Surely some of the ones who identify more with the CSA and it's resistance to perceived government oppression are racists, but the res are probably the few who have any clue what the war was about.

There were some interesting takes in a thread I started a while back...
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=241914

chiefsnorth
04-12-2011, 02:54 PM
I graduated from that "culture of suck", but I've read a snippet or two about it since then. Debate with me, then.

Tell me -- what was the war about then?

To save black people from Republicans, of course.

Amnorix
04-12-2011, 02:56 PM
To save black people from Republicans, of course.

Can't back it up eh? That's fine. This poster child of the "culture of suck" is ready if you ever want to come out of your corner.

gblowfish
04-12-2011, 03:00 PM
How 'bout we take the citizens of South Carolina in 1860 at their word:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

W.T. Sherman burned South Carolina Extra Crispy because they were the first state to leave the Union.

chiefsnorth
04-12-2011, 03:01 PM
Can't back it up eh? That's fine. This poster child of the "culture of suck" is ready if you ever want to come out of your corner.

Lacking the motivation to engage in a long discussion where no minds will be changed and a lot of time wasted has nothing to do with the veracity of either side's argument. It just means I don't feel like it's worth the effort.

trndobrd
04-12-2011, 03:04 PM
Interesting point you started - I suppose - but I don't know what you mean by "full crosstabs." The report looks pretty complete to me.

I find page 6 a lot more to the point. Out of 35 columns, there are only 2 where "slavery was not main reason" has a majority. I think that illustrates the divide very clearly.

p.s. and Lincoln weeps.


Full crosstabs would give raw data on every question and how the variable stack up against each other. For example, what percentage of respondents make over $50k, what percentage of respondents making over $50k live in the Midwest. Of particular interest would be the geographic distribution by political party, since views on the Civil War have a significant geographic component.


Not sure what divide you are trying to describe on page 6. Multiple columns are floating around the 50% mark, and more than two within the margin of error.

Interestingly, all the questions, except the one on page 6, ask the perception of the respondent. The last question asks the respondents their belief as to the motives of someone else. A question like this begs the respondent to analyse the question through their own perspective (i.e. tea party type's views on states rights, Non-White's views on the impact of slavery, etc.).

What I find unexplainable is the dramatic difference in 'sympathy' responses based on education and income, but the 'main cause' question is nearly identical across education and income groups.

orange
04-12-2011, 03:14 PM
Not sure what divide you are trying to describe on page 6.

That only self-identified Republicans and Tea Party supporters - by margins greater than the sampling error - support the notion that the war was not primarily because of slavery. This seems self-evident to me.

In fact, the Tea Party numbers are glaringly different than any others. You have to put on your blinders to not see it.

trndobrd
04-12-2011, 03:18 PM
I graduated from that "culture of suck", but I've read a snippet or two about it since then. Debate with me, then.

Tell me -- what was the war about then?

EDIT -- and perhaps, before you go down this road, you should answer CB's post regarding the SC Articles of Secession....


I'll walk down this road with you. My Civil War prof posed this question, "had slavery been abolished in the South would the Civil War have occurred?" I see a very strong argument that the conflicting interests of the industrialized North and agrarian South would have ultimately led to a civil war.

I don't care to go back through the percentage of Southerners who owned slaves, or the numbers of slaves, but IIRC both had been trending down in the period leading up to the civil war. For an entire population to go to war to preserve the peculiar institution doesn't seem to make sense.

The question in the poll, as to the motives of the confederate leaders is a tricky one. I assume, like most politicians, they were either seeking to preserve or expand their power. Clearly, their calculus led them to believe they would be in a better position by seceding.

Having made those statements, it is also clear that abolitionism in the North was fanning the flames in a way that would not have occurred without slavery.

trndobrd
04-12-2011, 03:23 PM
That only self-identified Republicans and Tea Party supporters - by margins greater than the sampling error - support the notion that the war was not primarily because of slavery. This seems self-evident to me.

In fact, the Tea Party numbers are glaringly different than any others. You have to put on your blinders to not see it.


And the upshot of this is what? The question was not 'what was the cause of the civil war' the question was 'why do you believe the confederate leaders seceded'. I'm sure BEP will be along to tell us that the cause of the war was Linconln overreaching.

Go back and look at the results from the 'sympathize' vs. 'reason for succession' questions among teaparty supporters.

HonestChieffan
04-12-2011, 03:31 PM
That only self-identified Republicans and Tea Party supporters - by margins greater than the sampling error - support the notion that the war was not primarily because of slavery. This seems self-evident to me.

In fact, the Tea Party numbers are glaringly different than any others. You have to put on your blinders to not see it.

Why do you believe the war was started. Can you be specific as to the reason? What was the goal of the civil war when it began?

orange
04-12-2011, 03:38 PM
And the upshot of this is what?

I submit that the style of the questions made the first three useless. "sympathize?" "admire?" Please.

Only the fourth question has any objective validity. And that's why it's the only one that provides any statistically significant differences between the various groups, beyond the completely predictable (such as more Southerners are sympathetic to the South).

The further upshot is that today's Republicans believing that the South seceded over "States Rights" is the world turned upside down. Lincoln weeps.

orange
04-12-2011, 03:43 PM
Why do you believe the war was started. Can you be specific as to the reason? What was the goal of the civil war when it began?

The war was started because the Southern ruling class feared the encroachment of abolitionism and its threat to their wealth and status. The goal of the Confederates was to maintain - and expand westward - their economic system grounded in slavery. The goal of the Union was to preserve the Union as a powerful and growing country, including its southern ports and textiles and population.

Huffmeister
04-12-2011, 04:14 PM
Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

HonestChieffan
04-12-2011, 04:23 PM
The war was started because the Southern ruling class feared the encroachment of abolitionism and its threat to their wealth and status. The goal of the Confederates was to maintain - and expand westward - their economic system grounded in slavery. The goal of the Union was to preserve the Union as a powerful and growing country, including its southern ports and textiles and population.

And what was the unions position regarding slavery at the beginning of the war?

orange
04-12-2011, 04:32 PM
And what was the unions position regarding slavery at the beginning of the war?

We will never know what Lincoln's administration would have done absent the war, but he made clear his intent to stop the expansion of slavery into the territories, reverse the Dred Scott decision legislatively, and basically ramp up pressure towards abolition.

And the southerners certainly took him at his word.

CoMoChief
04-12-2011, 04:39 PM
Oil

orange
04-12-2011, 04:41 PM
Republican Platform of 1860 - why Lincoln's election was intolerable to the South

"Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States, in convention assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituent and our country, unite in the following declarations:

1. That the history of the nation during the last four years has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now more than ever before demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph.

2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the states, and the Union of the states, must and shall be preserved.

3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population; its surprising development of material resources; its rapid augmentation of wealth; its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may; and we congratulate the country that no republican member of congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often made by democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendancy, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence.

4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state, to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehension in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as is especially evident in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas - in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons - in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of congress and of the federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest, and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a confiding people.

6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the federal metropolis, show that an entire change of Administration is imperatively demanded.

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

10. That in the recent vetoes by the federal governors of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.

11. That Kansas should of right be immediately admitted as a state, under the constitution recently formed and adopted by her people, and accepted by the House of Representatives.

12. That while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.

13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty, and we demand the passage by congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure which has already passed the house.

14. That the Republican Party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any state legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded by emigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

15. That appropriation by Congress for river and Harbor improvements of a National character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the constitution and justified by the obligation of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.

16. That a railroad to the Pacific ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established.

17. Finally, having thus set forth our distinctive principles and views, we invite the co÷peration of all citizens, however differing on other questions who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support.

Supplementary Resolution. Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with those men who have been driven, some from their native States and others from the States of their adoption, and are now exiled from their homes on account of their opinions; and we hold the Democratic Party responsible for this gross violation of that clause of the Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html

BucEyedPea
04-12-2011, 06:38 PM
p.s. and Lincoln weeps between the fasces

FYP


You didn't answer my question earlier.

orange
04-12-2011, 07:10 PM
FYP


You didn't answer my question earlier.

Only you would see something sinister there. Tell me, when was it built - before or after Mussolini? And do you think Il Duce really was emulating an American President in his imagery? LMAO


[edit] Fasces - dago all over the place

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3e/Knights_of_Columbus_color_enhanced_vector_kam.svg/180px-Knights_of_Columbus_color_enhanced_vector_kam.svg.png

banyon
04-12-2011, 07:18 PM
FYP


You didn't answer my question earlier.

CNN should probably do another poll about whether Lincoln was a mass rapist so that you can participate.

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 07:07 AM
Wow.


6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the federal metropolis, show that an entire change of Administration is imperatively demanded.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 07:25 AM
Lacking the motivation to engage in a long discussion where no minds will be changed and a lot of time wasted has nothing to do with the veracity of either side's argument. It just means I don't feel like it's worth the effort.

Suit yourself, but I love the insulting shot-across-the-bow followed by an absolute refusal to back it up style.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 07:50 AM
I'll walk down this road with you. My Civil War prof posed this question, "had slavery been abolished in the South would the Civil War have occurred?" I see a very strong argument that the conflicting interests of the industrialized North and agrarian South would have ultimately led to a civil war.

I think that is a very interesting question and a different way of looking at it. Here's the problem -- you cannot divorce the agrarian South from Slavery. The South WAS backwards, not industrialized, not wealthy in a liquid wealth (everything tied up in slaves/land) and had massive divisions with the North BECAUSE of slavery. If you eliminate the slavery system, then you eliminate many of the root causes of the vast differences between the North and South.

I don't care to go back through the percentage of Southerners who owned slaves, or the numbers of slaves, but IIRC both had been trending down in the period leading up to the civil war. For an entire population to go to war to preserve the peculiar institution doesn't seem to make sense.

I think it is very difficult today for us to understand how the entire Southern socio-economic structure was built upon the slave system.

The attempted revolution by the Confederates, and the American revolution, both had one thing in common -- something relatively odd as revolutions go -- they were led by the wealthiest members of the society. Those who have the most to lose usually don't risk what they have in such a fashion. But these two were the same in that respect. The American Revolution was, in part, led by the wealthy because they felt they weren't getting the respect they deserved from their English counterparts, were made beholden to the Colonial system which was against their economic interests, etc. The Confederacy was led by the wealthy who perceived an inevitable eroding of their power vis-a-vis the North in the future, and a strong threat to their overall economic model, which was built upon the foundation of slavery.

The question in the poll, as to the motives of the confederate leaders is a tricky one. I assume, like most politicians, they were either seeking to preserve or expand their power. Clearly, their calculus led them to believe they would be in a better position by seceding.

Having made those statements, it is also clear that abolitionism in the North was fanning the flames in a way that would not have occurred without slavery.

Also keep in mind the contemporary statements made by the leading actors of the age. John C. Calhoun, though dead by the start of the war, stated it most clearly in the 1830s when he point blank said the South would go to war to preserve the slave system. Grant made no bones about it in his biography when he said that he respected Lee but he had fought a war for the worst causes for which any war was ever fought. The articles of Secession of the various states vary in the degree to which they equivocate on the subject, but South Carolina makes no bones about it, as previously posted.

Texas is similarly not shy, referring in its secession to the slave-holding and nonslave-holding states.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html

Oh, and this


We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.


I also note that ONLY slaveholding states left the Union, and those slaveholding states that did not were border states with very mixed voting populations on the subject, and generally less reliant on the slave system for its socio-economic structure.

I note that in the US Constitution, slavery is mentioned infrequenly, and is veiled (indentured servants or whatever the phrase is). In contrast, very prominent in the Confederate Constitution is the right of slavery to exist, and the existence/approval of slavery is mandatory to any new territories.


The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.


http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/csaconstitution/article.iv.shtml

All the political leaders of the Confederacy were, in fact, slave holders themselves.

Then you have Vice President Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech", emphasizing that the new country was basically formed on the bedrock principle that slavery was the "natural condition" of negroes.

In short [too late!], the evidence is pretty overwhelming...

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 07:53 AM
Why do you believe the war was started. Can you be specific as to the reason? What was the goal of the civil war when it began?

The goal of the South in seceding was to preserve states' rights generally, and the slavery system specifically.

The fundamental goal of the North in not letting the South secede,at the START of the war, was to preserve the Union.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 07:54 AM
The war was started because the Southern ruling class feared the encroachment of abolitionism and its threat to their wealth and status. The goal of the Confederates was to maintain - and expand westward - their economic system grounded in slavery. The goal of the Union was to preserve the Union as a powerful and growing country, including its southern ports and textiles and population.

I'd agree with this as well.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 07:59 AM
Wow.



Do you think our complaints about the government are at all unique or unusual?

Trust me, it's been there since the very beginning. Even Washington had stones thrown at him (figuratively speaking). Placing the new capital (later to be named Washington DC of course) on teh Potomac greatly increased the value of the land owned by, among others, George Washington....

Imagine Obama putting a massive new federally sponsored whatever right in the heart of an area where he owns abundant land. Now imagine that Reid bought up a bunch of land in that area in the few years before that.

That's what Washington and some guy named James Madison (a leader in the House of Representatives at that point) did before the final selection of a site on teh Potomac was made for the new capital. Washington was a better, more honest and more noble man than almost anyone else, but this caricature of a perfect person who could never tell a lie etc. is a bit overdone...

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 08:12 AM
Do you think our complaints about the government are at all unique or unusual?

Trust me, it's been there since the very beginning. Even Washington had stones thrown at him (figuratively speaking). Placing the new capital (later to be named Washington DC of course) on teh Potomac greatly increased the value of the land owned by, among others, George Washington....

Imagine Obama putting a massive new federally sponsored whatever right in the heart of an area where he owns abundant land. Now imagine that Reid bought up a bunch of land in that area in the few years before that.

That's what Washington and some guy named James Madison (a leader in the House of Representatives at that point) did before the final selection of a site on teh Potomac was made for the new capital. Washington was a better, more honest and more noble man than almost anyone else, but this caricature of a perfect person who could never tell a lie etc. is a bit overdone...

I found it interesting Mr. Lincoln might have been the original Tea Partier. But I have no delusions that government waste is a new thing.

And more specifically, I wonder what he would think of the Union's economical status today.

orange
04-13-2011, 08:56 AM
Wow.

Wow, wow.

14. That the Republican Party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any state legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded by emigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

14 - ironic number, that

orange
04-13-2011, 09:07 AM
Washington was a better, more honest and more noble man than almost anyone else, but this caricature of a perfect person who could never tell a lie etc. is a bit overdone...

Not only that...

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/washingtons.jpg

:eek:

suzzer99
04-13-2011, 09:15 AM
Here's something I've always wondered - knowing the ultimate cost--600k lives lost, the Reconstruction, bitter resentment lasting 100 years and more---would Lincoln have just let the South secede if he had it to do over? What would have happened? Slavery would have ended at some point. Then the North US would probably be natural tight allies with the South US, just like the US is with GB and Canada.

Are we really that much better off now as a country because of the Civil War - enough to justify the cost? I bet there's a decent chance things wouldn't be much different right now. Except maybe the allies lose WWII if the South and North don't coordinate and provide the same effort. So that would suck.

ClevelandBronco
04-13-2011, 09:17 AM
I found it interesting Mr. Lincoln might have been the original Tea Partier.

I predict disagreement.

mlyonsd
04-13-2011, 09:38 AM
Wow, wow.

14 - ironic number, that

That is wow. There are a lot of things in that plank we still are having issues with today. I find that interesting.

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 09:40 AM
Here's something I've always wondered - knowing the ultimate cost--600k lives lost, the Reconstruction, bitter resentment lasting 100 years and more---would Lincoln have just let the South secede if he had it to do over? What would have happened? Slavery would have ended at some point. Then the North US would probably be natural tight allies with the South US, just like the US is with GB and Canada.

The real question is WHEN does slavery end, if it does. What is little known to most are the efforts of the Confederate states, before and during the war, to try to ensure the spread/continuation of slavery into the west and south, including Caribbean islands etc.

I'm not sure HOW slavery ends in the South, to be honest, given its bedrock position in the entire socio-economic fabric of the country. Probably would've required a revolution/upheavel of some sort.

[quoteAre we really that much better off now as a country because of the Civil War - enough to justify the cost? I bet there's a decent chance things wouldn't be much different right now. Except maybe the allies lose WWII if the South and North don't coordinate and provide the same effort. So that would suck.[/quote]

I'd like to think so, but these questions are pretty unanswerable.

RedNeckRaider
04-13-2011, 09:43 AM
The real question is WHEN does slavery end, if it does. What is little known to most are the efforts of the Confederate states, before and during the war, to try to ensure the spread/continuation of slavery into the west and south, including Caribbean islands etc.

I'm not sure HOW slavery ends in the South, to be honest, given its bedrock position in the entire socio-economic fabric of the country. Probably would've required a revolution/upheavel of some sort.

[quoteAre we really that much better off now as a country because of the Civil War - enough to justify the cost? I bet there's a decent chance things wouldn't be much different right now. Except maybe the allies lose WWII if the South and North don't coordinate and provide the same effort. So that would suck.

I'd like to think so, but these questions are pretty unanswerable.[/QUOTE]

Slavery still goes on to this day in the NFL. You guys should really read a news paper now and then~

Amnorix
04-13-2011, 09:46 AM
Slavery still goes on to this day in the NFL. You guys should really read a news paper now and then~

My comments were strictly limited to the actual slave system in the former Confederate states.

RedNeckRaider
04-13-2011, 09:49 AM
My comments were strictly limited to the actual slave system in the former Confederate states.

Yeah and it was a little rougher version of a slave system....just a little~

ClevelandBronco
04-13-2011, 11:05 AM
http://www.mosthigh.co.za/gifs/baton-rouge.jpg
Minnesota running back Adrian Peterson shows scars from wounds he says he received in contract negotiations.

notorious
04-13-2011, 11:20 AM
http://www.mosthigh.co.za/gifs/baton-rouge.jpg
Minnesota running back Adrian Peterson shows scars from wounds he says he received in contract negotiations.

:facepalm:


ROFL

Jaric
04-13-2011, 11:49 AM
I predict disagreement.

BEP just had a stroke.

HonestChieffan
04-13-2011, 06:23 PM
People are still divided about the Civil War because of ignorance about the Civil War.

You hit the nail on the head. It is interesting to read what perceptions are and see the language used. You cannot view the events of 1865 through a prism of 2011 political correctness and toss in political posturing and come to a reasonable assessment of what went on, the reasons, the motivation and the politics of that point in time.

suzzer99
04-13-2011, 08:51 PM
The real question is WHEN does slavery end, if it does. What is little known to most are the efforts of the Confederate states, before and during the war, to try to ensure the spread/continuation of slavery into the west and south, including Caribbean islands etc.


Obviously we can never know, but I doubt it lasts to the turn of the century. The South US would be the only nation with institutionalized slavery. There would have been a lot of pressure to abolish it and join the world. Trade embargoes, sanctions etc. would be imposed if they didn't comply. Also new automation technology would take over for a lot of what slave labor was needed to do.

I could see the South officially abolishing slavery but keeping some kind of defacto indentured servitude for a while longer. Basically they'd still be in the 30s or so now. Would not be a fun place to live for a black person.