What, in your PERSONAL opinion, was the cause of the War, and how did you come to your conclusion?

[unionblue]

Dear Thea,

What is really scary is that we are now using some of our old posts as references in our debates!

I will check out Tommy's postings, but the simple fact of the matter was given by Rick (blackirish) has several times listed the make-up of the Congress and the Senate right up before the war and the South could have blocked EVERYTHING or tied it up before it became law in the Congress. As for the Supreme Court, VERY Southern in its make-up and its rulings for the expansion of slavery. Sorry, Lincoln had one third of the government and the South could still exercise control over the other two-thirds.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

To Tommy and Neil,
Just to re-discover this old thread is worth all the trouble of learning to operate in a new manner. My, my....we've come a long way since those days! And just look how rich we've become with the addition of so many new voices!

Now, can either of you remember the thread we were on when we decided to start THIS thread?

[ole]

The thread was what caused the war and your personal opinion, etc.

Normally, I'd not get into a threat that ended, with the exception of Miss Thea's post #52, with Unionblue's post #51 dated 12-08-2003. As Neil's join date is February, 2005 and he's posted more than 2000 messages, I'm going to assume that the thread is alive and well.

I became interested in the unpleasantness with Carl Sandburg's "Lincoln, The War Years." Still have that book -- worn, tattered, and loose -- and haven't looked at it in 30 years. Next stimulus was Bruce Catton's trilogy: "The Army of the Potomac" which I got cheap through a BOMC promotion. I still read an occasional best seller, but my heart is in the mid 19th Century. What a rich field of study! Revealing lessons. Frailty. Partisanship. Self-interest. Personalities. Statesmen. Fools. Just like today!

The debates are enlightening and the ripost amusing. Banging thoughts together tends, however, to lose its attraction after a protracted period of the same old, same old.

I'll retire now to print and read the copious links I've downloaded from the discussions -- the most valuable benefit of all the threads in this forum. Wow. There's some great stuff out there -- most of which I'd have never even thought to look for. My thanks.

[ole]

On another note, Aphillbilly pegged the Know-Nothings. They may not have amounted to a conspiracy or anything remotely as clandestine as the KKK or the Aryan Nation or any of the other hate groups abounding today, but they were anti-immigrant and wanted no part of Roman Catholics (Irish, Italians, Bavarians, French) or anyone who wasn't born on US soil.

They were a "secret" society in that, when they were questioned as to their activities, they knew nothing about that. These were the same kind of people we see today who profess publicly one opinion and, in the privacy of the voting booth, exclude names that are obviously Polish, black, Asian or strange.

Their power, like the abolitionists, was in the fact that their numbers, 'though small, constituted a swing vote. We see that today as well -- politicians court strange bedfellows to get that extra percentage point. To fail in that regard is to lose the election and, thereby, the aspirations of your more numerous constituency. Hey. That's the way the ball bounces. Smooch some nutcase's nether part and carry on with the the wishes of your supporters.

Disgusting? Yup. Practicable? Yup. Unavoidable? Let's at least agree that no one has yet found a way around it.