I made some YouTube videos about the war and what caused it. Their all just a little under 10 minutes. Hopefully I wasn't too boring. Let me know what you think.
Why the South Had the Right to Secede
How Economic Policies Led to Southern Secession
Clearing Up Misconceptions About Slavery in America
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
I only had a chance to listen to a little, nice work. It's good to see a young person take such an interest in history and facts.
Have you read the DiLorenzo books? Highly recommended and very readable. Two reviews I wrote of them last year ...Lincoln UnmaskedThe Real Lincoln
Interested in economics, watches, or fountain pens?http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/
I believe the Tariff of Abominations had an average rate of 50%, not 30.
Nice. Mainstream history is everywhere...
The "great enmancipator" was a great mass murderer.
DBratton:I believe the Tariff of Abominations had an average rate of 50%, not 30.
speedmaster:I only had a chance to listen to a little, nice work. It's good to see a young person take such an interest in history and facts. Have you read the DiLorenzo books? Highly recommended and very readable. Two reviews I wrote of them last year ... Lincoln UnmaskedThe Real Lincoln
Have you read the DiLorenzo books? Highly recommended and very readable. Two reviews I wrote of them last year ...
Lincoln UnmaskedThe Real Lincoln
The books I read for my information were A Constitutionl History of Secession, The South Was RIght, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South. I've read some of DiLorenzo's stuff on Lew Rockwell's blog which I read every morning. I actually used a 30ish page excerpt from his book The Real Licnoln which I found in PDF format somewhere online for information too. I think I'm all Civil War'd out for now though after spending the last 3 months doing research for my school paper. I still have Jefferson' Davis's own The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government Volume 1 which I haven't gotten around to reading yet and probably won't.
I dont like Lincoln, but the south did some pretty brutal things to it's citizens during the war which I can't defend.
banned: I dont like Lincoln, but the south did some pretty brutal things to it's citizens during the war which I can't defend.
Well of cousre defending the souths right to leave the union and defending their domestic policies are two completely different things.
CopperHead: banned: I dont like Lincoln, but the south did some pretty brutal things to it's citizens during the war which I can't defend. Well of cousre defending the souths right to leave the union and defending their domestic policies are two completely different things.
It is interesting to consider two divergent historical possibilities:
1. The South stayed in the Union in spite of Lincoln's election and the proposed amendment regarding "domestic institutions" had been ratified.
2. The South, either by combat or by peaceful acceptance of the North, successfully gained its independence.
I think you would have seen peaceful emancipation occur earlier under option 2, rather than option 1. An independent south would have had to rapidly take steps to industrialize itself. In addition, it would have lost the operation of the fugitive slave law. With intensive labor needed, slavery would rapidly have become an untenable situation. I think under option 2 you would have had an effective end to slavery in the south by 1885. Under option 1 I think slavery would have been gone by 1900 at the latest.
Slavery was a dying institution, even in 1860. It's end was near and it did NOT require the deaths of 600,000 men to bring about.
Mark B.: Slavery was a dying institution, even in 1860. It's end was near and it did NOT require the deaths of 600,000 men to bring about.
That point just seems to roll off the Lincoln idolators. Slavery was ended peacefully in every other Western nation, but so what? The deaths of 600,000 poor white boys and a lot of poor black boys as well is a GOOD thing!
Sometimes I think statists have a literal fetish for bloodshed.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
MacFall: Mark B.: Slavery was a dying institution, even in 1860... That point just seems to roll off the Lincoln idolators. Slavery was ended peacefully in every other Western nation...
Mark B.: Slavery was a dying institution, even in 1860...
Slavery was a dying institution, even in 1860...
That point just seems to roll off the Lincoln idolators. Slavery was ended peacefully in every other Western nation...
It's worse than that.
Before the war most southern farmers owned their land debt free, but after reconstruction most farm land was heavily mortgaged and chopped up into penny packets worked by sharecroppers (most of whom were white). The destruction of the war and the thefts and taxation during reconstruction caused a collapse in the division of labor so that all across the south people who once bought things like clothing, tools, and so on now had to make their own. The war caused a severe and persistent reduction in both the size and the efficiency of the southern economy.
The first mechanical wheat harvesters appeared in the American midwest in the 1830's. The first mechanical cotton harvesters didn't appear in the American south until the 1930's. Modernization of southern agriculture was delayed by at least half a century because there was no capital to invest and not enough large farms to allow for economies of scale.
So you see not only was the war unnecessary, it prolonged and intensified the suffering of the blacks. They were freed from slavery, but they paid for it with three generations of starvation and poverty.
Just to stir things up in this choir:
http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2003/05/18/making-a-fetish-of-the-confederacy-at-lewrockwellcom/
http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2004/10/19/dilorenzo-responds/
Keep in mind that I believe there is truth in both the sides presented and that I think at times both are talking past one another.
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
ThorsMitersaw:Just to stir things up in this choir: http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2003/05/18/making-a-fetish-of-the-confederacy-at-lewrockwellcom/ http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2004/10/19/dilorenzo-responds/ Keep in mind that I believe there is truth in both the sides presented and that I think at times both are talking past one another.
Atleast it was less hypocritical for the Confederate States to institute federal conscription as slavery was already a recognised and protected system in their contitution. The United States on the other hand claimed to be fighting against slavery but at the same time forced men to join the military and fight.
Do not get me wrong friend, I do not support the north or claim no right to secede or the common men of th esouth o defend themselves from the northern terrorists. And I recognize that there were movements and even attempted legislation in the south that were growing to eliminate slavery from within.
I just do not wish to support ANY government, confederate or federal.
which is why stars and bars is black and yellow.
ThorsMitersaw: Do not get me wrong friend, I do not support the north or claim no right to secede or the common men of th esouth o defend themselves from the northern terrorists. And I recognize that there were movements and even attempted legislation in the south that were growing to eliminate slavery from within. I just do not wish to support ANY government, confederate or federal.
I agree. But if the south had either won or if the North hadn't invaded, the principle of secession would have been legitimized in the American theory of government. We are coming to the logical conclusion of American Statism - that is, the state owns everyone and everything in its jurisdiction. And the logical conclusion of a system that accepts secession is the eventual death of the state.
Market Anarchist Gadsden flag
Credit: Rich333
MacFall:Market Anarchist Gadsden flag Credit: Rich333
/right clicks, save as/
BWF89: MacFall:Market Anarchist Gadsden flag Credit: Rich333That's awesome. /right clicks, save as/
heres my stars and bars, I also have a much more elaborate and decorative one which I apparnetly have never uploaded onto photobucket so I will have to post that one when I return home from work
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n314/thorsmitersaw/ancaprebel.gif
New video where I reviewes a few books I read on the war: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ivcc8mnaeB4
Kudos to you BWF89 for taking a stand and using your head.
“We ought to obey God rather than men.” -Acts 5:29.
"Slaves before God, free before all others." -Boer Motto.
I listened to the 2nd and 3rd. Very informative--really admire your efforts. Maybe just a small tip--a more conversational style might help the listener to take in all the info. (and I'm not saying I could do any better!)
A couple things I've wondered about:
How many freed blacks were living in the South prior to the war, and what were conditions and opportunites like for them?
How many Southerners actually believed secession was necessary to protect slavery? There had to be more than just some who believed this.
Disclaimer: Layperson - don't assume anything I say on economics is true.
Broken Window:How many Southerners actually believed secession was necessary to protect slavery?
They were not thinking about slavery when they secceded. Slavery did not become an issue at all until Lincoln made it one with his Emancipation Proclamation after the Battle of Antietam.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Broken Window:How many Southerners actually believed secession was necessary to protect slavery? There had to be more than just some who believed this.
NIce choice for a user name.
Folks didn't need to get slaugtered and raped and disillusioned, to oppose slavery. Government is needed for nothing, if it can not preserve it's initial tenat 'preserve the people.' How would civility as it has and does more justly served the end of liberty rather than a cruel means to justify a common end. Peace, freedom, joy, these are all of course common ends. Not all means justify right ends. I preach to the chior, I'm sure.
I think free markets do it better all the time and in every way more effeciently than any other systems. Why wouldn't the market moraly object, as they somewhat do today with the fear of licking bright paint and so on.
My impression is: in hindsight all involved would of rightfully been on the side of I prefer not to harm my brother. Perhaps 'the war of forced unity', ended the experiment, and todays america is ex delicto?
Individualism Rocks