Ugh. Larry King is just godawful. Why can't he stay retired?

You know you've won the cold war when...

The Russians are watching your Presidential debate while you're playing your playstation. :-)

Winning the Cold War was the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime.

yeah because the specter of nuclear destruction was a hallmark of the good old days

and to be fair you think the war that freed the slaves was a negative too, so lets keep it in perspective

Wait... what, Tolstoy?

Tolstoy gets giddy with his contrarian self and fires off something stupid every once and a while.

"And you know what... occasionally i crap in my pants to save water..."

"yeah because the specter of nuclear destruction was a hallmark of the good old days"

When I was a kid, I lived with the knowledge every day that the world could end within 30 minutes. You know what? It was an unpleasant thought, but it never happened, and it was never going to happen. MAD worked. But so long as the Communists were in power and a shining example of things *not* to do, no American politician could ever get away with unilaterally granting himself the power to summarily imprison, torture, and even execute Americans as they have done today. I wouldn't need to have my testicles squeezed every time I wanted to board an airplane, enter a courthouse, or even a flipping city council meeting. The NSA would not be recording every phone call and internet transaction I make for the day when they'd need to get a rubber-stamped warrant to come after me for God-knows-what non-crime. I would not have to think about the risk of being gunned down for laughs or electrocuted by tasers every time I saw a police car.

Not to mention the geopolitical effects - how many hot wars have we been in since Communism fell? At what cost in lives and treasure?

We Americans sit down for all this crap because there is no longer an oppressive Soviet system to compare ourselves to. Our government no longer has any need to give us even a facade of freedom. If the communists were still around and in the public consciousness - the embodiment of political evil - things would be different. Also, I'm sure the influx of Soviet and GDR consultants on population control who were hired by the US government in the '90s did a lot to encourage the federal government to move in a more totalitarian direction.

"and to be fair you think the war that freed the slaves was a negative too"

Right, because there's never a down side to 750,000 people being dead.

"Not to mention the geopolitical effects - how many hot wars have we been in since Communism fell? At what cost in lives and treasure?"

About the same number as we did when Communism was alive and kicking

"I wouldn't need to have my testicles squeezed every time I wanted to board an airplane, enter a courthouse, or even a flipping city council meeting."

Perhaps if the Communists had held onto afganistan and prevented Osama Bin laden from flying planes into the world trade center, but besides that the connection between the end of the cold war and security checks are spurious. You know as well as me before it was demonstrated 2 planes could kill over a thousand people the security was a joke. And you know as well as I that nobody pinches your balls you drama queen.

"But so long as the Communists were in power and a shining example of things *not* to do, no American politician could ever get away with unilaterally granting himself the power to summarily imprison, torture, and even execute Americans as they have done today"

Your right, all they did was dump a biological agent over neighborhoods in St. Louis. The good old days.

"The NSA would not be recording every phone call and internet transaction I make for the day when they'd need to get a rubber-stamped warrant to come after me for God-knows-what non-crime. I would not have to think about the risk of being gunned down for laughs or electrocuted by tasers every time I saw a police car. "

You have a very false recollection of Cold War era America.

"We Americans sit down for all this crap because there is no longer an oppressive Soviet system to compare ourselves to. Our government no longer has any need to give us even a facade of freedom. If the communists were still around and in the public consciousness - the embodiment of political evil - things would be different. Also, I'm sure the influx of Soviet and GDR consultants on population control who were hired by the US government in the '90s did a lot to encourage the federal government to move in a more totalitarian direction."

Yes September 11 had nothing to do with it. This concludes our segment of Batshit history with Tolstoy...

"Right, because there's never a down side to 750,000 people being dead. "

Or, perhaps an encore. How about millions not having to spend their lives in chains? That enough upside for you?

Again, Tolstoy trying to be poetic in his amber-hewed visions of an idealized American past makes himself look like a complete fool.

These are the libertarians folks.

This is why I can't be a libertarian folks.

Would you be otherwise?

"Yes September 11 had nothing to do with it."

No, it really didn't. The PATRIOT Act was literally sitting on a shelf, waiting for the right crisis to get enacted. And between the fall of communism and 9/11 you had Ruby Ridge, Waco, a raft of anti-privacy legislation, the ramp-up of the Prison-Industrial complex, a whole bunch of new banking laws making it easier to track and seize peoples' money, mandatory universal GPS tracking in cell phones, and the first baby steps toward widespread internet monitoring. All before Mohammed Atta's first day at flight school.

"Your right, all they did was dump a biological agent over neighborhoods in St. Louis. The good old days."

And the transformation of Nevadans into nuclear guinea pigs. What makes you think this sort of thing isn't happening today?

"And you know as well as I that nobody pinches your balls you drama queen."

There are plenty of well-documented incidences of TSA goons doing far worse than pinching balls. Do I really need to start listing them?

"About the same number as we did when Communism was alive and kicking"

Right - if you think Grenada=Iraq.

"Or, perhaps an encore. How about millions not having to spend their lives in chains? That enough upside for you?"

Unchained so they could spend the next hundred years as sharecroppers? No, that isn't much of an upside.

Actually, there is a good chance I would be.

I am sympathetic to several core beliefs of the libertarian party, and early on I considered myself a libertarian. But the problem is that Libertarians are hijacked by people who would rather look back to fantasy America than look forward. Go back to the Gold Standard! Cut and run from global politics! Destroy the federal reserve! Roll back government regulation!

I agree often with the problems the Libertarians point out, I disagree withtheir ways of addressing it. Because in my opinion, libertarians would rather create a fantasy America of the past and cut or hobble every innovation since then rather than actually seeing the necessity of those innovations in the modern world and actually trying to fit American principles into the REALITIES of todays society.

You have Tolstoy running around talking about Cold War years as years of freedom and peace. Are you serious?

There are plenty of well-documented incidences of TSA goons doing far worse than pinching balls. Do I really need to start listing them?

Were they your balls? Then no need, you are a liar.

"Right - if you think Grenada=Iraq."

How about Vietnam=Iraq+Afganistan. Are you serious?

"Unchained so they could spend the next hundred years as sharecroppers? No, that isn't much of an upside. "

They thought so... Guess they should have stayed with their masters an gotten at least 3 square right Tolstoy!

"Are you serious?"

Mostly.

"libertarians would rather create a fantasy America of the past"

Is this any worse than the assumption that the present and future will always be better than the past?

Surely, Tolstoy, one is not limited to choosing between delusions?

And I'll add to it. Libertarianism today is LAZY. Its in an immature ideological place that is perfectly showcased by the libertarians on this board. Libertarians rely on dichotomies of good and evil more that most religions. Its the good people vs. the evil government, its the good Palestinians vs. the evil Israelis, its the evil police against the good civilians, its the Evil parties vs. the good libertarians.

Are we supposed to actually take this seriously? Can we believe in a complicated world everything comes down to a decision between good and evil with little middle ground? In the end all Libertarians do is take the dichotomies they bitch about in the main parties and then flip them.

"Guess they should have stayed with their masters an gotten at least 3 square right Tolstoy!"

Right, because our ONLY two choices are 1) perpetual slavery, or 2) A war that kills 750,000 and economically devastates half the country.

"Surely, Tolstoy, one is not limited to choosing between delusions?"

Since none of us are omniscient, I think the line between truth and delusion is always a blurry one.

"Right, because our ONLY two choices are 1) perpetual slavery, or 2) A war that kills 750,000 and economically devastates half the country."

There was no sign slavery was weakening on the eve of the Civil war and it had every chance of getting stronger as more western lands opened up. People were killing to protect the institution of slavery before the Civil War even started, there was no end in sight for perpetual slavery and indeed the south went to war in order to protect the institution from any future threats.

"Since none of us are omniscient, I think the line between truth and delusion is always a blurry one. "

But some of us actually study these things called documents and sources that give a more complete version of history than "Ron Paul said so"

"Can we believe in a complicated world everything comes down to a decision between good and evil with little middle ground?"

Huh? Haven't you been attacking me for failing to have your black-and-white view of the Civil War? Are there lists of subjects it is and isn't okay to have a multi-dimensional opinion on, and if so, where can I find it?

Who says my view of the civil war is black and white? I said prior to the civil war there was no sign Slavery was on its way out. Is there a more complicated view of that? Is there any indication that Slavery was coming to an end as more lands were openned up to it and people were killing each other in Kansas over it? Please inform me about this utopia where the south was willing to free their slaves (without sharecropping for 100 years nonetheless) before the civil war?

"But some of us actually study these things called documents and sources that give a more complete version of history than "Ron Paul said so""

Ah yes, the "everybody but me just reads coloring books" argument. Get over yourself already.

"there was no end in sight for perpetual slavery"

Yes there was. The price of slaves was increasing, supply was limited, and the global supply of cotton was increasing. Slavery would was becoming cost prohibitive. Brazil in 1860 was the most slave-dependent economy in the world. And yet within twenty years, slavery was over there. Economics, as ever, gets the final say.

"Ah yes, the "everybody but me just reads coloring books" argument. Get over yourself already."

What non coloring book source makes American history so bright and sunny prior to the berlin wall falling?

"Yes there was. The price of slaves was increasing, supply was limited, and the global supply of cotton was increasing."

You mean like in Virginia in the mid Eighteenth Century when the price of slaves was increasing, and the global supply of Tabacco was increasing? What happened then? They tore families apart shipped the slaves to the south and found a new way to exploit them for money. The bust of a cash crop never meant the end of slavery, It meant new ways to utilize slaves. By the Civil War slaves were already being shifted to the Alabama Iron mines and workshops and into other industrial work. Slavery, as it always had, was evolving. Human beings were profitable and the southerners were fighting to keep them profitable. By The point you make about slavery being "limited." I am assuming by the ban on the slave trade is disingenuous. There was plenty of slaves to go around. The loss of the slave trade was replaced by the longer life expectancies and lower child mortality rates that were felt across society in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. Brazil had a very different type of slavery in terms of labor, social standing, and in racial attitudes. I suggest you read "Slave and Citizen" to familiarize yourself with the differences although in no way is it the most recent scholarship.

Lets not even mention the attempts by heady southern states to reopen the slave trade in the decades before the civil war. Got to feed the demand. The demand that supposedly wasn't there...

Someone here mentioned the recent death of Russell Means. (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Remembering-Russell-Means-by-Stephen-Lendman-121024-201.html).
A little while ago I heard a BBC programme with Means on the topic of the proposed succession of Lakotah from the USA. The proposed state is most assuredly not a haven of aristocratic white privilege, as was the anti-bellum south. Here is a flavour of the deprivation:
''65% of the residents of the Reservation live in sub-standard conditions such as no electricity, running water, and often, without heat. Many of the elderly (some of whom still live in sod houses) die of Hypothermia each year.''
http://socyberty.com/subcultures/pine-ridge-reservation-americas-own-third-world-country/
It is truly can be considered to be a third world islet at the heart of the United States.

The acid test, as far as I am concerned, is that do those who so vehemently maintain that the Second American Civil war was fought by the Union PURELY to free the slaves, support or oppose the succession of Lakotah.
Or do they follow the example of Lincoln himself:
'' My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.''

"The second American Civil War"

Why not the third? War of 1812 doesn't count?

'' My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.''

Absolutely, Although it is completely irrelevant on whether slavery would have continued to exist without a war.

" '' My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.''
Someone here mentioned the recent death of Russell Means. (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Remembering-Russell-Means-by-Stephen-Lendman-121024-201.html).
A little while ago I heard a BBC programme with Means on the topic of the proposed succession of Lakotah from the USA. The proposed state is most assuredly not a haven of aristocratic white privilege, as was the anti-bellum south. Here is a flavour of the deprivation:
''65% of the residents of the Reservation live in sub-standard conditions such as no electricity, running water, and often, without heat. Many of the elderly (some of whom still live in sod houses) die of Hypothermia each year.''
http://socyberty.com/subcultures/pine-ridge-reservation-americas-own-third-world-country/
It is truly can be considered to be a third world islet at the heart of the United States."

Are we even reading the same thread?

Thought we were discussing succession. Never mind if you would rather not talk about it.

Just a few things on this, as I have studied this topic lots.

First, IF slavery was on its way out, what engine was to replace it? It was only 1860, and as far as I know , there was nothing to replace the field slaves at that time, or even close.

2nd, unless you can find a single Southern Senator/Congressman who actually is on RECORD saying that slavery was on its way out, then you really have no historical backing up the fact that 'slavery was on its way out".

And last, you know I believe, and the name of this deal escapes me, Lincoln actually attempted once to strike a deal with the South, allowing Slave states to hold onto them in the CURRENT states, but banning it from the new territories. If the South thought it was dying, they were sure trying hard to expand it, huh?

I am from kentucky, but live in East Tennessee (which many people dont know, EAST tennessee never left the Union, only the middle and west did,.as this state is legally divided into 3 parts) and I hear this rubbish lots here, but its false.

The South was not giving up slavery on its own, and was expanding it rapidlyl. There was even attempts to open the international slave trade up again, which failed.

You are going to have a hard time finding any real hisotrical proof, except from neo Confederates, that slavery was on its way out.

Now, it would have eventually died, but they could not have known that at the time.

and lastly, I know some people dismiss the economic angle of the start of the war, but there was also an economic part that drove the South into a suicidal war it had no chance to win.

and santa is somewhat wrong, the export % from the Slave holding states was about 75-80%, although it can not be said that it was all from slave work, but oviously these people were not going to give up their wealth (the crops and the slaves that grew them) simply because they were asked.

Also, another thing, MOST Union Soldiers were not about freeing slaves, but about keeping the Union together. Most Union soldiers did not give two shits either way about some slaves, but they did want to keep the Union together.

@Stressedlines - How far East in Tennessee? Are you familiar with Gray, TN between Kingsport and Johnson City? I graduated HS from there.... many, many years ago.

I live in the Mountains, near Tellico? I work in Cleveland,Tn.

I now where Gray is, I hunted up there a bit a few years ago

"and santa is somewhat wrong, the export % from the Slave holding states was about 75-80%, although it can not be said that it was all from slave work, but oviously these people were not going to give up their wealth (the crops and the slaves that grew them) simply because they were asked."

Why does this mean I am wrong? Tabacco was the Virginia economy for its first 150 years. Around the revolution Tabacco was no longer profitable. So many gave up growing their cash crop (including Jefferson who tried to make a profit with slaves selling nails and Washington who tried his hand at Hemp) and sold their slaves, prompting a great migration into the deep south and later into the inland south. All I was saying is if Cotton ever became unprofitable, another crop or avenue to profits would take its place.

"Thought we were discussing succession. Never mind if you would rather not talk about it."

No we were not talking about *secession* and if we were your posts were still pretty irrelevant. Where do I ever say that rich white slave holders are the only people who ever thought about seceding from the Union?

Santa, you were just applying the %s differntly, thats all.

I think I read somewhere, that the worth of the slaves in the South was higher than that of every rail and factory in the north. People do not just give that up without a fight, which is what they got.

1) ''No we were not talking about *secession* and if we were your posts were still pretty irrelevant. Where do I ever say that rich white slave holders are the only people who ever thought about seceding from the Union?''

We were talking about an instance of secession, talking about other instances of the same phenomenon can therefore inform the discussion. So I repeat:
''The acid test, as far as I am concerned, is that do those who so vehemently maintain that the Second American Civil war was fought by the Union PURELY to free the slaves, support or oppose the succession of Lakotah.''
2) "The second American Civil War. Why not the third? War of 1812 doesn't count?''
The American War of Independence was most assuredly a Civil War. I am not too sure about 1812. Maybe, a North American Civil War would be better for that particular one? Although one mustn't forget the significance of the Tecumseh's Confederacy who fought with the British, of course.
3) '' the export % from the Slave holding states was about 75-80%, although it can not be said that it was all from slave work, but oviously these people were not going to give up their wealth (the crops and the slaves that grew them) simply because they were asked."
Absolutely and the key word here is ''export''. The proposed introduction of the Morrill Tariff was very much a sectional issue in the Presidential election of 1860, particularly in swing states such as Pennsylvania (indeed, I believe that the seven deep south states had 47 electoral votes, but were outnumbered by Pennsylvania and Ohio alone. Vermont had more electors than Texas). The protectionist tariff was instigated to protect the growing northern industrial base, particularly the fledgling textile industry of New England. This, of course, was at the expense of the primary producers in the South who vehemently opposed the tariff.
4) Let me be clear before some individual starts spitting neo-confederate accusations at me: slavery was an evil institution and, if there had to be a war, it was a good thing that the North won it. One does not, however, have to swallow the mantra that the War was exclusively about slavery, from either a northern or southern perspective.

100% it was not only about slavery, and to be honest, it was just an excuse. The economics behind it drove it more than any morality and kindness from Northerners.

ANyone who thinks that the North fought to free the blacks is also 100% outof his mind.

The North didn't fight to free slaves.. they fought for economic domination over the South. Slavery and the abolition of it was key to that endeavor.

The War of 1812 wasn't a Civil War. Every war has opponents to it. I hardly call it a war at all because Madison wanted out of the war the moment it was declared and nothing significant happened. The only historical stat to be made were the deaths involved. The British stopped impressment of sailors after they defeated the French a few years later, not due to the Treaty of Ghent.

''The War of 1812 wasn't a Civil War.'' As I said above I am tempted to agree with that view, albeit with some qualification.

The Revolutionary War - or American War of Independence depending on where you live - was also not a civil war. I would hardly place it in the war category either. The colonists were all for war; they would rather, as Patrick Henry said, die than receive the same treatment they were given in the last 20-30 years of the colonies there. One could argue (easily) that it was the colonists' fault in the first place, but pet owners will understand me when I say this. Britain was a cat; the colonists were a dog. Britain could cause all the trouble it wanted, but the colonists would get blamed because the cat doesn't listen, only the dog was. Thus, the dog is taught to bow down to the cat. That's how it is in my house and every other cat/dog household I've ever been in.

Anyway, the British fought a little while and then realized they had bigger problems. They surrendered without needing to surrender; they were simply preoccupied to the point that the resources they'd have to exhume into the fighting were merely impossible to supply at that time, and thus, they let the colonies go. It would have been a war, and had the British really tried, the colonists would have been crushed, but I don't believe the war ever came. It was over before it truly started.

bo sox, on what grounds could have they made it happen? They coudl have won every single battle, but without popular support, they had no chance of holding the colonies.

Just the lengthof time for information flow made it near impossible for them. I think the turn around on a ship then was over 2 months?

For the colonists it was days or maybe a week or two at most depending on distance.

You know, you said the Colonists were all for war, which was the their attitude in the beginning. Most still considered themselves English/British, and even after war started, were trying to find a way to solve the issue, but King George was a moron, and a few popular Radicals (Patrick Henry) were able to sway LARGE crowds easily with speeches.

The British could never have WON, they simply could have prolonged the defeat if they so chose.

Lets clean some historical house here.

"Santa, you were just applying the %s differntly, thats all. "

I didn't use any percentages.

"I think I read somewhere, that the worth of the slaves in the South was higher than that of every rail and factory in the north. People do not just give that up without a fight, which is what they got. "

I agree with you

"The American War of Independence was most assuredly a Civil War. I am not too sure about 1812. Maybe, a North American Civil War would be better for that particular one? Although one mustn't forget the significance of the Tecumseh's Confederacy who fought with the British, of course."

Buuuuut, if you consider the Revolutionary war a civil war, which you could, then you have to consider the war of 1812 a civil war. The War of 1812 featured large scale slave revolts, Native resistance and former tories fighting from Canada. It tore apart communities in the American borderlands. It also nearly featured an instance of northern secession. So if the Revolution is the first American Civil War, without a doubt the War of 1812 is the second.

''The acid test, as far as I am concerned, is that do those who so vehemently maintain that the Second American Civil war was fought by the Union PURELY to free the slaves, support or oppose the succession of Lakotah.''

If you want to build a straw man, fine, but I never made or inferred I believed that the union fought the war to free the slaves.

"4) Let me be clear before some individual starts spitting neo-confederate accusations at me: slavery was an evil institution and, if there had to be a war, it was a good thing that the North won it. One does not, however, have to swallow the mantra that the War was exclusively about slavery, from either a northern or southern perspective. "

Nobody says the war was exclusively about slavery, but to pretend that a tarrif was even a coequal cause is absolutely disingenuous. Secession by and large was a product of what the south saw asa decade long assault on slavery. Were there other causes, of course, but to claim that anything besides slavery is the main cause is wrong.

"100% it was not only about slavery, and to be honest, it was just an excuse. The economics behind it drove it more than any morality and kindness from Northerners.

ANyone who thinks that the North fought to free the blacks is also 100% outof his mind. "

The North fought to preserve the Union. The Union that was dissolved when the Confederate states seceded from the Union. The confederate stats seceded from the union to protect the institution that provided their elite with their wealth and status, slavery.

"The War of 1812 wasn't a Civil War. Every war has opponents to it. I hardly call it a war at all because Madison wanted out of the war the moment it was declared and nothing significant happened. The only historical stat to be made were the deaths involved. The British stopped impressment of sailors after they defeated the French a few years later, not due to the Treaty of Ghent. "

I suppose it depends who you consider Americans, if you consider Americans only white males living in the established states, sure it wasn't a civil war. But if you consider brown and black skinned residents Americans and border territories as America it was surely a civil war

"The Revolutionary War - or American War of Independence depending on where you live - was also not a civil war. I would hardly place it in the war category either. The colonists were all for war; they would rather, as Patrick Henry said, die than receive the same treatment they were given in the last 20-30 years of the colonies there. "

This is a patently false statement. The colonists hardly were all for war, some estimates say over 20% of white Americans were loyalists with higher numbr of black americans and slaves. And the fighting was vicious at times with massacres on both sides. I thin you should read some more about the war, its more interesting when you leave these generalities behind and dig deeper into history.

"It would have been a war, and had the British really tried, the colonists would have been crushed, but I don't believe the war ever came. It was over before it truly started. "

The British tried like hell, unfortunately the war expanded into a global war against the French and Spanish as well.

"The British could never have WON, they simply could have prolonged the defeat if they so chose. "

If the British would have brought in a competent commander who was able to capture or kill Washington the war would have been over. Colonist victory was never insured until quite literally the last battle.

Perhaps Santa, but i think just another colonist uprising would have taken place. Once the blood has started flowing, it is hard to put a cap on it.

People often forget that 'flow of information' problem the British had.

If you were living in the USA in 1812, you wouldn't consider any African American a citizen. Slavery had only recently been abandoned (not abolished, use that word sparingly) in the North and there were still mixed feelings for a long time.

And just because there is death and massacres and horrible things done on both ends, you could completely single out specific events in history that fit the bill in the same way. If the prospect of war hadn't been around, would the Boston Massacre have happened? Probably not, but would there have been death and massacres and general unrest? Yeah, that can happen without warfare.

The Revolutionary War - I'll clarify - was a war, but I'm sure you could find 20% of Americans that disagreed with the prospect of the Vietnam War too. I don't say it hatefully, but the slaves really don't count in that regard. It wasn't until 1777 that the first anti-slavery measures were taken in the North, so I don't know the actual number of black Americans in the colonies, but maybe you can provide some data on that.

And, like you said Santa, the British could have won if they wanted to expend the resources to do so ;)

"but I'm sure you could find 20% of Americans that disagreed with the prospect of the Vietnam War too."

We aren't talking "disagreed" here, we are talking muskets in hand marching to battle to fight other colonists in the name of the king. Civil unrest isn't a civil war. Neighbor fighting neighbor on the battlefield which occurred in the Revolution is.

"And, like you said Santa, the British could have won if they wanted to expend the resources to do so ;) "

The British expended massive resources to do so, the war almost bankrupted them. Its like saying Germany didn't invade the United States because they didn't want to expend the resources. The fact of the matter is that Great Britain, like Germany, was tied down at home with two (later 3) other European powers threatening attack at first and later in an open, global war. This isn't a case of what the British wanted, it was a case of what they were physically able to do.

"I don't say it hatefully, but the slaves really don't count in that regard. It wasn't until 1777 that the first anti-slavery measures were taken in the North, so I don't know the actual number of black Americans in the colonies, but maybe you can provide some data on that."

Why do you need to be a citizen in order to be an American. And especially in this case slaves, particularly after they rebelled and took up arms, were subjects of the king just like the colonists. In addition, Native American tribes east of the proclamation line were subjects of the king and fought against each othe and other subjects. How is this not a "civil war"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd37B0MrlSE

Ignore the pitch toward the end...

And I know that's unrelated but it's also related in a roundabout way. Plus it's entirely true.

Surprisingly enough we seem to have reached at least a partial consensus:
1) The North fought to preserve the Union; not to free the slaves.
2) The South fought to preserve their economic interests. We agree that slavery was very important here and tariffs were also significant, albeit we disagree on the degree of that significance.

Rather, however, than just opposing succession from the sidelines, why did the North fight a four year long bloody war to ''preserve the Union''? Particularly if the abolition of slavery was not an overriding moral objective? Maybe economic factors were at work here too? Perhaps the breakneck speed of war induced industrialisation in the tariff-protected north foreshadowed and primed that of the robber barons themselves? Vanderbilt, in particular, provides an interesting linking example of this.

>''The acid test, as far as I am concerned, is that do those who so vehemently maintain that the Second American Civil war was fought by the Union PURELY to free the slaves, support or oppose the succession of Lakotah.''

''If you want to build a straw man, fine, but I never made or inferred I believed that the union fought the war to free the slaves.''

> The question is not that of straw man construction at all. ''Compare and contrast'' was a valid historical question when I was at school, maybe things have changed now?
So if Lakotah was to declare independence from the USA what arguments might be employed on its forcible retention in the Union. What similarities and differences might these arguments have to 1860/1861 or, come to that for example, 1814. It is a valid historical question, much as you might possibly find it a little uncomfortable.

"Rather, however, than just opposing succession from the sidelines, why did the North fight a four year long bloody war to ''preserve the Union''?"

As I have pointed out to you several times, at no time did the federal government ever tolerate talk of secession. From the Gartford convention to the nullification crisis the Federal government took the stance that the Union was permanent and both were ready to go to war to defend that sentiment. The Constitution, as all should know is not a pact of states like the articles of confederation, it is a constitution of the people, or in licoln's words, "of the people, by the people." Every president interpreted the union as inviolable. There was no precedent to let any state leave the Union.

Industrialization was already underway in the north before the war, and the historical debate on this topic is merely if the war sped it up or slowed it down.

"So if Lakotah was to declare independence from the USA what arguments might be employed on its forcible retention in the Union. What similarities and differences might these arguments have to 1860/1861 or, come to that for example, 1814. It is a valid historical question, much as you might possibly find it a little uncomfortable. "

The Lakotah would be a more difficult question than the states actually. Such a movement would expose a major gray area in American Constitutional law in addition to quite obviously poking a very sore spot in American history. Semck would probably have a better perspective.

And if you want a compare and contrast the situations.

1. Unlike states, Indian Tribes never ratified the constitution and their legal status has always been ambiguous. If an Indian reservation seceded from the Union they would have a much better justification than a state. States are bound to the constitution by their people and were never given the ability to erase that bond.