The Civil War actually was started when the South fired on northern-held Ft Sumter April 12, 1861.
It was about Kansas coming into the Union as a slave state. Kansas would’ve upset the balance of free and slave states in the Union. That’'s what ignited the fire of the Civil War and caused the secession of South Carolina from the Union.
The truth will set you free.
“The problem was neither the north or south would compromise!!!”
Not even the slaves!!! Surely they could compromise and agree to slaves at least a few days per week!!!
“We already counted you as three-fifths of a human being! How much more could you possibly want??”
The north also tried to compromise plenty, Lincoln was even willing to allow the south to keep slavery at the beginning, as long as the north didn’t have to enforce it’s slavery laws (so the ‘states rights’ thing you hear about is actually the other way around, the south wanted federal law to trump the northern state’s anti-slavery laws).
Isn’t it sad that we don’t have the thousands (millions?) of years it would take to evolve beyond this sort of numbskullery?
The latter two were really just subsets of the first, since their concerns about taxation and Federal power were only insofar as those things related to their slavery-based economy.
The Southern states were at various times represented by federalists. They suddenly become anti-federalists when rules they didn’t like were being applied to them.
The other issue was Southern plantation aristocracy were selecting Congressional representatives to send to D.C. Bought and sold politicians who represented a tiny fraction of the population. The system that lead to the formation of he Confederacy was a corrupt system that was incompatible with a Union. War was inevitable. The winner of the war was the one with the most resources, rather than the Civil War proving one side or another as right. It’s not the moral victory the North claims.
For example there’s this little beauty:
Confederate States Constitution, Article I Section 9(4):
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
In other words any state that chose to join the Confederacy relinquished the right to end or restrict the practice of slavery within its own borders, even if a majority of that State’s citizens wanted to do so. I ask you, how the fuck does that fit with the narrative you’ve just tried to present about Federal governments trampling “States’ Rights??”
Also there’s this one:
Article IV Section 3(3):
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 states; 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.
In other words “we’re planning to acquire more territory and you’d better believe we’re going to make sure we have slavery there.”
Golly, just imagine the human rights atrocities that might have taken place if that monster Abraham Lincoln had been allowed to continue pursuing his evil agenda.
The democratizing power of the internet ensures that the illiterate have a voice — as comedic and/or tragic the circumstances may be which caused such illiteracy, so the voice.
The older I get and the more I see, the more cynical I tend to be. But I still have some hope left that humankind is learning and growing.
(There are still some clinging to greed and racism, and there probably always will be. But there are also those who fight for equality and justice, and they seem to be growing louder. 
)
one thing that’s consistent with this type of “thinker” is that they always word-vomit. try organizing your thoughts coherently for chrissake. pro tip: exclamation marks kinda lose their impact if you overuse them 
I see this topic has attracted a plethora of new members.
Welcome to Boing Boing! Здравствуйте!
I gave up after the first few sentences. And I thought semiotics textbooks were impenetrable.
It was the absolute opposite. They were fighting to take away the rights and freedoms of human beings based on skin color alone. Every single declaration of independence from the states that seceded makes this clear. It wasn’t even enough to say it was about slavery, it was that the “natural order” was whites first, blacks last. Free blacks would not have remained free if the Confederacy had won its campaign to defeat the Union.
Or about 1960s French theatre?
Boing Boing always puts me in mind of West Bromwich Albion FC, “The Baggies”.
@mike.jane It is like asking Bexit Supporters exactly which legal powers they want to take back from Brussels.
I actually visit this site at least once a year thanks to autocorrect.
What is it about this topic that makes some people lose their ability to create paragraphs?
