::::banging head against he wall:::;;
GMTom wrote:I did post one of your own sources who stated other issues contributed to the war, you dismissed those.
That is because you were using Bruce Catton for a different purpose then I was. I was saying Bruce Catton called people who say Slavery had no impact on the causes of the war Lost Causers.
However, I will stipulate that Catton said there were other issues. The problem is that Catton didn't actually dig into those other issues to see if he could determine the underlying causes, i.e. why was there such a discrepancy in industrial activity between the sections. You know how I know this. I actually read his books. Something you have not done.
This is what later historians such as McPherson, Davis and Stamp, et. al. have done. They have looked at those "other causes" of the war to see if they could determine the underlying reason for those difference. These authors have come to the conclusion that in just about every instance the underlying reason for the differences that led to the "other causes" could be attributed to slavery.
And you have to understand, these historians didn't just make this shit up. They looked at numbers, contemporary sources such as correspondence, speeches, legislations, etc. to come up with those findings.
So yes, you can claim there were "other causes" but I am challenging you to go a step further and find out the reasons for those other causes.
And you can make the comparions to bin Laden all you want. However, if Tom has never actually read the Koran, how does Tom know bin Laden's interpretations are wrong?
Neal Andreth wrote:You want Randy to bow before the wisdom of the Court?
Well as repugnant as the decision might have been, Constitutionally, it was correct. Slaves andformer slaves were not citizen and therefore not protected by the Constitution. Luckily, however, Dred Scott has been overturn by the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments. Therefore, it is no longer a viable interpretation of the Constituition.
However, McCullough v. Maryland has never been overturned nor overruled by a subsequent court case or constitutional amendment. Therefore, it is still the valid test to use when interpreting the meaning of reserved rights in the 10th Amendment.
Also Randy, your history is incorrect when you argue that Slavery wasn't abolished until 1865. There were many attempts to do so nationally and in territories prior to that. Some example John Qunicy Adams introduced a bill in 1839, the Wilmont Provisio (prohibiting slavery in the territories captured from Mexico) and an 1863 bill abolishing slavery nationally. The problem was that just about every attempt to do so was killed in the Senate by the slave state Senators. The exception to this was the 1863 bill which turned into the 13th Amendment.