Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Top American History Misconceptions

Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 12:18:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
(Thanks to CanWeKnow!)

Having just finished high school, I am starting to realize that our American History classes have been more or less full of things that just aren't true, or that were left out.

I was wondering what everyone thinks are the worst examples of this sort of thing!

For me, the worst example is Christopher Columbus. I think we should be upset that we were taught so many wrong things about this.

We were taught that he "discovered America," and that he proved the world was round, and a lot of other junk. The truth is, the only thing he did was open a trade route from Europe to the Caribbean. He did not discover a single thing, and never even laid eyes on anything but a few islands in the Caribbean. Plus, he never admitted that he was anywhere but India.

Meanwhile, how can you discover a populated area? I didn't discover Texas... And Eric The Red had already settled Greenland 500 years before Columbus. Lief Ericson settled parts of Newfoundland, which are actually ON the North American continent.

But Columbus gets the credit. SMH.

Another great example of American history being wrong is Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison. Edison got all the credit, but Tesla actually invented things like the modern light bulb and radio.

Right.
Subutai
Posts: 3,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 9:39:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 12:18:59 AM, Beverlee wrote:
(Thanks to CanWeKnow!)

Having just finished high school, I am starting to realize that our American History classes have been more or less full of things that just aren't true, or that were left out.

I was wondering what everyone thinks are the worst examples of this sort of thing!

For me, the worst example is Christopher Columbus. I think we should be upset that we were taught so many wrong things about this.

We were taught that he "discovered America," and that he proved the world was round, and a lot of other junk. The truth is, the only thing he did was open a trade route from Europe to the Caribbean. He did not discover a single thing, and never even laid eyes on anything but a few islands in the Caribbean. Plus, he never admitted that he was anywhere but India.

Meanwhile, how can you discover a populated area? I didn't discover Texas... And Eric The Red had already settled Greenland 500 years before Columbus. Lief Ericson settled parts of Newfoundland, which are actually ON the North American continent.

But Columbus gets the credit. SMH.

Another great example of American history being wrong is Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison. Edison got all the credit, but Tesla actually invented things like the modern light bulb and radio.

Right.

Nice. I created a thread about that nine months ago: http://www.debate.org.... I also agree with you on that Tesla thing. Tesla > Edison.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 10:34:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/13/2013 9:39:48 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 9/13/2013 12:18:59 AM, Beverlee wrote:

Nice. I created a thread about that nine months ago: http://www.debate.org.... I also agree with you on that Tesla thing. Tesla > Edison.

Great! I'm just slow, lol
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Do you know that southern agriculture pre civil war accounted for more than 60% of the country's GDP and owned more than 2/3's of the world cotton trade? - A feat owed almost entirely to slave labor.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Also. I noticed that bit about Southerners becoming more and more hate filled towards Northerners. The distinct impression that gave me was that one side (the south) were clear agitators due to what you seem to feel is an irrespressable hatred. Was I correct in this interpretation? If so, I'd love to ask some follow up questions there as well.
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 12:34:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Do you know that southern agriculture pre civil war accounted for more than 60% of the country's GDP and owned more than 2/3's of the world cotton trade? - A feat owed almost entirely to slave labor.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Also. I noticed that bit about Southerners becoming more and more hate filled towards Northerners. The distinct impression that gave me was that one side (the south) were clear agitators due to what you seem to feel is an irrespressable hatred. Was I correct in this interpretation? If so, I'd love to ask some follow up questions there as well.

To be fair, their economy was ready to fall of the cliff, even if they kept the slaves. It was slowly dying and the cotton issue could have been solved by different means than slaves. It was a war for states rights, because the mass of said states wanted it, by their logic, and thus should have the right to own slaves.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 12:16:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 12:34:04 AM, Berend wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Do you know that southern agriculture pre civil war accounted for more than 60% of the country's GDP and owned more than 2/3's of the world cotton trade? - A feat owed almost entirely to slave labor.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Also. I noticed that bit about Southerners becoming more and more hate filled towards Northerners. The distinct impression that gave me was that one side (the south) were clear agitators due to what you seem to feel is an irrespressable hatred. Was I correct in this interpretation? If so, I'd love to ask some follow up questions there as well.

To be fair, their economy was ready to fall of the cliff, even if they kept the slaves. It was slowly dying and the cotton issue could have been solved by different means than slaves. It was a war for states rights, because the mass of said states wanted it, by their logic, and thus should have the right to own slaves.

Ready to fall off what cliff and when? Their market share of the cotton trade increased every year until the war, the richest people in the country lived in the south, and more than half the country's profit depended on it.

If you are suggesting slavery would have eventually taken a back seat to industry, then we are in perfect agreement. However, logically one can assume that the Souths eventual adoption of proven technologies over slaves would be greatly more economically preferable to having their entire system destroyed by the federal government in one stroke. Moreover, slavery was no where near becoming obsolete in 1860 and the south had decades of financial dominance via slave driven agriculture were the war to have been avoided. To imply they were anywhere close to any financial "cliff" is patently false and I would ask that you provide quantifiable examples to support this view.

And just so we are 100% clear. The "logic" behind the right to own slaves was not some abstract southern point of view. It was a constitutional right since the dawn of our country's existence. A right both sides expressidly agreed to with the adoption of said constitution.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 1:51:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 12:16:50 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:34:04 AM, Berend wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Do you know that southern agriculture pre civil war accounted for more than 60% of the country's GDP and owned more than 2/3's of the world cotton trade? - A feat owed almost entirely to slave labor.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Also. I noticed that bit about Southerners becoming more and more hate filled towards Northerners. The distinct impression that gave me was that one side (the south) were clear agitators due to what you seem to feel is an irrespressable hatred. Was I correct in this interpretation? If so, I'd love to ask some follow up questions there as well.

To be fair, their economy was ready to fall of the cliff, even if they kept the slaves. It was slowly dying and the cotton issue could have been solved by different means than slaves. It was a war for states rights, because the mass of said states wanted it, by their logic, and thus should have the right to own slaves.

Ready to fall off what cliff and when? Their market share of the cotton trade increased every year until the war, the richest people in the country lived in the south, and more than half the country's profit depended on it.

If you are suggesting slavery would have eventually taken a back seat to industry, then we are in perfect agreement. However, logically one can assume that the Souths eventual adoption of proven technologies over slaves would be greatly more economically preferable to having their entire system destroyed by the federal government in one stroke. Moreover, slavery was no where near becoming obsolete in 1860 and the south had decades of financial dominance via slave driven agriculture were the war to have been avoided. To imply they were anywhere close to any financial "cliff" is patently false and I would ask that you provide quantifiable examples to support this view.

And just so we are 100% clear. The "logic" behind the right to own slaves was not some abstract southern point of view. It was a constitutional right since the dawn of our country's existence. A right both sides expressidly agreed to with the adoption of said constitution.

The Constitutional Right to own slaves is new to me. Please elaborate.

I think that slavery would have persisted, especially domestic slaves. And sure, they would have been used in industry and construction, and even agriculture. That's how slavery works everywhere else these days.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 1:54:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

We just resurrected a 2 year old thread.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 3:17:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 1:51:31 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:16:50 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:34:04 AM, Berend wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Do you know that southern agriculture pre civil war accounted for more than 60% of the country's GDP and owned more than 2/3's of the world cotton trade? - A feat owed almost entirely to slave labor.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Also. I noticed that bit about Southerners becoming more and more hate filled towards Northerners. The distinct impression that gave me was that one side (the south) were clear agitators due to what you seem to feel is an irrespressable hatred. Was I correct in this interpretation? If so, I'd love to ask some follow up questions there as well.

To be fair, their economy was ready to fall of the cliff, even if they kept the slaves. It was slowly dying and the cotton issue could have been solved by different means than slaves. It was a war for states rights, because the mass of said states wanted it, by their logic, and thus should have the right to own slaves.

Ready to fall off what cliff and when? Their market share of the cotton trade increased every year until the war, the richest people in the country lived in the south, and more than half the country's profit depended on it.

If you are suggesting slavery would have eventually taken a back seat to industry, then we are in perfect agreement. However, logically one can assume that the Souths eventual adoption of proven technologies over slaves would be greatly more economically preferable to having their entire system destroyed by the federal government in one stroke. Moreover, slavery was no where near becoming obsolete in 1860 and the south had decades of financial dominance via slave driven agriculture were the war to have been avoided. To imply they were anywhere close to any financial "cliff" is patently false and I would ask that you provide quantifiable examples to support this view.

And just so we are 100% clear. The "logic" behind the right to own slaves was not some abstract southern point of view. It was a constitutional right since the dawn of our country's existence. A right both sides expressidly agreed to with the adoption of said constitution.

The Constitutional Right to own slaves is new to me. Please elaborate.

Slavery was explicitly authorized by our constitution until the passage of the 13th amendment. That's pretty basic history....

I think that slavery would have persisted, especially domestic slaves. And sure, they would have been used in industry and construction, and even agriculture. That's how slavery works everywhere else these days.

Great.I think it's assinine (at best) to assume the south would risk it's iternational reputation for an enterprise that was anything less than extremly profitable, but that's just me.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 10:14:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 3:17:22 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/30/2015 1:51:31 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:16:50 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:34:04 AM, Berend wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Do you know that southern agriculture pre civil war accounted for more than 60% of the country's GDP and owned more than 2/3's of the world cotton trade? - A feat owed almost entirely to slave labor.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Also. I noticed that bit about Southerners becoming more and more hate filled towards Northerners. The distinct impression that gave me was that one side (the south) were clear agitators due to what you seem to feel is an irrespressable hatred. Was I correct in this interpretation? If so, I'd love to ask some follow up questions there as well.

To be fair, their economy was ready to fall of the cliff, even if they kept the slaves. It was slowly dying and the cotton issue could have been solved by different means than slaves. It was a war for states rights, because the mass of said states wanted it, by their logic, and thus should have the right to own slaves.

Ready to fall off what cliff and when? Their market share of the cotton trade increased every year until the war, the richest people in the country lived in the south, and more than half the country's profit depended on it.

If you are suggesting slavery would have eventually taken a back seat to industry, then we are in perfect agreement. However, logically one can assume that the Souths eventual adoption of proven technologies over slaves would be greatly more economically preferable to having their entire system destroyed by the federal government in one stroke. Moreover, slavery was no where near becoming obsolete in 1860 and the south had decades of financial dominance via slave driven agriculture were the war to have been avoided. To imply they were anywhere close to any financial "cliff" is patently false and I would ask that you provide quantifiable examples to support this view.

And just so we are 100% clear. The "logic" behind the right to own slaves was not some abstract southern point of view. It was a constitutional right since the dawn of our country's existence. A right both sides expressidly agreed to with the adoption of said constitution.

The Constitutional Right to own slaves is new to me. Please elaborate.

Slavery was explicitly authorized by our constitution until the passage of the 13th amendment. That's pretty basic history....

I think that slavery would have persisted, especially domestic slaves. And sure, they would have been used in industry and construction, and even agriculture. That's how slavery works everywhere else these days.

Great.I think it's assinine (at best) to assume the south would risk it's iternational reputation for an enterprise that was anything less than extremly profitable, but that's just me.

Good points. There is so much more to this than just the slavery issue. The media doesn't paint a good picture so that we can understand it. To the average person in the south, slavery meant nothing. Only 1% of the population owned slaves. The rest of the people were just average grafters, much like we are today. Slavery wasn't seen day in, or day out, for the average person in the south. Yeah, they'd see slaves in town buying stuff for their masters, or taking care of business, but the average southerner knew very little about the condition of the slave. Slave owners still had a conscience, though little it was. They didn't whip or beat their slaves on the streets in front of the public. No one knew about the sexual exploits of the slave owner. A lot of people really did think it was a good institution. There was very little in the way of philosophy books for southerners to read so that they could understand that slavery was evil. They just did what we did. They worked. Hung out in bars. Screwed women when they could. And lazed in the shade on hot days. For the most part, slavery wasn't a concern of the average southerner. So when the North started sending armies south through the Shenandoah Valley, the average southerners goal became to protect their farms, their houses, and their women. They weren't bad people. The bad people were generally the slave owner, which, like I said, was only 1-2 percent of the population.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 3:32:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 3:17:22 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/30/2015 1:51:31 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:16:50 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:34:04 AM, Berend wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Do you know that southern agriculture pre civil war accounted for more than 60% of the country's GDP and owned more than 2/3's of the world cotton trade? - A feat owed almost entirely to slave labor.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Also. I noticed that bit about Southerners becoming more and more hate filled towards Northerners. The distinct impression that gave me was that one side (the south) were clear agitators due to what you seem to feel is an irrespressable hatred. Was I correct in this interpretation? If so, I'd love to ask some follow up questions there as well.

To be fair, their economy was ready to fall of the cliff, even if they kept the slaves. It was slowly dying and the cotton issue could have been solved by different means than slaves. It was a war for states rights, because the mass of said states wanted it, by their logic, and thus should have the right to own slaves.

Ready to fall off what cliff and when? Their market share of the cotton trade increased every year until the war, the richest people in the country lived in the south, and more than half the country's profit depended on it.

If you are suggesting slavery would have eventually taken a back seat to industry, then we are in perfect agreement. However, logically one can assume that the Souths eventual adoption of proven technologies over slaves would be greatly more economically preferable to having their entire system destroyed by the federal government in one stroke. Moreover, slavery was no where near becoming obsolete in 1860 and the south had decades of financial dominance via slave driven agriculture were the war to have been avoided. To imply they were anywhere close to any financial "cliff" is patently false and I would ask that you provide quantifiable examples to support this view.

And just so we are 100% clear. The "logic" behind the right to own slaves was not some abstract southern point of view. It was a constitutional right since the dawn of our country's existence. A right both sides expressidly agreed to with the adoption of said constitution.

The Constitutional Right to own slaves is new to me. Please elaborate.

Slavery was explicitly authorized by our constitution until the passage of the 13th amendment. That's pretty basic history....

I think that slavery would have persisted, especially domestic slaves. And sure, they would have been used in industry and construction, and even agriculture. That's how slavery works everywhere else these days.

Great.I think it's assinine (at best) to assume the south would risk it's iternational reputation for an enterprise that was anything less than extremly profitable, but that's just me.

Authorized, or conceded so all 13 colonies would join? A number of colonies were antislavery.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2015 1:50:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 3:32:58 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/30/2015 3:17:22 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/30/2015 1:51:31 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:16:50 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:34:04 AM, Berend wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Do you know that southern agriculture pre civil war accounted for more than 60% of the country's GDP and owned more than 2/3's of the world cotton trade? - A feat owed almost entirely to slave labor.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Also. I noticed that bit about Southerners becoming more and more hate filled towards Northerners. The distinct impression that gave me was that one side (the south) were clear agitators due to what you seem to feel is an irrespressable hatred. Was I correct in this interpretation? If so, I'd love to ask some follow up questions there as well.

To be fair, their economy was ready to fall of the cliff, even if they kept the slaves. It was slowly dying and the cotton issue could have been solved by different means than slaves. It was a war for states rights, because the mass of said states wanted it, by their logic, and thus should have the right to own slaves.

Ready to fall off what cliff and when? Their market share of the cotton trade increased every year until the war, the richest people in the country lived in the south, and more than half the country's profit depended on it.

If you are suggesting slavery would have eventually taken a back seat to industry, then we are in perfect agreement. However, logically one can assume that the Souths eventual adoption of proven technologies over slaves would be greatly more economically preferable to having their entire system destroyed by the federal government in one stroke. Moreover, slavery was no where near becoming obsolete in 1860 and the south had decades of financial dominance via slave driven agriculture were the war to have been avoided. To imply they were anywhere close to any financial "cliff" is patently false and I would ask that you provide quantifiable examples to support this view.

And just so we are 100% clear. The "logic" behind the right to own slaves was not some abstract southern point of view. It was a constitutional right since the dawn of our country's existence. A right both sides expressidly agreed to with the adoption of said constitution.

The Constitutional Right to own slaves is new to me. Please elaborate.

Slavery was explicitly authorized by our constitution until the passage of the 13th amendment. That's pretty basic history....

I think that slavery would have persisted, especially domestic slaves. And sure, they would have been used in industry and construction, and even agriculture. That's how slavery works everywhere else these days.

Great.I think it's assinine (at best) to assume the south would risk it's iternational reputation for an enterprise that was anything less than extremly profitable, but that's just me.

Authorized, or conceded so all 13 colonies would join? A number of colonies were antislavery.

Whatever word you want buddy. I'm not arguing semantics with you. I said slaverly was constitutionally legal, it was. Anything else???
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 4:36:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/6/2015 1:50:32 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 11/6/2015 3:32:58 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/30/2015 3:17:22 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/30/2015 1:51:31 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:16:50 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:34:04 AM, Berend wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Do you know that southern agriculture pre civil war accounted for more than 60% of the country's GDP and owned more than 2/3's of the world cotton trade? - A feat owed almost entirely to slave labor.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Also. I noticed that bit about Southerners becoming more and more hate filled towards Northerners. The distinct impression that gave me was that one side (the south) were clear agitators due to what you seem to feel is an irrespressable hatred. Was I correct in this interpretation? If so, I'd love to ask some follow up questions there as well.

To be fair, their economy was ready to fall of the cliff, even if they kept the slaves. It was slowly dying and the cotton issue could have been solved by different means than slaves. It was a war for states rights, because the mass of said states wanted it, by their logic, and thus should have the right to own slaves.

Ready to fall off what cliff and when? Their market share of the cotton trade increased every year until the war, the richest people in the country lived in the south, and more than half the country's profit depended on it.

If you are suggesting slavery would have eventually taken a back seat to industry, then we are in perfect agreement. However, logically one can assume that the Souths eventual adoption of proven technologies over slaves would be greatly more economically preferable to having their entire system destroyed by the federal government in one stroke. Moreover, slavery was no where near becoming obsolete in 1860 and the south had decades of financial dominance via slave driven agriculture were the war to have been avoided. To imply they were anywhere close to any financial "cliff" is patently false and I would ask that you provide quantifiable examples to support this view.

And just so we are 100% clear. The "logic" behind the right to own slaves was not some abstract southern point of view. It was a constitutional right since the dawn of our country's existence. A right both sides expressidly agreed to with the adoption of said constitution.

The Constitutional Right to own slaves is new to me. Please elaborate.

Slavery was explicitly authorized by our constitution until the passage of the 13th amendment. That's pretty basic history....

I think that slavery would have persisted, especially domestic slaves. And sure, they would have been used in industry and construction, and even agriculture. That's how slavery works everywhere else these days.

Great.I think it's assinine (at best) to assume the south would risk it's iternational reputation for an enterprise that was anything less than extremly profitable, but that's just me.

Authorized, or conceded so all 13 colonies would join? A number of colonies were antislavery.

Whatever word you want buddy. I'm not arguing semantics with you. I said slaverly was constitutionally legal, it was. Anything else???

I looked at this guy across the store once for just a few seconds while I was standing around waiting to talk to a manager. He accused me of staring then wanted to know if I had a problem and if I wanted to fight.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 6:52:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 4:36:02 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 11/6/2015 1:50:32 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 11/6/2015 3:32:58 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/30/2015 3:17:22 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/30/2015 1:51:31 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:16:50 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/27/2015 12:34:04 AM, Berend wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Do you know that southern agriculture pre civil war accounted for more than 60% of the country's GDP and owned more than 2/3's of the world cotton trade? - A feat owed almost entirely to slave labor.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Also. I noticed that bit about Southerners becoming more and more hate filled towards Northerners. The distinct impression that gave me was that one side (the south) were clear agitators due to what you seem to feel is an irrespressable hatred. Was I correct in this interpretation? If so, I'd love to ask some follow up questions there as well.

To be fair, their economy was ready to fall of the cliff, even if they kept the slaves. It was slowly dying and the cotton issue could have been solved by different means than slaves. It was a war for states rights, because the mass of said states wanted it, by their logic, and thus should have the right to own slaves.

Ready to fall off what cliff and when? Their market share of the cotton trade increased every year until the war, the richest people in the country lived in the south, and more than half the country's profit depended on it.

If you are suggesting slavery would have eventually taken a back seat to industry, then we are in perfect agreement. However, logically one can assume that the Souths eventual adoption of proven technologies over slaves would be greatly more economically preferable to having their entire system destroyed by the federal government in one stroke. Moreover, slavery was no where near becoming obsolete in 1860 and the south had decades of financial dominance via slave driven agriculture were the war to have been avoided. To imply they were anywhere close to any financial "cliff" is patently false and I would ask that you provide quantifiable examples to support this view.

And just so we are 100% clear. The "logic" behind the right to own slaves was not some abstract southern point of view. It was a constitutional right since the dawn of our country's existence. A right both sides expressidly agreed to with the adoption of said constitution.

The Constitutional Right to own slaves is new to me. Please elaborate.

Slavery was explicitly authorized by our constitution until the passage of the 13th amendment. That's pretty basic history....

I think that slavery would have persisted, especially domestic slaves. And sure, they would have been used in industry and construction, and even agriculture. That's how slavery works everywhere else these days.

Great.I think it's assinine (at best) to assume the south would risk it's iternational reputation for an enterprise that was anything less than extremly profitable, but that's just me.

Authorized, or conceded so all 13 colonies would join? A number of colonies were antislavery.

Whatever word you want buddy. I'm not arguing semantics with you. I said slaverly was constitutionally legal, it was. Anything else???

I looked at this guy across the store once for just a few seconds while I was standing around waiting to talk to a manager. He accused me of staring then wanted to know if I had a problem and if I wanted to fight.

I had a conversation once where this guy started talking about random nonsense after he realized the first thing he said was ill informed....
dale2000
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 9:37:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 1:14:56 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 2:03:26 AM, j50wells wrote:
One of the biggest misconceptions that I can think of is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and very little of anything else.

This is not a misconception. Like most wars, the Civil War cannot be boiled down to one, single issue.
That said, neither is it something new. This question has been argued since the war began. As evidenced here, it is still being argued, and I rather suspect it will be argued for generations to come.

Anyone with a general knowledge of history can see how as the decades went by, and more laws were passed to help or hinder slavery, the north and the south divided. The Abolition Movement also grew, and as it did, the south became even more hate filled towards the north. The south actually hated the European countries also, because they were putting pressure on the USA to end slavery. It is so obvious that the war was about slavery. Making it blatantly obvious is the fact that as soon as Lincoln was elected president, the south began to secede. They did this because Lincoln was a staunch Abolitionist. Anyone who studies his writings and the history of the clubs and social functions that he was involved in would know that he hated slavery and wanted to end it.

True, but that hate was reciprocal.

Even worse is the arm chair economic professor wanna-be's who say that the war was because of the fact that the south was agricultural, while the north was industrial. So what. This doesn't divide countries. Look at other nations. Every nation has an agricultural sector and an industrial sector. Cities are the same way. To say that we divided and fought a horribly bloody war because one side was industrial and other agricultural is nonsense,

Disagree. You have two entirely separate cultures, with different world views, and visions for the country. Oh yes...it definately can divide countries.

Do you think the civil war would have been fought if slavery was not so lucrative?

Yes, I do. The timing may have been different, but the war would have been fought. In fact, in a way, we are fighting it today, although (so far anyhow, thankfully) without the monsterous battles and body count. Like I said...2 competing factions with different ideas and visions for the country. And they are not talking.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 5:13:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2013 12:18:59 AM, Beverlee wrote:
(Thanks to CanWeKnow!)

Having just finished high school, I am starting to realize that our American History classes have been more or less full of things that just aren't true, or that were left out.

I was wondering what everyone thinks are the worst examples of this sort of thing!

For me, the worst example is Christopher Columbus. I think we should be upset that we were taught so many wrong things about this.

We were taught that he "discovered America," and that he proved the world was round, and a lot of other junk. The truth is, the only thing he did was open a trade route from Europe to the Caribbean. He did not discover a single thing, and never even laid eyes on anything but a few islands in the Caribbean. Plus, he never admitted that he was anywhere but India.

Meanwhile, how can you discover a populated area? I didn't discover Texas... And Eric The Red had already settled Greenland 500 years before Columbus. Lief Ericson settled parts of Newfoundland, which are actually ON the North American continent.

But Columbus gets the credit. SMH.

Another great example of American history being wrong is Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison. Edison got all the credit, but Tesla actually invented things like the modern light bulb and radio.

Right.

No, Multiple people can discover the same thing. We all discover porn at some point, and Tesla didn't invent the light or radio.
TheChristian
Posts: 1,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 5:46:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2013 12:18:59 AM, Beverlee wrote:
(Thanks to CanWeKnow!)

Having just finished high school, I am starting to realize that our American History classes have been more or less full of things that just aren't true, or that were left out.

I was wondering what everyone thinks are the worst examples of this sort of thing!

For me, the worst example is Christopher Columbus. I think we should be upset that we were taught so many wrong things about this.

We were taught that he "discovered America," and that he proved the world was round, and a lot of other junk. The truth is, the only thing he did was open a trade route from Europe to the Caribbean. He did not discover a single thing, and never even laid eyes on anything but a few islands in the Caribbean. Plus, he never admitted that he was anywhere but India.

Meanwhile, how can you discover a populated area? I didn't discover Texas... And Eric The Red had already settled Greenland 500 years before Columbus. Lief Ericson settled parts of Newfoundland, which are actually ON the North American continent.

But Columbus gets the credit. SMH.

Another great example of American history being wrong is Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison. Edison got all the credit, but Tesla actually invented things like the modern light bulb and radio.

Right.

Another fabulous example is Elisha Grey and Alexander Bell. Grey was at the patent office first, but due to a mixup, Grey's patent was thought to be a duplicate and thrown out. Bell received all the credit.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

This article explains the truth.