Prager University says that _____ was the cause of the Civil War

[danielpalos]

So what. Article 4, Section 2 is part of our supreme law of the land.

 

[Scamp]

So what. Article 4, Section 2 is part of our supreme law of the land.

That says protect from invasion. Not invade.

 

[mgh80]

The USA had slavery for 89 years.
The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.

so what? the US had a Constitutional plan to end slavery.

Virginia ratified the 13th amendment on Feb. 9 1965. The following states ratified the amendment on a later date: Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada. Delaware actually rejected it, and it wasn't ratified until the 1900's. The above are all facts.

I'm not naive enough to say that slavery had no part in the war (it did), but I'm also not ignorant to say that it was the sole reason, or even the main reason (at the start of the war).

just right wing special pleading? read the rest, of the thread.

I posted facts, if you have a problem with them-I can't help you.

read a few pages back.

The (northern) US did not have a Constitutional plan that abolish slavery before the war started.

 

[danielpalos]

So what. Article 4, Section 2 is part of our supreme law of the land.

That says protect from invasion. Not invade.

are you on the right wing?

 

[danielpalos]

so what? the US had a Constitutional plan to end slavery.

Virginia ratified the 13th amendment on Feb. 9 1965. The following states ratified the amendment on a later date: Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada. Delaware actually rejected it, and it wasn't ratified until the 1900's. The above are all facts.

I'm not naive enough to say that slavery had no part in the war (it did), but I'm also not ignorant to say that it was the sole reason, or even the main reason (at the start of the war).

just right wing special pleading? read the rest, of the thread.

I posted facts, if you have a problem with them-I can't help you.

read a few pages back.

The (northern) US did not have a Constitutional plan that abolish slavery before the war started.

It was written in to our federal Constitution. Slavery was supposed to end automatically after 1808.

 

[mgh80]

Virginia ratified the 13th amendment on Feb. 9 1965. The following states ratified the amendment on a later date: Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada. Delaware actually rejected it, and it wasn't ratified until the 1900's. The above are all facts.

I'm not naive enough to say that slavery had no part in the war (it did), but I'm also not ignorant to say that it was the sole reason, or even the main reason (at the start of the war).

just right wing special pleading? read the rest, of the thread.

I posted facts, if you have a problem with them-I can't help you.

read a few pages back.

The (northern) US did not have a Constitutional plan that abolish slavery before the war started.

It was written in to our federal Constitution. Slavery was supposed to end automatically after 1808.

Citation?

 

[danielpalos]

just right wing special pleading? read the rest, of the thread.

I posted facts, if you have a problem with them-I can't help you.

read a few pages back.

The (northern) US did not have a Constitutional plan that abolish slavery before the war started.

It was written in to our federal Constitution. Slavery was supposed to end automatically after 1808.

Citation?

it is in Article 1, Section 9; States ceded their formerly sovereign right over immigration into a State, in favor of that federal Obligation, by the Union after 1808.

 

[mgh80]

I posted facts, if you have a problem with them-I can't help you.

read a few pages back.

The (northern) US did not have a Constitutional plan that abolish slavery before the war started.

It was written in to our federal Constitution. Slavery was supposed to end automatically after 1808.

Citation?

it is in Article 1, Section 9; States ceded their formerly sovereign right over immigration into a State, in favor of that federal Obligation, by the Union after 1808.

How is that a plan to abolish slavery? This states that the federal government can't abolish slaves until the year 1808 (and even then the Union didn't do so for another ~50 years.

 

[danielpalos]

read a few pages back.

The (northern) US did not have a Constitutional plan that abolish slavery before the war started.

It was written in to our federal Constitution. Slavery was supposed to end automatically after 1808.

Citation?

it is in Article 1, Section 9; States ceded their formerly sovereign right over immigration into a State, in favor of that federal Obligation, by the Union after 1808.

How is that a plan to abolish slavery? This states that the federal government can't abolish slaves until the year 1808 (and even then the Union didn't do so for another ~50 years.

States ceded their formerly sovereign right over immigration into a State, in favor of that federal Obligation, by the Union after 1808. After that date, States have no Cause to Care about immigration from out of State or from out of state; the right wing, is just being, clueless, like is their wont and habit.

 

[anotherlife]

Prager university? Is that something in Prague, Czech Republic? Then you are fooled again. Remember when they fooled you into believing that there is such a thing as a Czechoslovakian nation? Hehehe. Fools.

 

[mgh80]

Yes, it was. Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.

Prager is NOT an accredited university...just saying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, it was. Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.

Prager is NOT an accredited university...just saying.

The colonel and military professor is tenured at an accredited uni, the USMA . . . just saying

 

[mgh80]

Yes, it was. Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.

Prager is NOT an accredited university...just saying.

The colonel and military professor is tenured at an accredited uni, the USMA . . . just saying

Is he the author or narrator? Big difference.

Also, Prager is a "univeristy" that's biased and there's a reason why they're not accredited. As an educator, it's embarrassing that people take information they post seriously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, it was. Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.

Prager is NOT an accredited university...just saying.

The colonel and military professor is tenured at an accredited uni, the USMA . . . just saying

Is he the author or narrator? Big difference.

Also, Prager is a "univeristy" that's biased and there's a reason why they're not accredited. As an educator, it's embarrassing that people take information they post seriously.

The lecturer is a Ph.d. in History. I suspect you are not. He is been at West Point for thirty years. Where have you been?

You can argue all you want, but you have a losing hand. End game, mgh80.

 

[mgh80]

Yes, it was. Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.

Prager is NOT an accredited university...just saying.

The colonel and military professor is tenured at an accredited uni, the USMA . . . just saying

Is he the author or narrator? Big difference.

Also, Prager is a "univeristy" that's biased and there's a reason why they're not accredited. As an educator, it's embarrassing that people take information they post seriously.

The lecturer is a Ph.d. in History. I suspect you are not. He is been at West Point for thirty years. Where have you been?

You can argue all you want, but you have a losing hand. End game, mgh80.

I have a master's degree in US history and am certified to teach social studies it in my state (I actually teach English though)...what are YOUR qualifications?

If you want to use an ethos based argument, you better come to the table prepared. Once again, no slavery wasn't the only issue the war was fought over (it certainly was a major one)...BUT it wasn't what started the war. Lincoln turned the narrative into slavery in order to garner more support from civilians in the North-as many of them didn't care about the outcome of the war. This is why the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed the slaves in the South. While Lincoln himself was absolutely anti-slavery from day one, that doesn't mean that the North as a whole was.

There's a reason why the underground railroad ended in Canada, which brings me to two vital questions I'm curious whether you could answer without deflecting:

If the war was fought mainly over slavery,...

1) Why did the Underground Railroad end in Canada?

2) Why did the slaves have to travel in secrecy in the North?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The professor answered any and every question you can have.

My graduate degrees are as good as yours, yes. You have no idea.

No one said slavery was the only issue. It was the major issue, from which all other causes and symptoms flowed.

You can reject that, but your arguments won't stand in the face of the overwhelming problems of race and slavery. Not one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1) Why did the Underground Railroad end in Canada? Fugitive Slave Act, bringing us back to slavery.

2) Why did the slaves have to travel in secrecy in the North? Fugitive Slave Act, bringing us back to slavery.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it was. Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.

Prager is NOT an accredited university...just saying.

The colonel and military professor is tenured at an accredited uni, the USMA . . . just saying

Is he the author or narrator? Big difference.

Also, Prager is a "univeristy" that's biased and there's a reason why they're not accredited. As an educator, it's embarrassing that people take information they post seriously.

The lecturer is a Ph.d. in History. I suspect you are not. He is been at West Point for thirty years. Where have you been?

You can argue all you want, but you have a losing hand. End game, mgh80.

Would the South have won any substantial political victory, if they had succeeded in driving the Union from Gettysburg; and, could it have been accomplished.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it was. Take less than five minutes to listen and watch the vid.

Prager is NOT an accredited university...just saying.

The colonel and military professor is tenured at an accredited uni, the USMA . . . just saying

Is he the author or narrator? Big difference.

Also, Prager is a "univeristy" that's biased and there's a reason why they're not accredited. As an educator, it's embarrassing that people take information they post seriously.

The lecturer is a Ph.d. in History. I suspect you are not. He is been at West Point for thirty years. Where have you been?

You can argue all you want, but you have a losing hand. End game, mgh80.

I have a master's degree in US history and am certified to teach social studies it in my state (I actually teach English though)...what are YOUR qualifications?

If you want to use an ethos based argument, you better come to the table prepared. Once again, no slavery wasn't the only issue the war was fought over (it certainly was a major one)...BUT it wasn't what started the war. Lincoln turned the narrative into slavery in order to garner more support from civilians in the North-as many of them didn't care about the outcome of the war. This is why the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed the slaves in the South. While Lincoln himself was absolutely anti-slavery from day one, that doesn't mean that the North as a whole was.

There's a reason why the underground railroad ended in Canada, which brings me to two vital questions I'm curious whether you could answer without deflecting:

If the war was fought mainly over slavery,...

1) Why did the Underground Railroad end in Canada?

2) Why did the slaves have to travel in secrecy in the North?

Lousy management; federalism accounts for States sovereign rights. Federal fugitive slave laws should have been found, unconstitutional.

 

[danielpalos]

The professor answered any and every question you can have.

My graduate degrees are as good as yours, yes. You have no idea.

No one said slavery was the only issue. It was the major issue, from which all other causes and symptoms flowed.

You can reject that, but your arguments won't stand in the face of the overwhelming problems of race and slavery. Not one.

Secession was the Constitutional reason.