• #13
    If the other presidents were more responsible would the south have committed treason? Maybe. Slavery is a complicated, the institution has existed in North America longer than America has existed in North America.

    People were making money, and people were keeping slaves. It was that way for hundreds of years, as you would expect people become attached to a certain way of life. Apparently for so long that some people couldn't recognize slavery as evil, or slaves as people. Slavery had been apart of American life for so long, I don't think Lincoln, Buchanan, Pierce, or Franklin could've prevented civil war. The equivalent of Lincoln freeing the slaves would be like Obama repealing the 2nd amendment. A lot of people would be angry, it would cripple some economies, and it would change life forever. Except you know, emancipation makes sense, gun control not so much.

    Civil war was inevitable, but the outcome was worth it.
  • #77
    Treason? The states had the right to leave the union because that right was spelled out by ratifying documents for Virginian, New York, and Rhode Island. Since the Constitution gives the same right to all other states it was not treason to leave. And only the most ignorant of Americans can still believe that the war between the North and South had anything to do with slavery. Lincoln would have been happy to have a Constitutional amendment to strengthen the Fugitive Slave Act as long as he got his taxes.
  • #2
    When MAJOR disagreements happen between two parties, it's extremely difficult to stop the enviable fist-a-cuffs.
    Neither discouraging nor encouraging slavery would have came to a different conclusion. Though (IMO) the civil war was not entirely about slavery, slavery was the main center force.
  • #81

    Sorry my friend but I have no idea what that means. My approach has always been to look at the facts and the original sources rather than what court historians tell me to think. When you grew up behind the Iron Curtain you learn to distrust anything that comes from official sources. In my country few people actually believed what the government said. What surprised me when I moved here was that everyone believed the government. And to confess I was a part of the crowd for a while because I could not believe that rational people would all be so wrong and I bought into the idea that Western politicians were less corrupt and more honest if not much smarter. But after a while it was evident that the courtiers who filled the role of public intellectuals were exactly the same and lied to protect their political master in all countries. On the war between the North and South, which was not a true civil war as defined in the dictionary, I adopted the same views as Acton and many of the European thinkers of the time. The issue was self determination and the South clearly was on the right side. The irony was that secession would have ended slavery and that this was known to the Southern politicians, some of whom were beginning to consider manumission as the most effective way forward. Those who are ignorant that think that the war was about slavery do not even know that only around 10% of the men who fought owned slaves and that out of the total population in the South about one in twenty owned slaves. I believe that included free blacks who were also slave owners.

    The war was about power and taxation. And if we look at the speeches in the North, the editorials, or even the personal holdings of the Union generals we see that slavery was a minor concern. Ironically, many of the abolitionists wanted the South to secede because it would mean the end to slavery in the North in the short term and the South over the medium term.
  • #82
    @Vangel Want facts.....
    "Lincoln did not free slaves in the North or even in neutral states."
    HMMM......that's because slavery was NOT legal in the northern and neutral states. Part of the "problem" was the new states that came into the union in the 1840-50's. The US government didn't want slavery to spread and wouldn't allow it in those states.
  • #83

    The neutral states permitted slavery. And while it may have been illegal for someone who lived in New York to own slaves many Northerners owned slaves in states where they were permitted to own them. Grant's family owned slaves until 1965. So did the families of many who fought for the North.
  • #1
    I dont think so. The rise to power in the south was opposing to federal law (ironically, the confederation was a basic and lim mirror of the fed government). Out with the old, in with the new was the motto. With Buchanan, he was a known blow-hard.
  • #36
    Yeah, they were most pissed off when the new states were forced to not have slavery as part of their statehood. The confederacy was truly born during that time because they needed somewhere to ship the slaves they weren't using in fear of a slave revolution.
  • #58
    @AceLuby Actually the New states like OR & CA had no interest in having slaves.. Plantation Agriculture wasn't wanted in an area based on small homesteaders and cattle ranchers.
  • #66
    If DeRose's writing is anything like his choice of publishersm he lost any hope of me purchasing any book he ever writes, or trusting any word he ever writes. This title is published by Globe Pequot Press (which usually prints how to, travel and per-Wiki "pop-up" products"). Their owner, however, is Morris Communications which is located around 130 miles away from here. It's owner, Billy Morris is one of the biggest right wing bastards I've seen in my life. He own land all around downtown Augusta. Until recently, and the publicity got a little too hot, he was kind enough to charge his non too well paid employees to park on his land so they could come to work for him. The editorials in his Augusta paper (and he owns many) is to the point of reactionary, has been know to smply reword right wing PAC talkng point letters sent to them, relies heavily on posting partial quotes, out of context quotes, jumbling stats to they take on new meanings, using downright lies (which gets you threatening letters that you'll be banned from ever being allowed to comment again when you point out that they've lied), and of course the usual right wing every action that Bush did to "save the nation", the very same action by Obama is "shredding the Constitution and leading us into tyranny". Of course, he HATES welfare and government spending, although he receiveved milions in govern funding to build a massive hotel down by the river in town, and he and his cronies spent Lord know what to get one Commissioner elected to get one vote passed for the taxpayers to spend millions to build a convention center right beside his hotel, and somehow a parking deck, that the whole thing went way over budget and it turned out that he, not the city owned the land. He gets to keep the profits from the bottom 2 floors and his company gets paid to manage the whole sooting match, comvention center and all, but, BY GOD, no government spending on those poor people who need things like food instead of penthouses.
    One of DeRose's other books was published by Regnery, which is quite popular in the white nationalist, white supremacist, racist, and Southern apologist type circles.
  • #59
    When I read reviews about Kindle books on Amazon the lack of editing is a constant complaint. I've found the same in many self published books.
  • #45
    The Civil War was about people, free and slave, and not about presidential politics. It was bound to happen because the people needed a people oriented decision, not a political one.
  • #8
    "[John Tyler] would doggedly pursue the annexation of the Republican of Texas..."

    How much better off would we be if he'd just left it alone?

    Having been through discussions on the Civil War many times before, let me add that, yes, it was about slavery. The Letters of Secession from several states are online and available for anyone to read. Most mention in the opening paragraph that slavery is the issue that is making them secede -- some mention it in the opening sentence.

    Just bringing it up because I'm not fond of revisionist history and it's popular with some folks to deny the South keeping their slaves was a big part of what split our nation. That's not true. Slavery was at the heart of the Confederate's economic system and it was at the heart of why they tried to violently withdraw from our nation.
  • #10
    They tried to peacefully withdraw but the North made them stay - but good thing is the South has more sane folks politically - so they are trying to stop liberals from destroy the US
  • #35
    @BobSmith The south had no grounds to secede, as it was treason. Not only that, but the southern elites were so afraid of a slave revolt if there were too many slaves compared to owners that they needed to ship them out west. The catalyst was when the western states started becoming states they could only do so if slavery was illegal. That was when secession talk started, and with it the opportunity to get some of the western land as well to keep the 'right' ratio of slaves to owners.
  • #61
    @BobSmith Oh yea the South were the freedom lovers. They loved to be free to treat human beings as property.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #79
    The court historians strike again. Why bother reading this nonsense when we have full access to all of the original source material and can see for ourselves where everyone stood. To me the worst of the presidents of this era was Lincoln. Yet, with all the evidence lined up against him DeRose still thinks of him as the greatest president that you ever had.
  • #75
    Tyler........"He would doggedly pursue the annexation of the "Republican" of Texas........"??? Did you perhaps mean the Republic of Texas? Or was that some kind of Freudian slip a sloppy one but yet. I certainly hope that's not the way the book states it...
  • #73
    Abraham Lincoln could have used more diplomatic skill also. Instead of freeing all of the slaves at once (which was a bloody nation nightmare) he could have bargained with the slave owners to ween off of slave labor a little at a time. The whole southern economy was based around slavery and ending it so abruptly would be a shock to their system also now you have millions of unemployed slaves wondered where to go and what to do with themselves.

    There was no real effort to understand or compromise on either side. Right now in our country American corporations are addicted to cheap outsourced and illegal labour. This puts Americans who are looking for work at a disadvantage. American wages suffer also. I think that clothing manufacturing is an industry should be brought back to the USA.
  • #57
    Highly unlikely they could have changed the outcome given that far stronger Presidents couldn't figure a way out of the crash.
  • #60
    I don't think it's important either but for a history buff it's interesting. There were among the weakest Presidents in our history. The only President between Jackson & Lincoln to make much of an impact was James Polk & his health limited him to 1 term.
  • #55
    He was a defeatist about the Union's chances of prevailing. Pierce's public live reached its nadir on July 4, 1863, just as news of Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg were beginning to role in.

    Why doesn't anyone proofread any more? A scholarly article take a turn for the worse when misspellings happen.
  • #33
    I'm sure that I will enjoy the book, but some proofreading on the article would have been nice.
  • #5
    ....maybe not. At this point in history, it is moot...or as some might say...."history".

    Myself? At the top of my reading list are "Player Piano servicing and rebuilding" by Arthur Reblitz, and "Rebuilding the player piano" by Larry Givens, as I restore a 1921 player piano we recently purchased for our home. Dead tech is where it's at for me these days, as I see nothing in the immediate future that bodes well for the future of the United States. Our nation is crumbling around us as the modern left brings it's totalitarian agenda to fruition. Working on making my personal atmosphere livable, to remind my family of the better America, and those outside my family of the squandered dream, is going to my goal in the latter years.
  • #9
    I think you need to check the definition of "totalitarian." You've used it incorrectly in a sentence.
  • #43
    @Zazziness Nope. It's perfect there. As are the words "dictatorial", "unconstitutional", "subversive", "evil", "underhanded", "malicious", "malevolent", "malicious", "oppressive", "autocratic", "despotic", or any other number of terms that describe the destruction wrought upon the United States by the left.

    But I'd rather talk about player pianos. Anyone else out there have one?
  • R Load more comments...