Quoted: Quoted: Damn, where were you on the last thread? Horseman, Thank you for the well put, and reasoned post. Didn't see it.  I tend to avoid them.  (somebody wanna toss me an Ackbar here?)  I figured I'd give this one a shot, and see what happened with it.  :)

I agree with your post, pretty well put.

On the other threads I come off as an abolitionist because I take issue with the "Slavery had nothing to do with it" guys.  I don't think the North and the South went to war over just slavery, but a lot of different issues.   Slavery was the hot topic and was a litmus indicator for people.  As you pointed out, slavery was indeed a cause of it (but not the only one).  I like to think that slavery back than was the hot topic amongst people, much like abortion is a hot topic nowadays.  People get excited and defensive over abortion, even when they are not going to have one or have it affect them.  It's not the only topic out there, but it is one that gets the liberals and the conservatives all heated up.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If a Puerto Rico were to become a state and then decide later to leave I don't think anyone would care. Same for any Canadian province which may wonder into our orbit. As long as the "core" fifty remain, any new state could probably  come and go without a war. I pray Puerto Rico never becomes a state, the last thing we need is a Spanish speaking state in our union. Why ? Do you have something against spanish speaking people ?

yes i am a blatant racist who hates all people who dont speak english. Its not the fact that our nation was founded as an english speaking nation and english is ingrained in our culture. Its not the fact that i dont think America should become like Canada where the bilingualism is one of the great divides in thier country. Its not the fact that a nation that doesnt share a language can hardly be united. Its the fact that i hate all Spanish speaking people. I wish that the entire south american continent would be wiped off the face of the planet.

Quoted: I know that the South has been very sensitive about this issue. My understanding is that a Civil war is a war between two or more factions within a country for control of the government. The South fought for independence and not for control of the government, therefore in their eyes it was not a Civil war. Am I right about this?

To my way of thinking you are right, but, as always, the winners get to write the history and define the terminology.

Horseman,
One of the best analysis of the civil war I have ever read. It was so good I forgot for a moment whether I was agreeing with you or not. So I reread it.
And didn't find any major fault with it at all. I even like your name for it: "The Late Unpleasantness" Can't remember where I've heard it before.
I think the best metaphor for the war, trying to continue in your vein, if I understand it correctly, is that of two good friends who get drunk, beat each other silly, then have to live with it afterwards, their fundamental friendship intact, but changed.
Good post.
I'd like to go on, but my daughter has just asked what gun the old buttstsock came off of. I hope this is still going on later.
Adios,
Bob

I prefer to call it "The War for Southern Independence" or "The War of Northern Aggression". I usually just say "Lincoln's War". When soneone says "Civil War", I discount them as ignorant of the truth.

FREE THE SOUTH!

The War of Southern Insurrection.

Civil War.

Any other description contains loaded language that lends bias to one side or the other. Better off just using this term.