The civil war, states rights, and slavery.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The same goes for issues such as gay rights today. We'd be much better off targeting the culture and eliminating the need for legislation by changing the character of the country at its root, than by decreeing from a judicial pulpit or progressive legislature that it is now unacceptable to discriminate against gays. It is unacceptable, but you're not going to convince anybody of that by simply writing laws that spontaneously declare them to be villains. You'll actually reinforce bigotry that way, since it's a direct assault on a general assumption. It takes longer to do it the right way, but the results are more stable and more durable than simply passing a law and pretending that alone resolves the problem.

Horseshit.  Legislation is what ended Jim Crow, not asking the racists nicely.

Well, actually the Supreme Court ruling on cases is what did that. From 1912 up through Brown vs Board of Edu in 54... The Civil Rights Act didn't show up until '64.

And this, IMO is the way that it should have been handled. The Supreme Court is there specifically to protect the rights of all Americans and it did so. The later Civil Rights Act was useful, but not AS USEFUL as the many SC rulings that came before it. However, I do think that lasting change has to come from social change, not law. Law makes an act criminal, but it doesn't stop people's behaviors. As vex points out, for at least some Americans the law actually becomes a rallying cry for the opposition. If instead, civil rights had been achieved socially, it would have taken longer, but probably ended with less fallout.

[Suu]

Thread bumped. Best of luck with your paper.

[Doktor Howl]

Well, actually the Supreme Court ruling on cases is what did that. From 1912 up through Brown vs Board of Edu in 54... The Civil Rights Act didn't show up until '64.

And this, IMO is the way that it should have been handled. The Supreme Court is there specifically to protect the rights of all Americans and it did so. The later Civil Rights Act was useful, but not AS USEFUL as the many SC rulings that came before it. However, I do think that lasting change has to come from social change, not law. Law makes an act criminal, but it doesn't stop people's behaviors. As vex points out, for at least some Americans the law actually becomes a rallying cry for the opposition. If instead, civil rights had been achieved socially, it would have taken longer, but probably ended with less fallout.

There were preceding civil rights acts:

Civil Rights Act of 1866, extending the rights of emancipated slaves
Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act
Civil Rights Act of 1875, prohibiting discrimination in "public accommodations"; found unconstitutional in 1883
Civil Rights Act of 1957, establishing the Civil Rights Commission
Civil Rights Act of 1960, establishing federal inspection of local voter registration polls
Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places
Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act
Civil Rights Act of 1991, providing the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introducing the possibility of emotional distress damages, while limiting the amount that a jury could award

But my point remains the same...Either through legislation or the courts, rights are established.  You don't do it by asking the racists/homophobes/etc to please play nice.

[Requia ☣]

The same goes for issues such as gay rights today. We'd be much better off targeting the culture and eliminating the need for legislation by changing the character of the country at its root, than by decreeing from a judicial pulpit or progressive legislature that it is now unacceptable to discriminate against gays. It is unacceptable, but you're not going to convince anybody of that by simply writing laws that spontaneously declare them to be villains. You'll actually reinforce bigotry that way, since it's a direct assault on a general assumption. It takes longer to do it the right way, but the results are more stable and more durable than simply passing a law and pretending that alone resolves the problem.

Horseshit.  Legislation is what ended Jim Crow, not asking the racists nicely.

Well, actually the Supreme Court ruling on cases is what did that. From 1912 up through Brown vs Board of Edu in 54... The Civil Rights Act didn't show up until '64.

And this, IMO is the way that it should have been handled. The Supreme Court is there specifically to protect the rights of all Americans and it did so. The later Civil Rights Act was useful, but not AS USEFUL as the many SC rulings that came before it. However, I do think that lasting change has to come from social change, not law. Law makes an act criminal, but it doesn't stop people's behaviors. As vex points out, for at least some Americans the law actually becomes a rallying cry for the opposition. If instead, civil rights had been achieved socially, it would have taken longer, but probably ended with less fallout.

I have to disagree there, SCOTUS rulings helped, but everything short of actually enforcing the voting rights of blacks was a stopgap.  Jim crow would have returned as soon as they could find a loophole in the rulings.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Good points Dok and Requia.

I came across a summary that I thought was particularly interesting given the current state of the Union (bold mine).

Sinha[6] and Richards[7] both conclude their cases by arguing that the Civil War had nothing to do with "states' rights", democracy, or resistance to arbitrary power. They argue that it was instead the result of the increasing cognitive dissonance in the minds of Northerners and (some) Southern non-slaveowners between the ideals that the United States was founded upon and identified itself as standing for, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, and the reality that the slave-power represented, as what they describe as an anti-democratic, counter-republican, oligarchic, despotic, authoritarian, if not totalitarian, movement for ownership of human beings as the personal chattels of the slaver. As this cognitive dissonance increased, the people of the Northern states, and the Northern states themselves, became increasingly inclined to resist the encroachments of the slave power upon their states' rights and encroachments of the slave power by and upon the Federal Government of the United States. The slave power, having failed to maintain its dominance of the Federal Government through democratic means, sought other means of maintaining its dominance of the Federal Government, by means of military aggression, by right of force and coercion, and thus, the Civil War occurred.

Part of me looks forward to the Tea Party being soundly defeated at the polls... but part of me has some concerns about 10% of the population with increasing cognative dissonance feeling like they have no control/dominance through the democratic process.

[Adios]

I've been digging through primary sources today, looking to build a case that the south seceded more because of the slavery issue than anything else.  I am however worried that the people publishing the articles might be cherry picking.  So if anybody would like to recommend I read some things *before* I go and make an idiot of myself the next time the topic comes up, I'd appreciate it.

I am on the other side of this. Now, having said that I have debated this issue here before and the bumped thread will cover most of it I think. Economics and states rights were the catalysts. Slavery was the backbone of Southern economics.
Were there howling bigots who resented a DamnYankee saying they couldn't own slaves anymore? Hell yes. Never doubt that.

Here's the end result though, a nation ripped in half was a nation saved. There is no way this country would have survived this long with the millstone of slavery hanging around it's neck.

Also it is important to note that blatant racism will never go away. People will hate each other for any number of reasons.

[Suu]

I've been digging through primary sources today, looking to build a case that the south seceded more because of the slavery issue than anything else.  I am however worried that the people publishing the articles might be cherry picking.  So if anybody would like to recommend I read some things *before* I go and make an idiot of myself the next time the topic comes up, I'd appreciate it.

I am on the other side of this. Now, having said that I have debated this issue here before and the bumped thread will cover most of it I think. Economics and states rights were the catalysts. Slavery was the backbone of Southern economics.
Were there howling bigots who resented a DamnYankee saying they couldn't own slaves anymore? Hell yes. Never doubt that.

Here's the end result though, a nation ripped in half was a nation saved. There is no way this country would have survived this long with the millstone of slavery hanging around it's neck.

Also it is important to note that blatant racism will never go away. People will hate each other for any number of reasons.

Excellent!

[E.O.T.]

HERE'S SOMETHING ELSE

          http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

[Doktor Howl]

HERE'S SOMETHING ELSE

          http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

What possible difference would that make?

[E.O.T.]

HERE'S SOMETHING ELSE

          http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

What possible difference would that make?

DIFFERENCE?

[Adios]

I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.

[Doktor Howl]

I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.

I don't see how that affects the issue at all.

[Adios]

I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.

I don't see how that affects the issue at all.

It doesn't. I do however doubt very much that the voices of black slave owners were listened to or sought.

[Doktor Howl]

I thought black slave holders were common knowledge.

I don't see how that affects the issue at all.

It doesn't. I do however doubt very much that the voices of black slave owners were listened to or sought.

Perhaps the argument is that, since a handful of Blacks owned slaves, there was no civil war?  Or 

[Requia ☣]

I finally found a state (or territory rather) that seceded without mentioning slavery.

Why did nobody tell me Tuscon was in the war?