Hey guys, I’m from Canada, so American history was never a substantial part of my curriculum, what books or sources would you consider recommending?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Hey guys, I’m from Canada, so American history was never a substantial part of my curriculum, what books or sources would you consider recommending?[/quote]
Particularly Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson. If that book was declared required reading for every U.S. citizen, I would die a happy man.
But, ya, those books are a great intro/overview of U.S. history.
Battle Cry of Freedom is special in that it is an entire book that covers a significantly shorter time period and a singular subject. All the other books have to glance over very important events and other such things. As such, it is far more detailed and insightful.
Thanks magick
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Hey guys, I’m from Canada, so American history was never a substantial part of my curriculum, what books or sources would you consider recommending?[/quote]
Particularly Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson. If that book was declared required reading for every U.S. citizen, I would die a happy man.
But, ya, those books are a great intro/overview of U.S. history.
Battle Cry of Freedom is special in that it is an entire book that covers a significantly shorter time period and a singular subject. All the other books have to glance over very important events and other such things. As such, it is far more detailed and insightful.[/quote]
As Mufasa pointed out, he’ll completely miss out on Lincoln’s leadership in the secret war against Vampires.
See the historical film below.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Hey guys, I’m from Canada, so American history was never a substantial part of my curriculum, what books or sources would you consider recommending?[/quote]
William Lowndes Yancy’s biography has pretty good coverage of the man who was arguably holds a very large share of the blame for starting the war.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think Lincoln’s war on the Confederate States ended what was created by the founding fathers.[/quote]
And thank God for that.[/quote]
Wrong. The Founding Fathers did not create slavery. Technically they did not even create the legal protections of it. It was already protected. They just failed to remove them. And seriously, had they tried to do so at the time, the Union would not have been created. The civil war, or some facsimile thereof, would’ve just occurred in the 18th century and not the 19th.[/quote]
Of course they didn’t create slavery.
They created a union in which slavery persisted, despite the fact that some of them spread the rumor that they believed that men were created equal.
Of course it was politically impossible at the time.
Still, thank God that country in which slavery persisted–the one founded–met its deserved end, though it could have happened sooner and without so much blood.
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Hey guys, I’m from Canada, so American history was never a substantial part of my curriculum, what books or sources would you consider recommending?[/quote]
William Lowndes Yancy’s biography has pretty good coverage of the man who was arguably holds a very large share of the blame for starting the war.[/quote]
Thanks.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
though it could have happened sooner and without so much blood.[/quote]
Sooner? Sure.
Less bloodshed? I don’t know.
We’re talking about people’s livelihood here, and a practice that was accepted as “what you did” by just about every civilization, big or small, since the dawn of man.
Even if the Union ended up being two, they would have fought, and the European powers that wanted their colonies back would have pounded on the separate states.
This all assuming the issue of slavery was the “red line” of ratification.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Still, thank God that country in which slavery persisted–the one founded–met its deserved end, though it could have happened sooner and without so much blood.[/quote]
What makes you say that it could have ended with less bloodshed?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Still, thank God that country in which slavery persisted–the one founded–met its deserved end, though it could have happened sooner and without so much blood.[/quote]
What makes you say that it could have ended with less bloodshed?
[/quote]
Slaves could have been bought and freed by the federal government,much like how the British appeased there slave holders upon abolition.
[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:
Slaves could have been bought and freed by the federal government,much like how the British appeased there slave holders upon abolition.[/quote]
…
-
The Federal government was broke for much of its early history. When they finally got to not being broke (early 1800s), they refused to spend money on anything that seemed superfluous.
-
The Southerners did not enjoy entertaining any notion of freedom for slaves, even if people bought their slaves away from them. Do you really think they were stupid and wouldn’t notice the point?
Plus, the South dominated the federal government up until the mid 1840s (incidentally, this is another reason why they started going with the states’ rights angle- as they lost power in a national scale, they clamored for more power in a local scale. The whole states’ rights thing was a power-play, in other words).
Do you honestly expect a South-dominated government to go willingly with freeing slaves?
- Slavery was the basis for the vast majority (90%+) of the economy in the South. Even before the advent of the cotton gin. Think on that for a second. If abolition occurred, then that basically meant the South disappeared as a meaningful political and economical power.
There are essentially two periods regarding Southern attitudes towards slavery. Pre-cotton gin, and shortly after the tobacco business started to become less profitable, the South were cool to the thought of eventual abolition.
But the federal government was broke, and dominated by the South anyhow. Any thought of them spending money to buy slaves is silly.
Post-cotton gin, the South became fanatically opposed to the thought of abolition for a number of reasons.