MLK Day isn't about black people.
Correction..it SHOULDN'T be about black people. It SHOULD be about civil rights only.
It was about what Martin Luther King Jr. himself did to strengthen civil rights during his time.
Which is absurd. Millions of people have fought for civil rights in this country's history. Why do we give one day for one man who was merely a private citizen? Because he was black and he was shot. To say otherwise is silly.
Just because he's black doesn't mean he embodied the only type of person to fight for civil rights. This day recognizes EVERYONE who fought for civil rights during the movement, whether it be black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc.
But it doesn't, now does it?
Martin Luther King Jr. day should be removed, and instead it should be called "Civil Rights Day". And if you don't think Martin Luther King day represents a "black equality day", then change the name of the holiday, and see how much support you get from the black community.
I said "largest", not lone.
Which is still wrong.
Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery
Abraham Lincoln said:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
Oh yeah?
The secessions would not have happened without that issue- that's a pretty safe bet.
This is what's called a fallacy, and this case, you are most likely wrong. You cannot say what would have happened without that issue, but given the differences in the way the country was set up, it is far more likely secession would have occurred than not.
The other reasons for secession were minor inconvienences in comparison.
Good to see your high school education outweighs the collective opinions of the majority of historians.
And the EP wasn't ridiculous.
Logically, it was. The point of it was to convince the rebellious states to come back to the Union. The idea was that if slavery was legal in the North, then a state who wanted to preserve the institution of slavery would throw down their arms and rejoin the Union.
You can see how well that worked out.
Lincoln made it a war goal to raise moral.
No, he didn't. He made it a political tool to rally support for his presidency, and to undermine the combined strength of the Confederacy.
And the Slaves were freed immediately AFTER the Civil War. So what if they weren't freed during the war?
What do you mean "so what"? The fact they weren't freed during the war proves the Civil War wasn't fought to free slaves, because the North didn't free the slaves until the 13th Amendment.
The war was fought over secession. Had the South not seceded, there would have been no war. To say otherwise is simply stupid, as slavery had existed since the birth of our country.
The economic differences of the North and South? That's what we're going to call it? Let's look at that a bit. What was the economic difference?- South had more farm land. The South used slaves for that farm land. The North had industry, which didn't take slaves. Why would economy difference be an issue to fight a war, and what regulations would be stemmed from that? It would mostly have something to do with slavery wouldn't it?
Not really. The northern states were transitioning towards an industry/factory based economy, whereas the southern states were content to remain an agricultural economy. Thus, you had two regions of the country who saw each other, and themselves, as different from one another. Of course, just like today, both regions fought to better their position, however partly due to the way the party system worked at the time as well as the greater population of the northern states, the northern states passed more and more laws and regulations which protected their interests, and put southern interests further and further towards the back. Southern states resented these taxes and trade regulations, as they worked against their way of life.
The reality is that many many of the people in the southern states couldn't afford slaves.
As for the State vs. Federal rights. Everyone agreed that states had certain rights—but did those rights carry over when a citizen left that state? The Southern position was that citizens of every state had the right to take their property anywhere in the U.S. and not have it taken away—specifically they could bring their slaves anywhere and they would remain slaves. Northerners rejected this "right" because it would violate the right of a free state to outlaw slavery within its borders.
All the things you mentioned were HEAVILY mixed in with Slavery.
That's such a narrow view of the situation as it existed. State vs. Federal rights was an argument that existed almost from the moment our Constitution was signed. The example I gave earlier about tariffs protecting northern interests is a great representation of one of the main arguments for state rights.
In all honesty, the northern states in general were not that concerned with slavery, as the examples I have given you have shown. The political issue of slavery was far more heated than the feelings of the general populace. However, due to the policies which were enacted which supported northern industries to the detriment of southern agriculture, southerners were, in many cases, misled into thinking the northern states would try and ruin their way of life.
To sum everything up, it's really simple. Had the Confederate states not seceded, there would have been no Civil War. In fact, it is entirely possible that had there not been a Civil War, the institution of slavery may have existed for many decades longer than it did. To equate it to a more understandable example, slavery was like vomiting. Vomiting sucks, but it's not the reason you are sick. Having the stomach flu causes you to throw up. Slavery wasn't the reason for secession or the Civil War, it was merely the most visible issue dealing with the subject.
