[a_spencer]

The main thing I would really like is quizzes/tests that you can take, and retake whenever you want, after each lecture. Something you can use to help ingrain the key points and facts into your brain.

Everyone I’ve talked to agrees that this is really necessary for learning. It’s the one thing LC is lacking.

[a_spencer]

Awesome. Will be checking those out, thanks.

[a_spencer]

Like a boss.

[a_spencer]

Many thanks! That’s just what I needed; although I was already pretty sure that claim was false.

[a_spencer]

Yeah the naming of the earlier parties gets confusing; I never fully understood it until taking these courses.

Appreciate the replies, peeps.

[a_spencer]

Thanks for the responses.

I’ve been told that “Every letter of secession from ALL seceding states cited ‘a threatening to the institution of slavery’ as their primary cause for leaving the union.” Is this true?

[a_spencer]

I just wish I knew the best way to succinctly describe the cause of the war. After reading more about it (books like “The Real Lincoln”) I used to talk with people and try to convince them it was the tariff issue and not slavery… but after these lectures I’m getting the feeling it’s more complicated than that, and perhaps too complicated for typical, government educated, Lincoln worshipers to understand.

This really sucks, because debunking the fallacies related to history of the 1860’s is so integral to changing the sheeple back to people. And if we can’t do it simply, perhaps we can’t do it at all.

[a_spencer]

I hardly know anything about the man, but I do get the sense that he was kind of the “Alex Jones” of his day, or perhaps it should be vice versa…. Didn’t he try to exaggerate the violence of the Boston Massacre so as to fuel Colonial hate of the British? And then I think the other Adams actually (and rightly) defended those British troops in court.

I may be way off on this, though.

[a_spencer]

This would be nothing better than an ad hominem attack from the opposition.

If true that the Confederacy did this, then they were wrong for it. We defend the principle secession, not every action taken by the south in those times.

[a_spencer]

I was curious about this, too. I’ve listened to both part 1 and 2 of “The political crisis of the 1850’s”… very insightful lectures, but I’m still a little confused about the whole situation.

I already know that the war was not because the north had any moral objection to slavery, I’m familiar with enough empirical date regarding that that I need no convincing. The question is, what was the war really about?

I just don’t quite understand the “It’s SLAVE POWER at work” rhetoric used by northerners in regards to southerners bringing slaves into the territories after the Mexican Session. Why did they (northerners) care?

You said in the lecture (after the northerners tried to block the Lecompton Constitution) that Northerners didn’t want the south to have more slave states – “They don’t want the South to have this continued role in dominating the government; they can’t stand it.” Why did the north care if there were more slave states? Because as you said before, they really wouldn’t have been “SLAVE STATES” because Slavery wasn’t really viable out west…

So if, because of the climate, the west would not have an agriculture/slavery based economy, like the south did, then the “American system” would not have been detrimental to western state’s economies (as it would be to their southron counterparts.)… So then, if they (western states) would not be negatively affected by the Hamiltonian-ism… why would they not support it? How does them being allowed to have slaves affect the “political economy” as the North feared it would?

[Author]

Posts