Why do liberals often think of the 1961-1965 conflict as a "civil war"?

By 1860, fully 75% of federal revenues were raised in the south, mostly from taxation of the cash crops of the southern plantations. Plantations could not survive without a guaranteed labor force and there was no free labor force in the south. With 75% of federal spending occurring in the north, the federal government was as reliant on the slaves as were the slave owner themselves. The northern industrial, mercantile, shipping and banking interests that had prevented the south from diversifying her economy or from industrializing were dependent on southern goods and the slaves who produced them. Only a tiny minority of southerners owned slaves and few of them owned as many as 100. Those with only 1 or 2 slaves had to rent them out to afford them.







The USA was not founded as a single nation. The Treaty of Paris of 1783 created 13 new nations when Great Britain granted independence and those nations never intended to give up that independence. They created an alliance, a confederation of nation states and delegated only very limited and specific powers to a FEDERAL, not NATIONAL government. The very core principal of the Declaration of Independence is that a people have the right to leave a government that no longer serves, defends or protects the governed, it is ludicrous that the very people who fought for that proposition would willingly throw it away on some new experimental form of government. By 1860, the south was totally disenfranchised. The 1860 election proved that; Lincoln won without carrying a single southern state and without having even appeared on the ballot in several of them. The House and Senate had long since been northern enclaves. Given the political realities, coupled with the economic subjugation of the south by the north, the CSA invoked their right to leave the union and, in accordance with the precepts of the Declaration and their constitutional rights, they seceded. The USA responded by invading the CSA with the goal of conquering and annexing those independent nations. It was NOT a civil war.Why do liberals often think of the 1961-1965 conflict as a "civil war"?
Why are you bringing up liberal in this context?



Are you insinuating that conservatives have a justification for being selfish sociopaths?



If the north insisted that the south give up their insistence on keeping people as pets, then they would lose some tax revenues. The north would lose by getting what they wanted.



The south would gain by living with greater dignity because you can't live a noble life knowing that you own other humans in a society that sacrificed for freedom.



In 1830, The south was filled with stubborn racists who refused to compromise. ----not much has changed-----the Tea Party comes to mind.
Liberals don't "believe" that. People who actually know history "believe" that.



You do know that the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, right?Why do liberals often think of the 1961-1965 conflict as a "civil war"?
Well first of all at least we know which century it was fought in.



Secondly I am pretty sure most people know it as the American Civil War - not just liberals.
You call us confused but your question says "Why do liberals often think of the 1961-1965 conflict as a..." Can you say "OOPS!"???



In early 1861 - I know, it was a tpo - New York City's mayor and city council actually passed a resolution calling for the city to secede from the United States! Oh yes, Wall Street was as full of moneygrubbing scum as it is today. Most New Yorkers were virulent racists and supported slavery wholeheartedly. Doing business with the slave-holding South brought them the majority of their money.



Anyhow - I don't care what you call it, the South screwed up big time and got their clocks cleaned but good. Hell, even Jeff Davis knew, and publicly stated, that the South would lose a war with the Union before he was selected as President of the Confederate States of America. Even Robert E. Lee thought so before he was made a general. Call it a Civil War, call it The War of Northern Aggression - by whatever name, it was a profoundly stupid thing to do. And it ended only after the deaths of more than six hundred twenty thousand men. You proud of that, are ya?
I don't. I think of it as the culmination of several years increasing tensions between India and Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir region. These tensions ultimately erupted in a series of skirmishes in 1965, which became known as the 2nd Kashmir War.



What any of that has to do with the events surrounding the American civil war 100 years earlier is beyond me, but you mention that war in your additional details, so I assume it must be important in some way.

used car values

bully dog