Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (489736)	11/9/2003 2:49:55 AM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Lee was actually "executing the will" of his home state, Virginia. In fact, he turned down Lincoln's offer to command the Union army when Virginia decided to secede. I will grant you that the "states rights" issue and the slavery issue were intertwined, but they were not EXACTLY the same issues as you seem to be suggesting. If Virginia had not seceded, Lee would have accepted command of the Union army. He truly believed that his loyalty was to the state of Virginia.

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (489736)	11/9/2003 2:51:46 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

I do not disagree with you that slavery caused succession. But slavery did not cause the civil war. The act of succession was at the heart of the war. If, as you say, the south would have been complacent with the fact that slavery would be contained to those states that had established slavery, and that the non-slave states were loathe to return run away slaves, then succession may not have occurred. My contention is that succession is what caused the war. Not slavery itself. Orca