darthyoda : While you are correct sir, you forget that once the states leave the UNION, the Constitution no longer applies to those states that left. Also I believe that only the states that were captured during the American-Mexican war were allowed to decide if they were pro-slave or anti-slave states (popular sovereignty). But this was declared void under Dred Scott vs Sanford saying that Congress doesn't have the power to decide the issue of slavery and who is a citizen of the United States (the later of which was later decalred void in another Supreme Court Case.) So the only way to solve the issue of slavery, would be to Amendment to the Constitution either outlawing slavery (13th Amendment) or making slavery legal (Corwin Amendment).

Oldschool41 : That is because we only have Herodotus as a source, and he was obviously a more pro-Greek source, despite being from an Ionian city that fought against the allied Greeks. Though even he admits that the Persians were able rulers, arguing instead that it was the hubris of Xerxes and other rulers that resulted in their downfall (had to do a project on Herodotus so I have done a lot of reading on this, can you tell?)

Back to Lincoln. I think the reason that Lincoln took the more moderate path on Reconstruction was a wise tactic. You want to diffuse resentment for losing and make them want to stay in the Union once they are brought back. To draw a parallel, let us examine Germany after World War I... they were punished harshly for their actions and it broke them, built up intense resentment in the majority of citizens, and directly led to the Nazi party gaining power and the start of World War II. If the Treaty of Versailles had been less harsh, or if the punishment had been reevaluated once it was clear that the economic burden on the Weimar Republic was too much, then perhaps the public sentiment would not have been so volatile and Hilter would not have been able to gain a hold.

Back to Antebellum America, the decision of a state to be slave or free was indeed a result of the territory acquired from the Mexican-American War as per the Compromise of 1850. I don't think that the Dred Scott case had an impact on that, since that was the establishment of a slave as property not a citizen, not the right of Congress over slavery (which it did have, since it could amend the Constitution, and that is power over the issue)

Elara : Glad to see that I'm not the only one who has a habit of reading Ancient History or History books. =)

Your points on Persia are valid so I'm not gonna attempt to argue with you on that since I agree with you completely.

While I agree that Lincoln's moderate path on Reconstruction was wise; I think he over estimated the amount of blame the UNION held against the South for the damage, costs, and lives. It would be interesting to see how Lincoln would have ruled when the Radical Republicans held office (during the Johnson Administration); as I think history would have been unfavorable to Lincoln if he was alive during Radical Republican dominence during Reconstruction, luckly he was killed before that happened (well thats not a good way to put it).


I must disagree with your last part. Yes Congress does have the right to decide the issue of slavery before the Dred Scott case as Dred Scott ruled the Compromise of 1850 unconstitutional (either that or Missouri Compromise...I forget which one). Now when you combine the fact that the court said in Dred Scott that slaves were not citizens; this ment that any slave laws were invalid or at issue with the Dred Scott decision.

Oldschool41 :
Well there was a lot of rape, murder and pillaging as the union rampaged through the south, and as for after war punishment, i dont think he wanted to demanise the north. He wanted to bind the north and south, punishment would further split the nation.
Fun fact, scotland made a mint during the civil war, at the time about 1/4 modern ships were built here, and the south were buying them as fast as we could make them in an attempt to beat the norths blockade.
So in a way, we were profiting off slavery (the norths determination to keep it).
Its like the opposite of the world wars where america got an economic boom.
Incedentaly, reading elaras post, she said much the same as i on the point of punishment.
I was going to make the germany contrast too, although that lesson hadnt been learned yet.
France were the driving force of that, they wanted it again after ww2, and the usa deliberatly kept germany stagnent to keep them weak. Until they realised if europe didnt recover, communism could spread. It became apparent that for europe to get back on its feet germany had to be allowed to recover.
Elara : to an extent, britain tried to change it but france wouldnt have it.
Germany was paying us in raw materials, like coal, which was damaging our home industrys like mining so the debts were suspended/ reduced etc. France invaded the rhineland to get its payments. That really ticked germany off.
And i know little of the constitution so i wont address the legality of slavery in the usa.

Oldschool41 : It was the Missouri Compromise.

And yeah, I got my BA in History with Ancient and American history as my areas of emphasis.

thenumberone : Yeah... France was the big reason that they never adjusted the reparations. I mean, on the one hand, I understand why France was upset, their country bore the brunt of the fighting... but their bitterness caused World War II.

Elara : Wow that is awesome. I love History and I always wanted to get a degree in history (I didn't as I was worried that I would be unable to find a job). Might I ask how easy/difficult your degree was to get? But anyways thank you for the clearup on Missouri Compromise (been a while since I read up on the Civil War).

thenumberone : No problem with dicussing on the Constitution, our laws change a lot everytime a case involving what is Constitutional or not can make American Law seem a bit "complex" to know (saying from someone who is studying Law). This is a bit off-topic; but how in depth does England go into involving "The War of the Roses"; as that period always facinated me (might be hard to answer since you seem more in depth on Scotish History; but I'm assuming that Scotland also was involved in some way.)

Oldschool41 : i couldnt say for sure, it wasnt touched much in scotland anyway.
All i know on that is that various claimants promised scotland the return of berwick if we gave support, which to an extent we did. Militarily though we werent very significant in that war.

Oldschool41 : As much as I love my degree, you probably made a good call... though apparently law schools love history majors. My BA was fairly straightforward to get, there was a lot of reading, writing, and researching to do of course. I now consider a five page paper to be "short" since my major papers were 12+ pages (for the record, they were on the Titanic, the Weimar Republic, and Herodotus).

I enjoyed it though, but I love writing so that is just me. Now I am in graduate school for a Masters in Education and it seems ridiculously easy... and I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop because it shouldn't be easier to get a M.Ed than a BA, right? But according to everyone I talk to, grad school really is easier... it's like "here you go, you worked your butt off during undergrad, now you can coast."

My biggest regret, I think, is that I didn't have time to take more history classes. I kinda skipped most of Medieval history (I took Byzantine history instead) since I had covered a good deal of the Middle Ages in the general world history classes, but I adore Medieval Europe and would have wanted to take more (CSULB had a great course on Tudor/Stewart England for example).

Elara : Thanks for the info. Well law schools don't really care about what major you get as long as you get a good LSAT score (which Physics majors tend to do the best according to statistics). Good thing your going for a Masters in Education cause you could become a History Teacher/History Professor (I know my cousin did Spanish and Education and got a job with that...but then again Spanish and History are completely different). Byzantine History sounds interesting and I guess its related to Medieval history; but yeah Medieval History is a good period to study (particularly the Dark Age to Abosolutism period, Planetganet England, and Charlamagne). I'm interested in why you had to do a report on the Titanic for history as it seems somewhat out of place compared to the Weimar Republic and Herodotus. (I'm most likely gonna just PM you about any more questions to avoid getting the thread offtopic; of course if that is okay with you.)

Sorry yoda for getting way off topic, I just love history.

darthyoda : Well I hope you've been enjoying our discussions so far, lol.

And yeah, teaching is the plan actually... and I plan on teaching actual history not propaganda as much as I can get away with (as long as they pass the standardized tests, the school board doesn't really care I think)... most importantly, I plan to emphasize critical thinking skills and research. It's more important to know why the event happened and is important than what date it occurred on.

Elara :
Thats good to see, follow that and you'll be a great teacher.
Too often whats happened is taught and not why. The reasons behind it are as, or more, important.
I spent 2months doing independent research for my final exam 2 years ago, and it learly helps the learning process.

darthyoda :
thenumberone :

I agree with you both that people need to know why something happened to cause the things that we are teaching kids in class. This is the reason why I support the idea of school being a year-long (no summer, spring, or anyother breaks...except for the period between Chirstmas Eve and New Years); and increasing public school hours to 7-5 instead of 7-3 (which is close to the amount of hours the public schools in my area are).