As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

This Thread Will Go Down in [History]

11617192122100

Posts

  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    edited April 2017
    "Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century" by Jonathan Glover made my brain work better the first time I read it, if you're up for a grand tour of human wretchedness

    Hobnail on
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    oh also Debt: The First 5000 years if you like your history spiced with economics

    Edith Upwards
  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    Some good history books:

    The Lost City of Z is about Percy Fawcett's repeated quests to find a legendary city located in the Amazon.

    Good-Bye To All That is a memoir by Robert Graves which deals extensively with the Great War - largely in a small, personal capacity, as it only really covers his involvement in the war (which, while extensive, doesn't really include the big exciting parts (and that's part of the point of reading the book)).

    Dark Tide: The Great Boston Molasses Flood of 1919 has a pretty self-explanatory title. Yes, that's a real thing that happened. It is exactly as bonkers as it sounds.

    Blood and Guts is a fun general overview of the history of surgery. It doesn't go into a whole lot of detail or anything, it's just a good time sort of book.

    Assassination Vacation is an investigation of the four American presidents who were assassinated and also the weird culture of veneration that follows them as a result.

    King Leopold's Ghost is a fantastic book about the horrific atrocities of the Belgian Congo.

    Most of these are just general history books, and not really falling into the mythology and folklore niche that I typically like to curl up in, but I can't think of anything too great for that. Maybe I'll keep thinking on this, these were all just off the top of my head.

    intropFencingsaxProhassHacksaw
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    Do we like or hate 1491?

    I like it

    It's very interesting

    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
    Jedoc
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    I need to read King Leopold's Ghost

    also gonna second Assassination Vacation, because Sarah Vowell is great

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    I need to read King Leopold's Ghost

    also gonna second Assassination Vacation, because Sarah Vowell is great

    Yeah, she is. Also from her I would recommend Unfamiliar Fishes and The Wordy Shipmates, but Assassination Vacation is my favorite so I put that foot forward.

    Shorty
  • ChicoBlueChicoBlue Registered User regular
    edited April 2017
    A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara Tuchman is pretty good.

    France has a very bad time.

    Such a bad time that the King is captured by the English after a horrific battle, is taken back to England, is eventually ransomed, comes back to France, sees how horrible everything is and then goes back to England to be a hostage again.

    ChicoBlue on
    StraightzikimeShortyJedocFleebtynicHefflingEdith UpwardsKayne Red RobeHacksaw
  • PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    My favorite history book of all time is certainly The Histories by Herodotus

    I personally recommend the Macaulay translation, by the way

    Xenophon is another Greek author who is very enjoyable and easy to read

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    You know, I've never actually read The Histories in full. I'll add that translation to my wishlist.

    Platy
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    hey @Metzger Meister
    Hi Melissa, you can point your friend to the Seventeen Moments in Soviet History website, which has a number of articles on religion in the Soviet Union, as well as links and other resources. http://soviethistory.msu.edu/theme/religion/ There was the early campaign against religion with the accompanying destruction of churches in the late 1920s/early 1930s, emphasis on atheism, etc. led by the League of the Militant Godless (there's a book about them called "Storming the Heavens," and you can find great images of the covers of their main journal if you google "Bezbozhnik" (literally: Godless)). Under Stalin a Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults was formed in 1944 (this included denominations of Christianity, as well as Islam) - I believe Orthodoxy was governed separately until the Brezhnev era. Under Khrushchev in the early 1960s there was an anti-religious campaign. I'm not sure who has written about Orthodoxy under late Stalinism, but Yaacov Roi has a book on Islam in the Soviet Union, and I believe Eren Tasar has some publications on Islam as well (both would probably refer to more general policies on religion in the late Soviet period), but those would probably be hard to access without university affiliation. Adeeb Khalid's "Islam after Communism" has a section on Islam in the Soviet period (covers mostly the Central Asian 'stans, I think). Victoria Smolkin-Rothrock has a fun article in that book "Into the Cosmos" that you looked at for your cosmonaut paper about scientific atheism and space, and there are also some interesting books by Igal Halfin and Oleg Kharkhordin that look at the parallels between Bolshevik rituals and Christian religion. And In Richard Stites's book Revolutionary Dreams there's a little bit on the Godbuilding movement of the early 1920s, which was an attempt to create a sort of Marxist pseudo-religion, in the belief that because peasants were so religious, the only way to have Bolshevik ideas reach them would be to create something that resembled a religion. There's also a memoir by an American priest in the only Catholic church allowed to operate in Stalin's Moscow called "In Lubianka's Shadow." And Yuri Slezkine's provocative book "The Jewish Century" looks at the involvement of Jews in the Russian Revolution, as well as exploring the Soviet Jewish experience. Bob Weinberg has a website about Birobidzhan, the Jewish autonomous region of the Soviet Union (http://www.swarthmore.edu/Home/News/biro/), and Masha Gessen recently published a book about Birobidzhan called "Where the Jews Aren't." There was a major anti-Semitic campaign just before Stalin's death (the so-called "Doctors Plot" was part of that - a number of doctors, mostly Jewish, were accused of plotting Stalin's death, but the trial was abandoned on Stalin's death in 1953. That's what I can think of off the top of my head - hope some of it is intersting/helpful!

    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
    PlatyMorivethStraightziShortySlacker71TofystedethMetzger MeisterintropL Ron HowardDonovan PuppyfuckertynicFencingsaxhanzoBahamutZEROEdith Upwardsnever die
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    edited April 2017
    Totally forgot about the Soviet Anti-Religion museums until now.

    edit: I'm gonna lay it out there: I think Stalinism and Leninism were straight up garbage, and that all signs pointed to Trotsky not being any better. The Soviet Union certainly had some successes, and did things I agree with. But I say they are ultimately a totalitarian regime that managed to hurt a lot of people. There's certainly nuance to be had beyond the Capitalism vs. Communism narrative that American history feeds to us, but I'm definitely on the side of both superpowers being huge pieces of shit.

    Doobh on
    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
    ShortySlacker71TofystedethMetzger MeisterintropL Ron HowardDonovan PuppyfuckertynicBahamutZEROHacksaw
  • PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    Straightzi wrote: »
    You know, I've never actually read The Histories in full. I'll add that translation to my wishlist.

    May I point you to this edition

    Straightzi
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    at times like this, I wish I had the ability to continue my education in Soviet History

    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    Dubh wrote: »
    Totally forgot about the Soviet Anti-Religion museums until now.

    edit: I'm gonna lay it out there: I think Stalinism and Leninism were straight up garbage, and that all signs pointed to Trotsky not being any better. The Soviet Union certainly had some successes, and did things I agree with. But I say they are ultimately a totalitarian regime that managed to hurt a lot of people. There's certainly nuance to be had beyond the Capitalism vs. Communism narrative that American history feeds to us, but I'm definitely on the side of both superpowers being huge pieces of shit.

    yeah I actually haven't read much of what Trotsky wrote but I have to think that it can't have been for nothing that all these dudes were pals at one point

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Skeith wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Jedoc wrote: »
    America and the UK have never really had to deal with the mass bombing of civilian populations

    um

    Here's a thing that demonstrates the scale of what they dealt with.

    I believe what jedoc meant is that the UK has never had to come to terms with the fact that they also dropped a lot of bombs on civilian populations, not that the UK never had its civilians bombed

    I think that interpretation elides over the record, and is incorrect both coming and going, as it were. The UK endured years mass bombing, and then, knowing from direct experience exactly what it meant, did it right back. Listen to this: this is most definitely not the voice of a man, or a nation, who does not know what mass bombing is.


    Gvzbgul
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    edited April 2017
    Also I might add that the Spanish civil war - Guernica and all that - was still fresh in the memory of both sides. There was not a lack of awareness as to the implications. It was done anyway.

    If one was to search for an upside to the events of London, Coventry, Liverpool, Glasgow, the French littoral, the Beidebecke Raids, Dresden, Berlin and so forth, it might perhaps be that the western world FINALLY learned* that sowing the wind of mass civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction would inevitably reap the whirlwind of mass civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction to ones own side. It is therefore not a strategy which a state which considers itself accountable to its citizens can initiate.

    *For a while, at least.

    V1m on
  • JedocJedoc Bringing the past to life so we can beat it to death with a shovelRegistered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    Skeith wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Jedoc wrote: »
    America and the UK have never really had to deal with the mass bombing of civilian populations

    um

    Here's a thing that demonstrates the scale of what they dealt with.

    I believe what jedoc meant is that the UK has never had to come to terms with the fact that they also dropped a lot of bombs on civilian populations, not that the UK never had its civilians bombed

    I think that interpretation elides over the record, and is incorrect both coming and going, as it were. The UK endured years mass bombing, and then, knowing from direct experience exactly what it meant, did it right back. Listen to this: this is most definitely not the voice of a man, or a nation, who does not know what mass bombing is.


    Sorry, poor phrasing! Shorty is correct. The mass bombings I referred to were the Allied bombings of European and Japanese population centers, and "deal with" was meant in the sense of facing up to and processing a morally questionable and hugely destructive act. I was referring to the way the moral landscape tends to get flattened and simplified when you're up against an enemy as over-the-top evil as Nazi Germany, and how that affects the historical judgment of your actions.

    GDdCWMm.jpg
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Dubh wrote: »
    Totally forgot about the Soviet Anti-Religion museums until now.

    edit: I'm gonna lay it out there: I think Stalinism and Leninism were straight up garbage, and that all signs pointed to Trotsky not being any better. The Soviet Union certainly had some successes, and did things I agree with. But I say they are ultimately a totalitarian regime that managed to hurt a lot of people. There's certainly nuance to be had beyond the Capitalism vs. Communism narrative that American history feeds to us, but I'm definitely on the side of both superpowers being huge pieces of shit.

    yeah I actually haven't read much of what Trotsky wrote but I have to think that it can't have been for nothing that all these dudes were pals at one point

    given their sexual histories, my understanding is they were all big fans of how marx cuckolded the shit out of engels

    Gvzbgul
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Dubh wrote: »
    Totally forgot about the Soviet Anti-Religion museums until now.

    edit: I'm gonna lay it out there: I think Stalinism and Leninism were straight up garbage, and that all signs pointed to Trotsky not being any better. The Soviet Union certainly had some successes, and did things I agree with. But I say they are ultimately a totalitarian regime that managed to hurt a lot of people. There's certainly nuance to be had beyond the Capitalism vs. Communism narrative that American history feeds to us, but I'm definitely on the side of both superpowers being huge pieces of shit.

    yeah I actually haven't read much of what Trotsky wrote but I have to think that it can't have been for nothing that all these dudes were pals at one point

    I think the primary difference between Stalin and Trotsky is that the former lived

    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • MuzzmuzzMuzzmuzz Registered User regular
    So, does anyone have any suggestions for history podcasts? So far I have:

    Mike Duncan's History of Rome and Revolutions series.
    History of England (finally at King Henry VIII, at this rate Queen Elizabeth might be dead when he gets to Victoria)
    History of China (Just finished Tang Era)
    History of Japan
    History of the Papacy
    Queens of England.
    Dan Carlin.
    History of the Bible

    I highly recommend all of these series, but I need more... MORE.

    Amusingly, it was PA that introduced me to Mike Duncan a few years back, before he did revolutions, and Mike Duncan mentioned he was part of an American President podcast which mentioned the History of England podcast , which had an episode by the guy who did the history of the Papacy which.....

    Needless to say, I might be a bit..... addicted.

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    edited April 2017
    Sawbones is trending less into history of medicine territory these days, but it's still pretty good. And Presidents Are People Too is a fun enough one.

    I'm bad at listening to podcasts about real things and not just dick jokes though.

    Straightzi on
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Muzzmuzz wrote: »
    So, does anyone have any suggestions for history podcasts? So far I have:

    Mike Duncan's History of Rome and Revolutions series.
    History of England (finally at King Henry VIII, at this rate Queen Elizabeth might be dead when he gets to Victoria)
    History of China (Just finished Tang Era)
    History of Japan
    History of the Papacy
    Queens of England.
    Dan Carlin.
    History of the Bible

    I highly recommend all of these series, but I need more... MORE.

    Amusingly, it was PA that introduced me to Mike Duncan a few years back, before he did revolutions, and Mike Duncan mentioned he was part of an American President podcast which mentioned the History of England podcast , which had an episode by the guy who did the history of the Papacy which.....

    Needless to say, I might be a bit..... addicted.

    "Stuff You Missed in History Class"
    They do dives into small events, people, and places that get glossed over in the larger history classes.

    Jedoc
  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    Its not really a history podcast but the BBC puts out "In Our Time" in podcast form, the topics aren't always historical but usually are, and Melvyn Bragg is a lovely man

    Jedoc
  • JedocJedoc Bringing the past to life so we can beat it to death with a shovelRegistered User regular
    I love In Our Time. The history and literature podcasts are great, but my favorites are the science topics. Big Mel just has no patience for scientific nomenclature, and it's a delight to hear him be just the worst kind of dick to his guests in the most cultured way imaginable.

    GDdCWMm.jpg
    Hobnail
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Jedoc wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    Skeith wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Jedoc wrote: »
    America and the UK have never really had to deal with the mass bombing of civilian populations

    um

    Here's a thing that demonstrates the scale of what they dealt with.

    I believe what jedoc meant is that the UK has never had to come to terms with the fact that they also dropped a lot of bombs on civilian populations, not that the UK never had its civilians bombed

    I think that interpretation elides over the record, and is incorrect both coming and going, as it were. The UK endured years mass bombing, and then, knowing from direct experience exactly what it meant, did it right back. Listen to this: this is most definitely not the voice of a man, or a nation, who does not know what mass bombing is.


    Sorry, poor phrasing! Shorty is correct. The mass bombings I referred to were the Allied bombings of European and Japanese population centers, and "deal with" was meant in the sense of facing up to and processing a morally questionable and hugely destructive act. I was referring to the way the moral landscape tends to get flattened and simplified when you're up against an enemy as over-the-top evil as Nazi Germany, and how that affects the historical judgment of your actions.

    yes that's exactly what I said:

    "Listen to this: this is most definitely not the voice of a man, or a nation, who does not know what mass bombing is. "

    I feel like I may have understated my point. The UK experienced years of mass bombing and was perfectly familiar with the effects. The government and military command were neither stupid nor uneducated nor ignorant; quite the contrary. They knew precisely what they were doing with the bombing attacks carried out in return, and, as indicated above, the ordinary people knew too - at the very least, the ones who lived in strategically important cities. And then later, even cities which weren't strategically important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baedeker_Blitz

    There's no case to make that the effects of what was done weren't "faced up to". Those effects were acknowledged as the goal of the campaign. Harris wasn't a rogue or unorthodox, he didn't disobey any orders or even rewrite policy. There wasn't (as far as I am aware) even any controversy over what he did at the time that he did it.

    I wonder if perhaps there's a perception gap here, perhaps caused by the fact that the US as a nation has never faced a direct serious existential threat. The UK started srsbns bombing of Axis civilian targets about end of 1941-start of1942. At that time, it was painfully obvious that the survival of the nation was by no means assured. At times it wasn't even considered likely. These were people who were very, very badly frightened - not just for themselves, but for their families, their country, their culture, literally everything they held dear. This was not just a traditional "rational" conflict over who got to hold a distant naval base or control some natural resource or a trade route of whatever. This was a deeply primal conflict between fundamentally irreconcilable ideologies and cultures, and was recognised as such by both the German and British*.

    These frighted, desperate people, faced with the loss of everything, also still controlled a still highly potent military, and probably the highest level of technology on the planet. This was not a good time to try and argue for - or expect - restraint. In fact it's rather surprising that as much restraint was shown as was. So far as I am aware, neither chemical or biological weapons were used, even though they could have been. In hindsight, it's obvious that there was some back-channel communication going on, and a no first use policy was arrived at somehow.

    In short, the British were absolutely 100% clear on what they were doing with those raids; they meant to do it, and they did it as hard as they could, for years, at very considerable expense and loss of life. But one of the 'meta' campaign goals was essentially a precursor of the doctrine of MAD: "If you commit atrocities against our people, we are morally prepared do the same back to you."

    That's what I meant when I said
    If one was to search for an upside to the events of London, Coventry, Liverpool, Glasgow, the French littoral, the Beidebecke Raids, Dresden, Berlin and so forth, it might perhaps be that the western world FINALLY learned that sowing the wind of mass civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction would inevitably reap the whirlwind of mass civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction to ones own side. It is therefore not a strategy which a state which considers itself accountable to its citizens can initiate.

    Please note that I'm not saying it was "ok" or "justified". I'm just disputing the assertion that it was done in ignorance, and the implication that it area bombing was a policy born out of incompetence or lack of imagination and empathy, when everything that we know from the historical record shows the opposite.

    *Possibly the US forces had a different perception, but given that allied servicemen were likely to, oh I don't know, talk to each other, and maybe go for a stroll around town and see what damage had been done, maybe not as different as is being assumed. I don't know?

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited May 2017
    President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen!
    Does anybody know what Trump is getting at here? I am trying to understand the counterfactual he is proposing.

    Andrew Jackson was Andrew Jackson so the most plausible arguments would be that he would just kill some people before it could count as a civil war and not a minor insurrection or the South would be fine with him because he was a slave owner who wanted to expand slavery.

    Couscous on
  • JedocJedoc Bringing the past to life so we can beat it to death with a shovelRegistered User regular
    Andrew Jackson committed actual genocide, with forethought and planning, for the sole purpose of financial gain for himself and his business partners. The fact that Trump holds him up as an example is one of the most terrifying things I have ever heard.

    GDdCWMm.jpg
    FleeblonelyahavaPolaritiemasterofmetroidStraightziMagellL Ron HowardintropkimeCimmeriiSlacker71Edith UpwardsHacksaw
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen!
    Does anybody know what Trump is getting at here? I am trying to understand the counterfactual he is proposing.

    Andrew Jackson was Andrew Jackson so the most plausible arguments would be that he would just kill some people before it could count as a civil war and not a minor insurrection or the South would be fine with him because he was a slave owner who wanted to expand slavery.

    What Trump is saying is "I am trying to pretend that I know anything about American History, and did not say something ludicrously stupid this morning"

    GvzbgulShortyKayne Red RobelonelyahavatynicmasterofmetroidL Ron HowardEdith UpwardsHacksaw
  • PiptheFairPiptheFair Registered User regular
    andrew jackson ordered the trail of tears to help stave off the civil war, which he viewed as inevitable eventually

    so

    good work trump

  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    PiptheFair wrote: »
    andrew jackson ordered the trail of tears to help stave off the civil war, which he viewed as inevitable eventually

    so

    good work trump

    ciiiiiiiiite

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen!
    Does anybody know what Trump is getting at here? I am trying to understand the counterfactual he is proposing.

    Andrew Jackson was Andrew Jackson so the most plausible arguments would be that he would just kill some people before it could count as a civil war and not a minor insurrection or the South would be fine with him because he was a slave owner who wanted to expand slavery.

    Trump is speaking out of his ass. He didn't even know what years Andrew Jackson served until he asked an aid. So, none of what I write below should be construed as something that Trump would know about or understand.

    Jackson would have prevented the Civil War because he was pro-slavery. His election would not have caused the southern states to secede. He wanted the US to keep going and if that meant chattel slavery then that was okay with him.
    However, he nearly caused the civil war to start early on his own. During the Nullification Crisis South Carolina (with support from other southern states) attempted to "nullify" tariffs, meaning that they claimed to be able to pass laws that superseded the taxation powers of the federal government. The states said no, and the fed said "fuck you, pay us". South Carolina threatened to secede from the union, and Jackson was on the verge of getting congress to pass the aptly named Force Act, which would give him blanket powers to use the US military to force the southern states to follow the tariffs.

    After these events Jackson stated that the tariff was simply an excuse, and that the next time the south tried to secede it would be over slavery.
    Did he know it was coming? Well shit, everyone knew it was coming. Every grab for territory in US history was specifically negotiated to put off a civil war a little while longer.

    ShortyFencingsaxMayabirdSkeithProhasstynicmasterofmetroidStraightziIronKnuckle's GhostMvrcka5ehrenintropSlacker71Edith Upwardsnever dieHacksaw
  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    i just finished watching the 1990s ken burns series on the civil war, but im really interested in what happened in the south in the following decades. Is there any documentaries or books on that period people would recommend? Even stuff that doesnt cover solely that period is fine.

  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited May 2017
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen!
    Does anybody know what Trump is getting at here? I am trying to understand the counterfactual he is proposing.

    Andrew Jackson was Andrew Jackson so the most plausible arguments would be that he would just kill some people before it could count as a civil war and not a minor insurrection or the South would be fine with him because he was a slave owner who wanted to expand slavery.

    Trump is speaking out of his ass. He didn't even know what years Andrew Jackson served until he asked an aid. So, none of what I write below should be construed as something that Trump would know about or understand.

    Jackson would have prevented the Civil War because he was pro-slavery. His election would not have caused the southern states to secede. He wanted the US to keep going and if that meant chattel slavery then that was okay with him.
    However, he nearly caused the civil war to start early on his own. During the Nullification Crisis South Carolina (with support from other southern states) attempted to "nullify" tariffs, meaning that they claimed to be able to pass laws that superseded the taxation powers of the federal government. The states said no, and the fed said "fuck you, pay us". South Carolina threatened to secede from the union, and Jackson was on the verge of getting congress to pass the aptly named Force Act, which would give him blanket powers to use the US military to force the southern states to follow the tariffs.

    After these events Jackson stated that the tariff was simply an excuse, and that the next time the south tried to secede it would be over slavery.
    Did he know it was coming? Well shit, everyone knew it was coming. Every grab for territory in US history was specifically negotiated to put off a civil war a little while longer.

    whats amazing about trump is hes so stupid that you feel stupid having to examine his statements and respond to them. Its as if you had to respond to a toddlers comments on the civil war. Because frankly Andrew Jackson being awful is more complex a point than the nonsense his meandering blather actually suggests he could possibly understand. He doesnt even understand that people have ASKED WHY THE CIVIL WAR HAPPENED.

    Prohass on
    Donovan PuppyfuckerL Ron HowardIronKnuckle's Ghost
  • Donovan PuppyfuckerDonovan Puppyfucker A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
    Even right-wing sources like Prager U agree that the Civil War was about one main thing, slavery:

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    A State's Right to what, sir?

    L Ron HowardintropknitdanfacetiousDisruptedCapitalistFencingsaxSlacker71Kayne Red Robenever die
  • Lost SalientLost Salient blink twice if you'd like me to mercy kill youRegistered User regular
    BackStory!

    BackStory is a GREAT American history podcast and EVERYONE should listen to it. Seriously, it's wonderful and a delight and they've just changed their format slightly so now they also have a more diverse group of historians in regular rotation.

    Everyone go listen to and support BackStory.

    RUVCwyu.jpg
    "Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
  • Lost SalientLost Salient blink twice if you'd like me to mercy kill youRegistered User regular
    ...all of my other history podcasts are also comedy, or they're 30-hour Great Courses lectures.

    RUVCwyu.jpg
    "Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Like, you could claim there were others causes to the Civil War, but the root of those causes was, you guessed it, slavery.

    Slavery was the cause of the Civil War, and I'm tired of hearing other wise.

    DouglasDangerRMS OceanicmasterofmetroidVegemytePolaritieL Ron HowardSkeithChallPhoenix-Dvalhalla130kimefacetiousFencingsaxBahamutZEROSlacker71Edith UpwardsKayne Red Robenever dieHacksaw
  • Donovan PuppyfuckerDonovan Puppyfucker A dagger in the dark is worth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered User regular
    Like, even Prager U say it was all about slavery, and they have videos like "Israel: The World's Most Moral Army", "War on Boys", "Who Are The Racists: Conservatives or Liberals?" and "Why Isn't Communism as Hated as Nazism?" so you can probably tell how far hard-right those clownshoes motherfuckers are.

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    Yeah, state's rights were a concern to the South only so far as they intersected with the issue of slavery. The South was happy to take away state's rights, from Northern states to benefit the institution of slavery. Just look at any of the laws around slave catchers being able to walk into other states and force citizens there into forming a posse.

    The South lost political power, was put into a position where change would be imposed on them instead of them imposing change on others, knew that would mean them losing slavery and left the union. It's pretty cut and dry.

    PlatyPhoenix-D
Sign In or Register to comment.