Yes, it is your history, and very interesting to see how much you agree on this point. No need for me to hold my ground then.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

If you want to boil it down further, the events of the first week of July, 1863, were arguably the most important events w/in the Civil War.

Lee is defeated at Gettysburg, and Grant takes Vicksburg.

Certainly, the single most important event of the 19th century for the US was in 1863, when Congress authorized a track width of 4'8½" for the Union Pacific Rail Road. Those sure were interesting times.

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

The Civil War played a major role in determining the route of the treanscontinental railroad. Before the war there was a dispute in congress between the northern and southern states over what route should be taken. That dispute ended once the south left the union.

Stephen Ambrose wrote a pretty good book on the transcontinenetal RR.

I hope you weren't offended by the way I put that, if so accept my apologies. I was almost as suprised myself that those of us who can't agree on pretty much anything else agreed on this.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

I must concur with the American's replies here - there is NOTHING that is even remotely close to the US Civil War as being the most important American political event of the 19th century.

Indeed, I've given up trying to explain to non-Americans that if they don't understand the US Civil War in all of its complexities, they have no business trying to discuss US politics. The core issues that drove the US Civil War are as alive today as it they have ever been.

Why? They just copied the Brits.

The vast majority of Americans, myself included, do not understand all of the complexities of the war which is why it is even more difficult for non-americans to understand why it happened and its effects. It goes way beyond the idea that it was a war over slavery which is a common belief.

Absolutely, at its core it was about states rights, but slavery was but one component of that complex issue. I also agree that most Americans in fact do not really understand the what caused the civil war and its ramifications. Listening to Europeans try to explain the Civil War is like listening to Americans explain the War of the Roses, or the Russian Civil War

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Well, this Canadian prides himself on being able to discuss the US Civil War with any American, and I'll discuss the War of the Roses with any Brit history buff and while I'm a bit weak on Russian cultural issues, I'll also discuss the Russian Civil War (Whites vs Bolshies). In my opinion, the English Civil War (Cavaliers & Roundheads) is even more politically complicated than the other Civil Wars mentioned here, though the War of the Roses is definitely esoteric!

I kid, I kid. Obviously, the Civil War was far and above more important than Congress settling on what width the railroad should be.

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speakeasy
Certainly, the single most important event of the 19th century for the US was in 1863, when Congress authorized a track width of 4'8½" for the Union Pacific Rail Road. Those sure were interesting times.

I know Speakeasy was goofing around, but it is amazing (well, to me, anyway) how wide the impact of the war was on so many things.

Before the civil war the tracks in the north and south weren't compatible. Most of the north was using the "standard" (Brit) guage. There were at least 3 different guages in the south.

With the south out of Congress the adoption of the standard used in the north was easy. With the destruction of so much track in the south during the war, when it was over rebuilding in standard guage became a foregone conclusion.

The varying guages in the south also caused serious logistical problems for the south during the war.

'States Rights' is (and has always been) a codeword for slavery and oppression.

Also remember the North fought the Civil War in what can best be described as a half-hearted fashion.

Of equal importance was settling the West.

Remember the Homestead Act of 1862?

Joao states rights was indeed just a code word at one time. Now however that has changed somewhat. Not the fact that it is a code word, just what that code word stands for.

Please explain the half hearted comment. Don't mention websites if you are going to use them to do it actually link to them.

The settling of the west was important, but not nearly as important as the civil war.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

While "states rights" may have been an argument raised by states seeking to retain slavery, the concept did not originate there, and has not "always been a codeword for slavery and oppression."

There has always been a tension between the states and the federal government over what powers reside with the fed, what powers reside with the states, and whether a state could be bound by a fed law the state deems to be one that was beyond the power of the fed govt to pass (ie, beyond its constitutional reach) or was unconstitutional.

For instance, in opposing the Alien & Sedition Act Jefferson contended that "the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy."

So in one of the earliest instances, a "states right" argument was used to support a claim that a law that was "oppressive" was one that could be "nullified" by a state.