points. So what was the turning point in your nation's history. What was that seminal moment after which things were never again the same. And was it for better or worse; can or should it be reversed? Now there's food for thought.

In America, it would have to have been the war against federal agression. It was at this poit that the founding philosophies of our nation were forever altered. Abraham Lincoln, while elected on the Republican platform, defied the party policy of the time, changing the Republican philosophy from one of individual choice and defense of civil liberties to that of a centralized federal machine, mandating everything from local government to individual conduct, even now, religious belief.

Remember before you cry out that Lincoln was the "Great Emancipator" that the issue of slavery was only a token issue, used by the spin artists of the time to justify Lincoln's attack on state's rights. Slavery as an economic institution was already on the wane at the time, and was becoming impractical, probably phasing itself out of existence before too long anyway. The real issue was what role the federal government would play in state and local affairs.

Of course present state of affairs being what it is, federal government plays a vital role in all of our day to day lives, but one can't help but wonder what might have happened had Lincoln not denied the constitutional right of the State of South Carolina to secede from the union.

Not to get off track but I have a story about Abraham Lincoln. It may or may not be true as it is a story passed down generation to generation in my family. So Abe was a lawyer before he became President and he defended one of my ancestors in a murder trial. The story goes that one of the family members had been mentally and physically abused by another of the family and he got tired of it and defended himself one day resulting in the death of the other. Abe was able to prove the mental anguish from years of abuse and build a case of self defense. He played on the sympathies of the court and they unanimously declared the defendant innocent. Like I said, it is a story passed down and I do not have the details and actually have not looked it up to be true. However is a good story and says a lot about the character of a man like Abe.

For me, the one thing that made the biggest impact and change to the country I live in has to be the sandwich invented by John Montagu, the 4th Earl of Sandwich in 1762. Before 1762 the men would spend all morning getting their maids to tighten up their corsets and women waxing their mistaches in time for lunch, which would be 4 four course sit down meal. Cheese and biscuits were always rushed to ensure there was enough time to freshen up for dinner.

Now, us brits can enjoy a sandwich and a cup of tea on the bowling green and spend a relaxing afternoon ironing our smalls.

Ani XXX

I had always heard that the Earl was an avid gambler, and that the invention of the ubiquitous snack that today bears his name was quite by accident when, finding himself a mite peckish during a round of snooker or a particularly important hand of canasta, as one version tells it, the Earl grabbed a piece of meat and a slice of bread from a fellow player's plate and voila! It has been said that the nobleman never ate anything else for the rest of his days and as a result, suffered from gout and died fat. Of course, that could have been from the French fries, the history of which will be forthcoming at some later time.

Allow me to add a few thoughts.
Robyn, you are correct in saying that the issue of slavery was a hype. Unfortunately, some or rather too many people still believe it was the main reason the "War between the States" was fought.
Slavery in the US was definately on the outs, anti-slavery sentiment was growing. For example New York city had had slaves since colonial times and finally freed the remaining individuals in 1854(or there abouts). Pres. Lincoln did issue the Emancipation Proclamation but it only freed slaves in the states that left the union, with the intent of crippling their economy.
In my humble opinion, the big change came with the debate over states rights vs federal in the early 1960s. I think this was a period of major change. The states, even the northern, would not grant equal status to any minority group. It took federal courts to define and enforce the changes which were already established. I was living in Atlanta, GA at the time and saw Civil Rights marches, bussing civil rights activists from the north, church bombings in Birmingham AL and finally desegregation of schools and work places. It was the start of the break up of the Democratic Party control of the southern states and eventually lead to the increase of Republican Party voters. Unfortunately, the ripple affects are still being felt politically and culturally.

Gracie

This really is interesting. I focused on social dislocation, civil war and revolution at University and also did American studies. So this is a subject I love and know fairly well. I'll keep this brief because I want to reply in some detail. As far as I'm concerned Mr Lincoln's reputation is in many respects unwarranted and unfounded. The war wasn't fought over slavery and the slavery issue was an adjunct to the policy of northern hegemony. The Emancipation Proclamation was an act of political opportunism. If you share the view that the southern States had the right to secede from the Union then Lincoln waged an aggressive and illegal war. And we know what that means in modern parlance. But I'll leave it there for now. Would be interesting though, to know if States Rights is still a live issue.

I just love that story about Mr Lincoln defending your ancestor. I really hope it's true, what a great piece of family history. Anyway I want to get all you girls around a table and have a heated debate, in between wine, nibbles and a spot of dancing, of course. About 8 o'clock at my place, is that ok. You to Mere, so we can lock horns. And Anyfer, I'll make you one of the Earl's sandwiches - cheese and onion with lashings of pickle.

Well, I did warn that I was going to get back too you on the subject of the Civil War, and as I have daylight to burn, here I am. This is just a personal opinion and don't think my strong Irish antecedents and radical anti-monarchical upbringing has in any way influenced me should you discern a sympathy for the independence struggles of small nations. Please feel free to disagree with me as I am happy to dispute amiably unlike some, I have recently discovered, who take any disagreement to be a personal sleight and rush to personal abuse as their preferred weapon of choice. I don't dwell in the world of small minds. This is in no particular order and is just a series of random thoughts on the issue. So it isn't a thorough, sustained and analytical assessment of a most complex subject, just what comes to mind.

The Lost Cause

So what about the so-called ' Lost Cause ', which recent revisionist historians have gone to such great lengths to debunk. Yes it was a lost cause from its very inception, and not just because of the mathematics involved. Though the odds were always very long. Just to take one or two examples. The South had a collective population of 9 million of whom 4 million were slaves. And like any slave society in history lived in fear of the monster it had created within its own borders. This compares unfavourably with the upwards of 26 million that resided in the North. The city of New York alone possessed a greater industrial output than that of all the Southern States put together. And this is just a brief summation of some of the logistics. It does go on and on. Politically the South had to create a State from scratch, not only this but to find a cogency, cohesion and unity in an entity based upon its polar opposite - States Rights. It had no army ( granted, there was the militia system and it took a great part and the cream of the federal officer corps with it ). It had no navy, it had no central Government, and a largely single commodity based economy. Indeed despite the exaggerated claims for ' King Cotton ' it was economically a one trick pony. So it was dependent upon imports for its survival and this with a vast coastline and no navy to defend it. Despite the logistics however, what really made the South's break for independence a lost cause was its inability to win that independence without the consent of the North. The South never at any time had the resources available to wholly defeat and occupy its enemy. They could win battles but could not win the war. This is something I believe President Jefferson Davis understood. He was always most concerned with the impossibly herculean task of defending the territorial integrity of the vast land mass that was the Confederacy. Something each individual State demanded. Yet at the end of the day how could the South be anything but the client state of its much more powerful neighbour to the north. A neighbour no doubt hell bent on revenge. Something that no amount of dreams about a great slave empire to the south could ever extinguish. It was only a matter of time before military defeat came. The South had one opportunity to win the war in the days immediately following Bull Run, or the first battle of Manassas, in the spring of 1861. But even then it is likely the Federal Government would simply have retreated further North. To paraphrase Lincoln " give me a General who understands the numbers." He found that General in Ulysses S. Grant who despite bloody setbacks at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor simply continued to advance. The horrid but wholly logical understanding being we can sustain the losses the South cannot.


Legitimacy

You will have to forgive me for I am a little weak here and stand ready for correction. I don't have my copy of the U.S Constitution to hand and ploughing through all my books, notes and folders is something I am disinclined to do. If memory serves me right it is difficult to find within the Constitution any explicit reference to the right to secede from the Union. But then it also does not say you cannot. It is open to interpretion as indeed all constitutions are which is why you have a Supreme Court. It does say that " powers not otherwise delegated to the Federal Authorities remain in the hand of the People." Does this mean the elected State Government as the expression of the Will of the People. I don't know. But then the South could invoke the right to revolt, and I don't believe the States would have voluntarilly joined a Union they thought could never leave.

Slavery

Is slavery wrong? Of course it is, that is a stupid question. It goes totally against the grain of our modern sensibilities and our implicit understanding of right and wrong. Yet for most of human history it has been a fact. The wealth of nations has been founded on it none more so than my own. The Industrial Revolution was driven by the profits made from the shipment and sale of slaves. So while Britain piously pats itself on the back for abolishing the slave trade it should in turn also remember that its wealth, its pre-eminent place in the world, and the global Empire that ensued from it was financed by the evil of slavery. By 1861 this 'peculiar institution' had no future. The South sustained it as much out of fear of the possible consequences of its abolition as any economic necessity. And was the war fought over slavery? No, Lincoln would have permitted its continuation in the Slave States if by doing so he could have preserved the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was an act of political expediency and even at the Hampton Roads conference in early 1865 he was willing to financially compensate the slave owners.

Abraham Lincoln

A difficult man to place in context. He was the man who abolished slavery and preserved the United States as a single entity. He stands high in the pantheon of heroes. Yet like many such men the reality is far more complex. He deserves his status but his hands are not clean. He rode roughshod over the Constitution he had vowed to defend, he suspended Habeas Corpus and he waged war on his fellow Americans. A war that resulted in over 600,000 deaths and saw the wilful destruction, ravaging and rape of Georgia, South Carolina and much of the South. And before anyone reminds me I know the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter. Was in the light of everything John Wilkes Booth so very wrong. But as he lay dying he held up his hand's and cried Useless! Useless! And he was right, because for all the destruction he had wrought, Lincoln was probably was the best man to rebuild the nation. And he wouldn't be the first, nor will he be the last, to do evil out of the intention to do only good.

As I say, just a few random thoughts. And I can only guess that if you read it you weren't bored by it; and I apologise for the many mistakes and poor standard of writing. My only excuse being that it was written in haste. Anyway, please do take issue with me.

I am not going to argue with Robyn on this point, but I will elaborate more. The Civil War once and for all established the federal government over that of the states. With the end of the War, and the eventual passage of the crucial 14th amendment, the Federal government finally made the Bill of Rights binding upon the states as well as Congress.