In response to:

History Suggests That Entitlement Era Is Winding Down

SMyles Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 9:09 AM
"Nineteenth-century Americans went to war over expansion of slavery." Wasn't it a war over succession? If not, why weren't the southern states allowed to succeed? Early 20th-century Americans grappled with the collapse of the private sector economy in the Depression of the 1930s. You could at least mention why the collapse lasted so long. Hint, government (Hoover and Roosevelt)
SMyles Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 9:21 AM
jeez. I give up. Secede. Maybe I'll get new glasses for my birthday. I don't worry too much about spelling because of all the shortcut styles, but using the wrong word entirely is pretty bad. Gotta pay more attention to the auto suggest feature.
Robert97 Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 9:55 AM
Historians argue this both ways. I think there is a quote from Lincoln that he thought it was about secession. But why did the southern states want to secede?
SMyles Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 11:33 AM
I guess they believed they would be better off by doing so. I believe Lincoln was willing to keep slavery legal if it was necessary to keep the south from succeeding. But the Union was supposed to be voluntary.
It's often good fun and sometimes revealing to divide American history into distinct periods of uniform length. In working on my forthcoming book on American migrations, internal and immigrant, it occurred to me that you could do this using the American-sounding interval of 76 years, just a few years more than the Biblical lifespan of three score and 10.

It was 76 years from Washington's First Inaugural in 1789 to Lincoln's Second Inaugural in 1865. It was 76 years from the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865 to the attack at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Going backward, it was 76 years...