Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame. | Page 9 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54267 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Economic interests was a supporting factor that made up the actual reasons. . .but it wasn't the reason.
Of course economics was the reason. You think if Southern Planters had gained access to Automated Cotton Picker/Module Makers that could bring their harvest to market at half the cost, they'd have given a rat's arse about holding slaves?

Seriously?


Of course economics was the reason.






Back to top
Roaad
LSU Fan
Bushrod Owns
Member since Aug 2006
52778 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Cotton, and rice, and indigo


It was: The South starring cotton, with small cameos by rice and indigo

quote:

While the pace of industrialization picked up in the North in the 1850s, the agricultural economy of the slave South grew, if anything, more entrenched. In the decade before the Civil War cotton prices rose more than 50 percent, to 11.5 cents a pound. Booming cotton prices stimulated new western cultivation and actually checked modest initiatives in economic diversification of the previous decade. The U.S. cotton crop nearly doubled, from 2.1 million bales in 1850 to 3.8 million bales ten years later. Not surprisingly, given these figures, the southern economy remained overwhelmingly agricultural. Southern capitalists sank money into cotton rather than factories or land. More precisely, they invested in slaves; the average slave owner held almost two-thirds of his wealth in slaves in 1860, much less than he held in land. Economic historians have concluded that returns on capital in antebellum Southern manufacturing were reasonable and sometimes lucrative, but they simply failed to attract investors in any numbers. By 1860, while northeastern states such as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had nearly $100 million each invested in manufacturing enterprises, even Virginia, the most industrialized of the Southern states, had invested less than $20 million, and the figure dropped below $5 million elsewhere in the South. A comparison of the value of goods manufactured in each region is similarly lopsided: more than $150 million each for Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, less than $30 million for Virginia, and less than $5 million for Alabama.


LINK






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Roaad
LSU Fan
Bushrod Owns
Member since Aug 2006
52778 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

You think if Southern Planters had gained access to Automated Cotton Picker/Module Makers that could bring their harvest to market at half the cost, they'd have given a rat's arse about holding slaves?
Economics was the largest apologetic for slavery, to be sure. But it wasn't the only one.







Back to top
League Champs
Bayou Self
Member since Oct 2012
3336 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

So the North fired on Fort Sumter?

Revisionism much?
quote:

On December 26, 1860, six days after South Carolina declared its secession, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie and secretly relocated the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter without orders from Washington. Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. Union attempts to resupply and reinforce the garrison were repulsed on January 9, 1861. The Military College of South Carolina prevented a hired steamer from transporting troops and supplies to Fort Sumter. President Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships, under the command of Gustavus V. Fox, to attempt entry into Charleston Harbor and supply Fort Sumter.

I'm pretty sure all these events ocurred AFTER So Carolina left the Union.

Sounds more like an invasion to me, n'est pas?






Back to top
Roaad
LSU Fan
Bushrod Owns
Member since Aug 2006
52778 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Sounds more like an invasion to me, n'est pas?
nope.

The Union never recognized the right of the states to secede. Therefore, to the Union, they were well within their rights to resupply their base.

The CSA disagreed and started the war







Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54267 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Economics was the largest apologetic for slavery, to be sure. But it wasn't the only one.
Please do elaborate.






Back to top
Roaad
LSU Fan
Bushrod Owns
Member since Aug 2006
52778 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Please do elaborate.
How many times must I do this. . .?

There were several apologetics for slavery and the subjugation of black African.

-Economic
-Social
-Cultural
-Religious
-Traditional
-Academic

Which do you need me to elaborate on? I assume you capable of understanding at least some of them.






Back to top
Rocket
Northwestern Fan
Member since Mar 2004
60983 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

NC_Tigah


Still living in denial, still refusing to embrace the new South.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54267 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

There were several apologetics for slavery and the subjugation of black African.

-Economic
-Social
-Cultural
-Religious
-Traditional
-Academic
I have no idea WTF you think you're saying, but if your past-tense reference to "apologetics" targets contemporary antebellum perceptions, I'd enjoy your elaboration on each or any aspect.
quote:

I assume you capable of understanding at least some of them
Well hot shot, you lay it out and I'll try to keep up






Back to top
  Replies (0)
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
12270 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

The North fought for tariffs used to raise revenue on the backs of Southerners. Southerners fought for States rights. Those are also indisputable facts.




no seriously







Back to top
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
12270 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Bull ficking shite.

The US was founded on the right to take leave from their governing authority. Funny how the north turned into King George all of a sudden, and diametrically opposed to its founding principles


actually no.

But once again. Don't let the facts get in the way of your trolling






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Rocket
Northwestern Fan
Member since Mar 2004
60983 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Nc_Tigah isn't the sharpest guy around. He really thinks he can just post as much bull shite around here and nobody will catch on or call him on it.

Perhaps NC_Tigah is a direct descendant of Jefferson Davis.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
12270 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

I'm pretty sure all these events ocurred AFTER So Carolina left the Union.

Sounds more like an invasion to me, n'est pas?


The sad fact of this is. You aren't even good at this.

American warships attempting to resupply an American fort were fired on by rebellious citizens.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54267 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

asurob1
You disagree that tariffs and states rights were each contributory in part to decisions to go to war?

Really?

Perhaps you didn't read the response as carefully as you thought.






Back to top
Rocket
Northwestern Fan
Member since Mar 2004
60983 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

You disagree that tariffs and states rights were each contributory in part to decisions to go to war? Really? Perhaps you didn't read the response as carefully as you thought.


He was laughing at how far you'll go out of your way for refusing to concede slavery was THE reason the south fought. That's what apologists for the Confederacy do.

Almost similar to George Tenet on 60 minutes denying the CIA tortures people but admits to enhanced interrogation tactics.






Back to top
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
12270 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

He was laughing at how far you'll go out of your way for refusing to concede slavery was THE reason the south fought. That's what apologists for the Confederacy do.


No no, let him continue. I am truly enjoying just how far these guys are going to ignore the truth about their precious south.






Back to top
2ToughTiger
LSU Fan
Virginia
Member since Sep 2012
194 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Most slave owners were white. There were very few black slave owners. Don't try to justify slavery with this bs. Slavery was wrong and demeaning to a race of people. Lincoln knew slavery was wrong and he did the right thing. Slavery was not ending and would be around today if white people thought it was still good for America. Slavery had to be enforced just like integration.





Back to top
JB14
Ole Miss Fan
Sutpen's Hundred
Member since May 2012
254 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Therefore, to the Union, they were well within their rights to resupply their base.



To be fair here, Lincoln et al. clearly knew what they were doing in ordering Maj. Robert Anderson to stand-by and await resupply. I mean damn, Lincoln had a tough enough time convincing his cabinet, Seward in particular, of the necessity of this action. Somehow he managed to sway them on his second try.

Sheer political brilliance from Lincoln. Knowingly defying Beauregard's ultimatum and initiating a conflict while simultaneously casting your opponent as the aggressor.






Back to top
JB14
Ole Miss Fan
Sutpen's Hundred
Member since May 2012
254 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Most slave owners were white. There were very few black slave owners. Don't try to justify slavery with this bs. Slavery was wrong and demeaning to a race of people. Lincoln knew slavery was wrong and he did the right thing. Slavery was not ending and would be around today if white people thought it was still good for America. Slavery had to be enforced just like integration.


See Brazil, 1888 for a lesson in abolition. Thanks.



This post was edited on 11/24 at 4:02 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
asurob1
Florida State Fan
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
12270 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Sheer political brilliance from Lincoln. Knowingly defying Beauregard's ultimatum and initiating a conflict while simultaneously casting your opponent as the aggressor.


certainly. The point remains. Resupplying American troops on American territory and peaceful until they were attacked by rebellious citizens.






Back to top


Back to top