- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: History Topic: Did R.E. Lee Betray His Countrymen?
Posted on 4/12/15 at 5:44 pm to AU86
Posted on 4/12/15 at 5:44 pm to AU86
quote:
Give them hell.
Ok I will keep firing.
quote:
It accepts the shallow but unchallenged premise that the Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms. This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simply cannot be reconciled.
quote:Sorry, I couldn't keep it to just 2 paragraphs for this link
Both Lincoln and the slaveholders well knew in 1860 that a constitutional amendment ending slavery would never be mathematically feasible. But Lincoln further understood that the South was gravitating toward secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether: The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue.
Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. government. Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad.
The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America's citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government's costs.
Read that whole link it is really good.
Even wikipedia list more than just slavery (yes slavry was a big issue) as an issue
quote:Read me
The notion that slave labor for cotton fields caused the Civil War has been reinforced by textbooks and fictional narratives for more than a century. Historians, however, argue for a more nuanced, complex understanding. The Civil War was fought for many reasons, not solely or even primarily because of the growing importance of cotton on southern farms. Moving away from economic differences and cotton as simplistic causes leads to a more complex and far more interesting story.
0
Posted on 4/12/15 at 5:58 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
The North was more religious than the South back then. In fact, the abolitionist movement was an evangelical movement, and one of the factors in opposing slavery was the Puritan work ethic (which held that you didn't have the right to live off of someone else's labor).
The South was just as religious as the north. The South used a Pentecostal (or maybe it was Presbyterian) argument to justify slavery because it was in the Bible.
The North didn't like living off other ppl's labor then why did they pass a tariff that accounted for 90% of the federal income (the south paid way more than theri share of that BTW)? Why did the north like making products with raw material from slavery and then selling the products back to the south? Why then they want to use money from stolen cotton produced (I guess 2 wrongs make a right) to finance the first 40 miles of he trancontinental railroad? Why did the north use a system that hired immigrants off the boat from Ireland and only paid them in company currency and working conditions that lead to the labor movements and the invention of communism (more Europe than the north, but the conditions were similar)?
GTFO of here with your the north was more moral or religious than the south. The truth is they were both morally bankrupt and only cared about $$$$, they just varied on how they wanted to make that $$$.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:22 pm to WeeWee
quote:
It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery.
However, equally true is the statement: "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war." (This was made by Sydney E. Ahlstrome, in his monumental study of religion in America A Religious History of the American People, Yale University Press,1972, on p. 649; it was echoed by Maj. General John B. Gordon, CSA, in his Memoirs, Chapter 1, first page)
quote:
So-was the war about slavery? Of course. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights.
LINK
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:22 pm to sugar71
quote:
If Lincoln wasn't interested in ending slavery
Let's ask him and not the writer's of secessionist constitutions. Here's some quotes from his First Inaugural Address. LINK
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so...Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
What about the Fugitive Slave Law? He said it was Constitutional and that he'd enforce it.
"There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional."
Seems he was more interested in addressing his role of maintaining the Union.
"And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect Union.'
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."
quote:Very odd indeed since I'm offering the words of the President without interpretation.
Some odd revisionist history
And FTR, I'm not a Confederate apologist or "Southern Heritage" kook.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:27 pm to RollTideATL
quote:
RollTideATL
So are you now admitting that it wasn't only about slavery?
I read that link and have read the book he is talking abourt and I disagree with the author's very that ths south would not haver wanted to secede. It is impossible for you, any historian, or me to make a reliable prediction if slavery would not have been a cause. You can show me links to this historian saying X and I can show links to that historian saying Y. However the fact remains that the north and south were on a collision point for a civil war without slavery. The south felt like it paid an unfair amount of taxes thanks to the tariff and its economic opportunities were limited thanks to import taxes GB and other european countries put on american goods (mainly cotton) in response to said tariff. The difference would not have gotten better when the northern railroads started building a railroad with government subsidies that the south felt it was paying an unfair share of or Stewart bought Alaska with tax dollars. The differences would not have gotten better when Irish catholics and Chinese moved in. They wouldn't have gotten better when we finally defeated the Indians and opened up the plains. The list goes on and on, but the only accurate prediction that anyone can make is that without slavery the civil war would not have occurred in 1861, however it still would have occured.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:28 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Population wasn't prepared to fight such a war. Time and resources were on side of the North.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:35 pm to prplhze2000
So, if The USA wants to withdraw from the UN and Tommy Franks was offered command of the UN forces to invade DC and prevent this, Franks would be a traitor if he didn't accept. Many in the South considered their State as more sovereign than the United States (plural).
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:42 pm to pensacola
Blood is thicker than water.
When given the option to fight for his or her country(north) or to go home and fight for his or her family/state I'd dare say 90% of people would choose family. The other 10% would probably be shot by family if they returned home.
When given the option to fight for his or her country(north) or to go home and fight for his or her family/state I'd dare say 90% of people would choose family. The other 10% would probably be shot by family if they returned home.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:49 pm to WeeWee
I think it all boiled down to slavery at the end of the day. Were there other contributing factors... no doubt. That being said, the issue of slavery was head and shoulders above all of the other reasons and it ultimately led America to a civil war. Simply put, without slavery, there would not have been an American Civil War (at least as we know it today). The very core argument for states' rights was an argument for slavery (and government not interfering with their prerogative).
I agree that I have no idea what would have happened if slavery was not at the forefront of political landscape at the time. Could other issues or political resentment eventually have caused the war? Sure. We could have been a collision course all along, but it's all conjecture... and to your point, we'll never know.
I agree that I have no idea what would have happened if slavery was not at the forefront of political landscape at the time. Could other issues or political resentment eventually have caused the war? Sure. We could have been a collision course all along, but it's all conjecture... and to your point, we'll never know.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 6:50 pm
Posted on 4/12/15 at 7:00 pm to RollTideATL
quote:
I think it all boiled down to slavery at the end of the day. W
No it didn't all boil down to slavery at the end of the day. The attacks on slavery were just the final straw that made the south say enough is enough. Just like Ukraine did not revolt against their old president just because he refused to join the EU, but it was the final straw and therefore the easiest for outsiders to point out and say this is why they are fighting.
quote:
he very core argument for states' rights was an argument for slavery (and government not interfering with their prerogative).
No because the argument of states rights started even before there was a US Constitution and flared up multiple times in the 70s between Washington and Lincoln and it had nothing to do with slavery. The most famous being the tariff situation, but the argument was raised over the national canal and road plan, the Louisiana purchase, the national bank, the measures taken to try and end the recession in the late 1830's, the annexation of Texas. Prior to the Compromise of 1850 the political parties were split between stronger state governments (democratic-republicans and eventually democrats) and stronger federal government (Federalis, Whigs, and finally the republicans).
ETA: I am sigining off not to go watch the game. Geaux Pels!
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 4/12/15 at 7:15 pm to pensacola
quote:
So, if The USA wants to withdraw from the UN and Tommy Franks was offered command of the UN forces to invade DC and prevent this, Franks would be a traitor if he didn't accept. Many in the South considered their State as more sovereign than the United States (plural).
I get what you are trying to say but this is a terrible analogy.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 7:17 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
R.E. Lee was extremely shortsighted
So you don't understand history and your ignorant.
Got it.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 7:43 pm to WeeWee
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:08 pm to weagle99
quote:
So George Washington committed treason also, right?
He most certainly did, along with all of the other treasonous scalawags who seceded from Great Britain in 1776.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:01 pm to RollTideATL
Just stop! You are embarrassing yourself. Take a few days off of the board and dig real deep into The Missouri Compromise and The Kansas-Nebraska Act. Study up on the Nullification crisis during the Jackson Administration. Then thoroughly review the "black laws" enacted in Northern States prior to the war.....particularly those in Lincolns home State of Illinois which were the worst. If you are intellectually honest, you will comprehend some truths you were never taught regarding the war. Northern States did not give two shits about the plight of the black race. They despised them more so than Southerners who at least accorded them degrees of value as they were lifetime investments. The Northern States passed all sorts of laws to limit the number of blacks in the North. They purposely made it difficult, if not almost impossible, for blacks to function as freedmen in the region. Industrialists in the North and their complicit congressmen had one goal. That was the economic crippling and subsequent loss of political power of the South. The only way to achieve that was by ending slavery.
Had it not been for the tens of thousands of white immigrants who entered the country via the Northern States for three decades leading up to the war....slavery would not have been the central point because without those immigrants, slavery would have still been in practice in the North. The only reason it was abolished was because their were tens of thousands of white immigrants demanding WAGE PAYING jobs.
People like you who believe that their was some magnaminous moral group think that took place in the North and it was a conflict of good vs evil are the lowest common denominator in discussions on the subject.
Had it not been for the tens of thousands of white immigrants who entered the country via the Northern States for three decades leading up to the war....slavery would not have been the central point because without those immigrants, slavery would have still been in practice in the North. The only reason it was abolished was because their were tens of thousands of white immigrants demanding WAGE PAYING jobs.
People like you who believe that their was some magnaminous moral group think that took place in the North and it was a conflict of good vs evil are the lowest common denominator in discussions on the subject.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:26 pm to fouldeliverer
quote:
Yes, he did betray his countrymen. When he resigned from the U.S. Army and decided to fight for the treasonous inveterates fighting to keep the evil institution of slavery he betrayed his country.
Robert E. Lee was pardoned, and had his US citizenship restored in 1975, so the US Federal government believes otherwise.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:37 pm to Dick Leverage
You are the one embarrassing yourself. The war was about slavery. Just because Lincoln didn't actively seek to end slavery in 1861, that doesn't mean the war wasn't about slavery. The south seceded to protect slavery. Lincoln wanted to reunite the union. That was the cause of the war, ergo, the war was about slavery.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:56 pm to TigerinKorea
I never knew that
Posted on 4/13/15 at 4:01 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Have you seen Robert E Lees front yard in Virginia?
Posted on 4/13/15 at 1:33 pm to Sal Minella
quote:
Let's ask him and not the writer's of secessionist constitutions. Here's some quotes from his First Inaugural Address. LINK
Where did I say we disagreed or that I claimed Lincoln was a hardcore abolitionist?
Lincoln own words make the treason committed by the South even more sinister considering Lincolns words & EVERY CSA constitution accusing Lincoln of wanting to end slavery .
Not only were Southerners treasonous ,but irrational liars as well. We agree.
Hardcore abolitionist like Thaddeus Stevens were considered 'radicals' or 'extremist' which shows you the overall lack of will to end slavery by mainstream politicians.. Lincoln was a mainstream 'politician' (although head of the Party recently established upon ending slavery) & could not have been elected President otherwise.
Fredrick Douglass , Stevens & other abolitionists ('radicals') were highly disappointed with Lincolns feet dragging & history has made this clear. (Sort of like Civil Right Activists disappointed with JFK.).
If Lincoln strays out of the mainstream of his day he cannot be elected( see Thaddeus Stevens) nor be an effective politician.
Had Stevens been elected this would be a different discussion about whether Stevens did the right thing by hanging Lee & other Confederates, confiscating slaveholders property, etc.....among other harsh measures.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News