- 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: Was the Civil War About Slavery?
Posted on 8/11/15 at 6:13 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Posted on 8/11/15 at 6:13 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
Was the Civil War About Slavery?
Does it really matter now, we'll deal with the issue now and always either way.
0
Posted on 8/11/15 at 6:16 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Dude, come on.
Posted on 8/11/15 at 6:16 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Posted on 8/11/15 at 6:16 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
The war was about a state's rights...
...to own slaves.
...to own slaves.
Posted on 8/11/15 at 6:18 pm to TheOcean
I was about both. Slavery and States rights.
Do some research prior to the Civil War concerning Congressional Bills. It's an eye - opener.
Do some research prior to the Civil War concerning Congressional Bills. It's an eye - opener.
Posted on 8/11/15 at 6:20 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
The civil war was about states rights, the gulf war was about freedom and the Punic wars were about a suitable place to dispose of salt.
End of discussion.
ETA Punic wars, I'm retarded.
End of discussion.
ETA Punic wars, I'm retarded.
This post was edited on 8/11/15 at 6:26 pm
Posted on 8/11/15 at 6:58 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
The Union won, so yes.
Posted on 8/11/15 at 6:59 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
No, it was about States' rights.
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:05 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
I honestly couldn't care less. I don't know anybody that participated in the war. I'll never know anybody that participated in the war. It literally has no effect on me or mine. It was about State's Rights, yes. But within those rights was the right to own slaves.
Still wish we'd have won then we wouldn't have to put up with the liberal fricks north of the mason Dixon.
Eta: history is written by the victors so we'll probably never know the entire true story.
Also, I think it was something like only 3% of the people in the south at the time actually owned slaves. So take that fwiw.
Still wish we'd have won then we wouldn't have to put up with the liberal fricks north of the mason Dixon.
Eta: history is written by the victors so we'll probably never know the entire true story.
Also, I think it was something like only 3% of the people in the south at the time actually owned slaves. So take that fwiw.
This post was edited on 8/11/15 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:08 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Yes.
Every war in the history of the world, whether it involves humans, animals, otherkin, etc., has been about power but this one was different because white people are evil.
Every war in the history of the world, whether it involves humans, animals, otherkin, etc., has been about power but this one was different because white people are evil.
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:10 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Any time I read source documents it leads me to believe, at the head of state level, the war was about slavery.
But at the soldier level, which is the level that contains most of our ancestors, I think the war was about more than that. I think family, pride, preservation of life, and fear of Northern aggression played more of a role for the soldiers than preserving plantation owners desire to own other humans as property.
But at the soldier level, which is the level that contains most of our ancestors, I think the war was about more than that. I think family, pride, preservation of life, and fear of Northern aggression played more of a role for the soldiers than preserving plantation owners desire to own other humans as property.
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:13 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Was the Iraqi war (part deux) about weapons of mass destruction?
Yes, when it needed to be about that the gain the general publics support, it was about weapons of mass destruction. In the later years, we've discovered that either the weapons were smuggled into or Iran or never existed. Same can be said about Civil War... it wasn't about slavery, it was about losing key infrastructure south, to include the Mississippi valley. Ending slavery helped push the agenda and allowed access to plenty of freed slaves to do grunt work in exchange for their freedom. Purely a strategic move from the yanks.
Yes, when it needed to be about that the gain the general publics support, it was about weapons of mass destruction. In the later years, we've discovered that either the weapons were smuggled into or Iran or never existed. Same can be said about Civil War... it wasn't about slavery, it was about losing key infrastructure south, to include the Mississippi valley. Ending slavery helped push the agenda and allowed access to plenty of freed slaves to do grunt work in exchange for their freedom. Purely a strategic move from the yanks.
This post was edited on 8/11/15 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:19 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to ourpeculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Confederate Cornerstone Address
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:20 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
The Civil Was was not about slavery. It was about the succession of the Confederacy.
No one was going to war over slave ownership and slavery continued in the North post Civil War. The claim that it was over slavery holds no water.
No one was going to war over slave ownership and slavery continued in the North post Civil War. The claim that it was over slavery holds no water.
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:21 pm to SpiderY2Bannana
quote:
The claim that it was over slavery holds no water.
Except from the mouth of the Confederate Vice President
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:21 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Hot headed southern politicians seceded to protect slavery in late 60 and early 61 in response to the election of Lincoln.
When the CSA drafted a constitution, it was pretty much verbatim to the US constitution, except for a clause that guaranteed slavery.
But no it wasn't about slavery.
When the CSA drafted a constitution, it was pretty much verbatim to the US constitution, except for a clause that guaranteed slavery.
But no it wasn't about slavery.
This post was edited on 8/11/15 at 7:23 pm
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:27 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
If it was about slavery, the Emancipation thingy only freed them south of Mason Dixon line, it was still legal for Yankees .....
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:27 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
Was the Civil War About Slavery?
El gaucho alter?
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:28 pm to SpiderY2Bannana
quote:
The Civil Was was not about slavery. It was about the succession of the Confederacy.
Posted on 8/11/15 at 7:45 pm to Ping Pong
Of course it was. Anyone who says otherwise is being obtuse, ignorant or silly.
The irony of course is that the overwhelming percentage of the Northerners did not have any great moral outrage at slavery and the same overwhelming percentage of the Southerners would never own a slave.
What is the old quote...? "Rich man's war, poor man's fight."
The irony of course is that the overwhelming percentage of the Northerners did not have any great moral outrage at slavery and the same overwhelming percentage of the Southerners would never own a slave.
What is the old quote...? "Rich man's war, poor man's fight."
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News