- 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
Who thinks that the south benefited by secession?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 8:50 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 8:50 pm
Imagine if the hot headed treasonous southern politicians made a deal with the north instead of giving us 100 years of racial disparity would have done?
9
Posted on 9/12/14 at 8:54 pm to VanCleef
quote:
Who thinks that the south benefited by secession?
Dozens I would think.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 8:58 pm to VanCleef
quote:
Imagine if the hot headed treasonous southern politicians made a deal with the north instead of giving us 100 years of racial disparity would have done?
do you really think that it was just the south that cause the 100 years of racial disparity? Also if it hadn't been for the south leaving their wouldn't have been enough states to ratify an amendment to abolish slavery.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:00 pm to VanCleef
Back to the OT with you.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:04 pm to VanCleef
The CSA economy was a fricking joke- it collapsed early on in the war, and basic foodstuffs were in short supply.
Southern white society up until northern free enterprise saved it looked like this:
1)10% of the folks were landed aristcrats of English noble descent, who owned many slaves on elegant planations.
2) 10% were "middle class" whites who worked as overseers and merchants
3) 80% of whites were poor trash who practiced subsistence farming, and lived terrible and miserable lives. Many starved, and none knew anything but dire poverty. Most historians agree that these folks were among the poorest people to ever inhabit the globe .
Southern white society up until northern free enterprise saved it looked like this:
1)10% of the folks were landed aristcrats of English noble descent, who owned many slaves on elegant planations.
2) 10% were "middle class" whites who worked as overseers and merchants
3) 80% of whites were poor trash who practiced subsistence farming, and lived terrible and miserable lives. Many starved, and none knew anything but dire poverty. Most historians agree that these folks were among the poorest people to ever inhabit the globe .
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:17 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
80% of whites were poor trash who practiced subsistence farming, and lived terrible and miserable lives. Many starved, and none knew anything but dire poverty. Most historians agree that these folks were among the poorest people to ever inhabit the globe
What a crock of shite.
The southern economy generated enormous wealth and was critical to the economic growth of the entire United States. Well over half of the richest 1 percent of Americans in 1860 lived in the South. Even more important, southern agriculture helped finance early 19th century American economic growth. Before the Civil War, the South grew 60 percent of the world’s cotton, provided over half of all U.S. export earnings, and furnished 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Cotton exports paid for a substantial share of the capital and technology that laid the basis for America’s industrial revolution.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:20 pm to Edearl Watson
How does that contradict what Hail posted?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:23 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
80% of whites were poor trash who practiced subsistence farming, and lived terrible and miserable lives. Many starved, and none knew anything but dire poverty. Most historians agree that these folks were among the poorest people to ever inhabit the globe
Please cite this. a-hole.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:36 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The CSA economy was a fricking joke- it collapsed early on in the war, and basic foodstuffs were in short supply.
Southern white society up until northern free enterprise saved it looked like this:
1)10% of the folks were landed aristcrats of English noble descent, who owned many slaves on elegant planations.
2) 10% were "middle class" whites who worked as overseers and merchants
3) 80% of whites were poor trash who practiced subsistence farming, and lived terrible and miserable lives. Many starved, and none knew anything but dire poverty. Most historians agree that these folks were among the poorest people to ever inhabit the globe .
You need a history lesson. Yankee.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:36 pm to Jake88
quote:
How does that contradict what Hail posted?
He made a sweeping nonsensical generalization. I provided facts.
Yet you question my post?
"Let them declare that the South cannot feed herself, that she can be starved! We'll show em.
But Lincoln already knew the South could not be starved.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:45 pm to Edearl Watson
Your post did not dispute the percentages he listed.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:46 pm to Edearl Watson
quote:And where was most of this wealth concentrated? I wonder.
The southern economy generated enormous wealth and was critical to the economic growth of the entire United States. Well over half of the richest 1 percent of Americans in 1860 lived in the South.
LINK
In 1860 American slaves, as a financial asset, were worth approximately three and a half billion dollars — that's just as property. Three and a half billion dollars was the net worth, roughly, of slaves in 1860. In today's dollars that would be approximately seventy-five billion dollars. In 1860 slaves as an asset were worth more than all of America's manufacturing, all of the railroads, all of the productive capacity of the United States put together. Slaves were the single largest, by far, financial asset of property in the entire American economy. The only thing worth more than the slaves in the American economy of the 1850s was the land itself, and no one can really put a dollar value on all of the land of North America.
quote:Yes, export can be quite profitable when the costs are kept down with slave labor.
Before the Civil War, the South grew 60 percent of the world’s cotton, provided over half of all U.S. export earnings, and furnished 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Cotton exports paid for a substantial share of the capital and technology that laid the basis for America’s industrial revolution.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:51 pm to Jake88
quote:
Your post did not dispute the percentages he listed.
I tried to find some statistics to refute his B.S. but couldn't. I guess I could have just pull a number out of my arse like he did?
My major objection with his post was "Many starved, and none knew anything but dire poverty. Most historians agree that these folks were among the poorest people to ever inhabit the globe.
Many starved? Ok how many or is this just B.S.?
The poorest people to inhabit the globe? Complete B.S.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 9:56 pm to Iosh
quote:
Yes, export can be quite profitable when the costs are kept down with slave labor.
Nobody is arguing that fact. Slavery is bad, I get it.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:05 pm to Edearl Watson
The vast majority of southern whites did not own slaves. In fact, very few slave owners owned more than a few. This means that nearly all the wealth of the south was owned by a few families. I stand by my assertion that most southern whites were barefoot, illiterate oppressed people who were little economically better than modern day Ethiopians.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I stand by my assertion that most southern whites were barefoot, illiterate oppressed people who were little economically better than modern day Ethiopians
While this is true things were no better in the north. The vast majority of Americans were sustenance farmers during this time period both North and South. A northerner was no more likely to own shoes than a southerner . The laborers in the textile mills of the Northeast may have lived marginally better than slaves but it was a very thin margin. This was the era of black lung and forced child labor in the north, lets not kid ourselves about the reality on either side.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:17 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
All these "holier than thou" Yankees need to take a look where all the major race riots have occurred.
My dad had a black coworker/friend in the 80's that moved to Chicago to "get away from the racism". He moved back a year later... said the difference between the North and South was that in the South, you knew who the racists were... But in the North, everyone acted nice to your face and treated you like shite behind your back.
My dad had a black coworker/friend in the 80's that moved to Chicago to "get away from the racism". He moved back a year later... said the difference between the North and South was that in the South, you knew who the racists were... But in the North, everyone acted nice to your face and treated you like shite behind your back.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:30 pm to AustinTigr
i do not ...
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:31 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I stand by my assertion that most southern whites were barefoot, illiterate oppressed people who were little economically better than modern day Ethiopians.
You can make idiotic assertions all day. But so can I. I can make an assertion that African American Northerners. Such as the residents of Detroit are little economically better than modern day Ethiopians. Did the U.N. get those people's water turned back on yet?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 10:44 pm to VanCleef
We are still conquered territory!
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News