- 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: 154 years ago today.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 8:38 pm to kilo
Posted on 7/4/17 at 8:38 pm to kilo
quote:
You self identify and celebrate a movement that went to war to keep a group of humans in slavery because of some melatonin in their skin.
You need some "yankee" in your life.
The South is better than that in the year 2017
You and a couple other posters in this thread are nothing but smug, arrogant, ignorant of history idiots and hypocrites. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was unenforceable on the states in rebellion. If Lincoln and the Union REALLY wanted to end slavery, he could just as easily made the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation applicable to the Northern states at the same time, where it WAS enforceable. You do realize there were slaves in the Union states before and during the Civil War? No, I guess you do not know this, until now. The 13th amendment was passed by a Union Congress on January 31, 1865 and was not ratified until December 6, 1865, 8 months after the war ended. Yes, the Stars and Bars flew over the Confederate slave states for 4 years. And more importantly, the Stars and Stripes flew over the Union slave states for 89 years. Don't come in here claiming some moral high ground saying that the Confederacy alone bears all the guilt and shame of slavery. Research Lincoln's opinion on slavery. He, too, was a hypocrite. Slavery was terrible and will forever be a blight on our nation's history, but slavery was a national problem and blight, not just a southern peculiarity.
2
Posted on 7/4/17 at 9:07 pm to BFIV
“The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”
London Spectator in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation
London Spectator in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:17 pm to kilo
quote:
The southern Confederate melt is the greatest losing melt in history.
I love the south but the clinging to a completely failed and moralely flawed loss is a little wierd.
I find it weird also and I say that as a southerner that would have fought for the south. Why, because the north invaded the south and the reason really doesn't matter when your life and family are under threat.
With that said, I think we are much better off today because of the norths victory. I think you have to be a sorry sob to believe any other outcome with the south prevailing would be somehow beneficial to mankind. I don't even know if it would have been possible to win WWI or WW2 with a divided north and south.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:22 pm to AU86
quote:
London Spectator in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation
Pretty much any newspaper being published in Great Britain at the time was pro-Confederate.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 11:27 pm to Rakim
Again, how can anyone say slavery would have just gone away when the South placed slavery as its cornerstone of their Constitution? I believe a reduction in slaves would certainly happen between 1860 and the 1950's but there would be a fundamental problem in taking away slavery in the south and that's because it was a god given right in the souths eyes. Plus this was a primary reason for leaving the United States in the first place.
Not as many slaves probably would be needed during the 20th century in the fields but free labor inside other business sectors would have been beneficial.
Not as many slaves probably would be needed during the 20th century in the fields but free labor inside other business sectors would have been beneficial.
This post was edited on 7/4/17 at 11:29 pm
Posted on 7/5/17 at 10:58 am to BFIV
quote:
You and a couple other posters in this thread are nothing but smug, arrogant, ignorant of history idiots and hypocrites. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was unenforceable on the states in rebellion. If Lincoln and the Union REALLY wanted to end slavery, he could just as easily made the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation applicable to the Northern states at the same time, where it WAS enforceable.
Uh, no.
The federal government had no power over slavery until the ratification of the 13th amendment.
Lincoln used his war powers to end slavery in areas controlled by the secessionists on 1/1/63. Many blacks took that opportunity to flee to northern lines. The rebellion began to weaken faster and faster after 1/1/63.
This excerpt from the movie Lincoln demonstrates Lincoln's rationale for the EP:
"If in fact the Negroes are property according to law, have I the right to take the rebels' property from 'em, if I insist they're rebels only, and not citizens of a belligerent country? And slipperier still: I maintain it ain't our actual Southern states in rebellion but only the rebels living in those states, the laws of which states remain in force. The laws of which states remain in force. That means, that since it's states' laws that determine whether Negroes can be sold as slaves, as property - the Federal government doesn't have a say in that, least not yet then Negroes in those states are slaves, hence property, hence my war powers allow me to confiscate'em as such. So I confiscated 'em."
LINK
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:43 am to StrongSafety
quote:
the USA didnt exist then, doesn't count.
“[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”
London Times, November 7, 1861
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:49 am to Sentrius
quote:
Slavery was going to be obsolete inside of 20 years and technology and industrialization was going to make sure of that. Owning slaves and housing and feeding them was a costly expenditure financially and publicly. It was well on its way out. It was getting to a point where only the truly untouchable rich as shite people could afford slaves.
While this does not excuse the moral depravity that was chattel slavery in the American South (particularly the excesses in the cotton belt), it is almost certainly true and empirically supportable. It also stands as a stark rebuttal to the "War was the only way" crowd.
Maybe war was the best way or the only "sure" way, but it was not the only way. In hindsight, particularly the bitter Reconstruction era, the long, bloody civil rights struggle and this seemingly unending impasse between the races even to this day, perhaps an organic, less violent resolution, through an erosive process would have been a better way to go.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 11:51 am to Sentrius
quote:
A lot of the brave men and women who fought for the confederacy did so only to defend their homes and their land from people they felt were unjust invaders that sought to own and rule their property, their freedom and their labor.
No matter what anyone else says for the rest of time, they're heroes just for that and I salute them.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 12:03 pm to Sentrius
quote:
A lot of the brave men and women who fought for the confederacy did so only to defend their homes and their land from people they felt were unjust invaders that sought to own and rule their property, their freedom and their labor.
They were stupid. They let themselves be played for fools by the Slave Power.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 1:52 pm to WhiskeyPapa
Delete.
This post was edited on 7/5/17 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 7/5/17 at 2:14 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
it is almost certainly true and empirically supportable.
Can you show the evidence behind the notion? It is difficult for me to believe that if profit margins fell in agriculture, that labor that was essentially free wouldn't be moved to other industries.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 2:16 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Maybe war was the best way or the only "sure" way, but it was not the only way. In hindsight, particularly the bitter Reconstruction era, the long, bloody civil rights struggle and this seemingly unending impasse between the races even to this day, perhaps an organic, less violent resolution, through an erosive process would have been a better way to go.
I'm of the opinion that a war was enshrined in our constitution by the three-fifths compromise and by the desire for slavery to be included in the westward expansion of the country.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 2:23 pm to kilo
quote:
You self identify and celebrate a movement that went to war to keep a group of humans in slavery because of some melatonin in their skin.
1. The civil war was fought because we didn't want to pay the federal income tax. The south basically made all the money from agriculture and the north was trying to steal it and not give us anything, while they took the money and spent it in the north on railroads, welfare, etc
2. It's melanin not melatonin in the skin you idiot
Posted on 7/5/17 at 2:51 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
It is difficult for me to believe that if profit margins fell in agriculture, that labor that was essentially free wouldn't be moved to other industries.
The labor wasn't free - that's the point. You own the person, you're 100% responsible for feeding, clothing, housing, equipping, getting healthcare for.
And with the end of the middle passage, all slaves were produced domestically, mostly on larger holdings. So, now you've got slave babies and slave children. Who physically can't give you any work for at least 10 to 12 years and won't peak in productivity until 25 years or so. And you have to feed, clothe, house, provide medical care for, etc., until then.
Slavery as was practiced in the U.S. in the 19th Century was literally unsustainable and failing even as the war started. Period.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 2:52 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
I'm of the opinion that a war was enshrined in our constitution by the three-fifths compromise
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't really believe you understand the 3/5th compromise.
quote:
the desire for slavery to be included in the westward expansion of the country.
Well, that was more or less decided well prior to the war. So try again.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 2:59 pm to el Gaucho
“They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the union”.
New Orleans Daily Crescent-1861
“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing… it is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No…we must not let the South go”.
Union Democrat Manchester, New Hampshire. 19 February, 1861
A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861
New Orleans Daily Crescent-1861
“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing… it is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No…we must not let the South go”.
Union Democrat Manchester, New Hampshire. 19 February, 1861
A little over 10 years later after the South attempted precisely that, Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861
Posted on 7/5/17 at 3:04 pm to AU86
quote:
“Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”? Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861
The utter hypocrisy of the Union cause never ceases to amaze me. They held their virtuous hearts superior to that of the "slaveowner" - forgetting that the Yankee textile mills would be silent without Southern cotton. Yankee homes would be bare without southern timber to make furniture. Yankee bellies would be empty without Southern food crops - all done with significant slave labor, mind you.
Not defending the institution (which was as evil a thing as ever imposed on people by other people, particularly since the Renaissance), but calling out hypocrisy.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 3:06 pm to Ace Midnight
“Had the cotton gin of Massachusetts inventor Eli Whitney not come on the scene in the late 1700’s, African slavery in this country was most likely doomed. The antislavery and emancipation feeling in the South was ascendant, but thwarted by profitable slave-trading and hungry cotton mills in New England which gave rise to more plantations in the South, and the perpetuation of slavery. And after years of treating the American South as an agricultural colony, New England set out in 1861 to strip it of political power.”
Bernhard Thuersam- Director Cape Fear Historical Institute NC.
Bernhard Thuersam- Director Cape Fear Historical Institute NC.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 10:05 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
1. The civil war was fought because we didn't want to pay the federal income tax. The south basically made all the money from agriculture and the north was trying to steal it and not give us anything, while they took the money and spent it in the north on railroads, welfare, etc
Prior to the Civil War the federal government was financed almost 100% by tariff revenues. There was no federal income tax.
Americans were among the lowest taxed of any people on earth.
"The Walker Tariff was a set of tariff rates adopted by the United States in 1846. The Walker Tariff was enacted by the Democrats, and made substantial cuts in the high rates of the "Black Tariff" of 1842, enacted by the Whigs. It was based on a report by Secretary of the Treasury Robert J. Walker. The Walker Tariff reduced tariff rates from 32% to 25%; it coincided with Britain's repeal of the Corn Laws and led to an increase in trade. It was one of the lowest tariffs in American history."
LINK
The south did not make much money on agriculture.
Southern elites were badly in debt to northern interests. It was the North that was the industrial power house. England could do without southern cotton, which could be replaced by cotton from Egypt and elsewhere. Further England needed Northern wheat and corn more than it needed southern cotton.
How southern elites could so fricking stupid is the question.
This post was edited on 7/5/17 at 10:06 pm
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News