- 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 Debate: Ulysses S. Grant vs. Robert E. Lee
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:55 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 3/31/14 at 8:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
with the enslaved human beings they pathetically subjugated
Right, I am not sure how you think this post adds to the discussion. Maybe it makes you feel better. It seems to be an emotional response that doesn't belong in an objective discussion. I am fairly certain that we can all agree that the idea of slavery is repugnant.
1
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:03 pm to doubleb
quote:
Fine 10 to 15 years and then what?
No dude you are the one that thinks there would still be slaves in the south had they won. Explain to me where you get this logic.
What does a person naturally do when someone tries to tell them what they are going to do. They dig in their heels is what they do. Its human nature. The south was in this position. Their was a simmering hatred of southerners by northeners. If the democrats had won the election of 1860 the north would have been the one to secede.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:09 pm to bencoleman
quote:Simple.
Right, I am not sure how you think this post adds to the discussion
"They didn't know what to do with the ones they had," seemed to massively understate the human prospect of slavery.
Perhaps it did so unintentionally.
If so, acknowledge it and move on.
To attribute facts as an "emotional response" is a smidge bizarre
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:33 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
"They didn't know what to do with the ones they had," seemed to massively understate the human prospect of slavery.
like it or not they did not know what to do with the ones they had. It is the truth.
quote:
To attribute facts as an "emotional response" is a smidge bizarre
Whats bizarre is your need to remind everyone that slavery was an evil institution. I am sure most people agree and the ones that don't aren't worth listening to.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:46 pm to bencoleman
quote:
The south stopped the importation of slaves for a reason, they didn't know what to do with the ones they had.
They stopped the importation of slaves so the market wouldn't overflow and drive prices down.
Also...they realized that war with the USA was all but imminent and knew how anti-slavery potential allies such as Great Britain and France were. It was an economic as well as a political consideration.
This post was edited on 3/31/14 at 9:54 pm
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:54 pm to bencoleman
No I'm trying to find out why no war and slavery was better for slaves long term than the war and no slavery.
I'm conceding the end of slavery but I'm asking what happens next that makes you think the slaves were going to be better off.
Tell me, you have all the answers.
I'm conceding the end of slavery but I'm asking what happens next that makes you think the slaves were going to be better off.
Tell me, you have all the answers.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:55 pm to RollTide1987
Uh no, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia wanted to stop the flow of slaves in 1790. The northerners with a maritime economy built on transporting slaves convinced them to compromise and they agreed on 1800, this still wasn't good enough for the north and agreed again on 1808.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 9:59 pm to bencoleman
quote:
Uh no, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia wanted to stop the flow of slaves in 1790. The northerners with a maritime economy built on transporting slaves convinced them to compromise and they agreed on 1800, this still wasn't good enough for the north and agreed again on 1808.
I'm not talking about the ending of the slave trade in 1808. I'm talking about why the CSA continue to outlaw the international slave trade when they set up their Constitution in 1861.
Posted on 3/31/14 at 10:03 pm to bencoleman
quote:No. What's bizarre is anyone understating it.
Whats bizarre is your need to remind everyone
Posted on 4/1/14 at 4:53 am to doubleb
quote:
I'm conceding the end of slavery but I'm asking what happens next that makes you think the slaves were going to be better off.
Are you telling me that you believe that the former slaves were better off after a devastating war, the south with no economy to speak of, facing reconstruction the effects of which are still being felt today.
vs
The south freeing slaves and assimilating them into society. A difficult but not unprecedented move.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 6:09 am to bencoleman
quote:
If the democrats had won the election of 1860 the north would have been the one to secede.
I'm glad someone FINALLY brought up the 1860 election. That was another major factor in starting the war.
If something like that were to happen today, you could bet a few states would secede.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 6:23 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
What's bizarre is anyone understating it.
I don't think he is understating it personally. I think he is trying to discuss slavery more from an 1860's mentality.
While it's true many people viewed slavery as evil then, even those who viewed it as evil probably did not view it as negatively as we do today. We are a generation raised and conditioned to think and feel this way.
Leading up to the 1860's, slavery was a commonplace institution throughout the world. Think of it this way:
How would a white plantation owner who owned slaves have been treated in public in the 1830's? How would a white corporate exec be treated if he owned 50 black slaves today by comparison?
The discussion of societal impacts of slavery before the war eventually gets bogged down in issues of perspective. How we feel about slavery today doesn't have much bearing on discussing how people reacted to slavery 170 years ago.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 6:25 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 7:32 am to theunknownknight
There were many people, both North and South, who didn't want to see an immediate end to slavery because they were afraid 4 million people flooding the job market, willing to work for cheap, would threaten their jobs.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:07 am to bencoleman
quote:
Are you telling me that you believe that the former slaves were better off after a devastating war, the south with no economy to speak of, facing reconstruction the effects of which are still being felt today. vs The south freeing slaves and assimilating them into society. A difficult but not unprecedented move
I'm telling you nothing, I was asking you a question which you seem unable to answer.
The South went to war to keep their way of life, and the status quo. They believed in states rights, and that included slavery.
I don't believe the South left alone would have quickly given up slavery despite what you think.
But say they had, do you think they would have just told their former slaves goodbye, and wished them well?
Certainly the ex slaves faced a rough go after reconstruction, but nothing I've seen or read tells me it wasn't going to be any different for the slaves no matter what.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 8:59 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:49 am to doubleb
quote:
I've seen or read tells me it wasn't going to be any different for the salves no matter what.
Would have to agree.
The South was a top heavy stagnant economy. With the wealth so extremely concentrated in such few hands I believe its folly to in any way suggest that these slave holding titans would just see the errors of their ways and give up the ship.
It went the way it did because thats how it worked out.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:You're talking to someone who thought "The South Was Right" was a great book.
NC_Tigah
I wasn't exaggerating when I said it's the hardcover equivalent to a PoliBoard circle jerk. They bring up interesting ideas, sure, and they do share some facts, but the point of the book is in the title.
The south was right. About everything. There can be no deviation from that point. Whatever the south did, it did in reaction to a negative northern action. The slaves were treated well; the badness of slavery is overstated.
It cherry picks quotes from the Slave Narratives and uses them to make slavery seem almost like a happy, fun place where idiotic blacks loved their massa and didn't want to be free.
It's a ridiculous book, and I'm sorry, but if someone reads it and feels that it's great and gives you a real history of how things were and why, you're better of not talking to them.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:53 am to RollTide1987
Grant also used slave labor to, in all his drunken arrogance, try to reroute the Mississippi River in order to capture Vicksburg.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:00 am to FT
quote:
It's a ridiculous book, and I'm sorry, but if someone reads it and feels that it's great and gives you a real history of how things were and why, you're better of not talking to them.
[soapbox]
90% of people will unequivocally state that history is written by the victors and many of those seem to accept that as the cold hard truth when it comes to the Civil War.
That war was complicated, very complicated. The idea of slavery was used to rally the north under a moral cause midway through the war.
The Civil War was ultimately about what every war is about: power and control. Saying it was "because of slavery" is the nice moral summation historians have plugged over and over for the simpletons.
[/soap box]
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:03 am to theunknownknight
I do think slavery was the cause; I don't think it was the cause in the way most people do. The north wasn't invading to free the slaves. That's ridiculous. At best, they were trying to keep slavery from spreading.
Slave vs non-slave states were the red and blue states of their time.
#simpleexplanation
Slave vs non-slave states were the red and blue states of their time.
#simpleexplanation
Posted on 4/1/14 at 10:04 am to theunknownknight
"The South Was Right" is a necessary book, and while it does over stretch things a bit, it's to counter the mother goose fairy tales on the other side that are accepted as fact, yet aren't factual, but circle jerks on the other side of the coin. Somewhere in between the two lies the truth.
Page 15 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News