Started By
Message
locked post

Slavery was not the only issue the South was fighting for

Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:35 pm
Posted by SMU Tiger Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2009
390 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:35 pm
One of the biggest ideals was "state's rights," which is guaranteed by the constitution. This seems to have been forgotten (or never learned) by most and now it was all just about "racism." This is what the white-washing of history does.
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 12:39 pm
Posted by SouthernHog
Arkansas
Member since Jul 2016
6201 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:37 pm to
Most sane people realize this to be the truth but, the media and the left control the narrative right now and they are to damn lazy and ignorant to find the actual truth.
Posted by EKG
Houston, TX
Member since Jun 2010
44025 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:38 pm to
quote:

Most sane people realize this
Posted by Ingeniero
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2013
18287 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:41 pm to
The civil war didn't become about slavery until the north got shellacked in a few important battles and Lincoln needed to gain some traction. If McClellan wouldn't have screwed up taking Richmond, Lincoln wouldn't have announced the emancipation proclamation and slavery would've stayed intact.
Posted by SlapahoeTribe
Tiger Nation
Member since Jul 2012
12104 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:41 pm to
quote:

Most sane people realize this to be the truth but,

But queue WhiskeyPapa, Mstrshake, AUbused, etc. to be in this thread shortly with their same quotes and same tired troupes they've been indoctrinated with to show how our ancestors were the scourge of mankind.

ETA- Took 4 minutes and came with a massive quote. Called it.
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 12:53 pm
Posted by rsbd
banks of the Mississippi
Member since Jan 2007
22171 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:42 pm to
Education some have it, most don't..
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 1:03 pm
Posted by SMU Tiger Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2009
390 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:42 pm to
I'm not sure this is being taught in schools these days or that this generation of millennials understands this. I hope I'm wrong, but I would assume that viewpoint and curriculum just does not fit the narrative of those who control our schools these days.
Posted by Toddy
Atlanta
Member since Jul 2010
27250 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:45 pm to
Here is Mississippi's Articles of Seccession:
quote:


In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it


LINK
Posted by Pecker
Rocky Top
Member since May 2015
16674 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:45 pm to
ITT we try to pretend slavery wasn't as big of an issue as it really was.

This is not the argument for keeping the statues.
Posted by GreatLakesTiger24
One State Solution
Member since May 2012
55656 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:46 pm to
How many pages until we get some "Lincoln was the real racist" quotes?
Posted by Crimson Wraith
Member since Jan 2014
24760 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:48 pm to
dims have the majority of one race under their control today using gubment benefits and no real hope for long-term improvement, with a few exceptions.

Almost a block vote.

A form of modern day slavery.
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
71818 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:49 pm to
More revisionist bullshite.

"States' rights" stop at owning other people.

Also, it's already been pointed out that this is not true. It wasn't just Mississippi, either.
Posted by Iosh
Bureau of Interstellar Immigration
Member since Dec 2012
18941 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:56 pm to
What are you talking about fugitive slave laws were totally consistent with state's rights
Posted by TbirdSpur2010
ALAMO CITY
Member since Dec 2010
134026 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:57 pm to
Toddy is correct.

Posted by roadGator
Member since Feb 2009
140539 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:57 pm to
quote:

Lincoln was the real racist


That's a bit harsh and subjective.

However, I think it's fairly objective to say that Lincoln was a racist.
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 1:05 pm
Posted by geauxbrown
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
19475 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 12:58 pm to
Lincoln made the war about slavery sometime during 1962. Grant had been demoted, the Army of the Potomac was getting their asses kicked by Granny Lee and northerners were rioting and lynching blacks.

Lincoln also knew that Britain and France were on the cusp of busting up the naval blockade.
Posted by Seldom Seen
Member since Feb 2016
40236 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:01 pm to
Right just like WWII didn't become about the Jews until after Hitler had declared war on the US. He had been murdering Jews for years prior but our Yankee Government didn't care until he attacked good old Uncle Joe.
Posted by SMU Tiger Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2009
390 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:01 pm to
You, sir, are an idiot.

quote:

The curious thing is that although slavery was the moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave.

Today we recognize slavery as a moral issue. But in the early nineteenth century, it was seen as an economic issue first, moral issue second. A series of legislative actions, most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820, had been enacted by Congress to put limits on the propagation of slavery, but compromise with northern and southern interests was always kept in mind. The South had an economic interest in the spread of slavery to the new territories so that new slave states could be created and the South's political influence would remain strong. The North had an interest in limiting the spread of slavery into the new territories for both purposes of controlling Southern political power AND support of the moral issue.

Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.

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.


Great American History Lesson


Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
71818 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:02 pm to


Totes.
Posted by Crimson Wraith
Member since Jan 2014
24760 posts
Posted on 8/20/17 at 1:05 pm to
Lincoln wanted to send the freed slaves out of the U.S.

Mash

Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page, the authors of Colonisation After Emancipation, discovered documents in the National Archives in Kew and in the US that will significantly alter his legacy.

They found an order from Mr Lincoln in June 1863 authorising a British colonial agent, John Hodge, to recruit freed slaves to be sent to colonies in what are now the countries of Guyana and Belize.

“Hodge reported back to a British minister that Lincoln said it was his ‘honest desire’ that this emigration went ahead,” said Mr Page, a historian at Oxford University.
The plan came despite an earlier test shipment of about 450 freed slaves to Haiti resulting in disaster. The former slaves were struck by smallpox and starvation, and survivors had to be rescued.

Mr Lincoln also considered sending freed slaves to what is now Panama, to construct a canal — decades before work began on the modern canal there in 1904.

The colonisation plan collapsed by 1864. The British were fearful the confederate states of the American south may win the civil war, reverse emancipation, and regard British agents as thieves. Congress also voted to remove funding.

Yet as late as that autumn, a letter sent to the president by his attorney-general showed he was still actively exploring whether the policy could be implemented, Mr Page said.

“It says ‘further to your question, yes, I think you can still pursue this policy of colonisation even though the money has been taken away’,” he said.

Mr Lincoln was assassinated in April 1865.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram