- 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: Slavery was not the only issue the South was fighting for
Posted on 8/20/17 at 7:32 pm to SlapahoeTribe
Posted on 8/20/17 at 7:32 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
Furthermore, you can whine about slaves all you want, but it was really about money (could have just as easily have been about tractors were it in today's era).
And yet Michael Vick was jailed for running a dog fighting ring essentially as a way to engage in commerce. Those dogs could have easily been tractors. Food for thought.
0
Posted on 8/20/17 at 7:41 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
quote:
What you people don't understand (or want to understand) is that it was not about slavery any more than it might be about tractors or some other "private property." It was about economics, and the federal government unilaterally imposing tariffs on the south to gain an economic advantage/political advantage. Most northerners didn't give a shite about the morality of slavery until their leaders made it into an issue to get support for the war. Most southerners didn't give a shite about slavery, either. It had no bearing on the majority of their lives. What did it was the southerner's belief that the federal government shouldn't be able to jus push them around to gain an economic advantage.
You just want to ignore the words of the people that wrote the letters of secession. I can only guess the reason is that you some how feel tarred by that ugly past and want to spin it into some noble fight for "states rights". Again you're white washing history. Clearly the monuments haven't reminded you of history...they're just an avatar for your imagined history of the south.
quote:
But, you people just keep up with your preferred, simpleton version of this. It's like trying to convince a gun control advocate that if you legally take away guns, the only people who suffer are law abiding citizens. The criminals will get their guns and leave the law-abiding people defenseless. Let me guess, you don't understand that either....lol
I understand this to be one of the worst analogies ever used on this board. Congrats.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 7:46 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:
Mr Lincoln was assassinated in April 1865.
Unfortunately 3 years too late.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 7:47 pm to Loserman
quote:"Some things can be legal to own in one state and not in another" is not a strawman. It's literally the exact same point.
Strawman.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 7:55 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
At its height, according to the census, there were slightly less than 31k slave owners in Mississippi. The total free population of the State was a little over 351k.
And 436,631 slaves. Not owning them doesn't mean they were not complicit.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 8:10 pm to sugar71
So you're saying that the north decided to go to war because they wanted to rid the country of slavery? That was their reason.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 8:11 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
quote:
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.
Whether they also fought for something to doesn't exclude racism and slavery. I'm not sure what grandpointe you thought you were making but you didn't
Posted on 8/20/17 at 8:22 pm to RTRinTampa
quote:
Finally someone that listened in US History.
Hell, all these idiots have to do is watch the Ken Burns documentary. shite is all in there. That's exactly what is in the film.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 8:35 pm to Ebbandflow
You either don't get it, don't want to get it or are not very bright. Slaves were considered property, or the equivalent of equipment, back then by virtually everyone. If the South had said, "okay, we'll just pay more for being allowed to have slaves," the North would have been just fine with it, and who knows how long it would have continued.
The South went to war over the ideal of State's rights granted by the constitution, regardless of slavery. Sure, we now consider slavery immoral, and it is, but the motivation of the north was not to free the slaves. It was to exercise dominion over the southern states. The men who fought for the ideal of states' rights had a valid position, even if the specific "right" they were fighting for was wrong.
In 100 years, people may decide gas-burning vehicles are immoral. Does that mean all of us are evil, horrible people in 2017 for driving gas-burning vehicles? If the federal government told us one day that we had to immediately stop driving and could only take subways, which most of us in the south don't have, should we just obey?
The point is: People who want to simply cast historical figures like Robert E Lee as evil, horrible people are misguided. They were, in one sense, fighting for an ideal granted by the constitution.
The South went to war over the ideal of State's rights granted by the constitution, regardless of slavery. Sure, we now consider slavery immoral, and it is, but the motivation of the north was not to free the slaves. It was to exercise dominion over the southern states. The men who fought for the ideal of states' rights had a valid position, even if the specific "right" they were fighting for was wrong.
In 100 years, people may decide gas-burning vehicles are immoral. Does that mean all of us are evil, horrible people in 2017 for driving gas-burning vehicles? If the federal government told us one day that we had to immediately stop driving and could only take subways, which most of us in the south don't have, should we just obey?
The point is: People who want to simply cast historical figures like Robert E Lee as evil, horrible people are misguided. They were, in one sense, fighting for an ideal granted by the constitution.
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 8:37 pm
Posted on 8/20/17 at 8:42 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
Well said
Posted on 8/20/17 at 9:10 pm to cwill
quote:
You just want to ignore the words of the people that wrote the letters of secession.
From Toddy's quote on pg 1 from MS secession letter (I assume its accuracy):
quote:
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth
Slavery was permitted in 1776. The colonials needed the Southern states in their revolution against England. The south needed slavery for commercial reasons. Obviously, it was wildly inconsistent to encode freedom on the back of slavery.
There was nothing in the COTUS that prohibited slavery in 1787 so by the 10th amendment (Bill of Rights) it was a "state right." When the CSA seceded, slavery was still permitted. So what changed?
Posted on 8/20/17 at 9:13 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
quote:
The point is: People who want to simply cast historical figures like Robert E Lee as evil, horrible people are misguided. They were, in one sense, fighting for an ideal granted by the constitution.
Yeah and then they killed a bunch of actual Americans.
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 8/20/17 at 9:16 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
quote:
The South went to war over the ideal of State's rights granted by the constitution, regardless of slavery.
No. "States' rights" is what Southerners have been telling themselves for 150 years.
quote:
In 100 years, people may decide gas-burning vehicles are immoral. Does that mean all of us are evil, horrible people in 2017 for driving gas-burning vehicles? If the federal government told us one day that we had to immediately stop driving and could only take subways, which most of us in the south don't have, should we just obey?
Even better, if the government regulates gas vehicles, are you going to start killing people? Yes? Well, then in 100 years, you're still going to be wrong.
quote:
They were, in one sense, fighting for an ideal granted by the constitution.
They were fighting for their right to own other people.
Period.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 9:21 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 8/20/17 at 9:28 pm to Iosh
quote:
"Some things can be legal to own in one state and not in another" is not a strawman. It's literally the exact same point.
No it wasn't. Owners of slaves were not arrested for having illegal property ever!
Posted on 8/20/17 at 9:31 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
Toddy blew your bullshite up back on the first page. You chose not to respond. You've made up your mind, and now everything will be filtered through your view of this. History be damned...
Posted on 8/20/17 at 9:38 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
More revisionist bullshite.
quote:
"States' rights" stop at owning other people.
Once again, you are wrong. States rights in those days included slavery in some states. In fact, slavery was included in the Constitution. Those words are still contained in the Constitution, though rendered invalid by amendment.
MAGA
Posted on 8/20/17 at 9:40 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
Slavery may have been the trigger, but the war was ultimately about southern nationalism. Southerners understood that they were being eclipsed, politically, and economically. But the south was also so different, culturally, that separation made sense.
This post was edited on 8/20/17 at 9:49 pm
Posted on 8/20/17 at 9:42 pm to mofungoo
quote:
States rights in those days included slavery in some states. In fact, slavery was included in the Constitution.
So. fricking. What.
Wrong is wrong. Falling on a particular spot on our historical timeline doesn't change that.
Posted on 8/20/17 at 9:52 pm to TupeloTiger
quote:
My oldest great-grandparents, when alive, told us kids that we did NOT own slaves in the 1800's and only a very few did. There were plantation owners that owned slaves, not the average southerner in Louisiana. My ancestors in Mer Rouge and Bastrop, La. raised chickens and pigs for a living. Food for themselves and the public. It later led to grocery stores for nearly 100 years. Most people did not have slaves, only the very rich and they were Democrats too, not Republicans.
Yes, your ancestors like most people's ancestors, weren't consequential when it came to governance in the South. The South was a very backwards place...more like the English class system. So the point is that the South was taken to war by the ruling class - those that owned the slaves. That's why the letters of secession feature it so prominently.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News