- 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
True or False...the civil war was fought over slavery.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:41 pm
what say you?
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:42 pm to CptBengal
All wars were caused by the fashion industry. The Civil War? It was cotton. (Zoolander).
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:42 pm to CptBengal
could slavery be a component part of why the war was fought or is this an all or nothing question?
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:42 pm to CptBengal
loaded question
it was fought over "state's rights"
one right being the right to own other humans
it was fought over "state's rights"
one right being the right to own other humans
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:43 pm to CptBengal
quote:
True or False
It's complex, not binary. Like most political situations, which we often misdiagnose because of natural biases and distance from these big events.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:44 pm to CptBengal
Not that simple of an answer.
It was a taxation and states right's issue mainly around agriculture that largely revolved around the use of slaves.
So yes and no.
It was a taxation and states right's issue mainly around agriculture that largely revolved around the use of slaves.
So yes and no.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:44 pm to CptBengal
It was fought for economic reasons...slavery was a large economic component.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:44 pm to CptBengal
False... It was fought over economics... Slavery was a component ,but the union wasn't advocating for equality it wanted to abolish the practice because the north couldn't compete.
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:45 pm to CptBengal
Slavery was obviously a driving factor. I think there would have been a war, slaves or not
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:45 pm to CptBengal
If there was no slavery, would the South have tried to secede? Probably not.
So the answer is yes.
So the answer is yes.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:45 pm to CptBengal
Kind of, but more as preserving an existing economic structure and not being controlled by the North.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:46 pm to Machine
So you mean the situation is complex?
hmmmm. then why are you and the rest of the idiot left brigade crying about statues?
hmmmm. then why are you and the rest of the idiot left brigade crying about statues?
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:46 pm to Machine
I posted a snippet of this yesterday, from the Cornerstone speech:
LINK
LINK
quote:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:46 pm to CptBengal
True AND False
The issue is very complex. I know no one wants to hear that today, but it is very, very true nonetheless.
The issue is very complex. I know no one wants to hear that today, but it is very, very true nonetheless.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:47 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
If there was no slavery, would the South have tried to secede? Probably not.
Eh, I wouldn't be so certain. There was a lot of turmoil at the time. Would it have still happened when it did? probably not, but I'm not convinced it wouldn't happen a little later.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:47 pm to CptBengal
quote:nah man
So you mean the situation is complex?
civil wars are never complex
do we have a rolleyes smiley? we need one
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:47 pm to Machine
quote:
loaded question
it was fought over "state's rights"
one right being the right to own other humans
Yup
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:49 pm to Machine
quote:
do we have a rolleyes smiley?
: rolleyes :
Posted on 8/17/17 at 12:49 pm to CptBengal
It was one of a multitude of reasons.
The vast majority of people that fought in the war never owned a slave nor knew anyone that owned a slave.
The vast majority of people that fought in the war never owned a slave nor knew anyone that owned a slave.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News