- 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
0
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:46 pm to HeadedToTheWoods
quote:i don't really either but that's the discussion at hand.
I don't give a shite what it was fought over
Posted on 8/17/17 at 1:55 pm to CptBengal
False. Slavery was brought in late when the political opinion in the north was against the war. Lincoln had to give it a higher purpose than the fact that southern cotton was going to European textile mills instead of Northern factories.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 2:05 pm to tiger7166
quote:
I just refuse to believe that 94% of the population would fight for the other 6% to keep and maintain their wealth
I understand that you have a solid point regarding the slave distribution in the mid 1800s.
However, you should also know that throughout history, the majority have always sacrificed themselves for the rich.
Wars of Succession in Europe. See the War of the Roses and Hundred Years War.
You dont think the US upper class benefited from both WW?
How about the modern wars in the middle east? They cost millions on dollars yet the MIC and their lobbyists will do anything to keep us over there even after 15 years of little progress
NOTE: This is not an insult to any of the brave soldiers who died in all of these conflicts.
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 2:09 pm to CptBengal
True
HOWEVER the southern states made it crystal clear in their resolutions that they would have NEVER joined the union if the abolition of slavery was a possibility.
So yes, it was about slavery. But moreover it was that the states had the right to leave the union since the terms of the agreement were changing.
HOWEVER the southern states made it crystal clear in their resolutions that they would have NEVER joined the union if the abolition of slavery was a possibility.
So yes, it was about slavery. But moreover it was that the states had the right to leave the union since the terms of the agreement were changing.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 2:49 pm to alphaandomega
quote:What do you mean?
Then why were the slaves in the south freed but not the ones in the North
Posted on 8/17/17 at 2:56 pm to sicboy
I love how people are upvoting this and avoiding the reply button. Fantastic.
That's all you need.
quote:
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.
That's all you need.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 3:35 pm to CptBengal
Considering the Emancipation Proclamation did not take effect until 1/1/1863, applied only the states in rebellion and was meant to prevent other nations, England in particular, from joining in the conflict, I would say the war was fought because a despot wanted to maintain control over the land and cotton of the southern states.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 3:35 pm to AggieDub14
True. Anyone who says different is an idiot. States rights? You mean the right for states to keep slavery legal. The electoral college was established to appease slave states and on and on.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 3:36 pm to reboil
quote:
The electoral college was established to appease slave states and on and on.
it's in the constitution you fricking idiot.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 3:37 pm to CptBengal
quote:
True or False...the civil war was fought over slavery.
False. Civil War was fought over the south not wanting to deal with the swamp in DC any longer. The Emancipation Proclamation was delivered well after the war began and was done so to get more support. It also required that all freed slaves (mostly male) be enlisted in the Union Army to help. So, essentially, they used slaves as slaves after being freed from slavery.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 3:43 pm to TaderSalad
quote:
it's in the constitution you fricking idiot.
And we all know slavery didn't exist before the constitution. That whole 3/5ths thing wasn't about slavery.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 3:45 pm to volod
Your point is taken, but, the US was founded by strong willed independent people who fought against the Aristocracy. That mind set had not been replaced in less than 100 yrs. when you consider the amount of effort it took for the working class to survive.
The South did not wish o be governed by an outside government. DC then, like today has a disconnect.
It was also never, by either side, expected to get that bloody. The first battles were picnic entertainment.
The South did not wish o be governed by an outside government. DC then, like today has a disconnect.
It was also never, by either side, expected to get that bloody. The first battles were picnic entertainment.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 3:50 pm to CptBengal
True. Well that and it was an effort to prevent Northern industrial barons from wrestling control of the south from southern slave owners..
It had little to do with slavery for the north. Emancipation proclamation was intended to incite rebellion and chaos.
Southerners sure thought it was about slavery and their god-given right to rule over black people
It had little to do with slavery for the north. Emancipation proclamation was intended to incite rebellion and chaos.
Southerners sure thought it was about slavery and their god-given right to rule over black people
This post was edited on 8/17/17 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:04 pm to TxTiger82
Mostly true. There exists a number of sets of reasons for the CWar of which slavery is one. But all the other sets of reasons are rooted in slavery, the South's "peculiar institution."
The key to why there was a CWar lies in what the secessionists said and did in 1860-61 and NOT in what Ex-Confederates said and did after the war.
The key to why there was a CWar lies in what the secessionists said and did in 1860-61 and NOT in what Ex-Confederates said and did after the war.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:06 pm to volod
quote:
I understand that you have a solid point regarding the slave distribution in the mid 1800s. However, you should also know that throughout history, the majority have always sacrificed themselves for the rich. Wars of Succession in Europe. See the War of the Roses and Hundred Years War. You dont think the US upper class benefited from both WW? How about the modern wars in the middle east? They cost millions on dollars yet the MIC and their lobbyists will do anything to keep us over there even after 15 years of little progress NOTE: This is not an insult to any of the brave soldiers who died in all of these conflicts.
Good post
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:10 pm to CptBengal
quote:
it's in the constitution you fricking idiot.
So is this.
quote:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
Gee, it's almost as if there was a Constitutional convention where the views of southern states and northern states reached a compromise about slavery.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:12 pm to tiger7166
quote:But I also think you're also making a mistake and confusing "the reasons for war," with the "reasons people fight in the war." It's still common for a person who fought in Iraq, or people talking about soldiers who fought in Iraq, to say "it was fought to protect your (i.e., US) freedoms." I don't think any realistic analysis would agree that the war was fought for those reasons, and I'm not sure a person who says that,
Your point is taken, but, the US was founded by strong willed independent people who fought against the Aristocracy. That mind set had not been replaced in less than 100 yrs. when you consider the amount of effort it took for the working class to survive.
deep, down truly believes it.
At the same time, I think people truly believed it at one time, and I think those that still say this, probably WANT to believe it, or at least justify that they believed it when they were fighting.
But despite their reasons and justifications for fighting, it doesn't make them the reason the war was fought in the first place. In fact, it's likely that the war actually did the opposite, but again that's not a reflection on anybody but the leaders.
quote:Sure, and that "6" who was in power, could have used that "truth" to rally people to the cause, even if that "truth" was really for their own benefit.
The South did not wish o be governed by an outside government. DC then, like today has a disconnect.
Goebbels is one of the most well-known, and important historical figure from WWII Nazi Germany because he was uniquely effective at persuading people through his propaganda. Making people believe in the justification and necessity of something like a War, especially when you are the provocateur and attacking others unprovoked, which is almost assuredly to those people, is a necessity.
quote:And this is important too. It's easy to get people to buy into if everybody thinks it's going to be pretty easy. And once it's started, even if the consequences are not not worth the risk of continuing, people are too easily prone to the sunk-cost fallacy, and put too much weight in the past effort and consequences. Instead, they feel compelled to keep going even at their own detriment.
It was also never, by either side, expected to get that bloody. The first battles were picnic entertainment.
Posted on 8/17/17 at 4:57 pm to CptBengal
Partly true for the Deep South Cotton states that seceded first. Several states didn't even secede until Lincoln had called for volunteers. Slavery was legal at the time but in 1860 the biggest items that were being discussed as problems that the Deep South states had was the threat of limiting slavery in the territories and the tarrif. Slaves were considered property back then and the Deep South's argument was that by limiting the expansion of slavery into the territories their constitutionally guaranteed rights to transfer or to posses that property would be infringed upon. In other words if a slave owner went into the territories with a slave and that person escaped or if they moved to the territories with their slaves their personal guaranty of that property would be lost. The Morrill tariff was the other big issue. This article explains the argument over the tarrif.
True Causes of the Uncivil war.
True Causes of the Uncivil war.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News