- 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 Topic: Did R.E. Lee Betray His Countrymen?
Posted on 4/12/15 at 5:58 pm to Bestbank Tiger
Posted on 4/12/15 at 5:58 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
The North was more religious than the South back then. In fact, the abolitionist movement was an evangelical movement, and one of the factors in opposing slavery was the Puritan work ethic (which held that you didn't have the right to live off of someone else's labor).
The South was just as religious as the north. The South used a Pentecostal (or maybe it was Presbyterian) argument to justify slavery because it was in the Bible.
The North didn't like living off other ppl's labor then why did they pass a tariff that accounted for 90% of the federal income (the south paid way more than theri share of that BTW)? Why did the north like making products with raw material from slavery and then selling the products back to the south? Why then they want to use money from stolen cotton produced (I guess 2 wrongs make a right) to finance the first 40 miles of he trancontinental railroad? Why did the north use a system that hired immigrants off the boat from Ireland and only paid them in company currency and working conditions that lead to the labor movements and the invention of communism (more Europe than the north, but the conditions were similar)?
GTFO of here with your the north was more moral or religious than the south. The truth is they were both morally bankrupt and only cared about $$$$, they just varied on how they wanted to make that $$$.
1
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:22 pm to WeeWee
quote:
It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery.
However, equally true is the statement: "Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war." (This was made by Sydney E. Ahlstrome, in his monumental study of religion in America A Religious History of the American People, Yale University Press,1972, on p. 649; it was echoed by Maj. General John B. Gordon, CSA, in his Memoirs, Chapter 1, first page)
quote:
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.
LINK
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News