- 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 6:22 pm to WeeWee
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
Posted on 4/12/15 at 6:27 pm to RollTideATL
quote:
RollTideATL
So are you now admitting that it wasn't only about slavery?
I read that link and have read the book he is talking abourt and I disagree with the author's very that ths south would not haver wanted to secede. It is impossible for you, any historian, or me to make a reliable prediction if slavery would not have been a cause. You can show me links to this historian saying X and I can show links to that historian saying Y. However the fact remains that the north and south were on a collision point for a civil war without slavery. The south felt like it paid an unfair amount of taxes thanks to the tariff and its economic opportunities were limited thanks to import taxes GB and other european countries put on american goods (mainly cotton) in response to said tariff. The difference would not have gotten better when the northern railroads started building a railroad with government subsidies that the south felt it was paying an unfair share of or Stewart bought Alaska with tax dollars. The differences would not have gotten better when Irish catholics and Chinese moved in. They wouldn't have gotten better when we finally defeated the Indians and opened up the plains. The list goes on and on, but the only accurate prediction that anyone can make is that without slavery the civil war would not have occurred in 1861, however it still would have occured.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 6:32 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News