- 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 8/21/17 at 7:20 am to Wtodd
Posted on 8/21/17 at 7:20 am to Wtodd
quote:
Lincoln never wanted to free the slaves DESPITE the bull shite that's been told; he didn't want to deal with the political fallout. The freeing of the slaves was entirely bc of his wife; she forced his hand.
That's some first class bull shite that physically and mentally ill Mary lincoln twisted her husband to her will.
Lincoln was the original cuck...is that it?
Posted on 8/21/17 at 7:20 am to theunknownknight
Circumstances may, on the surface, lead to wars but it is principles that really spark and sustain them. So the question is: What principles were the Southerners really fighting for?
Wars are fought over principles. People are willing to die for principles. What underlying principles lead to secession?
1. The right to be racist?
2. The right to sustain an economy and survive?
What about "upward" mobility?
That's taking a modern perspective and placing it in a totally different culture.
So you would be saying that a guy killed his own family because he wanted to be able to dream of the day he could own black people. I think the underlying current of the liberal propaganda is beginning to shine through.
LINK
Abrams, Ray H., "The Jeffersonian, Copperhead Newspaper," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 57 (1933), p.260.
Harper, Douglas R., "If Thee Must Fight:" A Civil War History of Chester County, Pa. West Chester, Pa.: Chester County Historical Society, 1990.
------------------, West Chester to 1865: That Elegant & Notorious Place. West Chester, Pa.: Chester County Historical Society, 1999.
Southern blacks in your accusation as well considering that Freed Blacks were 7 times more likely to own slaves than Southern whites.
LINK
1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.
2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.
3. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
4. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.
6. Black Masters, p. 62.
7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.
8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.
9. Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39;
Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.
10. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.
----
Should Governemnt be allowed to violate the constitution to preserve moral imperatives such as 'slavery is wrong'?
I guess one would then be are with the government stepping in and shutting down Louisiana's entire oil industry permanently as well to preserve "wildlife". Because, with the precedent just set, moral imperatives should always give the Federal Government the power to kill its own economies and even its own citizens.
Once the government has the power and precedent to do something, there is nothing from stopping the government from abusing that power in other areas. For instance, look at the basis that lawmakers are using to shove the unconstitutional ObamaCare down our throats. There was a Federal Ruling recently that implied that the Commerce Clause covers MENTAL activity. So don't come in here pretending that precedence can't lead to abuse regardless of the justification of the original law.
----
The 1860 Census has only 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves and only 8% of families.
LINK
1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.
2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.
----
Why wasn't the South allowed the right to form their own Sacred Union peacefully? Why was the North's sanctity more important?
Simple Facts:
1. Slavery as an isolated moral issue had no bearing on secession.
2. The North was pushing laws and tariffs, the equivalent of the modern income tax, to put strain on the South due to the South's trading relationship with England
3. The South was never as anti-Europe/England as the North even during the founding of the country
4. The South was a distinct culture with a different vision of Federal Government power
5. There was a already rift between the North and South that had nothing to do with slavery
6. Slavery was intensely intertwined in the south's economy.
7. The South's Legal and Peaceful Secession =/= Civil War.
8. The North wanted to keep the South in subjection to the union against the South's will (never mind the moral implications of subjecting the Southern people to the North against their will and how that paralleled with the act of slavery itself)
9. After secession, the North began conducting actions that aggravated the South which led to the actual conflict.
10. The South actually offered to end slavery and peacefully secede. The north declined.
Ultimately, I believe that the primary reason that the South left the Union was over States' Rights as emphasized through the issue of slavery. I believe that States' Rights was foundational to the slavery issue, as the Southern states themselves reported at the time in their declarations of secession. To say that slavery came first is to put the cart before the horse.
However, according to the way that the United States was set up at the time, I believe that the Southern states had a legal right to secede. Were they "right" to do so? To them, yes, because they (the white, wealthy, planter class) were thinking about their own economic survival and prosperity. But, they were morally wrong to do so because their foundational reason (economic survival) was linked to a great evil. I am not saying that it was morally wrong to leave the Union. I am saying that slavery was morally wrong.
Wars are fought over principles. People are willing to die for principles. What underlying principles lead to secession?
1. The right to be racist?
2. The right to sustain an economy and survive?
What about "upward" mobility?
That's taking a modern perspective and placing it in a totally different culture.
So you would be saying that a guy killed his own family because he wanted to be able to dream of the day he could own black people. I think the underlying current of the liberal propaganda is beginning to shine through.
quote:
quote:
One of the Pennsylvania newspapers I studied was full of race-baiting that makes me cringe even now. It slandered Lincoln, too, calling him every name in the book. But nobody made trouble for the editor until the summer of 1861, when he printed his opinion that the North had gone to war with the ultimate goal of freeing the slaves. This was considered so outrageous and offensive that soldiers just back from their three-months regiments attacked the office and sacked it.
quote:
“An editor who would coin as many lies as is embodied in that one short article, and published it with the criminal purpose of making his readers believe that the war was an abolition war, got up to benefit the n****r at the expense of the white man, was saying that our army deserved their defeat, and that he rejoiced over the victory of the rebels at Bull’s Run,” replied an American Republican correspondent who signed himself “Westtown”
LINK
Abrams, Ray H., "The Jeffersonian, Copperhead Newspaper," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 57 (1933), p.260.
Harper, Douglas R., "If Thee Must Fight:" A Civil War History of Chester County, Pa. West Chester, Pa.: Chester County Historical Society, 1990.
------------------, West Chester to 1865: That Elegant & Notorious Place. West Chester, Pa.: Chester County Historical Society, 1999.
Southern blacks in your accusation as well considering that Freed Blacks were 7 times more likely to own slaves than Southern whites.
LINK
1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.
2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.
3. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
4. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.
6. Black Masters, p. 62.
7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.
8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.
9. Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39;
Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.
10. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.
----
Should Governemnt be allowed to violate the constitution to preserve moral imperatives such as 'slavery is wrong'?
I guess one would then be are with the government stepping in and shutting down Louisiana's entire oil industry permanently as well to preserve "wildlife". Because, with the precedent just set, moral imperatives should always give the Federal Government the power to kill its own economies and even its own citizens.
Once the government has the power and precedent to do something, there is nothing from stopping the government from abusing that power in other areas. For instance, look at the basis that lawmakers are using to shove the unconstitutional ObamaCare down our throats. There was a Federal Ruling recently that implied that the Commerce Clause covers MENTAL activity. So don't come in here pretending that precedence can't lead to abuse regardless of the justification of the original law.
----
The 1860 Census has only 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves and only 8% of families.
LINK
1. The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.
2. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.
----
Why wasn't the South allowed the right to form their own Sacred Union peacefully? Why was the North's sanctity more important?
Simple Facts:
1. Slavery as an isolated moral issue had no bearing on secession.
2. The North was pushing laws and tariffs, the equivalent of the modern income tax, to put strain on the South due to the South's trading relationship with England
3. The South was never as anti-Europe/England as the North even during the founding of the country
4. The South was a distinct culture with a different vision of Federal Government power
5. There was a already rift between the North and South that had nothing to do with slavery
6. Slavery was intensely intertwined in the south's economy.
7. The South's Legal and Peaceful Secession =/= Civil War.
8. The North wanted to keep the South in subjection to the union against the South's will (never mind the moral implications of subjecting the Southern people to the North against their will and how that paralleled with the act of slavery itself)
9. After secession, the North began conducting actions that aggravated the South which led to the actual conflict.
10. The South actually offered to end slavery and peacefully secede. The north declined.
Ultimately, I believe that the primary reason that the South left the Union was over States' Rights as emphasized through the issue of slavery. I believe that States' Rights was foundational to the slavery issue, as the Southern states themselves reported at the time in their declarations of secession. To say that slavery came first is to put the cart before the horse.
However, according to the way that the United States was set up at the time, I believe that the Southern states had a legal right to secede. Were they "right" to do so? To them, yes, because they (the white, wealthy, planter class) were thinking about their own economic survival and prosperity. But, they were morally wrong to do so because their foundational reason (economic survival) was linked to a great evil. I am not saying that it was morally wrong to leave the Union. I am saying that slavery was morally wrong.
This post was edited on 8/21/17 at 7:33 am
Posted on 8/21/17 at 8:15 am to SMU Tiger Fan
A James M. McPherson review of some literature (2000/2001) in the New York Review of Books:
Southern Comfort
Southern Comfort
Posted on 8/21/17 at 9:59 am to Bayou
quote:
If the War was about slavery then why did Grant continue to own them after that War?
Grant owned a slave he freed in 1859. Not sure where you are getting your information from.
Posted on 8/21/17 at 10:02 am to INFIDEL
quote:
He actually hated the institution of slavery.
laughably false.
Posted on 8/21/17 at 10:02 am to theunknownknight
Couple of really good posts there
Posted on 8/21/17 at 8:29 pm to germandawg
quote:
the bastards LOST because man has been marching inexorably toward progress since the dawn of time......
That's a wonderfully messianic vision you've got.
Question for you.
Do you think you have the power the change human nature?
Posted on 8/21/17 at 8:33 pm to Lima Whiskey
John Winthrop would have agreed with you, for the record. He and his Puritans genuinely believed in building that city in a hill.
The ancient Greeks would have considered the proposition absurd. Humans are what they are, there is no progress.
If anything, the past is more glorious than the future.
As a southerner, and a high church Episcopalian, I side with the Greeks.
The ancient Greeks would have considered the proposition absurd. Humans are what they are, there is no progress.
If anything, the past is more glorious than the future.
As a southerner, and a high church Episcopalian, I side with the Greeks.
Posted on 8/21/17 at 9:02 pm to Lima Whiskey
Do you apply the same logic to something like, beating your wife?
Posted on 8/21/17 at 9:30 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
They were fighting for their right to own other people.
Period.
The actual fight was because of the unconstitutional practices the Yanks engaged in toward The South.
Posted on 8/21/17 at 9:52 pm to Bayou
Many Blacks owned slaves, too!
According to the 1830 federal census, free blacks owned 10,000 slaves, including in New York City eight free blacks who reportedly owned 17 slaves. Many black slave owners were large planters who raised cotton, rice, and sugar cane.
According to the 1830 federal census, free blacks owned 10,000 slaves, including in New York City eight free blacks who reportedly owned 17 slaves. Many black slave owners were large planters who raised cotton, rice, and sugar cane.
Posted on 8/21/17 at 10:01 pm to monsterballads
quote:
Grant owned a slave he freed in 1859. Not sure where you are getting your information from.
I'm pretty sure he is talking about Grants wife's slaves. I think they were freed at the end of the war. Sherman was reported to own slaves after the war.
Posted on 8/21/17 at 10:05 pm to SMU Tiger Fan
quote:
One of the biggest ideals was "state's rights," which is guaranteed by the constitution.
It just is not. The sovereignty of the United States lies upon the -people- not the states.
Don't claim to love this country and then lie about what it is and what stands for.
Posted on 8/21/17 at 10:09 pm to HueyP
quote:
Sherman was reported to own slaves after the war.
Sherman wouldn't let blacks in his army, let alone his household.
Slavery was outlawed throughout the United States on 12/6/65 with the passage of the 13th amendment.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]
Posted on 8/21/17 at 11:49 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
That's a wonderfully messianic vision you've got. Question for you. Do you think you have the power the change human nature?
I don't think anyone does.....and it is in mans nature to progress......
Posted on 8/22/17 at 12:53 am to SMU Tiger Fan
Yeah, you don't know your history.
Posted on 8/22/17 at 5:18 am to Toddy
Everything in there can be boiled down to fear of financial ruin.
Posted on 8/22/17 at 7:53 am to SMU Tiger Fan
quote:
One of the biggest ideals was "state's rights," which is guaranteed by the constitution.
The Confederates took the US Constitution and made a few changes.
They didn't do more than add window dressing about the confederate states having any more independence or rights. The intro was revised to read: "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,..."
They did nothing in Article III to weaken the federal courts.
But they made damned sure to be clear about slaves: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
They also clarified that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."
And they mandated that slavery be the law in all new territories of the CSA: "In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government;"
So slavery was pretty important to the folks who drew up the constitution of the CSA. States rights, otherwise, did not get much ink in the constitution.
Posted on 8/22/17 at 7:58 am to Twenty 49
quote:
But they made damned sure to be clear about slaves: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
They also clarified that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."
They loved their precious slaves.
States Rights
Posted on 8/22/17 at 8:09 am to SMU Tiger Fan
quote:Did they fight by choice or were coerced through intimidation tactics and threats?
Don't forget, there were MANY blacks who fought for the South
quote:Mainly owned other family members. Some purchased other blacks simply to protect them and keep them safe. Let's not talk about how they actually worked the fields with them and treated them with decency
and some blacks who even owned slaves.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News