- 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: 155 Years Ago Today Confederate Forces Opened Fire on Fort Sumter
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:02 am to slackster
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:02 am to slackster
quote:
I've never argued otherwise. There was no altruistic side during the Civil War, but let's not try to sugar coat the fact that the ultimate reason the South seceded was because of slavery.
Yep.
But it wasn't because the south had slavery and the north didn't.
It was over fears of lack of representation.
2
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:02 am to slackster
quote:
My favorite claim is the idea that the Republican party of today is responsible for freeing the slaves.
Look, I'm a conservative, but neither the Republican or Democratic party or predecessors of the 1860s have a damn thing to do with the modern variants.
I will certainly concede your point relative to the modern GOP; however, there is little question that the modern Democratic Party considers blacks as electoral "property" and will punish them severely if they escape the "plantation" (see - Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Stacey Dash, et cetera). Colin Powell only became acceptable when he returned to the plantation by swearing fealty to his master (Obama).
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:03 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
You're right. Slavery was the key issue. However, even without slavery, I think a split between the North and South was coming either way due to (1) the growing stranglehold of power the north had over congress and the Presidency and (2) diametrically opposed economic interests between the North & South and (3) the north's expansion of federal power over the states.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:03 am to Darth_Vader
One of the biggest blunders of the Confederacy . At that point, the South became the agressors .
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:04 am to undrafted
quote:
Who won?
As it turns out, no one really won.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:06 am to Darth_Vader
International Bankers & Factors required subjugation/financialization of Southern US Agriculture. SSDD every day for the last 155 years. Slavery was just a cover story to stir up hate and discontent. Money doesnt care.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:12 am to Volvagia
quote:
It was over fears of lack of representation.
I can get behind this as long as we're conceding the fact that slavery was the root cause. I can agree that the South saw slavery coming to an end and may have felt like it was the last straw or that if they could abolish slavery they could do anything they want to the South, so they may have felt like secession was the only alternative, but that doesn't change the fact that slavery was the root cause. That was the point when the South had "endured" enough and the North was encroaching upon things that the South wouldn't allow. Slavery was where the South decided enough was enough. It is a giant black eye on this area, but we're all better off if we can acknowledge the facts.
It just rubs me the wrong way when people immediately jump in and argue the Civil War wasn't about slavery, because that is completely incorrect for the South. That isn't to say the North were heroes fighting to end slavery, because that couldn't be farther from the truth. The Civil War was NOT between those for slavery and those against it, but slavery was the overriding issue for the South.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:14 am to Volvagia
quote:
Yep.
But it wasn't because the south had slavery and the north didn't.
It was over fears of lack of representation
You hit the nail on the head with that last sentence. Even had slavery been resolved, this issue of representation in the federal government would have most likely lead to the South leaving the Union eventually anyway.
This is an issue that's largely been overshadowed by the issue of slavery as a factor for what the South did since the end of the war. This is especially true in how the issue of secession by the South has been looked at over the past 50+ years and has lead greatly to the notion of the South being "bad" and the North being "good".
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:20 am to slackster
quote:
It just rubs me the wrong way when people immediately jump in and argue the Civil War wasn't about slavery, because that is completely incorrect for the South. That isn't to say the North were heroes fighting to end slavery, because that couldn't be farther from the truth. The Civil War was NOT between those for slavery and those against it, but slavery was the overriding issue for the South
You're right. I think the problem is that people on both sides of the argument try to oversimplify the issue and gloss over the facts that don't support their oversimplified point of view. The issue of why the South left the Union is actually quite complicated. Yes, slavery was the "final straw". But it was not the only issue. And as I've already stated, those other issues were serious enough that even if Slavery was taken off the table, a split was still coming eventually.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:23 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
And as I've already stated, those other issues were serious enough that even if Slavery was taken off the table, a split was still coming eventually.
Perhaps.
Appreciate the insightful back and forth this morning.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:30 am to slackster
quote:
Perhaps.
That's the thing though. We'll never be able to know for sure one way or the other what would have happened if the issue of slavery had been resolved without the South resorting to seceding from the Union. I'm making an educated guess on what would have happened. But still, even if a resolution had been found in 1860, I'm pretty certain that within the next 10-20 years the other issues would have lead to the same result, namely the South splitting from the North to form their own country. How that would have turned out is anyone's guess.
quote:
Appreciate the insightful back and forth this morning.
Same here.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:35 am to lsu2006
quote:
Slavery was almost 100% dead in the north by the time war started. Sorry numbers confuse you.
Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri disagree with you. In fact, Lincoln had to violate the Constitution after Maryland declared itself neutral. Lincoln had to declare marshall law, suspend habias corpus, prevent the Maryland legislature from convening, and the US Army had to turn the cannons on federal hill so they could be used to attack the city of Baltimore not defend it. Slavery was legal in Maryland until the end of 1864. It was legal in Delaware until after the 13th amendment was ratified, and Delaware voted against the 13th amendment, and it didn't ratify it until 1901. Kentucky and Missouri were still part of the north, but there were secession movements so you can count or not count them as you please, but Maryland and Delaware were part of the north and they had slavery. So the assertion that slavery was dead in the north is 100% dead wrong.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:37 am to WeeWee
Notice how I said almost 100% dead? Just look at the census of 1860. Should shed some light on the topic.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:41 am to Darth_Vader
Did 8 pussies really downvote history? Grow up...
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:42 am to GreatLakesTiger24
You mean the part of the country that was totally obliterated in a war and had its #1 economic producer taken away from them is now poor...shocking. There's a reason the south is dumber, poorer,and behind in development. The war set it decades behind the north.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:42 am to BugAC
quote:
Did 8 pussies really downvote history?
That's pretty standard whenever I post just about anything.
quote:
Grow up...
I don't see that ever happening.
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:45 am to Darth_Vader
Good lord people still don't think it was fought over slavery? I encourage everyone to read some of the secessionist papers that some states put out as their reasoning to secured. SC, GA, MS, and TX alone mention the word slave or slavery over 50 times combined. And that doesn't even include other words to describe them (blacks, negros etc)
Eta: and there is an explicit distinguishment between slave and non slave holding states.
Seriously, give them a Google.
Hell idk what people hold onto this. I guess it's because the average CSA soldier didn't own slaves and their individual reasoning was to fight to protect their home? And people latch onto that as a noble thing? I don't know. In any case the CSA government seceded to protect slavery and the military it established was there to fight for it.
Eta: and there is an explicit distinguishment between slave and non slave holding states.
Seriously, give them a Google.
Hell idk what people hold onto this. I guess it's because the average CSA soldier didn't own slaves and their individual reasoning was to fight to protect their home? And people latch onto that as a noble thing? I don't know. In any case the CSA government seceded to protect slavery and the military it established was there to fight for it.
This post was edited on 4/12/16 at 10:48 am
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:48 am to Hoyt
quote:You value "states' rights" over personal autonomy. You are 150+ years behind the rest of us.
In defense of States' Rights
quote:
Alabama
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:48 am to Darth_Vader
quote:Wait.
But I guess you know more about mid-19th century US law than everyone who was actually alive at that time.
Were you alive at that time?
Posted on 4/12/16 at 10:50 am to Darth_Vader
quote:Back then the United States made a habit of establishing dominance over primitive, backward people. The civil war was no different. Superior people defeated inferior people.
Well, it sort of was found, namely secession. Lincoln could have let the South go it's own way and there would have never been a drop of blood shed. Instead, Lincoln chose war.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News