- 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
1
Posted on 1/13/17 at 4:25 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Well considering the State right they were particularly fighting for was slavery, your statement was wrong.
I chuckle when someone thinks that the South went to war over states' rights is some sort of "gotcha" moment. You can package it however you'd like, the bottom line is that they decided their rights were worth leaving the union when the union told them they couldn't own slaves.
In December of 1832 President Andrew Jackson sent a naval flotilla and threatened to bring in federal troops to enforce tariffs in South Carolina - a major states' rights issue. No one seceded then, but when they threatened slavery, all hell broke loose.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 4:32 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
No doubt slave holders were assholes but why did the north insist on taking back the south. As terrible as slavery was the north was the aggressor plain and simple
There is some truth to that, but the South basically took federal property (forts, supplies, etc.) after secession. That wasn't exactly a peaceful move.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 6:08 pm to Mo Jeaux
Those were the only 5 states that issued declarations of cause.
That's 5 of 11 states and I think you can conclude infer the other states had similar leanings. Non slave states had a voting majority and had passed laws limitting the admittance of new slave states into the union. That meant it was a matter of time until the elimination of slavery, which many of the powerful and wealthy in the south saw as an economic threat.
That's 5 of 11 states and I think you can conclude infer the other states had similar leanings. Non slave states had a voting majority and had passed laws limitting the admittance of new slave states into the union. That meant it was a matter of time until the elimination of slavery, which many of the powerful and wealthy in the south saw as an economic threat.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 6:21 pm to slackster
Those areas were no longer owned by the federal gov't so they had no right to stay in the first and we're given plenty of time to leave but refused. Like fort Sumpter which started the war. When the south secceeded all union soldiers should've gtfo.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 6:24 pm to slackster
Well they didn't outlaw slavery before they seceded you know. Technically they started to secede when Lincoln won the election without carrying a single southern state. They felt their voice was no longer heard and a bug fear was that meant soon the government would start passing laws without having any care how it affected the south since it didn't need any of those states to win the election, and one of the key issues happened to be slavery.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 6:26 pm to WHS
quote:
Sorry, but the civil War was fought over states rights
Yep. The right to own slaves
Posted on 1/13/17 at 6:36 pm to Masterag
Just because you think another country is bad or does bad things doesn't give you the right to go invading them for no reason. As bad as it sounds if Hitler had never invaded anyone nobody attacks him. We never attacked Russia even with the genocide that Stalin did. Same with Laos and pol pot. The list goes on. Just because someone is doing bad things doesn't give you the right to invade which is what Lincoln did
Posted on 1/13/17 at 6:47 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
For those of you saying the civil war war over slavery isn't entirely wrong or right, what is fact is that most of the southern states only suceeded after Lincoln pretty much demanded each state raise 50,000 troops for an invasion of the south for a completely legal right of seccession which was the opinion of the chief justice of the US supreme court
Posted on 1/13/17 at 6:54 pm to AU66
And as far as ending slavery, the worlds opinion on it was changing swiftly, as soon as britian and france refused to buy southern cotton because of slavery, slavery would have quickly ended. Woulda never made it past the 1880's
Posted on 1/13/17 at 6:54 pm to AU66
And as far as ending slavery, the worlds opinion on it was changing swiftly, as soon as britian and france refused to buy southern cotton because of slavery, slavery would have quickly ended. Woulda never made it past the 1880's
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:39 pm to volod
Eventually. When and how are anyone's guess.
One factor working against it was that Europe found other sources for cotton during the war. That plus the increasing antipathy toward slavery would have made it unsustainable.
The CSA itself wouldn't have lasted all that long. It was based on states rights and Jeff Davis had trouble getting governors to cooperate when they had a foreign army on their soil.
One factor working against it was that Europe found other sources for cotton during the war. That plus the increasing antipathy toward slavery would have made it unsustainable.
The CSA itself wouldn't have lasted all that long. It was based on states rights and Jeff Davis had trouble getting governors to cooperate when they had a foreign army on their soil.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 7:40 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
the right to invade which is what Lincoln did
Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize Those countries were fighting to regainl confederate secessions. Good to know.
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 1/14/17 at 8:31 am to Masterag
It wasn't his right to take the land back though! I guess you would've fought for Santa Anna during the fight for Texas since he had the right to reclaim his land huh?
Posted on 1/14/17 at 8:46 am to Masterag
quote:
quote:Sorry, but the civil War was fought over states rights
quote:
Yep. The right to own slaves
Since 2% of the southern population at that time were slave owners, no. The average southerner was more upset over the tariffs imposed on British goods, mostly clothing, by the north.
BTW, although slavery was outlawed in the north many people there owned slaves anyway. This included Union generals Grant and Sherman. Sherman even held slaves after Lee's surrender at Appomattox. When asked about this Sherman said, "Good help is hard to find".
The South fought for states rights, the north fought to preserve the Union. Slavery was important mostly to the abolitionists.
Posted on 1/14/17 at 9:27 am to volod
quote:
Sometimes I wonder, being black,if things would have drastically changed if the South won. Particularly slavery.
With the coming of the Industrial Revolution and mechanization, slavery would have died out anyway due to it's built-in inefficiencies.
Other countries had outlawed it for other reasons, but this would have truly spelled the end of it.
Posted on 1/14/17 at 9:31 am to volod
It would have ended because of economic and political pressure, but by 1860 the institution of slavery had become far more than an economic institution. White southerners had come to define liberty, whiteness, and their own existence as juxtapositions of slavery, so it's hard see that they would ended it any time soon. As the historical record demonstrates, they clung to white supremacist beliefs for nearly a century after slavery ended.
Yes, Brazil ended it gradually sometime thereafter, but they had a different kind of slave system, one in which they tended to only import males, which created a system that was not self-sustaining. Moreover, they never developed the kind of ideological defense of the institution like the South did, meaning that when the time came to dismantle the slave institution, there was no retreating from ensconced ideological positions necessary; there was no need to redefine their interpretations of what it meant to be "Brazilian."
Yes, Brazil ended it gradually sometime thereafter, but they had a different kind of slave system, one in which they tended to only import males, which created a system that was not self-sustaining. Moreover, they never developed the kind of ideological defense of the institution like the South did, meaning that when the time came to dismantle the slave institution, there was no retreating from ensconced ideological positions necessary; there was no need to redefine their interpretations of what it meant to be "Brazilian."
Posted on 1/14/17 at 9:56 am to AUCE05
quote:
Let's not start this myth, because the main issue was slavery. Their was some minor topics that we were fighting over, but make no mistake, slavery was the main issue.
The underlying issue was slavery, the real cause of the civil war was political bravado. Politicians from the North and the South let their egos blind them to magnitude of the devastation they were unleashing.
Posted on 1/14/17 at 10:02 am to HarryBalzack
quote:
As the historical record demonstrates, they clung to white supremacist beliefs for nearly a century after slavery ended.
This was not unique to white Southerners from the USA (or CSA) at the time.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News