- 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: Video of old Civil War vets performing the "Rebel Yell"
Posted on 6/8/13 at 7:00 am to braindeadboxer
Posted on 6/8/13 at 7:00 am to braindeadboxer
Truly hard to say how the CSA would be today.
Slavery would likely have died around the turn of the century and I have a theory that race relations among southern whites and blacks would have been much more pleasant.
Who knows how the Southern economy would have turned out though, industry was not very popular for a long time.
Slavery would likely have died around the turn of the century and I have a theory that race relations among southern whites and blacks would have been much more pleasant.
Who knows how the Southern economy would have turned out though, industry was not very popular for a long time.
1
Posted on 6/8/13 at 7:33 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
There's no telling what would have happened with slavery
slavery was on it's way out war or no war.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 9:57 am to Kcrad
quote:
slavery was on it's way out war or no war.
I think so too.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 10:02 am to upgrade
Slavery had very little to do with the Civil War
Posted on 6/8/13 at 10:14 am to braindeadboxer
You'd have 2 countries each half the size of the US an each with half the wealth. At the very least, more likely one would be better off than the other, but either way south and north would both be in significantly worse shape economically than we are today.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 10:54 am to Kcrad
quote:
slavery was on it's way out war or no war.
With advancements in technology (cotton gin), slavery wasnt going to be needed for much longer. That was a big reason the European countries didnt step in to help the South. 30-40 years earlier i think they'd have wanted a cotton pipeline.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 11:50 am to EvrybodysAllAmerican
Actually the cotton gin itself caused the need for slavery to rise, look it up.
But other machines would have lessened the need for field labor.
And yes slavery was a huge cause for the war.
The south left the union when anti slavery Lincoln was elected not before.
But other machines would have lessened the need for field labor.
And yes slavery was a huge cause for the war.
The south left the union when anti slavery Lincoln was elected not before.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 1:08 pm to upgrade
That was not because he was going to free the slaves. Lincoln was, by todays standards, a white supremacist based on his own words. It was because he was going to require new states to be free states without them having a say in the matter. Thus tilting congress even further in the north's favor which considering the tariffs they put on the south that didn't apply to the north since the north could build their own goods was a pretty good indication they were going to further try to bleed the cash out of the south and there wouldn't be anything the south could legally do to stop it.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 1:26 pm to faxis
Faxis with the facts.. 
Greatlakestiger
its obvious youve never been to a reenactment.
all of the reenactors I know are hard working, proud of their heritage and are far from racist.
and none of them are trailer trash
Greatlakestiger
its obvious youve never been to a reenactment.
all of the reenactors I know are hard working, proud of their heritage and are far from racist.
and none of them are trailer trash
Posted on 6/8/13 at 1:54 pm to faxis
I agree with everything you posted there.
But tell me how slavery had nothing to do with the war.
The southern states succeeded because they wanted new states to decide for themselves whether they would allow slavey or not.
The north wanted to stop the south from leaving by force if necessary.
Again how did slavery have nothing to do with the war?
But tell me how slavery had nothing to do with the war.
The southern states succeeded because they wanted new states to decide for themselves whether they would allow slavey or not.
The north wanted to stop the south from leaving by force if necessary.
Again how did slavery have nothing to do with the war?
Posted on 6/8/13 at 2:02 pm to upgrade
To say slavery had nothing to do with the civil war is a little asinine.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 2:07 pm to upgrade
Wong wrong wrong. 7 states had seceded before Lincoln was elected. They were: AL, TX, FL, MS, SC, GA, and LA.
Also, though slavery was one small Reason the south was not happy, secession was due to the want of states rights in general. The fed. govt. was usurping states rights as quickly as they could. Southerners felt, rightly, that more power should be held on a local level, not by someone up the coast who had no idea what each individual state needed.
As someone stated earlier, everyone I've been around at reenactments were people who lived decent lives, had enough money to fund an expensive hobby, and were/are proud of their heritage.
The north was outfought shortterm; the south was outfunded long term.
ETA: the emancipation proclamation didn't free slaves. It freed SOUTHERN slaves. Northerners owned slaves long afterwards, including Lincoln.
Also, though slavery was one small Reason the south was not happy, secession was due to the want of states rights in general. The fed. govt. was usurping states rights as quickly as they could. Southerners felt, rightly, that more power should be held on a local level, not by someone up the coast who had no idea what each individual state needed.
As someone stated earlier, everyone I've been around at reenactments were people who lived decent lives, had enough money to fund an expensive hobby, and were/are proud of their heritage.
The north was outfought shortterm; the south was outfunded long term.
ETA: the emancipation proclamation didn't free slaves. It freed SOUTHERN slaves. Northerners owned slaves long afterwards, including Lincoln.
This post was edited on 6/8/13 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 6/8/13 at 2:21 pm to jsb29
You beat me to it, but now you know the rest othe story. Lincoln essentially ended the constitutional right of the state to leave the union.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 2:37 pm to jsb29
Actually you are quite wrong sir.
South Carolina was the first state to succeed from the union on December 20 1860.
Lincoln was elected on November 6 1860.
So you are wrong wrong wrong to put it your way.
South Carolina was the first state to succeed from the union on December 20 1860.
Lincoln was elected on November 6 1860.
So you are wrong wrong wrong to put it your way.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 2:49 pm to upgrade
Ok, not elected but inaugurated. The last of those seven states officially seceded Feb. 1 1861. Lincoln took office Mar. 4 1861. All 7 were seceded before he was president and all had started moving towards it before Nov. 6. There's no way an entire state could've started the process and finished it between Nov. and Mar.
You got me on using the wrong word but the fact is still the same.
You got me on using the wrong word but the fact is still the same.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 2:56 pm to jsb29
Do you not think the southern states were aware of the type of campaign he would run if elected?
Do you think there was a possibility that if Lincoln didn't win the states don't succeed?
Use your f ing brain, fuk.
Do you think there was a possibility that if Lincoln didn't win the states don't succeed?
Use your f ing brain, fuk.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 3:07 pm to upgrade
quote:
Do you think there was a possibility that if Lincoln didn't win the states don't secede?
Nope. Not really. As much as you want it to be about Lincoln, it really wasn't.
Jeff Davis was elected the first CSA president in Feb. 1861. Secession was I the works before the election and would've happened regardless of the outcome.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 3:18 pm to upgrade
quote:
Use your f ing brain, fuk.
Settle down. This board isn't the OT or Poli-Talk.
Posted on 6/8/13 at 3:58 pm to jsb29
You do realize that the southern states participated in the election of 1860 right?
So if the states were going to sucede either way, why did they vote in this election?
So if the states were going to sucede either way, why did they vote in this election?
This post was edited on 6/8/13 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 6/8/13 at 4:26 pm to upgrade
quote:
Posted by upgrade You do realize that the southern states participated in the election of 1860 right? So if the states were going to sucede either way, why did they vote in this election?
Election results according to Wiki.
Not the first vote for Lincoln in the CSA states. SC didn't even participate in the election they were so far removed. I can only guess that those in the south that did vote, for bell or Breckinridge, did so just in case things didn't go their way with secession.
It would appear as though you're wrong again. Still think they didn't have something in mind before the election?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News