- 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: Haley declines to say slavery was cause of Civil War
Posted on 12/28/23 at 2:24 pm to rmnldr
Posted on 12/28/23 at 2:24 pm to rmnldr
quote:
I’ve tried this for years to point out a way for to say it wasn’t about slavery but it was.
then why did the south try to secede in 1828.
Yes, the Tariff of 1828, also known as the Tariff of Abominations, was a major point of contention between the North and South in the 1820s and 1830s 12. The tariff imposed high import duties on goods such as textiles, iron, and agricultural products, which were primarily produced in the South 1. The South believed that the tariff was discriminatory and favored Northern manufacturers at the expense of Southern farmers 1.
In response to the tariff, South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in 1832, which declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void 1. The state threatened to secede from the Union if the federal government attempted to enforce the tariffs 1. However, the crisis was resolved when Congress passed the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which gradually reduced the tariff rates over a period of ten years 1.
the north has always tried to control the south financially. Reconstruction was the goal. bankrupt the south with war then buy up all the land, farms, businesses on the cheap.
As to slavery. the constitution says they are property, however wrong it would be today, that was the law then. Freeing the slaves was an illegal taking of personal property without compensation by the government. Breach of contract (constitution) Once the contract was violated, the parties are no longer obligated to remain in the contract, thus the states which were soverign nations after the revolution had the right to go back to soverign nation status.
0
Posted on 12/28/23 at 2:45 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Many of you will be defending trans rights in 20 years.
By pointing out that Nicki Haley is from South Carolina and her parents came to the United States legally?
Posted on 12/28/23 at 2:46 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
The war was about preserving the nation
See above two posts, that clarifies what I did not know.
I haven't read all 12 pages, but certainly a funding of government component coincided with the need to keep the Southern states in the nest, at first, with or without slaves? The US coffers were filled by US Customs and tariffs on trade goods. There was no income tax.
So not only is the US losing money on export tariff fees from the southern states cotton exports when they seceded, the mills in North would in all probability be charged the same price as the UK, France et al countries that were importing Southern cotton, if the CSA maintained the same tariff schedule of fees for national income and did not give the US a break on such tariffs.
This post was edited on 12/28/23 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 12/28/23 at 2:50 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Johny Reb fought cause he didn't want to see 4 million imported pissed off slaves suddenly let loose across his countryside. Who would. Most northerners felt the same.
Ding ding ding.
Hence why the Union army perpetually struggled with recruitment.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 2:52 pm to Cuz413
quote:
You're getting closer. The war was over secession, no matter the reason. Secession could have been over tariffs/ taxes/ slaves/ unjust laws and Lincoln would still have waged war.
I don’t disagree. But the 1860 secession was over Lincoln’s abolitionist views. The secession was over slavery. That’s why it’s of my opinion that the root cause of the war was slavery.
ETA: and to reiterate, I think most didn’t want the slaves freed to run wild. I think most of the abolitionists viewpoints of the time wanted them to be deported back to Africa. Thomas Sowell has a great video on this subject actually
This post was edited on 12/28/23 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 12/28/23 at 2:52 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
By pointing out that Nicki Haley is from South Carolina and her parents came to the United States legally?
No.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 3:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
States rights to secede from what was perceived an irreconcilably unbeneficial union.
This
Posted on 12/28/23 at 3:03 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Yeah. That's totally the same thing.
Lol. You should read Franklin's writings on German immigrants.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 3:04 pm to rmnldr
When I was knee high to a grasshopper, I thought everyone was going on about 'The Silver War'.
And what was the 'Silver War' all about, you may ask?
Silver, that's what...
And what was the 'Silver War' all about, you may ask?
Silver, that's what...
Posted on 12/28/23 at 3:07 pm to rmnldr
Can someone help me out here. I heard a rumor that southern cotton growers were selling to France and this was the reason for the blockade that caused the start of the conflict.
The north later used the slavery issue to disable the southern economy even more.
The north later used the slavery issue to disable the southern economy even more.
This post was edited on 12/28/23 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 12/28/23 at 3:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Oh Damn!
Oh damn I just realized she's Sikh and isn't even Hindu like the genius just referenced
Imagine getting your 3rd World Indian subcontinent nomenclature mixed up!
Their swamis wear totally different colored turbans!
Posted on 12/28/23 at 3:13 pm to rmnldr
Haley finally says something I agree with. She has now has a total of 1 point in my book
Posted on 12/28/23 at 3:30 pm to keks tadpole
quote:
It was called the "Tariff of Abominations" by its Southern detractors because of the effects it had on the Southern economy. It set a 38% tax on some imported goods and a 45% tax on certain imported raw materials.[1]
The tariffs were on American imports from Europe and imports from Europe were what the South traded agricultural products for. A 38% import tax came right out of the South's primary income and it caused a major recession for a decade. To the North, it made the South a captive market for Northern manufactured goods, but the North didn't have much need for Southern products like cotton when Northerners preferred wool. Then too the North was pretty much self sufficient.
The North of course loved those tariffs because they created a booming economic cycle so they lusted for more.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 3:47 pm to Epaminondas
quote:
Yeah. That's totally the same thing.
Not surprising you would miss the point.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 3:50 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
imports from Europe were what the South traded agricultural products for
So, for example, if a Southern industry wanted to procure steam engines, industrial lathes, forges, etc. it had no real choice but to purchase it from the North, or pay 38% more, but in reality such a tariff would allow Northern industrial manufactures to increase their OHP up to 38%, if said industrial pricing was the same as the Europeans.
In world of "what if's" how much faster would slavery become a poor use of revenue and ultimately abolished buy southern states in their own right if the South was able to purchase cost-effective industrial machinery, that would have lead the inevitable industrial revolution of machines planting and picking cotton in lieu of slaves?
Further, how much less residual racism would there have been in the deep south from the late 19th century forward, if the South finally "saw the light" on it's own accord and freed it's slaves, versus having an entire generation slaughtered, and losing, by fighting for the right to keep slavery in place?
Posted on 12/28/23 at 3:59 pm to rmnldr
Kind of yes and no. Lincoln offered support for a constitutional amendment to protect slavery were it existed so NO it wasn’t all slavery. Dealt much more with slave, non slave new territories. The south feared erosion of the balance of power down the road since Republican wanted a prohibition of slavery in new territories. So slavery kind of but more about future political balance.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 4:06 pm to keks tadpole
quote:
In world of "what if's" how much faster would slavery become a poor use of revenue and ultimately abolished buy southern states in their own right if the South was able to purchase cost-effective industrial machinery, that would have lead the inevitable industrial revolution of machines planting and picking cotton in lieu of slaves?
But the ruling class of the South oriented their political economy around the plantation system. They had vested interest in continuing that system. And that revolution of industrial cotton pickers would have waited till the 1940's before the first commercial cotton picker was produced. This line of what-if reasoning is particularly nonsensical especially in light of the labor movement. What would stop an industrialized South from using slave labor in other settings? Some oblique notion of humanness that the Southern planting class neglected to apply to slaves already? Why wouldn't they have allied with industrialists who spent lots of money attempting to break the labor movement by using the threat of cheaper labor to undercut labor demands? It's a truly idiotic idea that the South would have magically freed the slaves in some random epiphany mediated by industrialization.
quote:
Further, how much less residual racism would there have been in the deep south from the late 19th century forward, if the South finally "saw the light" on it's own accord and freed it's slaves, versus having an entire generation slaughtered, and losing, by fighting for the right to keep slavery in place?
Well, given the terms of surrender and the overt attempts to reintegrate Confederates into the fabric of American society, their response was start a campaign of political terror and repression that lasted a century, I'm confused as to why one would think there would be 'less' residual racism.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 4:11 pm to rmnldr
She pulled the confederate flag off the South Carolina capital real quick
Posted on 12/28/23 at 4:19 pm to keks tadpole
quote:
So, for example, if a Southern industry wanted to procure steam engines, industrial lathes, forges, etc. it had no real choice but to purchase it from the North, or pay 38% more, but in reality such a tariff would allow Northern industrial manufactures to increase their OHP up to 38%, if said industrial pricing was the same as the Europeans.
To add insult to grievous injury, the federal budget was paid for primarily with the tariffs imposed on the South. However, 5 out of 6 government dollars spent on infrastructure improvements went to Northern projects.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 4:20 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
Slavery was part of it, but not all of it like some have made it out to be.
It was about economics of which slavery was a big part. Only about 5% of the population owned slaves; however, non-slaveowners had to compete for jobs with freed slaves and slaves who were able to work for themselves on Sundays and during non-peek seasons.
Many freed slaves owned slaves themselves - not because they were racists, but because that was part of the economics of the time.
Page 12 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News