- 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 7:42 pm to rmnldr
Posted on 12/28/23 at 7:42 pm to rmnldr
She is exhibiting the same lack of historical knowledge you see on this board when the topic comes up…though I saw a headline saying she walked back her comments. It’s sad that republicans have to tread falsely around this topic.
1
Posted on 12/28/23 at 7:50 pm to roadGator
Yeah, I tend to annoy retards. Good talk though. Run along.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 7:51 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Run along
Once I’m done with your mom.
This post was edited on 12/28/23 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 12/28/23 at 7:58 pm to roadGator
I don’t see how you argue that the civil war was not over slavery. It obviously at its core was about slavery and what it afforded the southern states to accomplish and the power it gave the southern states.
Sadly I do not believe the civil war was fought for freedom and real rights of slaves. We know that it was a horrible thing and should not have happened; however, I do not believe the Northern states were fighting with that in mind at all. I think they were power hungry.
Sadly I do not believe the civil war was fought for freedom and real rights of slaves. We know that it was a horrible thing and should not have happened; however, I do not believe the Northern states were fighting with that in mind at all. I think they were power hungry.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 8:07 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Well, that doesn't inform where capital went and that the orientation of American industry, banking, and capital was focused on the Northeast. The 'free trade' proposed by the British, who coincidentally pursued protectionist policies when it suited them, is what drove heavy investment in American industry in the Northeast, including the American textile industry, which was started in order to compete with British industry. The American System in that context was about developing an internal trade network which was robust enough to deal with an international trade market that would occasionally be protectionist.
What does this have to do with the price of cotton and the notion that African slaves built America?
If you are suggesting there was a lot of bs with how the cotton got from southern farmers to Europe and that essentially people were getting screwed, wouldn’t that be another reason for a rift between the north and south?They were getting rich off their slaves? These northerners that is.
This post was edited on 12/28/23 at 8:08 pm
Posted on 12/28/23 at 8:18 pm to dgnx6
quote:
What does this have to do with the price of cotton and the notion that African slaves built America?
I'm saying that people who have that notion are incorrect. More wealth was generated through investment in industry than in labor-intensive agrarian enterprises. The actual economic history of the UK itself supports this rather than a narrative that they profited exclusively off slavery.
quote:
If you are suggesting there was a lot of bs with how the cotton got from southern farmers to Europe and that essentially people were getting screwed, wouldn’t that be another reason for a rift between the north and south?They were getting rich off their slaves
No, I'm saying that with respect to the tariff issue, the South did not support the federal revenues excessively. I don't think the South had any limitations on what markets they could access for exports, but they were limited by tariffs for imports. They would have rather a free trade arrangement for both export and imports, but the British and the French both had tariffs for their native industry, to which the US responded with their own tariffs. It wasn't a punitive action done to harm the South in particular.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 8:22 pm to cwill
This is apparently from 2010.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 8:37 pm to Bunk Moreland
This is real simple.. Two things can be equally true at once
1) the first truth is that this guy was obviously a Democratic plant who should have been shouted down and booed.. IMO a town hall in the year 2024 is not the time or the place to look back 150 years and bring up stupid shite…
2) the second truth is that Nikki Haley came across as a nitwit bimbo who has no grasp of history.. anyone with a functioning brain knows that the Civil War was about states’ rights.. specifically states rights to SLAVE OWNERSHIP …. It was also about heritage .. specifically the heritage of SLAVE OWNERSHIP .. and it was about tradition.. specifically the tradition of SLAVE OWNERSHIP .. she should have just answered the question we all know the answer to, and we wouldnt be talking about it today.. instead she missed a slam dunk on a 3 ft hoop .
1) the first truth is that this guy was obviously a Democratic plant who should have been shouted down and booed.. IMO a town hall in the year 2024 is not the time or the place to look back 150 years and bring up stupid shite…
2) the second truth is that Nikki Haley came across as a nitwit bimbo who has no grasp of history.. anyone with a functioning brain knows that the Civil War was about states’ rights.. specifically states rights to SLAVE OWNERSHIP …. It was also about heritage .. specifically the heritage of SLAVE OWNERSHIP .. and it was about tradition.. specifically the tradition of SLAVE OWNERSHIP .. she should have just answered the question we all know the answer to, and we wouldnt be talking about it today.. instead she missed a slam dunk on a 3 ft hoop .
Posted on 12/28/23 at 8:41 pm to AUauditor
quote:
It was about economics of which slavery was a big part.
Ding
Ding
Ding
Once again, the 'follow the money' rule explains almost all human events.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:55 pm to rmnldr
Wake up people.
This is not so much about the civil war as it is about campaign strategy.
It’s a planted exchange designed to make Haley look more aligned with the southern conservative who believes that the civil war was about anything BUT slavery.
And fwiw, slavery was a huge part of why the civil war started and was fought. It was a huge issue at the time and the one issue that was worth fighting over.
Economics… Free labor vs paid labor.
Call it what you want.
This is not so much about the civil war as it is about campaign strategy.
It’s a planted exchange designed to make Haley look more aligned with the southern conservative who believes that the civil war was about anything BUT slavery.
And fwiw, slavery was a huge part of why the civil war started and was fought. It was a huge issue at the time and the one issue that was worth fighting over.
Economics… Free labor vs paid labor.
Call it what you want.
This post was edited on 12/28/23 at 11:00 pm
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:20 pm to rmnldr
The real culprit is the Constitution. It created a race between slave and nonslave states, and southern elites called its bluff in 1861.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:29 pm to rmnldr
States rights. We forget that we are a republic. A united number of states that should be making policy while the federal government should be there to ensure the rights of those citizens.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:33 pm to SUJagsfan
quote:
States rights to do what exactly?
Doesn’t matter. The point is that it is unconditional rights.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:34 pm to SlidellCajun
Yes, but that argument was only after the northern states had benefitted from slavery and progressed beyond the need for it. As undeveloped states in the south, we were trying to match their economic output, but suddenly they wanted to stop the game because they were all set up good after slavery and we were still building the foundation? So they reached the finish line and all of a sudden we can't play the same game?
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:40 pm to rmnldr
It’s such a stupid question. Life then as now is never absolute black and white. This idea that the Civil War kicked off because one side was vehemently anti slavery and another side was vehemently pro slavery is ridiculous. Now that is not to dismiss the issue of slavery as playing a major role as some like to do, but then as it is now, black people are often used as pawns in the context of much larger political arguments. One only has to read Lincoln’s own words to understand his opinions of the black man. It was simply a means to an end.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:43 pm to 10thyrsr
Not to mention the railroad wars from the northern railroad tycoons like Vanderbilt fueled the war.
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:46 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Exactly! This wasn't about the horrors of slavery,but another political fight that has been muted, instead transferred into another dividing issue. They love to divide us.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 12:16 am to rmnldr
Because it wasn’t. Only ones that say otherwise are the idiots that want to rewrite history.
Sorry, no reparations for you.
Sorry, no reparations for you.
Posted on 12/29/23 at 9:36 am to 31TIGERS
quote:
Because it wasn’t.
The confederates in the 1860s disagreed with you. Why don't you believe them?
Posted on 12/29/23 at 10:54 am to BamaAtl
quote:
The confederates in the 1860s disagreed with you. Why don't you believe them?
Go on
Page 14 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News