- 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
0
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:10 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
The truth is that union bent over backwards to accommodate the south - which always had disproportionate representation in its favor.
Like 75% of the wealth in America was concentrated in the South back then.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:12 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:Yeah. The poor ol' south. They just wanted to be left alone to abuse their wealth in private.
Like 75% of the wealth in America was concentrated in the South back then.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:14 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
It would be like arguing a grunt today couldn't have the motivation of going to war to defend Constitutional property rights because he didn't own any property. It's obviously silly on its face.
I would say very few would say that they have that motivation for why they go to war if you were to ask them.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:14 pm to zatetic
In the American South it was white people who overwhelminly owned slaves
This is stupid and you are playing the Radicals' game focusing on this. They will use racism as pretext. Follow the money.....always follow the money. This is a full frontal shakedown did you not pay attention for the last 30 years?
This is stupid and you are playing the Radicals' game focusing on this. They will use racism as pretext. Follow the money.....always follow the money. This is a full frontal shakedown did you not pay attention for the last 30 years?
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:18 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Yeah. The poor ol' south. They just wanted to be left alone to abuse their wealth in private.
You seemed to be confused about why they had "disproportionate representation."
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:18 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:If a federal law were passed declaring it illegal to own your own house and/or your own land, it is easily imaginable that there would be an armed revolt. It is further easy to assume that potentially MILLIONS of young, poor, non-land/house-owning Americans would join said armed cause.
I would say very few would say that they have that motivation for why they go to war if you were to ask them.
But according to your logic, they wouldn't - because they didn't own their own house yet.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:20 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
I can’t understand why people cannot admit that the war was about white supremacy and the right to own negro slaves.
literally ever white person in the north and south thought whites were superior to blacks back then including abe lincoln.
i think patrick cleburne summed it up best in january 2, 1864 letter to joe johnson proposing to arm and enlist slaves in return for emancipation
quote:
It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.
cleburne did not own slaves.
by the way 90% of all federal revenue at the time was the excise tax on cotton and that's what the north was fighting for, it sure as he11 wasn't about freeing slaves. maybe 15% of the population considered them selves abolitionist.
This post was edited on 6/27/20 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:21 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
If a federal law were passed declaring it illegal to own your own house and/or your own land, it is easily imaginable that there would be an armed revolt. It is further easy to assume that potentially MILLIONS of young, poor, non-land/house-owning Americans would join said armed cause.
True.
But your example doesnt apply in the case of the Civil War.
Lincoln stated many times that he didn't want to intefere with Southern slave practices.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:21 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:Sure it does.
But your example doesnt apply in the case of the Civil War.
quote:And yet he did.
Lincoln stated many times that he didn't want to intefere with Southern slave practices.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:25 pm to DougsMugs
quote:
There is no way in hell those percentages were right. Maybe, it was distorted for some political reason.
That's a percentage of households, not people.
Divide the percentages by the average number of people in the household and you get a per capita figure.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:26 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Sure it does.
When did someone pass a law saying slaves couldn't be owned prior to the war?
quote:
And yet he did
Because the South seceded, Lincoln said he wouldn't interfere if they didnt.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:32 pm to stout
quote:
Or perhaps the war wasn't just about slavery
I wonder why it was so heavily referenced in the letters of secession and the literature and speeches leading up to the war and the revisions all came after?
Posted on 6/27/20 at 3:37 pm to cwill
quote:
I wonder why it was so heavily referenced in the letters of secession and the literature and speeches leading up to the war and the revisions all came after?
Why fight a war over slavery if Lincoln said he wouldnt interfere?
Posted on 6/27/20 at 4:23 pm to Big Scrub TX
You mean a federal law that many Northern States felt was an overreach and did not enact? Which is why the law did not last long as it was approved in 1850 and repealed in 1864. Right before the civil war ended.
Lincoln was elected in 1860 and wanted to keep slavery out of New territories. Many southern states didn't like this idea. They felt the federal government was reaching, it was fine when the federal government reached for their personal gain as through the Fugitive Slave Act. Just like today when we argue abortion rights depending on your side you either agree or disagree with the federal government and say they have too much power to regulate.
Lincoln was elected in 1860 and wanted to keep slavery out of New territories. Many southern states didn't like this idea. They felt the federal government was reaching, it was fine when the federal government reached for their personal gain as through the Fugitive Slave Act. Just like today when we argue abortion rights depending on your side you either agree or disagree with the federal government and say they have too much power to regulate.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 4:27 pm to tduecen
The war was about states rights, was slavery probably the biggest right they were concerned about?
Hell yeah.
But the Confederacy didnt simply go to war to keep their slaves, Lincoln had already said they could keep them if they didnt secede.
Hell yeah.
But the Confederacy didnt simply go to war to keep their slaves, Lincoln had already said they could keep them if they didnt secede.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 4:30 pm to SidewalkTiger
Lincoln stated if they had slaves they could keep them that was fine, but any new states would not have them. That was a problem for the South as they would have lost all power in government. The Kansas-Missouri Compromise essentially said there would be a 1 for 1 and Lincoln comes in saying the opposite.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 4:31 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:Let's not forgot the Auction house$, slave patrollers, Overseers ,etc.....It was a dynamic slave economy & owning a slave was a status symbol.
I'm saying the concept of the impact of slavery being only limited to the literal direct owners of slaves is facile at best - and really just dishonest.
Solomon Northup & other slaves were routinely " hired out" to others ( including non slave owners) or subject to " chattel mortgages" to debtors. Northup was " loaned out" to a local carpenter due to his owners debt.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 4:33 pm to stout
So, all the Southerners that fought in the war were fighting for 6% of the very rich. Yea, that is what liberals want people to believe. 
Posted on 6/27/20 at 4:33 pm to tduecen
I’m absolutely certain nobody in my family owned slaves,
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News