- 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: Thomas Jefferson did more to end slavery than Abe Lincoln
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:30 am to volod
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:30 am to volod
quote:
This is what I find odd about pro-Confederate sympathy. The CSA at its core was heavily aristocratic. The term "Southern Royalty" was fitting for the Antebellum to Civil War.
Why do you find it odd?
0
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:35 am to greygoose
quote:
Why didn't he free the slaves that were in areas not under rebellion?
Why were the vast number of men who fought and died for the Confederacy, not slave owners?
It's all politics.....I'm guessing hat those slaves residing in areas firmly under Union control were de facto emancipated already?
As to the vast amount of Southerners who did not own slaves......I have always thought that was one of the great sell jobs of all time by the Southern Planter class
Because the only people who were being "victims" of the North and the abolitionists was the Planter class primarily and maybe to a lesser extent the merchant class. The lower class were going to get screwed no mater who they supported
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:41 am to Pdubntrub
quote:
A slave market simply can't compete with a free market.
That's hilarious considering sweat shops have put out quite a bit of manufacturing in the US.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:42 am to Pdubntrub
quote:
Unless the south changed and freed the slaves, which seemed inevitable.
Many wanted to end it, and that had been true for a very long time. Unfortunately, they couldn’t see a way out.
Consider Jefferson’s “wolf by the ears” line.
This not a novel comment - but I can’t imagine slavery surviving much longer with or without the war though.
Industrial development would have destroyed it.
quote:
the free market of the U.S. would've ruined the South's economy
What do you mean by ruin?
The South and North weren’t exactly competitors. Manufacturing was limited in the south, just as there wasn’t a lot of cotton production north of the Mason Dixon.
The economies often complemented each other.
The autarkic conditions of the war changed that, and the south was forced to invest in manufacturing, but that need would have survived the war.
We weren’t always all that interested in wealth and progress, either. That has always been the southern condition. And given the immense sacrifices southerners made for the Confederacy, they probably would have accepted poverty, as they did the hardships of the war.
This post was edited on 5/28/19 at 10:48 am
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:45 am to KiwiHead
quote:
As to the vast amount of Southerners who did not own slaves......I have always thought that was one of the great sell jobs of all time by the Southern Planter class
You’re projecting Marxist theology on the 1860s.
It wasn’t a class war.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 10:54 am to KiwiHead
quote:
I'm guessing hat those slaves residing in areas firmly under Union control were de facto emancipated already?
Guess again.
quote:
Civil War Main article: Kentucky in the American Civil War Kentucky did not abolish slavery during the Civil War, as did the border states of Maryland and Missouri. However, during the war, about 75% of slaves in Kentucky were freed or escaped to Union lines. The Kentucky legislature considered a conditional ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, to deny freedmen and other blacks constitutional rights and require them to leave the state within ten years of freedom. Instead, it rejected the Amendment.[4] Even after the conclusion of the Civil War and fall of the Confederacy, slaveholders in Kentucky continued to believe that slavery would continue to exist, and continued to hold and trade enslaved people through most of 1865. Slavery legally ended in the US on December 18, 1865, when the 13th Amendment became part of the Constitution. The 13th Amendment was not ratified in the state until 1976.[5]
LINK
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:43 am to Lima Whiskey
quote:
You’re projecting Marxist theology on the 1860s.
It wasn’t a class war.
Don't kid yourself ......all wars are about money. Those at the top seek to preserve their status and wealth and routinely will enlist members of other classes under them to further their cause. What did the white Southern underclass have to gain buy supporting slavery?
Supporting the institution pushed the value of their labor down.....supporting the abolition probably was not much better . But don't kid yourself that poor non slaveholding poor whites actually stood to gain financially by preserving States Rights. They probably stood only to gain by keeping themselves one rung above the black man on a societal level
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:49 am to greygoose
quote:
If Lincoln was truly anti-slavery, he would have freed slaves in the States that he actually controlled!
Lincoln was anti-slavery but he wasn't stupid. 1862-63 was a very turbulent time. States like Kentucky and Maryland were remaining part of the Union, but only just. If Lincoln would have called for those states to free their slaves, those states would have likely seceded and joined the Confederacy. Do you know what that would have meant? Among other things, it would have placed Washington, D.C. - the nation's capital - deep inside enemy territory.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 11:58 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Don't kid yourself ......all wars are about money.
That’s a profoundly illiterate opinion, with no basis in fact.
Read period letters.
quote:
But don't kid yourself that poor non slaveholding poor whites actually stood to gain financially by preserving States Rights.
Sure.
But it wasn’t about money. That’s not why more than 92% of eligible males fought for the CSA.
This post was edited on 5/28/19 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 5/28/19 at 12:08 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
That’s a profoundly illiterate opinion, with no basis in fact.
Follow the money.......always follow the money. Don't be naive and stupid on purpose. The Southern Planter class saw that even limiting slavery as Lincoln initially wanted was a profound threat to their pocketbook and I suspect they realized this sometime around 1820 due to the Missouri Compromise.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 12:11 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
What did the white Southern underclass have to gain buy supporting slavery?
Supporting the institution pushed the value of their labor down.....supporting the abolition probably was not much better . But don't kid yourself that poor non slaveholding poor whites actually stood to gain financially by preserving States Rights. They probably stood only to gain by keeping themselves one rung above the black man on a societal level
^x100
The other evidence is the Golden Circle plan, which would have enslaved Hispanics and other indigenous peoples had the CSA taken control. It was never about protecting the rights of the poor whites, that's romanticized history. The planter class would use cheap slave and Hispanic labor to ultimately keep wages down.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 12:24 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
their interest was more geo-political/economical than moral. Nathan Meyer Rothschild was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in England when he established a trust to purchase all of England's slaves and free them; although his intentions do seem to be at least somewhat morally motivated, he and his bank benefited from the economic changes that resulted from abolition many times what he endowed toward the trust.
Rothschilds have always been an interesting topic.
A good alternative history question is: if the Southern US was given the same option (a government slave buyback program), would they have taken it. The cost of the Civil War was actually more expensive than just buying out the Planters. By the standards of their day, the Planters and their families would have stayed rich (and probably invested in something else). The issue is did the South see slavery as a pure economic tool or as a social contract.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 12:26 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Follow the money.......always follow the money.
Again, this is not an opinion with any basis in fact.
We are fundamentally emotional creatures. And we make major decisions, like going to war, for largely emotional reasons.
The Empire of Japan declared war on the United States because honor demanded it.
Any attempt to write a economic history of war would falter because the premise is cracked.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 12:29 pm to volod
quote:
The issue is did the South see slavery as a pure economic tool or as a social contract.
They probably would have accepted a solution, that preserved the existing social order, where they controlled the south.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 12:30 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Lincoln was anti-slavery but he wasn't stupid.
He was immensely practical.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 1:02 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
Again, this is not an opinion with any basis in fact.
Don't be naive.....this was about a way of life, even the South admitted that. Way of life connotates a lifestyle and questions about overall societal wealth.....Fighting to preserve a way of life...bubbeleh that's about money
quote:
We are fundamentally emotional creatures. And we make major decisions, like going to war, for largely emotional reasons
If someone attacks you like Pearl Harbor, you are right but most wars are started because of the pursuit of wealth and resources. Germany in WWII was not about some greater Aryan thing. Germany wanted resources ..... what do you think the invasion of Russia was for....it certainly was not for Stalin's borscht recipe. The American Revolution was about money(no taxation without representation)
quote:
The Empire of Japan declared war on the United States because honor demanded it.
bullshite.So honor was why the Japanese were attacking Borneo where all the oil is. So the embargo on aviation fuel had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor? Just some stupid sense of honor???? Naaaah the Japanese did not need fuel to continue heir wanton slaughter throughout China at the time.
quote:
Any attempt to write a economic history of war would falter because the premise is cracked.
Don't get stuck on stupid......all the good wars are base on economics
Posted on 5/28/19 at 1:10 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
Empire of Japan declared war on the United States because honor demanded it.
The sad part about that whole affair is if Japan never committed Pearl Harbor, there is a very minimal chance the US would have participated in WW2 ( or at most played smaller role).
That and nobody would have stopped them from abusing China.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 1:16 pm to volod
quote:
The sad part about that whole affair is if Japan never committed Pearl Harbor, there is a very minimal chance the US would have participated in WW2 ( or at most played smaller role).
It would have been very difficult to muster domestic support for war.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 1:17 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Don't get stuck on stupid......all the good wars are base on economics
You have a dim understanding of human nature.
Posted on 5/28/19 at 1:24 pm to volod
quote:
The sad part about that whole affair is if Japan never committed Pearl Harbor, there is a very minimal chance the US would have participated in WW2 ( or at most played smaller role).
Probably, although the US and its involvement in the Lend/Lease program had us de facto participating already. WE may have not involved ourselves in the Pacific if not for Pearl, but the the Japanese were also heading for the Phillipines.....It was inevitable it was a nice bridge for the invasion of Borneo
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News