- 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: Was the Civil War Fought Because of Slavery? It Depends on Which Side You View
Posted on 5/7/26 at 10:19 am to RollTide1987
Posted on 5/7/26 at 10:19 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Why would they not employ slaves to utilize that machinery if it meant keeping costs low?
Slaves need to be housed, fed, medically cared for. Low cost hourly labor is significantly cheaper than maintaining a human.
0
Posted on 5/7/26 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The North went to war because the South tried to secede.
The secession variable is much more directly related to the slavery issue (and related conflict) than the North's response.
The South had already seceded for months before Lincoln called for troops or sent warships to the South.
Secession and the war are two separate events. But you are are using transitive logic to justify your answer.
The South seceded over slavery, the North went to war with the South over secession, therefore the war was about slavery.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 10:27 am to Cuz413
quote:They are chicken and egg. I guess we can call them seperate things.
Secession and the war are two separate events.
quote:correct
The South seceded over slavery,
quote:correct
he North went to war with the South over secession
quote:for the South, yes
therefore the war was about slavery.
For the North it was about preserving the Union
It didn't become about Slavery for the North until the Emancipation Proclamation (which was only meant as a morale boost for Union troops, and it worked)
Posted on 5/7/26 at 11:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The arguments form basis, among other things, for your mistaken belief the Civil War was fought d/t slavery as primary cause.
do these "popular, accepted, public teachings" have in a discussion where literally nobody is making that argument?
Posted on 5/7/26 at 11:24 am to Roaad
quote:It simply is not correct.
The South seceded over slavery,
---
correct
Sorry.
The South seceded for one reason, and only one reason -- The results of the Election of 1860. PERIOD!
Posted on 5/7/26 at 11:25 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You probably are unfamiliar with the malignantly retributional nature of reconstruction.
Blacks got caught in the middle .... until their Northern allies ripped the carpet from underneath them a decade later. Those 10-12 yrs of absurd stupidity did more to damage southern race relations than is likely conceivable in today's terms.
Always trying to whatabout to blame the North
quote:
Unfortunately, racism was hardly unique to the ex-Confederacy though
Nobody claimed it was.
It was much more imbedded and institutionalized there, however. Now, racists often claim this is because they had to live around more black people, but, this just ends up proving my point. So we've taken care of that before we have to potentially go down that road, in case someone else wanted to try to justify the behavior in a different way.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 11:26 am to Cuz413
quote:Can you not see how this doesn't work?
The South seceded over slavery, the North went to war with the South over secession, therefore the war was about slavery.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 11:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Aside from having absolutely zilch to do with my post, that is a flatly stupid contention.
What kind of representation were you complaining about if not in the federal government?
And, they got 3/5 of a vote for each non-citizen. Imagine trying to argue this for a state like California today
That's over-representation by a large degree.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 11:27 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The issue you continue to misrepresent is rationale for secession.
Not at all.
quote:
That rationale was clearly NOT the imminent abolition of slavery.
Then why was slavery so heavily referenced by the leaders, new instittuions, and secession documents?
Posted on 5/7/26 at 11:28 am to Roaad
quote:
for the South, yes
For the North it was about preserving the Union
It didn't become about Slavery for the North until the Emancipation Proclamation (which was only meant as a morale boost for Union troops, and it worked)
Exactly
Posted on 5/7/26 at 11:36 am to Roaad
quote:
The South seceded over slavery,
correct
That is SFP's assertion, not mine.
Slavery was a part of it, obviously. But the impetus to leave when they did was Lincoln was going to collect those tariffs unlike Andrew Jackson who backed out decades before.
Also, the abolitionist movement was very much a voice in the newly formed Republican party and protected people like terrorist John Brown and his coconspirators. How could the South trust a new government that legitimized John Brown?
Posted on 5/7/26 at 12:48 pm to Cuz413
quote:Then he is right
That is SFP's assertion, not mine.
quote:Not just a part, THE part
Slavery was a part of it
Everything else was either directly related to slavery, or supporting auxiliaries.
quote:
But the impetus to leave when they did was Lincoln was going to collect those tariffs unlike Andrew Jackson who backed out decades before.
That is some convenient revisionism.
It was because Abraham Lincoln, noted abolitionist, was elected. . .tipping the balance in favor of abolition. . .as the 1956 midterms had just given control of Congress to the Republicans.
This came after Democrat Buchanan, noted slavery defender, was made a 1-termer.
The overwhelming focus of the Lincoln-Douglas debates sure as shite weren't tariffs, but slavery. Almost the entire understanding of Lincoln's campaign (as well as the GOP Legislators' campaigns) was the abolition of slavery.
The popularity of abolition nationwide was at an all-time high thanks to "Bleeding Kansas" and John Brown (who was an abolitionist and, yes, also a piece of shite)
Everyone knew what was coming the moment Lincoln took office
This post was edited on 5/7/26 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 5/7/26 at 12:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not one free state seceded
Then why was slavery so heavily referenced by the leaders, new instittuions, and secession documents?
Not
One
Posted on 5/7/26 at 12:51 pm to Roaad
Only slave states seceded, regardless of whether or not tariffs impacted them.
However, their policies on slavery were all aligned.
Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
However, their policies on slavery were all aligned.
Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 12:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The North had Ag and exported Ag
Only slave states seceded, regardless of whether or not tariffs impacted them.
However, their policies on slavery were all aligned.
Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
They were going to be slammed by tariffs.
Yet they didn't secede?
Maybe they hated money?
Well that sure is a stumper!
Posted on 5/7/26 at 2:20 pm to Cuz413
You sir have jumped the shark.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 2:28 pm to Roaad
quote:
For the North it was about preserving the Union
Bwaaaahahahahalolololol
You really need to do the basic homework on the yankees' motivations.
99% of "Northerners" could have given a fat baby's arse about preserving the Union.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 2:31 pm to scrooster
quote:
99% of "Northerners" could have given a fat baby's arse about preserving the Union.
Why do y'all always go to the POV of the lowest levels of society when discussing much higher-level political conflicts?
For a contemporary example, a good number of posters think Iran is Arab and that it converted to Islam following the 1979 revolution. I fear any historian who looks back on their opinions in retrospect and assumes they matter
Posted on 5/7/26 at 2:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only slave states seceded, regardless of whether or not tariffs impacted them.
Dumbass, it was in the damn constitution. It was legal. Then suddenly it was a reason to kill women, children, and civilians. Which anyone with a frickin' brain knows that undermining the constitution doesnt give you ground to force others to do your bidding
As was Prohibition, Roe v Wade, etc
They signed on to a pact that allowed this form of economic enterprise. Then the other side started violating the very constitution that bound them together. And history shows it led to the North violating a shite ton of things that were supposedly guaranteed under the constitution
Slavery worked its way out in every nation on the planet. It owuld have done the same in the south
Posted on 5/7/26 at 2:53 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Dumbass, it was in the damn constitution. It was legal. Then suddenly it was a reason to kill women, children, and civilians.
Are you talking about secession or slavery?
quote:
. And history shows it led to the North violating a shite ton of things that were supposedly guaranteed under the constitution
What, specifically, are you referencing here?
quote:
Slavery worked its way out in every nation on the planet. It owuld have done the same in the south
It was quite complicated in the south, due to the population issues and our democratic system of government. How could the South have incorporated slaves and their progeny into citizenship? There's a reason why we had to specifically define citizenship in the 14A, because the South would have done everything possible to exclude this population from equal participation in government.
And if you want to see how, just look at what they did with this population being citizerns over the next 100 years or so.
Page 19 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News