- 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 5/8/26 at 8:52 am to scrooster
Posted on 5/8/26 at 8:52 am to scrooster
quote:
99% of "Northerners" could have given a fat baby's arse about preserving the Union.
I missed this when you posted it. It's a ridiculous statement. Public sentiment in the north was heavily unionist. Authors such as Gallagher and McPherson put that sentiment in the 80 to 90% range.
When Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to "suppress the rebellion," the response was overwhelming. States sent more men than he asked for. Men who had previously hated Lincoln "flocked eagerly to the conflict" because they felt the Union's honor had been violated by Southern secession.
Gallagher, G. W. (2011). The Union war.
McPherson, J. M. (1988). Battle cry of freedom: The Civil War era.
1
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:10 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Interesting theory.
I even cited you the Supreme Court case discussing this. It's not my argument or a "theory". It's literally the law.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:13 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
WTF are you arguing, a "slavery was unimportant" strawman?
It was sarcasm, pointing out the absurdity of this weird modern effort by Southern people trying to de-emphasize slavery's role in the Civil War.
Your own arguments are arguing it was the primary factor, as my sarcasm should have informed you.
quote:
Of course states were grouped along those lines.
Again, your own admissions support my side.
If slavery was such a minor issue with such minimal impact, it's not logical to assume the literal line of demarcation of secession was slavery. There was no other factor that united the group who seceded. Tariffs didn't have the same impact across that population. Nothing did.
quote:
You are to believe one factor and one factor only led to secession.
My question
quote:
And are we to believe that slavery wasn't the primary political issue they feared federal interaction over?
I shouldn't have to tell someone of your education to read the actual words I write. Do better.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:14 am to Cuz413
quote:
If the South would have seceded over the price of tea, would the war be about tea?
If the Articles of the Confederacy had mandated that all Southern States adhere to the price of tea set by the Confederacy, would the war have been about tea?
Because they mandated that all states preserve slavery.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:14 am to Sweep Da Leg
quote:
I for one am shocked, just shocked you didn’t insert “straw man!! Straw man!!” 20 more times in this post.
You shouldn't be shocked with how prevalent the fallacy is on this board these days.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The case you cited was decided immediately after the war. A contrary decision in that aftermath by SCOTUS would have been viewed as something akin to treason, Constitution be damned. You know that.
I even cited you the Supreme Court case discussing this.
This post was edited on 5/8/26 at 9:19 am
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:21 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The case you cited was decided immediately after the war. A contrary decision in that aftermath by SCOTUS would have been viewed as something akin to treason, Constitution be damned. You know that.
It's never been questioned or revisited since. Stop.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 9:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's never been questioned or revisited since. Stop.
Chase's 1869 finding was more strained than Roe v Wade.
His contention was that the states never left the union. But somehow they simultaneously could still be denied representation in Congress.
It was a finding based on reality of the environment rather than on any Constitutional premise. Again, in that environment, a finding to the contrary, would have been viewed as treasonous. From a Constitutional standpoint, the court's opinion was literally an invention to retrospectively justify federal actions.
You know that.
It hasn't been challenged because no states have attempted secession since.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 10:30 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The obscenity of slavery would have continued decades, and the subsequent American century would very much have been in doubt.
It is an interest historical exercise to look at when slavery ended in many other parts of the world in difference cultures. Albeit, some never ended at all.
Latin America offers some insight because the aristocrats who were the dominate economic force decided that slavery wasn't worth the cost since slaves had to be housed, fed and cared for all year and were for the most part infamously inefficient workers. Conversely, free labor only had to be paid for the time they devoted to actual work that needed to be done and no more.
quote:
Key Timeline (Selected Countries)Here is a summary drawn from historical timelines:Early abolitions (post-independence):Haiti: 1804 (after the revolution).
Argentina: 1813.
Chile: 1823.
Mexico: 1829 (with earlier declarations during independence).
Central America (e.g., Guatemala, El Salvador, etc.): Around 1824.
Bolivia: 1831.
Uruguay: 1842.
faculty.chass.ncsu.edu
Mid-19th century:Colombia: 1851–1852.
Ecuador: 1851.
Peru and Venezuela: 1854.
Paraguay: 1870 (during the War of the Triple Alliance).
tandfonline.com
Later abolitions:Puerto Rico: 1873.
Cuba: 1886 (under Spanish rule; slave trade banned earlier in 1862).
Brazil: 1888 (via the Lei Áurea or Golden Law on May 13, 1888) — the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery.
en.wikipedia.org
Many places implemented gradual measures first, such as "free womb" laws (freeing children born to enslaved mothers) or manumission, before full abolition. Enforcement varied, and forms of coerced labor sometimes continued afterward.
en.wikipedia.org
Posted on 5/8/26 at 11:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The South was more integrated than the North before the war.
In terms of free black people? I'd like to see this evidence
I never said in terms of free black people, that's you trying to interject a narrative like you often do to twist things.
Slaves attended church with their masters, traveled with them, some lived in the same house as them, black women cared for white babies. Most farmers worked in the fields side by side with their slaves.
Contrast this to many Northern states such as Illinois where free blacks were not allowed to own property or work. Massachusetts was the origin of Jim Crow. When Southern men rode trains there, they had to sit in the Jim Crow cars with their slaves.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 12:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
I am full on shocked that an attorney just blatantly accepts positions that fly in the face of the constitution
1) Slavery was a legal economic system IN THE constitution
2) The 10th amendment OF THE constitution specifically states that anything not listed in said document falls back to the states
3) The states then did what they were allowed to do; secede
Now for the money shot
4) West Virginia
DURING THE Civil war, West Va (by your logic) illegally separated from VA, because Va govt did not vote for this to occur (only the so-called Restored Government of Virginia) PER THE US constitution
Not only did the Union ignore the Constitution, and allowed W. Va. into the Union, but they certified it with a Supreme Court decision delivered during a time the Union claimed the South was still part of the Union and couldn't leave
By that logic, neither should W. Va been allowed to secede
Its all horseshite. Lincoln ran roughshod over half the country, just because he felt like it
1) Slavery was a legal economic system IN THE constitution
2) The 10th amendment OF THE constitution specifically states that anything not listed in said document falls back to the states
3) The states then did what they were allowed to do; secede
Now for the money shot
4) West Virginia
DURING THE Civil war, West Va (by your logic) illegally separated from VA, because Va govt did not vote for this to occur (only the so-called Restored Government of Virginia) PER THE US constitution
quote:
Article IV, Section 3, reads that “no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”
Not only did the Union ignore the Constitution, and allowed W. Va. into the Union, but they certified it with a Supreme Court decision delivered during a time the Union claimed the South was still part of the Union and couldn't leave
By that logic, neither should W. Va been allowed to secede
Its all horseshite. Lincoln ran roughshod over half the country, just because he felt like it
Posted on 5/8/26 at 12:41 pm to Narax
Youre losing your mind over being proven wrong. Why did you ignore this? From Doubledays own lips?
He fired on a civilian property on purpose, out of spite. And with Anderson surrendering the next day, and eventually wanting out of America, he knew they initiated the fight by sneaking into Sumter, then firing on a hotel full of civilians along the beach
You can post analysis from 100 years later all you want, but the man committed a war crime, which was among the first shots from the Union in the fight. The Union wanted the war, and they got it
Sorry you cant accept that. But keep posting biased AI searches to further prove how disingenuous you are
quote:
Captain Abner Doubleday, upon boarding the Isabel, was stopped by a South Carolina officer who asked him why he had shot a hole in the Moultrie House, a grand hotel built in 1850 on Sullivan's Island. Captain Doubleday replied, “The landlord had given me a wretched room there one night, and this being the only opportunity that had occurred to get even with him, I was unable to resist it.”
He fired on a civilian property on purpose, out of spite. And with Anderson surrendering the next day, and eventually wanting out of America, he knew they initiated the fight by sneaking into Sumter, then firing on a hotel full of civilians along the beach
You can post analysis from 100 years later all you want, but the man committed a war crime, which was among the first shots from the Union in the fight. The Union wanted the war, and they got it
Sorry you cant accept that. But keep posting biased AI searches to further prove how disingenuous you are
Posted on 5/8/26 at 1:16 pm to Cuz413
quote:
I never said in terms of free black people
Why not?
Free Blacks were roughly 2.2% of the Southern population and only
~ 1.2% of the Northern population.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 1:21 pm to RobbBobb
quote:Why was he not arrested?
He fired on a civilian property on purpose, out of spite. ... the man committed a war crime, which was among the first shots from the Union in the fight.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 1:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
When Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to "suppress the rebellion," the response was overwhelming. States sent more men than he asked for. Men who had previously hated Lincoln "flocked eagerly to the conflict" because they felt the Union's honor had been violated by Southern secession.
Gallagher, G. W. (2011). The Union war.
McPherson, J. M. (1988). Battle cry of freedom: The Civil War era.
40,000 of those were straight off the boats immigrant men, mostly from Ireland, who were let off the boats, signed up, issued uniforms and sent off to fight with the promise of immediate citizenship.
That was just in the beginning.
150k more were inscription recruits, straight off the boats, during the course of the war.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 1:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Why not?
I wasn't looking to play his game. But the treatment of Black people in the North should indicate no one was signing up to die fighting Johnny Reb to free them in the South.
Segregation was seen as a Yankee idea in the post war South.
Maybe I'll do a little digging into free black societies in the early 19th century in the North and the South and show how radical abolitionists totally fricked things up for racial tensions leading up to the war.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 1:23 pm to Cuz413
quote:Correct.
no one was signing up to die fighting Johnny Reb to free them in the South.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 1:24 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
“The landlord had given me a wretched room there one night, and this being the only opportunity that had occurred to get even with him, I was unable to resist it.”
Wow... Partial quote, you really are insane.
Full Quote
quote:
“Not caring to enter into a discussion at that time,” Doubleday recorded, “I evaded it by telling him the true reason was that the landlord had given me a wretched room there one night, and this being the only opportunity that had occurred to get even with him, I was unable to resist it.”
And unlike you, the southern officer knew it was a joke.
quote:
The southern officer must not have been a fan of the proprietor of the hotel since he laughed heartily and said, ‘I understand it all now. You were perfectly right, sir, and I justify the act.”
Are you really this stupid? There is no way you can be this dumb.
quote:
He fired on a civilian property on purpose,
He fired on property that he knew had enemy forces in it, and that the records show was used by rebel leaders days before.
quote:
out of spite
No, that was obviously a joke to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
quote:
And with Anderson surrendering the next day
Due to massive shelling
quote:
and eventually wanting out of America,
Seeking treatment for his honorable war wounds that were killing him.
quote:
he knew they initiated the fight
By being surrounded and shelled for hours...
quote:
by sneaking into Sumter
By moving his forces to a spot where they were less likely to be attacked by rebels.
quote:
then firing on a hotel full of civilians along the beach
Hotel full of military personnel who had recently shot at a civilian ship
quote:
which was among the first shots from the Union in the fight.
After hours of Confederate shooting.
quote:
The Union wanted the war, and they got it
... By getting attacked...
quote:
But keep posting biased AI searches to further prove how disingenuous you are
Let's set something straight here.
You are so dumb that I need no search engine to refute you, however in respect to others here who would like to evaluate for themselves the facts vs your lies, I have absolutely used Google to find relevant source material for my statements.
There is nothing biased about my sources, I've given original information.
You've lied again and again, omitting information, flat out lying.
You want to live in some secret history fantasy world, you are no different than a guy who pretends to be a woman, this last screech is you trying to convince yourself that you aren't a fool, but look at that statement of yours it's a joke, admit it, learn, grow.
Come back from delusion.
These are not two valid interpretations, this is you being a utter fool, saying things that are laughable vs actual historical facts.
This post was edited on 5/8/26 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 5/8/26 at 1:37 pm to scrooster
quote:Perhaps you got that from "Gangs of New York"?
40,000 of those were straight off the boats immigrant men, mostly from Ireland, who were let off the boats, signed up, issued uniforms and sent off to fight with the promise of immediate citizenship.
Reality is different. In the early months of the war, and through out most of 1861, the North had too many US volunteers. Governors were actually turning men away. There was no need to "trap" new arrivals at the docks because thousands of settled residents were already lining up.
The "off the boat" recruiting became much more common later in the war, Chancellorsville and beyond. As the death toll rose and volunteering slowed, the government offered sign-up pay. Recruiters would wait at New York’s Castle Garden to intercept immigrants, offering them large sums of money, sometimes $300 to $600, to enlist immediately.
The promise of citizenship came a full year after the war started July 1862. Congress passed an act stating that any immigrant who was honorably discharged from the US Army could apply for citizenship after only a year of residency, skipping the usual five-year requirement.
Posted on 5/8/26 at 3:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Why was he not arrested?
Same reason William Tecumseh Sherman was never arrested
But you knew that, right?
Page 21 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News