- 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 5/4/26 at 1:40 pm to RFK
quote:
It was, perhaps, a profound moral outcome, but not the initial driver for most Union politicians, including Lincoln
It was absolutely the initial driver for union politicians. They were willing to “accept” slavery where it already existed, but critically, they were not willing to accept anymore Missouri Compromises. That meant that the slave states would be part of a shrinking minority that would eventually be subject to censure as free states were added to the union.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 1:43 pm to RFK
Go look at the recruiting posters of 1861.
When the south demanded the forts back and the North would not give them up. the south fired on Fort Sumter.
When the south left the Union the forts should by law go back to state ownership.
Once fired upon the North recruited the huge army for that time in US history.
The recruiting poster for the south are about defending the south against Union aggression.
The Northern posters are about fighting the South for firing on northern forts and aggression to the north.
There are no posters about freeing the slaves, and there are slaves in a few northern states still.
Slavery becomes the issue when the casualties on both sides by the end of the bloody summer of 1862.
Also, between Louisiana and South Caroline you have more free blacks than the rest of the United States combined.
The underground railroad did not stop in the north, it went to Canada, as many made a living at the time catching so called slaves and selling them back in the south. You have a number of free men and women taken and sold in the south at this time,
When the south demanded the forts back and the North would not give them up. the south fired on Fort Sumter.
When the south left the Union the forts should by law go back to state ownership.
Once fired upon the North recruited the huge army for that time in US history.
The recruiting poster for the south are about defending the south against Union aggression.
The Northern posters are about fighting the South for firing on northern forts and aggression to the north.
There are no posters about freeing the slaves, and there are slaves in a few northern states still.
Slavery becomes the issue when the casualties on both sides by the end of the bloody summer of 1862.
Also, between Louisiana and South Caroline you have more free blacks than the rest of the United States combined.
The underground railroad did not stop in the north, it went to Canada, as many made a living at the time catching so called slaves and selling them back in the south. You have a number of free men and women taken and sold in the south at this time,
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 5/4/26 at 1:45 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The Industrial Revolution started in Britain in the 1760s and reached the United States by the 1790s.
There were two phases. The second phase (with more sophisticated machinery) did not hit the U.S. until the period of 1860-1919. The cost effectiveness of slaves would have wiped the practice out by 1880. Of course the war freed slaves earlier but waiting 20 years would have saved a huge number of lives.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 1:48 pm to RFK
If we broke up the conflict leading up to the Civil War into slavery and everything other than slavery, there wouldn't have been a Civil War with only the "everything other than slavery" bucket.
So when people try to frame is only as "state's rights", for example, they intentionally ignore what issue was leading to that conflict. Without slavery in the mix, it would be similar to the modern, pre-Trump era of DEM-GOP debate on the issue. With slavery? Civil War.
Slavery was the cause that created all of the conflict and fractures in our society/government that led to the Civil War.
So when people try to frame is only as "state's rights", for example, they intentionally ignore what issue was leading to that conflict. Without slavery in the mix, it would be similar to the modern, pre-Trump era of DEM-GOP debate on the issue. With slavery? Civil War.
Slavery was the cause that created all of the conflict and fractures in our society/government that led to the Civil War.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 1:57 pm to tigger1
quote:
The recruiting poster for the south are about defending the south against Union aggression.
What was the primary driver of that aggression? Slavery
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:00 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
It was slavery. Come on.
Someone forgot to tell Lincoln.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:01 pm to RFK
History is written by the winners.
The main source of revenue for the Federal government were tariffs paid by businesses in the South. Lincoln wanted to raise those to pay for infrastructure improvements in the North that would strengthen the Industrial Base then to force the South to do business with the North, all the while criticizing slave holders to get votes.
It's important to remember that what we consider to be our rights are largely derived from English Common Law, among which was the right to own slaves. They were considered to be the rights that people expected when the country was founded. That is why the Constitution doesn't list them. It does, however, acknowledge the existence of legal slaves.
Just like the Dems today court the Squad, Lincoln courted the Abolitionists but in secret he had big plans for the revenue the slave economy generated, and he invaded because the Southern States stopped paying the bills. His Generals told him the war would be over in weeks.
The South Carolina militia fired on Fort Sumpter. In response, Lincoln invaded Virginia.
All the slave talk and all that history has recorded since then was crafted to support a narrative.
The main source of revenue for the Federal government were tariffs paid by businesses in the South. Lincoln wanted to raise those to pay for infrastructure improvements in the North that would strengthen the Industrial Base then to force the South to do business with the North, all the while criticizing slave holders to get votes.
It's important to remember that what we consider to be our rights are largely derived from English Common Law, among which was the right to own slaves. They were considered to be the rights that people expected when the country was founded. That is why the Constitution doesn't list them. It does, however, acknowledge the existence of legal slaves.
Just like the Dems today court the Squad, Lincoln courted the Abolitionists but in secret he had big plans for the revenue the slave economy generated, and he invaded because the Southern States stopped paying the bills. His Generals told him the war would be over in weeks.
The South Carolina militia fired on Fort Sumpter. In response, Lincoln invaded Virginia.
All the slave talk and all that history has recorded since then was crafted to support a narrative.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What was the primary driver of that aggression? Slavery
Hard to believe when slavery was still legal in union states...
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:01 pm to RFK
It would be like the north attempting to ban oil/gas in the south today. The economic consequences would be devastating, and the subsequent war would be technically about "oil" but it would more accurately be about economic preservation.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
SlowFlowPro
Go to the LSU library and read the letters of the Delaware family I donated to LSU. One member of the family fights for Louisiana and is killed in August 1862, the others fight for the north.
The south has the right to secession from the Union; this right is why the one son is fighting for Louisiana. There is no talk at all about slavery,
The talk is about the north passing laws to keep the tariffs high on importing machines to manufacture goods.
New Orlean has near 70% of all this machinery in the south,
The tariff issue is one of the causes of the war.
Go to the LSU library and read the letters of the Delaware family I donated to LSU. One member of the family fights for Louisiana and is killed in August 1862, the others fight for the north.
The south has the right to secession from the Union; this right is why the one son is fighting for Louisiana. There is no talk at all about slavery,
The talk is about the north passing laws to keep the tariffs high on importing machines to manufacture goods.
New Orlean has near 70% of all this machinery in the south,
The tariff issue is one of the causes of the war.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:03 pm to RFK
As has been said, it was "a" reason, but you cannot convince me that hundreds of thousands of Southerners fought and died so that a few could own people.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:03 pm to tigger1
quote:
The tariff issue is one of the causes of the war.
One of? Sure.
The primary one? No.
quote:
The south has the right to secession from the Union
What was the primary conflict driving secession? Slavery.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:04 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
It was slavery. Come on.
if slavery was the prize, why didn't the north take them with them?
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
something else you know nothing about
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:06 pm to Two0Five
quote:
but you cannot convince me that hundreds of thousands of Southerners fought and died so that a few could own people.
Well, it's more layered than that.
1. The fear of what happens with all of the freed slaves would be something the vast majority of those people would have fought for. If you want proof, just look at the terrible history of racism in the South the over the 100 years following the end of the Civil War.
2. While the term NPC is new, the concept isn't, especially in times where people were less educated and knowledgeable and information was so much more isolated. When you add in in/out group dynamics, that becomes even more amplified. Groups of people have done a whole lot worse in those scenarios than what we saw in our ciivl war, for flimsier reasoning.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:06 pm to Rebel
quote:
if slavery was the prize, why didn't the north take them with them?
See my post above
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:07 pm to Two0Five
Two0Five
They did not, the issue is rights and that is what they write in their letters.
You never see a letter I am fighting to keep slavery it is about the north taking their rights away and everyone knew the future was in producing goods. Which means you have to get machinery.
Go look at the records of the number of freed men in the south it is a huge number.
They did not, the issue is rights and that is what they write in their letters.
You never see a letter I am fighting to keep slavery it is about the north taking their rights away and everyone knew the future was in producing goods. Which means you have to get machinery.
Go look at the records of the number of freed men in the south it is a huge number.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:07 pm to RFK
it's always interesting when this topic comes up on this board.
Posted on 5/4/26 at 2:09 pm to RFK
I don’t think my GGG grandfather got shot through the mouth at Chickamauga, was sent home for 3 months and went back to finish the war because he gave two shits about anyone’s slaves. He was fighting for his life and his country.
Page 3 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News