Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:23 PM
 
775 posts, read 738,332 times
Reputation: 316

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RebelYell14 View Post
A footnote in history according to you limited brain,yet you insist on making a brand new thread on something that's been brought up DOZENS of times here....makes perfect sense.
I love it: I'm at fault for bringing up a new thread that you eagerly jumped into, but you name your account and description after the "southern cause", and that's just A-OK.

You are a footnote in history. That I can start a discussion in an internet board changes nothing, and you know it.

 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:27 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
2,072 posts, read 1,753,263 times
Reputation: 437
You are the one that brought it up. I was only trying to correct your wrong thinking but you are to far gone....and not very bright to boot so.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Orlando
8,275 posts, read 12,835,765 times
Reputation: 4142
Clearly the OP has little understanding of the period or history.

There were several factors contributing to the Civil war, including the 2'nd National Bank Act, and numerous States Rights issues.

Slavery was a doomed system as it was not profitable for most to use slaves for economic purposes.

The nation had many policies that favored the states that were more into manufacturing (Northeast) than agriculture (the South) There were growing factions between the West and the South, as there was with the North and the South.

The war had little to do with slavery.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:38 PM
 
26,347 posts, read 14,957,649 times
Reputation: 14523
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE View Post
Clearly the OP has little understanding of the period or history.

There were several factors contributing to the Civil war, including the 2'nd National Bank Act, and numerous States Rights issues.

Slavery was a doomed system as it was not profitable for most to use slaves for economic purposes.

The nation had many policies that favored the states that were more into manufacturing (Northeast) than agriculture (the South) There were growing factions between the West and the South, as there was with the North and the South.

The war had little to do with slavery.
Please list the state's rights that were being violated that had nothing to do with slavery.

Please explain why all of the state's rights specifically mentioned in the declaration of secessions refer to slaves and blacks.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:42 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,373,721 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE View Post
Clearly the OP has little understanding of the period or history.

There were several factors contributing to the Civil war, including the 2'nd National Bank Act, and numerous States Rights issues.

Slavery was a doomed system as it was not profitable for most to use slaves for economic purposes.

The nation had many policies that favored the states that were more into manufacturing (Northeast) than agriculture (the South) There were growing factions between the West and the South, as there was with the North and the South.

The war had little to do with slavery.
Are you joking. In the south the war had almost everything to do with slavery. The people who were in control in the south were not the plain or hill folk they were the planters. The planters key issue was slavery and fostering its expansion. This is because they knew it was an economically inefficient system, but it was one in which they could control the reigns of government and ensure the perpetual succession of a landed aristocracy that consisted of them and their descendants. When Lincoln won on a platform of industrialization both in the West and in the North, and limiting the spread of slavery it meant that the Northern and Western capitalists would eventually wrest control from the Southern planters and this was unacceptable.

Basically slavery was how the ruling planter class in the south maintained their power both on a local and national scale. Lincoln threatened this power and that is why the planters voted overwhelmingly to secede. This is even more clearly evidenced by the fact that places like East Tennessee, West Virginia, and Western North Carolina (places where planters did not control) tended to vocally oppose secession to the last.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:50 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,978,939 times
Reputation: 15038
The actual facts of the matter is that the South, like their present day nut job conservatives, fought for nothing other than their self-imposed paranoid delusions. Lincoln nor the Republican Party had any intention of abolishing slavery. The south however handed the Radical Republicans the the rational and the opportunity on a platter.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
Abraham Lincoln Frist Inaugural Address
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:57 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,373,721 times
Reputation: 3086
^^^
Lincoln didn't have to abolish slavery for it to cost the planters everything. He merely needed to stop it moving west. The southern planters had lost control of the House of representatives by 1858 and weren't going to get it back. This was simply because they were running a bad economic system and did not have the population growth capacity the Midwest and Northeast had.

The only thing they had to cling to in preserving their power was the Senate and Lincoln preventing the expansion of slavery into the West would have made them a permanent minority their as well since Western states like California and Oregon were perhaps more amenable to a capitalist system then the Northeast. The only shot the south had was to either try and preserve the balance in the senate by moving into the Caribbean where slavery was established (which was tried and failed) or get into the west which Lincoln put the kabosh on.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:03 PM
 
26,347 posts, read 14,957,649 times
Reputation: 14523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
^^^
Lincoln didn't have to abolish slavery for it to cost the planters everything. He merely needed to stop it moving west. The southern planters had lost control of the House of representatives by 1858 and weren't going to get it back. This was simply because they were running a bad economic system and did not have the population growth capacity the Midwest and Northeast had.

The only thing they had to cling to in preserving their power was the Senate and Lincoln preventing the expansion of slavery into the West would have made them a permanent minority their as well since Western states like California and Oregon were perhaps more amenable to a capitalist system then the Northeast. The only shot the south had was to either try and preserve the balance in the senate by moving into the Caribbean where slavery was established (which was tried and failed) or get into the west which Lincoln put the kabosh on.
Exactly, if slavery is stopped from expansion, then slavery dies. No wonder the south had eyes on Cuba and other lands for expansion of slavery. You can see several southern newspapers of the era that mention if Lincoln gets his way that in ten years or less, slavery will be abolished and blacks will be running around raping and pillaging.

The root cause of secession is to protect the health of slavery.

There was no bigger issue in the 1850s than the expansion of slavery and other slave related issues. Period.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:04 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,978,939 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by AONE View Post
Clearly the OP has little understanding of the period or history.
Really?

Quote:
There were several factors contributing to the Civil war, including the 2'nd National Bank Act, and numerous States Rights issues.
Nonsense. The 2nd National Bank Act was enacted in 1863! If you are referring to the Second National Bank it was established in 1836! The last time I checked the South Carolina seceded in 18freaking60!

Quote:
Slavery was a doomed system as it was not profitable for most to use slaves for economic purposes.
Nonsense 2.0. The slave population of the south grew from 3,200,600 in 1850 to nearly 4 million a mere 10 years later. THE main irritant of the South was that slavery wouldn't be expanded into the new territories. If slavery was uneconomical then the system of damn near slavery in the South wouldn't have lasted into the late 20th century only to ended at the end of a Federal bayonet (see Little Rock, University of MS).

Quote:
The war had little to do with slavery.
Keep believing that revisionist fantasy.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 09:07 PM
 
5,252 posts, read 4,658,570 times
Reputation: 17362
Slavery was just as big an issue as any tariff or sundry of reasons we see the latter day moronic southerner yelping about. Most people in the southern states today don't bother thinking about the historical makeup of the south. Labor, as we all know is still a much argued over commodity, given the fact of union strikes and various acts of legislation on behalf of labor it should be obvious that the slave question was not centered around a personal vendetta against the black slaves by their owners. It was an economic agenda that brought the African slave here in the first place, and the war was fought from an economic view toward states rights, simple stuff really. The ongoing battle by black American's today in their fight to have an equal place in society is a far different argument that has very little to do with slavery, it is about a people who once had a second class citizenship and now want to be truly equal in every respect.

The long term status of blacks as second class people is the thing they all struggle against, it will take a lot of time before the dreams of MLK are fully realized in America, we think a lot of time has already passed, but in fact the time span since the emancipation of slaves when compared to those other corrected injustices of man against man throughout history is indeed short. The people who think of that period of history as some kind of glory akin to a noble pursuit are simply shallow and uneducated, and certainly not worth the effort to change their view........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:38 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top