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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-29-2009, 04:06 PM
 
6,225 posts, read 5,588,443 times
Reputation: 3024

Advertisements

I support the new south on this one
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-29-2009, 04:13 PM
 
4,465 posts, read 4,740,204 times
Reputation: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117 View Post
Interesting considering that it was actually the South that banned the slave trade... And what % of the population owned slaves again?

Here are the REAL reasons:

1. Majority Rule/States Rights
2. Economic restrictions, mainly tariffs
3. Conflicting economic interests - Industry vs. Agriculture
4. Expanding Northern corporate powers wanting to project themselves onto the South and stop the South from importing so many European goods (caused #2)

After the war, what happened? Answer; Corporate dominance began through the Gilded Age. Direct military occupation of Southern states in direct violation of the Constitution.

To believe that Southerners and Northerners sacrificed their lives for slaves/slavery is as pathetic as it is wrong.



He did not even mention Southern history in that posting...



People seem to believe the Civil War was the first war fought between the North and South, when in fact the first one was fought in the 1600s. It was between Maryland and Virginia and had nothing to do with slavery.

Lincoln never said he was going to free the slaves, nor did he rarely even mentioned anything during his campaign about the remote possibility of such a thing. As a matter of fact, what little Lincoln did say was about gradually getting rid of slavery over the next few decades. That being said, why would the South feel compelled to succeed immediately after Lincoln's election? Slavery certainly was not the cause.
..

So many inaccuracies in your beliefs (which you are entitled to, but you should understand are not mainstream), but to suggest that the South banned the slave trade over Northern opposition (in truth, the Southern delegates to the Const. Convention were the ones who pushed for the later date for banning the trade vs the "here and now" approach of the Northern delegates (some minority NE objections aside) or that the slave trade banning is indicative of anti-slavery sentiment is, well, very misguided.
Truth is the white Southerners had a very quickly expanding black population, which sacred the hell out of them.

Take my home state of SC, the poster child for this: 70% of its population was enslaved. The last thing the most rabid defender of slavery wanted-or needed- was more slaves, fresh from Africa (whose culture would be strongest) or from the Carribean Isles, where revolts were becoming common.

And the % of those in the S. who owned slaves, or had familial connestions to those who did (50%) was quite large by itself. And that does not factor in the oligarchical system of the society there.

And if you don't understand that, you do not understand the South, either pre, or post war.

Last edited by Geechie North; 03-29-2009 at 04:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 04:16 PM
 
4,465 posts, read 4,740,204 times
Reputation: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reads2MUCH View Post
Well, I haven't read the book you mentioned so can't really comment on it's content.
.

I suggest you explore mainstream college courses on the subject.

Nice talking with you as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 04:21 PM
 
Location: The Woods
14,423 posts, read 13,754,015 times
Reputation: 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
You can't rewrite history. If there had not been slavery, there would not have been a war. The fact that there were "a number of problems" is irrelevant. What motivated the war was the South confronted with the very real possibility of losing the institution which supported their entire economic foundation: slavery.
New England almost seceded during the War of 1812 over much different reasons. It wasn't slavery, it was over the power of the federal government, states' rights, Northern states trying to tax and control the Southerners for economic gain (using tariffs, etc., to force them to buy Northern goods). The Confederates considered abolishing slavery towards the end of the war, and most Southerners did not even own slaves or care about slaves. General Lee hated slavery. Slavery was dying anyways, and the North did not fight to abolish slavery, Lincoln used the Emancipation proclamation for propaganda to try to legitimize an illegitimate, unpopular war (and to keep Europe from siding with the South). Lincoln never ended slavery in the border states, and he wanted to ship all Blacks to Africa anyways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 04:25 PM
 
Location: The Woods
14,423 posts, read 13,754,015 times
Reputation: 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
.

I suggest you explore mainstream college courses on the subject.

Nice talking with you as well.
I majored in history at college. Not even my most liberal professors tried to simplify things like that. That you cited a PBS documentary tells me you have not studied it in depth. Ken Burns intentionally manipulated things in that documentary (some photos are not of the people he said they were, he also was quite one-sided and didn't show details that contradict the slavery argument).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 04:27 PM
 
4,465 posts, read 4,740,204 times
Reputation: 766
To say NE almost seceded in 1812 is to call the Savannah River the most important river in the US.

Here's what happened:

Hartford Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From it:

Massachusetts actually sent three commissioners to Washington, D.C. to negotiate these terms. When they arrived in February, 1815, news of Andrew Jackson's stunning victory at the Battle of New Orleans, and the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, preceded them and, consequently, their presence in the capital seemed both ludicrous and subversive. They quickly returned. Thereafter, both Hartford Convention and Federalist Party became synonymous with disunion, secession, and treason, especially in the South. The party was ruined, and survived only in a few localities for several more years before vanishing entirely."

Not the stuff of Ft Sumter and Gettysburg now is it?

Ans will someone please show me in the US Constitution where it says states can leave the union?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 04:28 PM
 
Location: The Woods
14,423 posts, read 13,754,015 times
Reputation: 6072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North View Post
To say NE almost seceded in 1812 is to call the Savannah River the most important river in the US.

Here's what happened:

Hartford Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When the war ended support evaporated and the Federalists looked quite bad. During the war there were agreements between residents of the Northern border states and the Canadians/British to not fight or damage each other's property...the trade embargo nearly wiped out New England economically and so there was little support for the war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 04:30 PM
 
4,465 posts, read 4,740,204 times
Reputation: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
I majored in history at college. Not even my most liberal professors tried to simplify things like that. That you cited a PBS documentary tells me you have not studied it in depth. Ken Burns intentionally manipulated things in that documentary (some photos are not of the people he said they were, he also was quite one-sided and didn't show details that contradict the slavery argument).
.

I'll take the mainstream view on this one, thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 04:35 PM
 
4,465 posts, read 4,740,204 times
Reputation: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
When the war ended support evaporated and the Federalists looked quite bad. During the war there were agreements between residents of the Northern border states and the Canadians/British to not fight or damage each other's property...the trade embargo nearly wiped out New England economically and so there was little support for the war.
.

Little support for the war in NE, of course. It threatened to ruin them economically.

But to equate that to a feverent desire for secession (vis-a-vis 1860 and the respective SC and Montgomery Secession Conventions) is way too big of a stretch..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 04:36 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 18,629,508 times
Reputation: 14472
I can't tell the difference between Civil War revisionist and Holocaust deniers... oh well.

Great job Geechie North (by the way for a South Carolinian, great nick name I wonder how many others get it in this context.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:24 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top