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.
.
In your response, you clearly said that the tariff took away the market for cotton, which was a huge part of the economy. Then you described a chain of events to arrive at the conclusion that the last event in that chain is the only reason for the dispute over the tariff. Your answer contradicts itself.
Let's move forward 180 years and suppose that the federal government set up a specific tax on wheat, and that the people of Montana reacted against it as being an illegal tax that would damage them economically. By the logic in your argument we would have to conclude that the dispute was about tractors and only about tractors.
As for Reconstruction, that's a completely different thread, but here are some highlights of how the South was "helped."
An order was issued that anyone who had sold cotton to the Confederate government had to give up their cotton to the U.S. government. Agents came to the South and confiscated cotton with armed U.S. troops.
In about ten years, property taxes quadrupled.
Local officials were removed from office by the military.
Anyone that was "involved" in the confederate cause was disenfranchised including people that purchased bonds from the confederate government or had organized any efforts to collect food and clothing for soldiers.
As for the great gains, there were some gains. They went from nothing to a little more than nothing, but that was despite the policies of reconstruction.
No, but Im would rightly conclude that the system of wheat farming in Montana would fold, and that it would hurt implement dealers, and they would have vast inventories of combines, etc.
And that's why SC wa sso anti-tariff. Not only did it take away the market for Cotton, but unlike the combines and harrows, slaves (people- smart, active people) would be hungry and in a majority.
What would you have the Union do for those who for those who committed Treason?
I can post the reality of Reconstruction- if you want. But suffice to say for the first time, blacks voted, and the state was run for everyone- poor and rich- never happened before or since.
And yes the military was involved- they kept the racist majority from going to widescale violent behavior.
Now, if you look at the latter satges of Reconstruction, say 1873 on, you'll notice armed insurrection by whites was ubiquitious, but not in SC.
Why?
Well, the yahoos in SC were so out in front again (remember Wile E. Coyote?- he's a methaphor for SC) that the Fed troops came in and hauled the leaders to jail- broke 'em.
Which is why Reconstruction was arelatively calm process in SC compared to Louisiana, etc.
Yeah that may have been a part of our past but so is 9/11, Vietnam, Why deny the Flag that represents our History.
No in this Country we honor our dead . Whats next White Sheets
If you dont like to look at the flag; Dont look up
Great idea! We should include a plaque to remind people of this that reads, "The banner flying above you was placed on State House grounds during the height of the Civil Rights movement to remind a full one-third of the population of South Carolina of their place in the social and economic order of our State. If this continued celebration of our history of racial discrimination and intimidation offends you then, please, DO NOT LOOK UP."
No, but Im would rightly conclude that the system of wheat farming in Montana would fold, and that it would hurt implement dealers, and they would have vast inventories of combines, etc.
And that's why SC wa sso anti-tariff. Not only did it take away the market for Cotton, but unlike the combines and harrows, slaves (people- smart, active people) would be hungry and in a majority.
It would have taken away the market, and as you rightly conclude in the modern example, the industry would fold. One of he many ramifications of that could have been that the slaves would have been hungry. However, to say that it was only about slavery does not make sense, and the very argument you make contradicts it because it's based on the assumption that the plantation owners would suffer financially.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North
What would you have the Union do for those who for those who committed Treason?
I can post the reality of Reconstruction- if you want. But suffice to say for the first time, blacks voted, and the state was run for everyone- poor and rich- never happened before or since.
And yes the military was involved- they kept the racist majority from going to widescale violent behavior.
Now, if you look at the latter satges of Reconstruction, say 1873 on, you'll notice armed insurrection by whites was ubiquitious, but not in SC.
Why?
Well, the yahoos in SC were so out in front again (remember Wile E. Coyote?- he's a methaphor for SC) that the Fed troops came in and hauled the leaders to jail- broke 'em.
Which is why Reconstruction was arelatively calm process in SC compared to Louisiana, etc.
The removal of politicians happened even after the immediate end of the war and after they had been functioning without complication.
Why did the same troops and government that had just burnt the South to the ground all of a sudden become so benevolent? They didn't. Yes, blacks did get to vote, but there was no call for them to be able to vote in Ohio, Michigan, Kansas etc. It was strictly targeting the South. If the North was so concerned about equality and voting rights, why was there no push for women to vote until the 1900's?
Wile E Coyote? Never heard of that one. Can you document this?
It would have taken away the market, and as you rightly conclude in the modern example, the industry would fold. One of he many ramifications of that could have been that the slaves would have been hungry. However, to say that it was only about slavery does not make sense, and the very argument you make contradicts it because it's based on the assumption that the plantation owners would suffer financially.
The removal of politicians happened even after the immediate end of the war and after they had been functioning without complication.
Why did the same troops and government that had just burnt the South to the ground all of a sudden become so benevolent? They didn't. Yes, blacks did get to vote, but there was no call for them to be able to vote in Ohio, Michigan, Kansas etc. It was strictly targeting the South. If the North was so concerned about equality and voting rights, why was there no push for women to vote until the 1900's?
Wile E Coyote? Never heard of that one. Can you document this?
South Carolina History: always the guys who let their tiger mouth get their parakeet arse in trouble............ over and over- just like Wile E. Coyote.
Are you serious about the Southern whites allowing the newly freed slaves to be their equals??
And the Union troops 'burnt the South' because the South was fighting to preserve slavery.
Which is why they left the Union.
We are talking about back voting, not female, but if you look you'll see that the South lagged in that area also.
"The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, one of three adopted in response to the American Civil War, prevented any state from denying the right to vote to any citizen on account of his race."
"In the mid-1870s there was a rise in more powerful paramilitary groups, such as the White League, originating in Louisiana in 1874 after a disputed election; and the Red Shirts, originating in Mississippi in 1875 and growing in North and South Carolina; as well as other "White Line" rifle clubs. They operated openly, were more organized than the KKK, and directed their efforts at political goals: to disrupt Republican organizing, turn Republicans out of office, and intimidate or kill blacks to suppress black voting."
That's sums it up quite well, I believe.
Last edited by Geechie North; 08-24-2010 at 04:34 PM..
South Carolina History: always the guys who let their tiger mouth get their parakeet arse in trouble............ over and over- just like Wile E. Coyote.
Are you serious about the Southern whites allowing the newly freed slaves to be their equals??.
Never said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North
And the Union troops 'burnt the South' because the South was fighting to preserve slavery.
Which is why they left the Union..
They did much more than defeat the soldiers. They burnt homes, farms, entire towns.
I've clearly demonstrated, using your own arguments, that there were more issues than slavery. You continue to ignore that and twist logic to hold onto your predetermined conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North
We are talking about back voting, not female, but if you look you'll see that the South lagged in that area also..
Try to hold onto the point. You act as though the North had this noble intent to free the slaves of the South and that there was nothing more to issue. To see them as the noble liberators requires that you ignore the fact that they were not interested in the rights for women, did not care about other states allowing blacks to vote as long as it happened in the South, they were slaughtering Native Americans at the time, slaves were legal, Lincoln himself stated that if he could save the Union without freeing one slave, he would etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geechie North
"In the mid-1870s there was a rise in more powerful paramilitary groups, such as the White League, originating in Louisiana in 1874 after a disputed election; and the Red Shirts, originating in Mississippi in 1875 and growing in North and South Carolina; as well as other "White Line" rifle clubs. They operated openly, were more organized than the KKK, and directed their efforts at political goals: to disrupt Republican organizing, turn Republicans out of office, and intimidate or kill blacks to suppress black voting."
That's sums it up quite well, I believe.
I don't deny that there were horrible race issues in the South.
As for the Republicans in office, that was because they were corrupt. They were punitive to the South and lined their own pockets in the process.
They did much more than defeat the soldiers. They burnt homes, farms, entire towns.
I've clearly demonstrated, using your own arguments, that there were more issues than slavery. You continue to ignore that and twist logic to hold onto your predetermined conclusion.
Try to hold onto the point. You act as though the North had this noble intent to free the slaves of the South and that there was nothing more to issue. To see them as the noble liberators requires that you ignore the fact that they were not interested in the rights for women, did not care about other states allowing blacks to vote as long as it happened in the South, they were slaughtering Native Americans at the time, slaves were legal, Lincoln himself stated that if he could save the Union without freeing one slave, he would etc.
I don't deny that there were horrible race issues in the South.
As for the Republicans in office, that was because they were corrupt. They were punitive to the South and lined their own pockets in the process.
No, what you've put forth is a regurgitation of every lie that was (hope that's the correct verb tense, but knowing how fact-adverse SC is, it could be 'is') taught to school kids in the Palmetto State in Jr High.
And how appropriate in a thread about a symbol on modern day racism that this takes place.
'The white Southerners' memory of Reconstruction played a major role in reinforcing the system of white supremacy and second-class citizenship for blacks, known as the age of Jim Crow[5].'
And so it continues.............
"In ten states,[4] coalitions of freedmen, recent arrivals from the North (Carpetbaggers), and white Southerners who supported Reconstruction (Scalawags) cooperated to form Republican state governments, which introduced various reconstruction programs, offered massive aid to railroads, built public schools, and raised taxes. Conservative opponents charged that Republican regimes were marred by widespread corruption. Violent opposition towards freedmen and whites who supported Reconstruction emerged in numerous localities under the name of the Ku Klux Klan, which led to federal intervention by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1871 that closed down the Klan."
Those were the first public schools the South had ever seen, fyi. It has always been the most backward region in terms of education and literacy.
"While 1877 is the usual date given for the end of Reconstruction, some historians extend the era to the 1890s.[131] Reconstruction is unanimously considered a failure, though the reason for this is a matter of controversy.
The Dunning School considered failure inevitable because they felt that taking the power away from Southern whites was a violation of republicanism.
A second school sees the reason for failure as Northern Republicans' lack of effectiveness in guaranteeing political rights to blacks.
A third school blames the failure of not giving land to the freedmen so they could have their own economic base of power.
A fourth school sees the major reason for failure of reconstruction as the states' inability to suppress the violence of Southern whites when they sought reversal for blacks' gains. Etcheson (2009) points to the "violence that crushed black aspirations and the abandonment by Northern whites of Southern Republicans."[132] -"
So that's the consensus by Historians. Note the Durning School is thinking from the 1930's, and is based upon racism via 'States' Rights.'
Note the other three schools ascribe Reconstruction's failure due to the 'Radicals' (who today seem like Moderates, with the Moderates now seeming like racists.) to go far enough.
I believe that the land issue (eg, 3rd school) is the most important factor- which is why I mentioned Uncle Billy Sherman's General Order.
Lastly, see that reconstruction was an effort by the North to end the racist mentality of the South. It did not suceed- except in the most basic level- elimination of slavery- and even that can be debated.
You mention that the Union torched the South for the sake of torching it.
That's not true. First, the South was at war, and they were so outmatched that the war was fought on Southern soil, with a handfull of exceptions. Then there was W.T.'s idea of 'Total War'- that explains some of the destruction through Ga and SC. But note that Columbia was probably burnt by Wade Hampton's Cavalry, who were beating a hasty retreat out of the city, AND that I've heard History Prof's (in SC) say that students (today's students) will come in with fire in their eyes about how, 'Sherman is responsible for our lack of money because he burnt our farm.', only to findout that when the location of said farm is stated, Sherman's Bummers never were within 100 miles of it.
And in closing, the article mentions that of the 11 states which left the union (or tried to) 10 were subject to reconstruction.
Tennessee was not. Which is why in 8th grade SC History ('Racism for junior') we were taught that Tennessee is the 'Traitor State'.
Last edited by Geechie North; 08-25-2010 at 08:52 AM..
I know theres a lot of people that is opposing this but I think its just about time they do it because this problem is causing South Carolina to benefit from an economical gain. As most people already know that the NCAA has a ban on South Carolina on post play as seen most recently when the ACC Baseball Championship tournament was taken away from Myrtle Beach and sent to Greensboro/Raleigh for the next 3 years. Possibly missing out on a millions of dollars of extra revenue makes me think in the pass decade just how much revenue South Carolina missed out as a state and North Carolina gained. Even though I still believe thats its unfair by the NCAA and NAACP for this ban to be placed on us because of something so small that the entire state should suffer, What are your opinions on the matter?
No, never!!!
What SC should do is ban the naacp since they use COLORED to decribe a race of people, isn't this a DOUBLE STANDARD issue here?
By the way the naacp wanted the Confederate flag removed from the CAPITOL DOME, in 2000 SC bent to there knees obliged but now these racist low life non-working scumbags want it taken from the Statue of a CONFEDERATE soldier!
Here's my new motto" PEOPLE MAY DOUBT WHAT YOU SAY...BUT THEY WILL BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY', and with said from my hero of city data, keep the flag flying...because I hate communism!!!
I hope the moderators don't object to me HATING...communists???
and the NORTH came with a DOVE on their soldiers shoulder and said let there be peace and left the SOUTH intact? Northerners are the most bigoted and racist people in the world! That is a FACT!
Do you remember Boston? Newark? and the many cities far from the south land that were in flames in the 60's???
South Carolina History: always the guys who let their tiger mouth get their parakeet arse in trouble............ over and over- just like Wile E. Coyote.
Are you serious about the Southern whites allowing the newly freed slaves to be their equals??
And the Union troops 'burnt the South' because the South was fighting to preserve slavery.
Which is why they left the Union.
We are talking about back voting, not female, but if you look you'll see that the South lagged in that area also.
"The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, one of three adopted in response to the American Civil War, prevented any state from denying the right to vote to any citizen on account of his race."
"In the mid-1870s there was a rise in more powerful paramilitary groups, such as the White League, originating in Louisiana in 1874 after a disputed election; and the Red Shirts, originating in Mississippi in 1875 and growing in North and South Carolina; as well as other "White Line" rifle clubs. They operated openly, were more organized than the KKK, and directed their efforts at political goals: to disrupt Republican organizing, turn Republicans out of office, and intimidate or kill blacks to suppress black voting."
That's sums it up quite well, I believe.
...and today look at how REVERSE DISCRIMINATION has taken hold!
Why don't you mention all the BLACK RACIST groups that now operate?
What SC should do is ban the naacp since they use COLORED to decribe a race of people, isn't this a DOUBLE STANDARD issue here?
By the way the naacp wanted the Confederate flag removed from the CAPITOL DOME, in 2000 SC bent to there knees obliged but now these racist low life non-working scumbags want it taken from the Statue of a CONFEDERATE soldier!
Here's my new motto" PEOPLE MAY DOUBT WHAT YOU SAY...BUT THEY WILL BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY', and with said from my hero of city data, keep the flag flying...because I hate communism!!!
I hope the moderators don't object to me HATING...communists???
I know I'm going to regret asking, but would explain what that flag has to do with communism? Would you also explain why South Carolina didn't find it necessary to fly the flag for nearly 100 years after the end of the war?
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.
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.
