HorseLoverGirl
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2015
- Messages
- 1,207
- Reaction score
- 169
- Location
- Lexington North Carolina
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You need a history lesson, big time
Well, I looked up the tariff issue on Wikipedia because I've never heard that brought up before and it certainly doesn't look like any reason to start a civil war, let alone compare it the the Revolutionary War (jump to "tariffs" if you want):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_of_the_American_Civil_War#Tariffs
Do you maybe have a better source to justify tariffs as being a legitimate reason to secede?
That's another thing that has to change! :lol:
You're purposely avoiding the issue. So, let me put it to you another way:
What role did state's right play in the southern state's ability to retain property rights while also generating revenue while retaining both their revenue stream prior to secession, as well as, retain their so-called "southern way of life"? What was the one thing they stood to lose under state's rights that impacted both their revenue AND their lifestyle?
The South had been involved in a series of political and economic conflicts with the North for decades. A lot of involved tariffs and trade restrictions imposed on the South by the Federal Congress, at the behest of northern industrial and shipping concerns who wanted to plunder the South's foreign trade lines. Also at issue was whether the States were sovereign and still capable of exerting internal autonomy, the "null and void" crisis.
I've studied the history leading up to the war extensively. I was allowed to take some post-grad-level history courses in college; the two I chose were the Vietnam War and the Civil War, both by the same professor, a brilliant man whose classes on history were always in DEPTH... I mean in the Vietnam war class he started off on Day 1 saying "To understand the roots of the Vietnam war, you have to go back to about 1000 BC..." He was similarly thorough about the Civil War, beginning with pre-Revolution differences between the North and South in climate, economy, politics, settlements, and more, and proceeding to detail the conflicts that lead to the war. He said very plainly that while slavery was AN issue it was far from the only one, and not necessarily the most causal.
Wrong are you. I guess you forgot the economic conflict the South had with the north leading up to the war? Slavery was only the main issue LATER when the yanks realized Johnny Reb was kicking their tails in more ways than one.
University of South Carolina baby. Go Cocks! :lamo
(Gamecocks that is... I can never say that with a straight face...)
Are we seriously still pretending the Civil War wasn't about slavery, despite the fact that several states' official declarations of secession and war were SPECIFICALLY addressing their belief in the inferiority of the black race as their main reason for it? What, did the Yankees sneak into their state buildings and write those declarations for them?
Whatever. You're just choosing intentional ignorance.
If your livelihood was being strangled away and the State you viewed as your nation unfairly plundered by distant special interests, you might think so.
Uh-oh, I think we got a Clemson fan. You bleed orange?
Slavery was AN issue. ONE. Not the only one. If I am choosing to be intentionally ignorant then you had horrible history teachers.
Ok, do you have a link or would you mind explaining how unfairly the Fed gov't was treating the southern states, because I skimmed over the topic of tariffs and it looks like most southerners wanted to secede because of slavery, not tariffs. This is according to the wikipedia page (under "Tariffs"), so if you have a better source, please let me know.
No, I've just read the source material. And it's about slavery and the supposed inferiority of the black race. Basically nothing else.
I'm sorry this offends you so, but that's reality. And the denial of this fact is one of the many reasons the South is still thought of as quite racist. But that's your cross to bear, I guess.
No, I just think the name's funny! :lol: Michigan here, we have a new football coach that we're excited about!
Columbia is a beautiful city. Used to show my horse there at the fairgrounds every March. How many times did you eat at California Dreaming?
Its wikipedia, no wonder.
Simple, it was over the state's right to govern themselves, as this country was originally founded.
That argument seems a bit disingenuous to me considering that some states secession declarations specifically list grievances against other states for exercising their own states rights. Specifically laws that interfered with the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave act and limiting the southerners ability to transport slaves through their states.
For example, the Texas succession statement calls out specific northern states for exercising their our states rights in these matters.
"The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith."
Some would say the Confederacy fought against states rights (the rights of norther states) rather than for them.
Hm. If I remember right it had just opened. I can't actually recall eating there... My buds and I were more commonly found at Taco Bell or the Pizza Inn.
Are we seriously still pretending the Civil War wasn't about slavery, despite the fact that several states' official declarations of secession and war were SPECIFICALLY addressing their belief in the inferiority of the black race as their main reason for it? What, did the Yankees sneak into their state buildings and write those declarations for them?
Whatever. You're just choosing intentional ignorance.
Read this response from Goshen, it will enlighten you.
A) The North, up to and including Lincoln himself, believed that African slaves were generally inferior to whites as well. His ultimate hope was to ship them all off to Africa as such. The North can claim no moral high ground with regards to racism.
B) Of course slavery was mentioned by the South as being one of their reasons for going to war. It was literally the crux of their entire economic system.
That does not, however, mean that it was ever the South's primary reason for going to war, nor that it is the only thing the flag stands for.
Thank you for the insightful and most eloquent retort. :roll:
I like how this professor does like everyone else who rationalizes the South's attempt to retain slavery. It wasn't they wanted to hold onto people who they claimed as property and keep them inferior and subservient, but it was all about economics - taxes, tarriffs, profits. Property rights is never part of the rational because it would force such people to face the inhumanity of slavery. It's never about forced labor because it would force such people to again face the inhumanity of slavery. And it's never about how White slave masters or even Whites in the north kept Blacks under their thumb as it were, i.e., anti-slave laws, Jim Crow, etc., ensuring that Blacks even when freed could easily and unjustly be forced right back into bondage.
Taxes, tariffs, profits, property rights, lifestyle disruption in the south (and in the North to a lessor degree)...all used to justify an inhuman practice some of our Founding Fathers tried to abolish when this country was first broke from its mother stem. Twenty-five years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the issue of slavery was suppose to be placed back before Congress to debate. That never happened and as a result, Southern states used every excuse in the book to hold onto this despicable way of life. They held on so tight that well over a century later, we're still "fighting" about it today.
Shameful...
Exactly. I understand why she's doing, but I still think it's a cowardly "sell out" move all the same.
The simple fact of the matter is that what we have now is a fair compromise. The battle flag isn't flying over the Capital. It's flying over a war memorial. There's actually a Black History monument on the opposite side of the grounds as well.
The way things are now represents a perfectly equitable reflection of our state's actual history, culture, and demographics. The changes being proposed frankly seem to be a Hell of a lot more about deliberately spitting in the face of Southern culture, and enforcing "P.C." cultural supremacy than anything else.
A) The North, up to and including Lincoln himself, believed that African slaves were generally inferior to whites as well. His ultimate hope was to ship them all off to Africa as such. The North can claim no moral high ground with regards to racism.
B) Of course slavery was mentioned by the South as being one of their reasons for going to war. It was literally the crux of their entire economic system.
That does not, however, mean that it was ever the South's primary reason for going to war, nor that it is the only thing the flag stands for.
Are we seriously still pretending the Civil War wasn't about slavery, despite the fact that several states' official declarations of secession and war were SPECIFICALLY addressing their belief in the inferiority of the black race as their main reason for it? What, did the Yankees sneak into their state buildings and write those declarations for them?
Whatever. You're just choosing intentional ignorance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?