|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Jan 29, 2008 14:27:50 GMT -5
Your right , the Civil War was over states rights. To hold slaves. I know there was others things with the whole states right thing, but slavery was one of the, if not THE biggest issues was slavery. The south saw new western states come in the union free and saw how John Brown was protected up north and the anti-slavery feeling up north and realized that people had enough. They had no real need for slaves, while people in the south ate off of slavery. They needed it. They left because they felt the north was working on abolishing slavery and they wanted to take their ball and leave. The main issue was The right for the state to govern themselves. Different states had different things. For instance when Texas joined the country in '45 they were allowed to keep the land that they brought in, and not hand it over to the federal government. But when waves of people started to go West, they started to claim state owned land. The biggest issue was not slavery it was economy. Mainly Taxes and tariffs. The south wanted each state to govern its own tariffs with a small one instead of a giant national one. They also wanted a free port system where there would be no tariffs at all. But the North felt that they would loose power and wanted to keep taxes. The North feared a nation without tariffs more then anything. From Chicago In one single blow foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it is now. Our coast wide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We would lose our trade with the south, with all it's immense profits.Our manufactures would be in utter ruins.One of the 1st laws that Lincoln passed when he became pres was the Morrill Tariff. Which protected the USA from Euro imports. With that the government also raised Tariffs from 15% to 37%. Now I do not know about you, But if the government raised my Taxes in one bill to more then double what it is now. I would be pissed. The cause was the rights of the states, and the powers that the state can hold. Yes Slavery was an issue.But compared to the economic side it was all but a splinter.
|
|
Rube
Hank Scorpio
Sammich Bogart
It's always the same and it's always different.
Posts: 5,619
|
Post by Rube on Jan 29, 2008 15:29:34 GMT -5
Funny how the main issue in the state's declarations of secession was slavery. Don't remember much about tariffs. Could be wrong.
And then there's the CONFEDERATE VICE PRESIDENT's quote I posted above.
There were many reasons, but slavery was the core one.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlesmarks on Jan 29, 2008 16:06:27 GMT -5
I don't really care about the Confederate Flag, I am proud to be a southerner but I am most proud of being American. I understand that to alot of people the flag stands for freedom and standing up for yourself when you think your right.
But the Confederate Flag is not in its self a symbol of racism! Their were MORE slaves that lived and died under the flag of the United States then the flag of the CSA! (In total) No less then three states in the Union permitted slavery before and during the Civil War, and Lincoln himself said he didn't care about "negros", it was much later into the conflict that slavery became the "morale" cause for destroying the south's cities and whatknot.
|
|
Rube
Hank Scorpio
Sammich Bogart
It's always the same and it's always different.
Posts: 5,619
|
Post by Rube on Jan 29, 2008 16:28:36 GMT -5
and Lincoln himself said he didn't care about "negros", it was much later into the conflict that slavery became the "morale" cause for destroying the south's cities and whatknot. Lincoln wasn't exactly of a fan of black people, but he was always against slavery. He put that on that back burner to try and preserve the union.
|
|
Johnny Danger (Godz)
Wade Wilson
loves him some cavity searches
Lord Xeen's going to kill you.
Posts: 27,736
|
Post by Johnny Danger (Godz) on Jan 29, 2008 16:55:19 GMT -5
I like it just because of all these f***ing whiners down in Georgia who are more concerned with changing a f***ing flag and the name of an airport as opposed to doing things that would actually help further blacks in society. Keep whining and crying about unimportant things while your kids are flunking out of school or on drugs. Your right, the flag is whats wrong with society.
Seriously. This bugs the s*** out of me. You get all the big name black activists on TV here crying about things like that, when the time, money, and effort could be put towards things like after school programs for underpriviledged/inner-city kids, etc. Its all about posturing and publicity.
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Jan 29, 2008 17:07:45 GMT -5
Funny how the main issue in the state's declarations of secession was slavery. Don't remember much about tariffs. Could be wrong. And then there's the CONFEDERATE VICE PRESIDENT's quote I posted above. There were many reasons, but slavery was the core one. Well... maybe it was not known because your background on this issue might not be as through as you might think. AND I CAN YELL TOO
|
|
|
Post by Kevwhatshisname on Jan 29, 2008 17:08:38 GMT -5
I know about Lincoln, abolishing slavery was punishment to the states that left. (Maryland was allowed to keep slaves because Lincoln stopped them on voting to leave the union.) Lincoln was the lesser of two evils. Misguided feeling of racial superiority who thought it wrong or people who didn't loved it. Thanks for talking about the tariffs, I wouldn't be happy about that neither, but slavery was the dream for whites back then. Land and slaves to work it. That was very important. Also the North destroyed cities and farmland as a strategy to stop the south from recouping and helped end the war faster.
|
|
|
Post by Kevwhatshisname on Jan 29, 2008 17:14:22 GMT -5
I like it just because of all these f***ing whiners down in Georgia who are more concerned with changing a f***ing flag and the name of an airport as opposed to doing things that would actually help further blacks in society. Keep whining and crying about unimportant things while your kids are flunking out of school or on drugs. Your right, the flag is whats wrong with society. Seriously. This bugs the s*** out of me. You get all the big name black activists on TV here crying about things like that, when the time, money, and effort could be put towards things like after school programs for underpriviledged/inner-city kids, etc. Its all about posturing and publicity. People like Sharpton is a publicity whores. They don't really speak for us. I don't know who made them are spokesperson but theres no spokesperson for Arabs or Inuits.
|
|
|
Post by lol on Jan 29, 2008 17:17:27 GMT -5
One of the 1st laws that Lincoln passed when he became pres was the Morrill Tariff. Which protected the USA from Euro imports. With that the government also raised Tariffs from 15% to 37%. Now I do not know about you, But if the government raised my Taxes in one bill to more then double what it is now. I would be pissed. The Morrill tariff was signed into law by Buchanan.
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Jan 29, 2008 17:24:28 GMT -5
I know about Lincoln, it abolishing slavery was punishment to the states that left. (Maryland was allowed to keep slaves because Lincoln stopped them on voting to leave the union.) Lincoln was the lesser of two evils. Misguided feeling of racial superiority who thought it wrong or people who didn't loved it. I've Thanks for talking about the tariffs, I wouldn't be happy about that neither, but slavery was the dream for whites back then. Land and slaves to work it. That was very important. Also the North destroyed cities and farmland as a strategy to stop the south from recouping and helped end the war faster. White Dream huh.. Once again. Over generalization. You can not judge the entire people of a region by what a few did. I had family that had a nice pice of land near the border of SC and GA, that did not own slaves. Infact after the war untill sometime before WW2 they were in charge of stores that specilzed in the goods that African Americans wanted. So.... Since Im White.My family is White. I guess that what they did was all a lie because it was the dream of all whites to sit on a horse and beat people. Just like the movies tell us. I have a question. What about the Freed Black Slave owners near New Orleans that were a thousand times harsher on slaves. Were they really white men in mistral that did all of that to put on a show? And on the issue of the 'just' battle tactics. The north not only destroyed cities they also poisoned the land. Every one knows about the march to the sea in Georgia. That fails in comparison to what happened once they crossed the state line into South Carolina. South Carolina had not only cities burned down to the ground. But The land Poisoned. The Women raped and killed. The slaves killed. So I guess that is all ok.
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin Boone on Jan 29, 2008 17:25:28 GMT -5
I'm not offended by the Confederate flag, per se. I see the reason why some people are proud to fly it (such as with Lynryd Skynryd, heritage, etc.). For me though, it just represents a failed idea. Yes, people in the South wanted to break away from the U.S. not because of slavery, but because they liked the idea of states having more power than the federal government. For people that study history (such as myself), the Articles of Confederation was well liked as you went down on the map, but because of how complicated it was (different state laws, currency... ultimately it was like 13 different countries in 1). For me, the idea of rebellion and "going back to what it was" was ultimately not going to happen, because a Confederate government (with exception to Sweden I think) generally is complicated and does not work out. It's funny, my ex was from the South and asked her about what the flag meant to her, and she simply said it was about "rebellion", but nothing more (but had a blind love to it).
That, and being associated with groups like the KKK and other white supremacist groups doesn't help the image of it either (which I admit I link it to sometimes).
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Jan 29, 2008 17:27:15 GMT -5
One of the 1st laws that Lincoln passed when he became pres was the Morrill Tariff. Which protected the USA from Euro imports. With that the government also raised Tariffs from 15% to 37%. Now I do not know about you, But if the government raised my Taxes in one bill to more then double what it is now. I would be pissed. The Morrill tariff was signed into law by Buchanan. Signed first. But Good ole Abe taked more onto it not long after he got in and added more. He was also the most outspoken person about passing the tariff before it was signed According to my political education, I am inclined to believe that the people in the various sections of the country should have their own views carried out through their representatives in Congress, and if the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff.From the future president himself.
|
|
Rube
Hank Scorpio
Sammich Bogart
It's always the same and it's always different.
Posts: 5,619
|
Post by Rube on Jan 29, 2008 17:28:37 GMT -5
Funny how the main issue in the state's declarations of secession was slavery. Don't remember much about tariffs. Could be wrong. And then there's the CONFEDERATE VICE PRESIDENT's quote I posted above. There were many reasons, but slavery was the core one. Well... maybe it was not known because your background on this issue might not be as through as you might think. AND I CAN YELL TOO Not yelling. Just emphasizing who said it. I think he would know better than most why the south did it. And my knowledge isn't thorough. Just a bunch of crap I vaguely remember from my history class. I am right though.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jan 29, 2008 17:31:20 GMT -5
You what offends me about the flag?
When dumbass white trash rednecks get peevy over the "Confederate" flag...when it was never.....a Jericho NEEEEVAH....the flag of the CSA.
Besides, unless I'm mistaken, that flag down in South Carolina.....only went up by the state government as protest against the then-Civil Rights movement of the50s/60s.
Take it down.
|
|
|
Post by lol on Jan 29, 2008 17:50:53 GMT -5
Signed first. But Good ole Abe taked more onto it not long after he got in and added more. He was also the most outspoken person about passing the tariff before it was signed According to my political education, I am inclined to believe that the people in the various sections of the country should have their own views carried out through their representatives in Congress, and if the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff.From the future PRESIDENT HIMSELF If he did...And? Seven states already seceded before even Lincoln was sworn in as President. Furthermore, the Morill tariff wasn't as bad has the Tariff of Abominations. Only one state, South Carolina, raised a major stink about that tariff. The Southern states didn't secede when Andrew Jackson threatened South Carolina with the Force Bill. You are overemphasizing the issue of tariffs. It did play somewhat a part; however, it was second to another issue.
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Jan 29, 2008 18:14:51 GMT -5
Looking at all the arguments,(and doing my own side research) I admit to being corrected on some points; my belief is that slavery, as an extention of the state rights argument was a big issue for the people who were in positions of power in the South. Not the only issue...and even it was an extention of a broader one...but a big one.
The powers in the North, and the majority of the soldiers on each side did not, in my opinion fight to free the slaves, or to keep them.
The Union fought to preserve the union..period. Some abolitionist injected the issue into it (and rightly so) because they saw an oppurtunity to get a resolution to the issue; and Lincoln and the rest saw this as a way to or bribe the Confederacy to rejoin the union.
I don't think the Union soldiers, or the major bulk of them fought to free slaves. From what I've read of soldiers accounts most of them resented the idea that they were fighting to free a race of people most of them saw as inferior. I likewise don't think the common confederate fought and died so the rich who pulled the strings to be able to undercut their own salaries and employment oppertunities by using a free labor sourse they couldn't compete with. That'd be like the southern rednecks today fighting a war so that illegal immigrants can continue to come in and as they see it "take their jobs" and drive down wages and overinflate the labor market.
One of the main reasons i'll never believe slavery was the issue to fight from the northern perspective is because they captured and killed a man who I greatly admire for trying to do by small scale violence what later occurred only after a bloodbath.
My opinions aren't exactly the same as when the thread started, because i;ve never had a problem with tweaking or even changing by beliefs due to good evidence I am wrong..but this is honestly the way I see the issue now.
|
|
icansleep
Don Corleone
Wasn't Hornswoggled
Posts: 1,828
|
Post by icansleep on Jan 29, 2008 18:18:58 GMT -5
I associate the Rebel Flag with Skynyrd and PBR and I don't find either of those things offensive in the least bit.
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Jan 29, 2008 19:42:20 GMT -5
Your right , the Civil War was over states rights. To hold slaves. I know there was others things with the whole states right thing, but slavery was one of the, if not THE biggest issues was slavery. The south saw new western states come in the union free and saw how John Brown was protected up north and the anti-slavery feeling up north and realized that people had enough. They had no real need for slaves, while people in the south ate off of slavery. They needed it. They left because they felt the north was working on abolishing slavery and they wanted to take their ball and leave. The main issue was The right for the state to govern themselves. Different states had different things. For instance when Texas joined the country in '45 they were allowed to keep the land that they brought in, and not hand it over to the federal government. But when waves of people started to go West, they started to claim state owned land. The biggest issue was not slavery it was economy. Mainly Taxes and tariffs. The south wanted each state to govern its own tariffs with a small one instead of a giant national one. They also wanted a free port system where there would be no tariffs at all. But the North felt that they would loose power and wanted to keep taxes. The North feared a nation without tariffs more then anything. From Chicago In one single blow foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it is now. Our coast wide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We would lose our trade with the south, with all it's immense profits.Our manufactures would be in utter ruins.One of the 1st laws that Lincoln passed when he became pres was the Morrill Tariff. Which protected the USA from Euro imports. With that the government also raised Tariffs from 15% to 37%. Now I do not know about you, But if the government raised my Taxes in one bill to more then double what it is now. I would be pissed. The cause was the rights of the states, and the powers that the state can hold. Yes Slavery was an issue.But compared to the economic side it was all but a splinter. All right I have to throw my hat into the ring. The Civil War period is somethint that i've been insterested in for a long time and I've done a far amont of reading about the period. So while I don't consider myself and expert on I have done some research. First of all the biggest factor that has remained unspoken of was the northern population boom of the 1840's. Partly due to European political chaos, partly due to the Irish potato famine the population of the northern United States. Up this point the population of the free state north and slave state south had remained relatively close. The north did have a larger population because most of the major cites were located there but the United States still had a majority rural popuation. But all in all the free/slave population were relatively similar. After the 1840's all of that changed. Due to its urban centers, more rail line was laid in the north which allowed people to travel easly from their home region. Add this to the rise in imigration the north become a much less homiginized region than the south. It became more industrial, more diverise religiously and politically. It could be argued that one of the reason for the north's eventually sucess in the war was the fact that it became necesarry to work with people of varying backgrounds which wasn't the case in the south. But that's gettting ahead of myself. The first affect of the population boom was the north gaining complete control over the south in the House of Represenatives where population density determines membership. The souths only refuges was the Senate where each state has two members regardless of size. The other affect ,and this is opinon not fact, was the rise of confederalism in the south. A confedercy is a system of goverment where power is shared between a central goverment and goverments in regions with regional goverments holding the majority of the power. This is different than federalism, where the majority of power lays with the central goverment. In a way the entire country was confederal until the northern population boom, when the idea of a central goverment became popular. Centralised populations and rail lines making acesses to Washinton combined with a larger population that allows get your agenda passed makes the federal system much more apealing to the north than the south. The south with its rural decenteralised population could not get it's needs meet in the system that was taking form. Now the point of slavery/state's rights being the same thing have been raised and I belive that to an extent they are. However that over looks two major factors 1. horrible racism didn't start in the form we know it today until after the war. Some slaves were treated in an awful manner, but there wasn't a widespread need to beat/kill them, because they were slaves. This isn't saying that slavery is a good instition, it's a horrible one, but the major problems didn't start until afterwards. 2. The majority of people in the north were just a racist, they just didn't have to deal with the large black populations. The north proved it could be just as racist when the migration of the 1920's started. Thus saying something like "the south was pro-slavery,anti-freedom the north was visa versa " is not correct. Economicly speaking the north also gained control of trade, which angred the south, who controlled a lot of production. Thus the point on tarrifs is correct. But I think that point is overblown. The biggest contributing factor to me is that the north was becoming more modern, industrial, capatalistic, multi ethnic and religous while the south remained as it and most of Europe was in the 18th and early 19th century. This conflict was going to come to a head at some point perhapes regardless of the issue of slavery. Slavery however spead the process up.
|
|
|
Post by RoloSolo IV on Jan 29, 2008 22:04:17 GMT -5
Im shocked this thread has lasted 11 pages without getting locked.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Jan 29, 2008 22:09:13 GMT -5
It's getting very damned close.
|
|