Wars, genocide, reparations, religion, etc (split from recruiting forum)

[dalton_vol]

At the height of slavery, 1% of southerners owned them though the NAACP will tell you 50% did or something insane like that. Believing the institution of slavery was rallying southerners who would never have them to die makes no sense on its face.

I think also too, people dont look at it in context. Every established Nation in the majority of the world had slaves, they were slaves from India Africa Ireland, European slaves. So it was normal at that time. It wasn't until the founding of America that the issue of is slavery was addressed.

 

[dalton_vol]

The most racist people who have ever ruled this country have been the most “black/minority friendly.”


If you don’t research the result of their “helpful” policies for more than 30 seconds.

I think people confuse being racist and hate are the same. You can be racist and not hate black people. Charles darwin did not hate black people or minorities, he didn't think they were evolved like whites, they were down the evolution chain. That would seem very racist to me.

 

[GoBigOrange86]

It was really all about wealth, as with most wars. It was the industrialization of the north that lead to their freeing of slaves, not some moral movement. That same industrialization was prohibited from reaching the south. If the south had been allowed to industrialized at the same pace as the north, there may not have been a civil war. even if all the issues couldn't have been addressed, there were several artificial drivers, largely coming from the north, that kept the south from developing.

Industrialization, especially in the 1800s, required large capital investments and generally a geographic driver. generally access to water. either for internal trade allowing many pieces to come together from disparate parts, powering mills through water wheels, or outside trade ultimately selling. Due to weather agriculture in the north was never going to compete with agriculture in the south, and they had to change sooner to industrialization.

The north also typically had a shorter route to a coast, and also generally went to the Atlantic coast where most of the trade partners were in Europe. The south had several states with Atlantic access, but about half of the trade still had to go south once you got over the Continental divide, even Georgia with an Atlantic coast, about half the state drains to the southern Gulf not the Atlantic. so trade was physically restricted.

Through a number of tariffs, including but not limited to, The Tariffs of 1828, 1857, the Morrill Bill/Tariff, foreign trade was directly restricted. the tariffs were designed to protect the manufacturing industry, not the agriculture side. typically there were higher export tariffs on raw goods, cotton, wool, tobacco leaves, food, than there was on finished goods like clothes, refined tobacco products, or packaged foods. This cut back on how much foreign trade the south could do, and we decreased market access they were forced to sell their goods to the north at discounted prices. the north then turned that raw good into a refined product, and was able to sell it at a much higher profit margin than the south could. Prices for everything in the south was higher than it was in the north due to this.

There were also the emergence of several strong monopolies operating out of the north that colluded to shut down competition in the south with various price gouging and other methods. the Sherman anti-trust act wasn't passed until 1890. had it come about half a century earlier there may not have been a civil war. They often conspired with various lenders, and other related industries like rail roads to avoid expanding into the south. There were a couple big names who had some hands in this, JP Morgan was really starting to get his feet wet when the Civil War kicked off. Carnegie as well already had investments in steel, rail, and the like by 1860. definitely not the giants they later were, but they were already practicing what made them rich. and they were working with the existing monopolies, and a key part of all of that was geographic centrality.

So a combination of geographic benefits, and federal level laws artificially drove industrialization in the north, while denying the south direct profits that would have spurred industrialization. because of the larger tariffs on unrefined goods shipping companies were more focused in the north, again feeding the localization of industry. and then the monopolies ensured that industrialization stayed in their control. Over time the south began to see all these laws passed as directly isolating them, while solely benefitting the north and Washington.

If slavery wasn't a money making industry no one would have cared and it would have dried up on its own even in the south. saying the civil war was about slavery is the same as saying it was about state's rights. they are both partially correct, but doesn't get to the drivers of why those things are important. it wasn't a moral crusade to free the south of federal overreach, nor a northern one to end slavery in the US. it was all about wealth and the control it provides.

The southern states seceded because a Republican was elected who opposed the expansion of slavery and whom the South feared would put the institution of slavery on a path to extinction if not outright abolish it. This isn’t my opinion — this is precisely what those leaders at the time said. You can read the declarations of secession for yourself.

Of course it was about wealth — wealthy slaveowners did not want to give up the institution precisely because it enabled them to amass so many resources. And of course there were other causes — the North’s protectionism versus the South’s preference for free trade was a massive sticking point. But the primary cause was slavery.

 

[LouderVol]

The southern states seceded because a Republican was elected who opposed the expansion of slavery and whom the South feared would put the institution of slavery on a path to extinction if not outright abolish it. This isn’t my opinion — this is precisely what those leaders at the time said. You can read the declarations of secession for yourself.

Of course it was about wealth — wealthy slaveowners did not want to give up the institution precisely because it enabled them to amass so many resources. And of course there were other causes — the North’s protectionism versus the South’s preference for free trade was a massive sticking point. But the primary cause was slavery.

And the only reason the north wanted the slavery gone was to ensure the south was kept poor. The balance of power right before the Civil War favored the north, and it was only growing, and they wanted to maintain it. as people have pointed out if slavery is what mattered to the north they would have freed all their slaves first. Slave owning states like Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky who didn't secede were allowed to keep their slaves. even after the Emancipation.

every act the Federals/Union/North took was directly aimed at hurting the south's economy, not necessarily slavery as an institution. one of the most common things to happen to slaves freed by Union troops was to conscript them into unpaid labor forces.

it was all about wealth, power and politics, another slave state was another set of votes that would have tried to counter the growing northern monopoly. More slave owning states meant more resources that would have eventually sparked a more developed south. There is a reason most of the industrial monopolies continued to stay out of the south after the war, it wasn't some statement against racism or history of slavery. it was to make sure they stayed in power.

the rich southerners would have stayed rich regardless of slavery. it was the easiest way to get rich so they took it. just like in the north as industrialization took hold it became easier to make money off of factories, and that's the only reason they flipped. it was all about keeping their rivals down, if it hadn't been slavery it would still have been industrialization. it all circles back to wealth.

slavery----->wealth<-----state's rights

if you want to quote people why not Lincoln in his letters to Greely: "If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

it all circles back to wealth. even with Lincoln. slavery was a feel good story to sell the war to some people, and a nice way to demonize the south. it wasn't some core belief of the north, it was just another tool.

 

[rikberry31]

The southern states seceded because a Republican was elected who opposed the expansion of slavery and whom the South feared would put the institution of slavery on a path to extinction if not outright abolish it. This isn’t my opinion — this is precisely what those leaders at the time said. You can read the declarations of secession for yourself.

Of course it was about wealth — wealthy slaveowners did not want to give up the institution precisely because it enabled them to amass so many resources. And of course there were other causes — the North’s protectionism versus the South’s preference for free trade was a massive sticking point. But the primary cause was slavery

That is a simplistic view. Slavery was the tip of the iceberg. Just like today, nobody is a one issue voter. The same people who are for gun control are for abortion are for illegal immigrants are for defunding the police are for lgbqtwmxwtf rights are for the green agenda. Just like today there are blue states and red states, the issues change but the song remains the same. Today you are labeled racist, homophobic, etc. Back then you were labeled pro-slavery. I had kin on both sides and none of the them would have fought and died to keep or free slaves.

 

[GoBigOrange86]

And the only reason the north wanted the slavery gone was to ensure the south was kept poor. The balance of power right before the Civil War favored the north, and it was only growing, and they wanted to maintain it. as people have pointed out if slavery is what mattered to the north they would have freed all their slaves first. Slave owning states like Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky who didn't secede were allowed to keep their slaves. even after the Emancipation.

every act the Federals/Union/North took was directly aimed at hurting the south's economy, not necessarily slavery as an institution. one of the most common things to happen to slaves freed by Union troops was to conscript them into unpaid labor forces.

it was all about wealth, power and politics, another slave state was another set of votes that would have tried to counter the growing northern monopoly. More slave owning states meant more resources that would have eventually sparked a more developed south. There is a reason most of the industrial monopolies continued to stay out of the south after the war, it wasn't some statement against racism or history of slavery. it was to make sure they stayed in power.

the rich southerners would have stayed rich regardless of slavery. it was the easiest way to get rich so they took it. just like in the north as industrialization took hold it became easier to make money off of factories, and that's the only reason they flipped. it was all about keeping their rivals down, if it hadn't been slavery it would still have been industrialization. it all circles back to wealth.

slavery----->wealth<-----state's rights

if you want to quote people why not Lincoln in his letters to Greely: "If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

it all circles back to wealth. even with Lincoln. slavery was a feel good story to sell the war to some people, and a nice way to demonize the south. it wasn't some core belief of the north, it was just another tool.

I am well aware of Lincoln's writings on this topic. His move to being outright "let's abolish slavery" was gradual. He was moderate for his day on the issue, but he absolutely opposed expansion.

Nothing Lincoln said is relevant to the fact that the southern leaders thought he was a threat to their "peculiar institution," which is why they began seceding in December of 1860 before he was even inaugurated.

 

[GoBigOrange86]

That is a simplistic view. Slavery was the tip of the iceberg. Just like today, nobody is a one issue voter. The same people who are for gun control are for abortion are for illegal immigrants are for defunding the police are for lgbqtwmxwtf rights are for the green agenda. Just like today there are blue states and red states, the issues change but the song remains the same. Today you are labeled racist, homophobic, etc. Back then you were labeled pro-slavery. I had kin on both sides and none of the them would have fought and died to keep or free slaves.

My brother fought in Iraq. He wasn't fighting to stop Saddam Hussein or to install democracy. He was fighting because he was in the military and that's what he was ordered to do by his leaders. So it was for many people on both sides in the Civil War.

 

[hog88]

I am well aware of Lincoln's writings on this topic. His move to being outright "let's abolish slavery" was gradual. He was moderate for his day on the issue, but he absolutely opposed expansion.

Nothing Lincoln said is relevant to the fact that the southern leaders thought he was a threat to their "peculiar institution," which is why they began seceding in December of 1860 before he was even inaugurated.

Their "peculiar institution" was the main driver of the southern economy so it goes back to economics.

 

[rikberry31]

My brother fought in Iraq. He wasn't fighting to stop Saddam Hussein or to install democracy. He was fighting because he was in the military and that's what he was ordered to do by his leaders. So it was for many people on both sides in the Civil War.

That was probably true for my yankee kin, I don't really know but my Southern kin were fighting because yankees were traipsing all over their land. What you do if foreigners were marching through you fields on the way to Chattanooga. They didn't have any slaves but they lost their chickens and cattle all the same.

 

[Weezer]

There it is - the words/phrase that strike fear in any proponent of Freedom & Liberty.

“Emergency Powers”



Emergency Powers is a euphemism for “we’re about to suspend your constitutionals rights, and eff you six ways from Sunday.”

Emergency Powers led to the Empire.

Can we get a side by side of Biden and Palpatine?

 

[Devo182]

Truth is the money and the power in the state have never been in East Tennessee. The money and the power decide which side. Personally, me and my kins at the time view was that we were invaded in violation of the Constitution. The first state to vote to secede from the Union was Massachusetts (in the early 1800's) and they were not invaded. I believe that the New Hampshire house recently voted for secession.
The War of Northern Aggression was purely about economics. The industrial north could not allow competition with Europe over the South's agricultural products. Slavery was a wrong and vile just as abortion is today, but is wasn't the root cause of that war.

and somehow the great economic advantage didn't continue post-slavery?

Slavery was the economics. The southern states left over it. They knew without slave labor, they'd actually have to start working for themselves. Lazy bones!

 

[GoBigOrange86]

Emergency Powers led to the Empire.

Can we get a side by side of Biden and Palpatine?

Presidents lean on emergency powers quite a bit. Trump declared one to build a wall and then a different one to justify shutting down the economy.

 

[GoBigOrange86]

"The south's agricultural products"



Whaaaaaaaat?

and somehow the great economic advantage didn't continue post-slavery?

Slavery was the economics. The southern states left over it. They knew without slave labor, they'd actually have to start working for themselves. Lazy bones!

In fairness, many poor white southerners WERE working for themselves. It was the rich plantation-holding slaveowners who were the true beneficiaries. Poor whites were harmed by the lack of meaningful economic competition -- their services were not needed.

 

[Devo182]

My country lost. But now I live in the U.S. and that is my country for now.

French?

 

[Devo182]

Uh, no. The United States won.

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Weezer]

Presidents lean on emergency powers quite a bit. Trump declared one to build a wall and then a different one to justify shutting down the economy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Trump, but Biden looks more like Palpatine.

 

[Devo182]

We lost.

You'd rather "your side" win than...humans being freed from slavery?

The very definition of dogmatic tribalism & partisanship.

 

[GoBigOrange86]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Trump, but Biden looks more like Palpatine.

Well, that's true.

 

[Devo182]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Trump, but Biden looks more like Palpatine.

Both examples (the parties) of how pathetic the seniority silent agreement is in our politics. Can't possibly step on any toes of older men

"Folks that might actually be sane and good candidates...just wait your turn another half-decade...these spritely and completely sane 85 year olds 'bout to duke it out to see who will rule the modern world"

 

[Devo182]

A “state’s right” to keep people in bondage.

State sovereignty is clearly more important than human sovereignty...

 

[85SugarVol]

State sovereignty is clearly more important than human sovereignty...

The South wanted to keep their slaves. But the North wasn’t fighting to free them.

 

[Jackcrevol]

In fairness, many poor white southerners WERE working for themselves. It was the rich plantation-holding slaveowners who were the true beneficiaries. Poor whites were harmed by the lack of meaningful economic competition -- their services were not needed.

crackers

 

[Jackcrevol]

Cool story. Is that why Lincoln and many in the north said blacks weren't equal to whites, didn't want to live with them, and wanted to send them off to Africa or elsewhere? The same bunch was trying to eliminate the Cheyenne and similar groups purely because of their race. Yeah, that bunch were real humanists.

I didnt say there werent racists in the North. I didnt say Lincoln wasnt a racist. I said he and the North did the right thing at the time. States dont or shouldnt get final say so. We dont or wont tolerate racisim or human rights abuses. That is why history remembers he and Union.

 

[825VOL]

I didnt say there werent racists in the North. I didnt say Lincoln wasnt a racist. I said he and the North did the right thing at the time. States dont or shouldnt get final say so. We dont or wont tolerate racisim or human rights abuses. That is why history remembers he and Union.

History only remembers the winners because they write the new history books.

 

[rikberry31]

and somehow the great economic advantage didn't continue post-slavery?

Slavery was the economics. The southern states left over it. They knew without slave labor, they'd actually have to start working for themselves. Lazy bones!

Lazy take. The South is the economic engine today without slavery. The south did better after slavery, sharecroppers replaced slaves.