Roots on History

Status
Not open for further replies.

CanadianCowboysFan

Lightning Rod
Messages
24,466
Reaction score
7,526
slsvery was an issue, but there was many economic factors involved too. The North did not want to lose the taxes and wealth that the South brought to the table. Lincoln himself was quoted on several occasions as saying that he didn't care what happened to the slaves. Grant had said that he was fighting to preserve the Union. He had said that he would resign if the war was for freeing slaves.

again, the fact the war was not started to free slavery does not mean that slavery was not the ultimate cause of the war. There was only one reason the Southern States seceded in 1860, they were afraid their economic system based on slavery was going to end. The economic issues were there for years. It was only the election of someone who they thought would free their slaves that caused them to leave.
 

BigStar

Stop chasing
Messages
11,526
Reaction score
17,080
except that's not what i had in mind, or was even thinking. it was more "gosh, you went "away" for about 18 seconds and was able to effectively debunk it all" - which to me means your mind was already made up on said topic and you just had to do a standard "ok i looked" parusal of google to say HA! it's all a lie!!! simply because you choose not to believe it.

i've yet to find a single person alive who is trying to minimize the impact of treatment of blacks during this time. but how come every time someone points out that blacks were not the only slaves, we go "here" and minimize THEIR slavery instead?

we disagree and i'll move on.

Fair point, and I would be stereotyping saying that when it is brought up (slavery throughout history) it is equal to minimizing the present topic, etc. I'm used to hearing it in that manner/context and that is subjective to my US experience when debating the topic; not everyone's. I live in a District of the US, not a state;)
 
Last edited:

jnday

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,292
Reaction score
11,422
again, the fact the war was not started to free slavery does not mean that slavery was not the ultimate cause of the war. There was only one reason the Southern States seceded in 1860, they were afraid their economic system based on slavery was going to end. The economic issues were there for years. It was only the election of someone who they thought would free their slaves that caused them to leave.

The issue was that the government was refusing to allow any more states to become slave states.
 

CanadianCowboysFan

Lightning Rod
Messages
24,466
Reaction score
7,526
The issue was that the government was refusing to allow any more states to become slave states.

which they knew meant the end of slavery given they had to expand or die. The cotton fields of the south were beginning to show their wear and tear. The northern tobacco fields were almost dead. The south had to be able to expand slave states for economic reasons but also for political ones. They were losing their power and were outnumbered in the House and Senate. There was a huge fear that bills would pass to outlaw slavery. As most of their wealth was tied into their slaves, their position is understandable. If you freed everyone, their wealth is flushed down the toilet. They had also seen how the sugar islands like Haiti, Jamaica, Barbados etc had seen their economies tank once slavery was abolished in the UK or after the Haitian revolution (hell under slavery, Saint Domingue had produced more wealth than the entire rest of the Caribbean combined). Cuba then became the big sugar as it still had slavery. Brazil still had slavery and it produced cotton.

The big sugar and big cotton planters were fearful.
 

BigStar

Stop chasing
Messages
11,526
Reaction score
17,080
which they knew meant the end of slavery given they had to expand or die. The cotton fields of the south were beginning to show their wear and tear. The northern tobacco fields were almost dead. The south had to be able to expand slave states for economic reasons but also for political ones. They were losing their power and were outnumbered in the House and Senate. There was a huge fear that bills would pass to outlaw slavery. As most of their wealth was tied into their slaves, their position is understandable. If you freed everyone, their wealth is flushed down the toilet. They had also seen how the sugar islands like Haiti, Jamaica, Barbados etc had seen their economies tank once slavery was abolished in the UK or after the Haitian revolution (hell under slavery, Saint Domingue had produced more wealth than the entire rest of the Caribbean combined). Cuba then became the big sugar as it still had slavery. Brazil still had slavery and it produced cotton.

The big sugar and big cotton planters were fearful.

Dang, I really wish we had Canada's Education standards/policy. Respect. I know we are capable and don't institute your standards for shady reasons (dumb down the masses; easier manipulation), but one could hope.
 
Last edited:

Eric_Boyer

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,789
Reaction score
1,573
it is the same as the myth that holds that the US Civil War wasn't about slavery but States' Rights. The only right the southern states wanted was to preserve the right to slavery

is that what they teach in canada?

the war was fought over one simple concept - secession. Yes, secession was largely about slavery, but it involved slavery in new territories as we expanded west, not about slavery in states already established.

Had the south been allowed to leave the union, no war happens. So the absolute truth is the war was about preserving the union.
 

CanadianCowboysFan

Lightning Rod
Messages
24,466
Reaction score
7,526
is that what they teach in canada?

the war was fought over one simple concept - secession. Yes, secession was largely about slavery, but it involved slavery in new territories as we expanded west, not about slavery in states already established.

Had the south been allowed to leave the union, no war happens. So the absolute truth is the war was about preserving the union.

that is nice revisionism, they left for one reason, to keep slaves, no other reason
 

Dallas_Cowboys50

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,752
Reaction score
1,894
that is nice revisionism, they left for one reason, to keep slaves, no other reason

it might of been the MAIN reason, but not the ONLY reason....Texas for instance, was also plenty ticked off at the Feds for a lack of protection from Indians, which was promised upon annexation.....
 

Eric_Boyer

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,789
Reaction score
1,573
that is nice revisionism, they left for one reason, to keep slaves, no other reason

wow, your ignorance is amazing. they didn't need to leave to keep slaves. No laws were threatened to be passed that would of made it illegal for the southern states to have slaves.
 

Dallas_Cowboys50

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,752
Reaction score
1,894
My review on part 3; best duel I've ever seen on any tv program

Right?! I was surprised, most of the series has been blah so far, and I was sittin on the couch just kinda waitin for this episode to be over....but that duel was awesome!
 

yimyammer

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,574
Reaction score
7,004
Were the people in Africa where Kunta was born Muslim? The scene where Kuntas father is on his horse and holds Kunta up to the sky he says "allahu akbar".
 

Dallas_Cowboys50

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,752
Reaction score
1,894
Were the people in Africa where Kunta was born Muslim? The scene where Kuntas father is on his horse and holds Kunta up to the sky he says "allahu akbar".

makes sense, Islam spread throughout the Northern half of Africa long before Christians cared to try and convert the natives......
 

jnday

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,292
Reaction score
11,422
which they knew meant the end of slavery given they had to expand or die. The cotton fields of the south were beginning to show their wear and tear. The northern tobacco fields were almost dead. The south had to be able to expand slave states for economic reasons but also for political ones. They were losing their power and were outnumbered in the House and Senate. There was a huge fear that bills would pass to outlaw slavery. As most of their wealth was tied into their slaves, their position is understandable. If you freed everyone, their wealth is flushed down the toilet. They had also seen how the sugar islands like Haiti, Jamaica, Barbados etc had seen their economies tank once slavery was abolished in the UK or after the Haitian revolution (hell under slavery, Saint Domingue had produced more wealth than the entire rest of the Caribbean combined). Cuba then became the big sugar as it still had slavery. Brazil still had slavery and it produced cotton.

The big sugar and big cotton planters were fearful.

Slavery was on it's way out anyway. New equipment and technology was coming along that made slavery more expensive than it was worth. My ancestors was the big cotton plantation owners and they had many slaves. Slavery was definitely a major issue leading up to the Civil War, but there was many political and economic issues that contributed to the war as well. I am not getting into the taboo subject of politics here, but many of these same issues divides this country today. I know that the cotton farming was not drying up in the South at all. The taxes from that cotton was one of the biggest factors that led to the Union refusing to let the South have their freedom. The South held much of the wealth in the country at the time and many historians doubt that the North could survive without the taxes and products that the South produced. The South had warned that they would leave the Union if a Reoublican was elected. Little did they know that Lincoln cared little for the slaves, but was more interested the loss of tax revenue. Slavery did not have to expand or die. Some of the state's that was being argued over was not capable of the agriculture -slave system that was successful in the Deep South.
 
Last edited:

jnday

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,292
Reaction score
11,422
wow, your ignorance is amazing. they didn't need to leave to keep slaves. No laws were threatened to be passed that would of made it illegal for the southern states to have slaves.

You are correct, but don't be too hard on him. He is a Canadian. I don't know anything about their history either due to a total lack of interest .
 

CanadianCowboysFan

Lightning Rod
Messages
24,466
Reaction score
7,526
You are correct, but don't be too hard on him. He is a Canadian. I don't know anything about their history either due to a total lack of interest .

After all we never get to read American books on the topic.

There are always the wilfully blind who think if they repeat it wasn't about slavery they won't have to dis their ancestors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top