Roots on History

[Eric_Boyer]

No...Really...They Lost?!!?!?!

Secedes
Seceded
Secession

Lord forbid I spell a word wrong to debunk your terrible argument. But hey...you won the spelling war, You succeeded...so you got that going for you...which is nice.

you debunked my argument?

cookoo cookoo

The civil war decided the question - is secession legal. Because that was the actual purpose of the war. that was why they fought

It did not make slavery illegal, a constitutional amendment was required to do that

 

[jnday]

Here is the "Cornerstone Speech" given by the VP of the Confederate states And if you don't like that link or think it is somehow bias...just google search Cornerstone speech by Andrew Stephens



If you can read that and not come to the conclusion that Slavery was a VERY IMPORTANT part of why the southern states succeeded from the Union...I don't know what else to tell you. We can label it states's rights and the south not wanting the North to tell them what to do...which is ok if you state that they did not want to be told by those in the north who are "anti-slavery fanatics" to tell them what to do...hmmm anti-slavery fanatics...hmmm and that in their new constitution and government...."Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."



Slavery was a VERY important part of the reason they succeeded...not just some side reason like they try to allude to and cover up with terms like states rights and the idea of the north not telling us what to do.

I don't anybody has said that slavery was not a big issue. There was many big issues . States rights covered many issues itself. The same political battles that are being fought in this country today are one of the same issues that the war was fought over. It is too easy to say that the war was fought over slavery and it is just as wrong to say it was fought only for states rights. As in all wars and the politics that lead up to them , it is very complicated and blanket statements leave out most details. Putting slavery aside, for the most part the South had a different culture and lifestyle than the rest of the country. Those differences still exist today. I am a firm believer that the South should have been given their freedom. I think Northern Ireland should be ruled by Ireland instead of England and the Scots should have their own country as well. It is a issue of freedom to me.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I never said it wasn't about slavery, but my family lived it and I have much more access other than books to gain knowledge on the subject. I lost a grandfather when Sherman took Atlanta and many more ancestors. Slavery was an issue , but not the only issue. I have access to books about Canada, but I am sure you have more knowledge about your country.

if you lost a grandfather in 1864, you must be what 100 years old? Forgive me if I prefer what scholars write on a subject rather than anectodal evidence of someone who claims a relative died 150 years ago.

At the end of the day, ask yourself, would the rich planters have risked everything by going to war over a few percentage points on a tariff? Highly unlikely.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

you debunked my argument?

cookoo cookoo

The civil war decided the question - is secession legal. Because that was the actual purpose of the war. that was why they fought

It did not make slavery illegal, a constitutional amendment was required to do that

so tell me then, why did they secede if not to protect their peculiar institution?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

you debunked my argument?

cookoo cookoo

The civil war decided the question - is secession legal. Because that was the actual purpose of the war. that was why they fought

It did not make slavery illegal, a constitutional amendment was required to do that

Your hypothetical argument...your words..."But if the south left, and immediately made slavery illegal, would it of prevented the Union from waging war?"

I debunked that silly argument or hypothetical.

Good grief

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

so tell me then, why did they secede if not to protect their peculiar institution?

States rights...to keep slavery the way they wanted it.

Shhhh

 

[jnday]

slavery was absolutely why they left. But if the south left, and immediately made slavery illegal, would it of prevented the Union from waging war?

saying the war was about slavery is as accurate as saying WW2 was about concentration camps

Exactly. The Union did not want to lose the wealth in the South. Secession was the in part to slavery. The war was caused by the Union . They did not want to lose the wealth , tax dollars, land , control of the cotton trade, etc. the South left the Union peaceably , but Lincoln wouldn't have it. Realistically , Lincoln caused the a Civil War and is responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 people.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Your hypothetical argument...your words..."But if the south left, and immediately made slavery illegal, would it of prevented the Union from waging war?"

I debunked that silly argument or hypothetical.

Good grief

You didn't debunk a thing. Did the union ever offer the south a way to leave the union by making slavery illegal? If that was the purpose why not save 600k lives and make such an offer?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is truth in the point that the North had no intentions of freeing the Slaves as the objective for the War. The North was already planning to build Rail Lines and Rail Heads to ship the raw materials from the South to the North. They also planned to raise tariffs and taxes, from approximately 18% to 40% on all imported goods. Because the South basically imported most of what they needed from Europe, while the North did not, this presented a real problem for the South. This would cripple many owners and allow for the North to simply use Rail Lines to just bring the raw materials needed to a ready made work force to the North. Because so many immigrants were arriving daily in the North, a dirt cheap work force was available to the North to process the raw materials into goods very cheaply. The next logical step would be to buy out the plantation owners for pennies on the Dollar. This would effectively bankrupt the South.

I don't believe that anybody would argue that Slavery was a good thing. Everybody knows it's wrong but the North was just as guilty of this as the South. The North did not free the slaves until after the War had started and even then, they didn't free the Slaves in the North. They only freed the Slaves in the South. The Slaves that they couldn't really grant freedom to in any case. They wanted to use this as a tool to further weaken the South by encouraging Slaves to run away. I don't view the War as a War over Slavery, per say. I see it as a power play by the North against the South for raw materials. If you study the history of immigrants to America, they were not much better then the life of a Slave. Conditions for them were horrible so the North, IMO, was not nearly as idealistic or noble as history sometimes depicts. It was about money and greed IMO. The South had no intentions of letting their work force go because it would mean losing their entire way of life. Was their way of life wrong? That is a different argument IMO but the reality is that the South, and really the North as well, was built on it. The difference was that the North developed much more quickly and had more people available to develop an industrial economy. The South had far fewer people and had little choice at the time. Again, not talking right or wrong here, just presenting the realities of the times.

If you think about it, it would have been much smarter and cheaper for the South to simply abolish Slavery and just pay it's work force to do a job. I mean, if you think about it, that's a good business practice right? You simply raise the price of your product and pass it on to the consumer. Who was the consumer? Overwhelminly, it was the North. The North had no intentions of paying more and, IMO, they saw an opportunity.

This is what really caused the Civil War. Slavery, IMO, is just a bye product of the actual cause but, it was a good bye product. Sometimes you get lucky.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

You didn't debunk a thing. Did the union ever offer the south a way to leave the union by making slavery illegal? If that was the purpose why not save 600k lives and make such an offer?

I will not answer anymore of your hypothetical arguments since you have proven you will ignore my answer when I prove how stupid they are in the first place.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Exactly. The Union did not want to lose the wealth in the South. Secession was the in part to slavery. The war was caused by the Union . They did not want to lose the wealth , tax dollars, land , control of the cotton trade, etc. the South left the Union peaceably , but Lincoln wouldn't have it. Realistically , Lincoln caused the a Civil War and is responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 people.

Lincoln caused it? I've never heard that argument before other than on obscure southern based websites/blogs.

He didn't call up any volunteers UNTIL the south fired at Fort Sumter.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

it would of required an amendment, not just any old law.

which gets easier if no new slave states are added, and only free states are added, no?

 

[yimyammer]

I'm really "enjoying" the show and am pleasantly surprised after reading several negative views

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

which gets easier if no new slave states are added, and only free states are added, no?

This is an interesting point. At the time, westward expansion played a huge role in things. The Missouri Compromise, the Great Compromise, the The Bloody Missouri-Kansas Wars, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, all acts designed to balance the equations. With the defeat of Mexico, vast areas of land were now available for settlement and the question of Westward Expansion with the exclusion of Slavery was very real. The North favored exclusion and the South favored Popular Sovereignty.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

There is truth in the point that the North had no intentions of freeing the Slaves as the objective for the War. The North was already planning to build Rail Lines and Rail Heads to ship the raw materials from the South to the North. They also planned to raise tariffs and taxes, from approximately 18% to 40% on all imported goods. Because the South basically imported most of what they needed from Europe, while the North did not, this presented a real problem for the South. This would cripple many owners and allow for the North to simply use Rail Lines to just bring the raw materials needed to a ready made work force to the North. Because so many immigrants were arriving daily in the North, a dirt cheap work force was available to the North to process the raw materials into goods very cheaply. The next logical step would be to buy out the plantation owners for pennies on the Dollar. This would effectively bankrupt the South.

I don't believe that anybody would argue that Slavery was a good thing. Everybody knows it's wrong but the North was just as guilty of this as the South. The North did not free the slaves until after the War had started and even then, they didn't free the Slaves in the North. They only freed the Slaves in the South. The Slaves that they couldn't really grant freedom to in any case. They wanted to use this as a tool to further weaken the South by encouraging Slaves to run away. I don't view the War as a War over Slavery, per say. I see it as a power play by the North against the South for raw materials. If you study the history of immigrants to America, they were not much better then the life of a Slave. Conditions for them were horrible so the North, IMO, was not nearly as idealistic or noble as history sometimes depicts. It was about money and greed IMO. The South had no intentions of letting their work force go because it would mean losing their entire way of life. Was their way of life wrong? That is a different argument IMO but the reality is that the South, and really the North as well, was built on it. The difference was that the North developed much more quickly and had more people available to develop an industrial economy. The South had far fewer people and had little choice at the time. Again, not talking right or wrong here, just presenting the realities of the times.

If you think about it, it would have been much smarter and cheaper for the South to simply abolish Slavery and just pay it's work force to do a job. I mean, if you think about it, that's a good business practice right? You simply raise the price of your product and pass it on to the consumer. Who was the consumer? Overwhelmingly, it was the North. The North had no intentions of paying more and, IMO, they saw an opportunity.

This is what really caused the Civil War. Slavery, IMO, is just a bye product of the actual cause but, it was a good bye product. Sometimes you get lucky.

A lot of this is true, but slavery was more than a by product. The majority Northern politicians did not have the intention of freeing slaves, but if it was a by product only, why pass the 13th amendment? Why not just stick with the emancipation proclamation that freed slaves in the South? Why not allow Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky and Delaware to keep their slaves as a reward for not seceding? Money played a role, and if you want to come to the conclusion that the North's motives were purely about money, that's fine. I'd disagree based off the abolitionist movement in the North growing more and more as time went on, but that opinion isn't far from the truth. Where I think you are off base is the lack of importance you are putting on the South's desire to preserve slavery. Had they realized as you said that there was a way to free slaves and also increase profits, sure they may have, but I don't think many historians believe that the South thought that was possible, so their secession was in large part due to preserving slavery. Not to mention the 100 years of Jim Crow laws that followed really point out that the racial superiority that white Southerners felt was a large part of the war, and not just a by product.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I'm really "enjoying" the show and am pleasantly surprised after reading several negative views

you ever watch the original? I ask because I have, so I just don't have much interest in a retelling.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

I will not answer anymore of your hypothetical arguments since you have proven you will ignore my answer when I prove how stupid they are in the first place.

I'm still laughing at how you think you debunked this last one

"hypothetic - if water wasn't wet...."

Brain - water is always wet - I debunked your hypothetical.

bwaahahaha

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

you ever watch the original? I ask because I have, so I just don't have much interest in a retelling.

It was quite a bit different. No whites, other than arguably the last Master Murray had any redeeming features. There was no nice white overseer like the one in the original.

As it now considered a work of fiction, they went out and did far more than before, so Chicken George was in the Union Army, when he wasn't in the first, they showed the Fort Pillow massacre where the Confederates killed the black prisoners, Kunta's whipping was was worse, the rape scenes worse etc.

The original is quite tame next to the darker remake.

 

[yimyammer]

you ever watch the original? I ask because I have, so I just don't have much interest in a retelling.

yes I did, several times, I was in awe and disgusted by the way man treated its fellow man.

Having thought the original was done so well, I had very low expectations but this remake is evoking some of the same feelings I had during the original. I think the remake is well done (only halfway through ep 2 though)

 

[BigStar]

True. One of the biggest ethnic group that was enslaved that is not even mentioned in the history books were the Irish who was brought over here by the British. It was cheaper to buy an Irish man, woman, or child than an African-American. They were brought over as indenture servants but really never got out of this.

I'm aware of that...? Enslaved in Ireland/Britain and brought to the US. Not officially "enslaved" here, etc.