Some thoughts on the NFL

[CCBoy]

Well, now it all makes sense. Salud!

Those going back to Texas had to deal with a Cherokee tribal group, 'The People,' that put a stalemate on both Mexico, France, and a new state of Texas.

It took a new concept under Lamar, the Texas Rangers, to turn the tables and be a real obstacle to rampant and open raids/murders along a frontier.But that opened up from Dallas through Austin and San Antonio to retribution from similar War waged on the other side of the ledger...The Plains Tribes stopped both the French and Spanish/Mexico, for over a century.

 

[xwalker]

This nation is a better nation with the north winning. You sound like you disagree and by some of the posts here you are not alone. I'm ecstatic that the south won't rise again, you can whistle dixie to that.

The war was a waste of people. Primarily young men, not Northern leaders or northern businessmen. Machinery and industrialization was going to cause the South to give up on slavery in a few years anyway. The North claimed to be great liberators of slavery, but in reality the changes were not that significant for a long time. Slaves became sharecroppers who had similar lifestyles. The sharecroppers lived in overt poverty until machinery and industrialization started to replace them. Even then, their families continued to live in poverty for the most part.

Yippie, the North "abolished" slavery but there were no jobs for the ex-slaves. If the North really cared about slaves, they would have forced some rules for how slaves were treated onto the South years before it came to a War.

The Union could have made slavery illegal in the Northern states, made it illegal to import slaves in all areas and then they could have slowly purchased slaves from the South until the supply dwindled to the point that the South could no longer rely on them. It was the dumbest war in the history of wars and completely unnecessary.

The real motivation was not even slavery. They used slavery as an excuse to do what they wanted to do which was to be in control of the south and to take the natural resources that were there without having to deal on the South's terms.

The North (Union) was basically doing the same thing the Mongols, Romans, Crusaders and others had done and what Hitler would later do. They wanted to be in charge of other people. The South wanted to be the owners of slaves. The North wanted to be the owners of the South. If you don't believe that, look up the history of Carpetbaggers. Hint, they were Northerners that came to the South after the war for person gain.

Was the Northern regime so incompetent they could not enforce any changes on the South over time using the processes available?

Here is one example of the real reasons behind the war:
Historically, southern slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization, and supported having the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manufacturing, could not compete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offering high prices for cotton imported from the South and low prices for manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.

The above issue was about money and control. The North wanted more money but the South resisted changes that would result in more money for the North and less for the South.

The Northern leaders and Northern businessmen wanted more power and money. They could care less about the slaves. Slavery was just their excuse for the war. They caused the following to happen in order to enrich and further empower themselves:

North:
110,000+ killed in action/died of wounds
230,000+ accident/disease deaths
25,000–30,000 died in Confederate prisons
365,000+ total dead, 282,000+ wounded
181,193 captured
Total: 828,000+ casualties

South:
94,000+ killed in action/died of wounds
26,000–31,000 died in Union prisons
290,000+ total dead
137,000+ wounded
436,658 captured
Total: 864,000+ casualties

 

[arglebargle]

You are correct. There will be the NRL, National Robot League, that will be more interactive and dominate after the lawyers get thru with the NFL. Just like The Jetsons.

If they have the football players cyberlinked to the robots, I'd probably watch it......

 

[arglebargle]

Well, a large chunk of the Secession papers and declarations of war specifically mention slavery as a major point of the war. It's right there in black type.

As far as the old line football owners, they'll resist change until it really starts to hurt the bottom line. Problem, as I see it, is that some of the change mentality is great, some of it is pedestrian. Or real Stoopid.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The war was a waste of people. Primarily young men, not Northern leaders or northern businessmen. Machinery and industrialization was going to cause the South to give up on slavery in a few years anyway. The North claimed to be great liberators of slavery, but in reality the changes were not that significant for a long time. Slaves became sharecroppers who had similar lifestyles. The sharecroppers lived in overt poverty until machinery and industrialization started to replace them. Even then, their families continued to live in poverty for the most part.

Yippie, the North "abolished" slavery but there were no jobs for the ex-slaves. If the North really cared about slaves, they would have forced some rules for how slaves were treated onto the South years before it came to a War.

The Union could have made slavery illegal in the Northern states, made it illegal to import slaves in all areas and then they could have slowly purchased slaves from the South until the supply dwindled to the point that the South could no longer rely on them. It was the dumbest war in the history of wars and completely unnecessary.

The real motivation was not even slavery. They used slavery as an excuse to do what they wanted to do which was to be in control of the south and to take the natural resources that were there without having to deal on the South's terms.

The North (Union) was basically doing the same thing the Mongols, Romans, Crusaders and others had done and what Hitler would later do. They wanted to be in charge of other people. The South wanted to be the owners of slaves. The North wanted to be the owners of the South. If you don't believe that, look up the history of Carpetbaggers. Hint, they were Northerners that came to the South after the war for person gain.

Was the Northern regime so incompetent they could not enforce any changes on the South over time using the processes available?

Here is one example of the real reasons behind the war:
Historically, southern slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization, and supported having the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manufacturing, could not compete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offering high prices for cotton imported from the South and low prices for manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.

The above issue was about money and control. The North wanted more money but the South resisted changes that would result in more money for the North and less for the South.

The Northern leaders and Northern businessmen wanted more power and money. They could care less about the slaves. Slavery was just their excuse for the war. They caused the following to happen in order to enrich and further empower themselves:

North:
110,000+ killed in action/died of wounds
230,000+ accident/disease deaths
25,000–30,000 died in Confederate prisons
365,000+ total dead, 282,000+ wounded
181,193 captured
Total: 828,000+ casualties

South:
94,000+ killed in action/died of wounds
26,000–31,000 died in Union prisons
290,000+ total dead
137,000+ wounded
436,658 captured
Total: 864,000+ casualties

There is no reason whatsoever to think that the South's agrarian economy was about to switch to emancipation because of the north's industrialization. That is delusional. The southern elites were entrenched and their suppression for the following century shows the lie of that notion.

The South seceded, attacked the garrison at Fort Sumter and then invaded Maryland. That was how the war started.

Hell, several states including Texas explained why they seceded in public declarations.

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

......

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Texas

The property they are fighting the usurpation of was their slaves. That is the popular lie nowadays: states rights and slavery were supposedly mutually exclusive concepts. In fact the primary state right they were clinging to was the ability to own humans as property.

The southern elites would become furious when new states like California did not have the "right" to be slave states. That was what the whole Missouri compromise's dipsute was centered around.

The Hitler comparison is cute but Grant did not round up the southern population and send them off to concentration camps nor line them up and execute them on the spot like SS squads. Meanwhile the south ran Andersonville.

What grant did was no different than the bombing raids or saturation bombing that the allies pummelled northern europe with from 1941 to the end of the war following the Battle of Britain. He sought to destroy the south's ability to wage war not commit genocide. You act like he sent dragoons after refugees which is plain ignorant.

Your stance here does explain quite a bit about why you got so butthurt when I compared John Wayne to Denzel Washington though.

 

[waldoputty]

There is no reason whatsoever to think that the South's agrarian economy was about to switch to emancipation because of the north's industrialization. That is delusional. The southern elites were entrenched and their suppression for the following century shows the lie of that notion.

The South seceded, attacked the garrison at Fort Sumter and then invaded Maryland. That was how the war started.

Hell, several states including Texas explained why they seceded in public declarations.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Texas

The property they are fighting the usurpation of was their slaves. That is the popular lie nowadays: states rights and slavery were supposedly mutually exclusive concepts. In fact the primary state right they were clinging to was the ability to own humans as property.

The Hitler comparison is cute but Grant did not round up the southern population and send them off to concentration camps nor line them up and execute them on the spot like SS squads. Meanwhile the south ran Andersonville.

What grant did was no different than the bombing raids or saturation bombing that the allies pummelled northern europe with from 1941 to the end of the war following the Battle of Britain. He sought to destroy the south's ability to wage war not commit genocide. You act like he sent dragoons after refugees which is plain ignorant.

There are economic interpretations of the civil war just like most wars, but the extremes on the two sides likely started the shooting.
In this case, I believed the south wanted free trade and the north was protectionist.
Comparing Hitler to Grant is simply so wrong and reeks of bias beyond the norms of this board.

History is great and everything.
But what does this have to do with football.
Trenched warfare is a good way to explain the actions of the old guard, but that is about it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are economic interpretations of the civil war just like most wars, but the extremes on the two sides likely started the shooting.
In this case, I believed the south wanted free trade and the north was protectionist.
Comparing Hitler to Grant is simply so wrong and reeks of bias beyond the norms of this board.

History is great and everything.
But what does this have to do with football.
Trenched warfare is a good way to explain the actions of the old guard, but that is about it.

The South seceded because they wanted states to have the right to allow slavery. They stated it explicitly repeatedly.

Southerners like to wave their hands at Harper's Ferry but Brown was put down hard by the feds. Following secession, Fort Sumter and Lee's invasion of Maryland were the first provocation.

Sure the Northerners were opportunistic but had the South not seceded and attacked the North there is no reason to believe that Lincoln or anyone other president would have invaded the South. Their desire to keep slaves as property was the stated cause for secession.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Those going back to Texas had to deal with a Cherokee tribal group, 'The People,' that put a stalemate on both Mexico, France, and a new state of Texas.

It took a new concept under Lamar, the Texas Rangers, to turn the tables and be a real obstacle to rampant and open raids/murders along a frontier.But that opened up from Dallas through Austin and San Antonio to retribution from similar War waged on the other side of the ledger...The Plains Tribes stopped both the French and Spanish/Mexico, for over a century.

After what happened in Georgia, I give the Cherokee's a pass for their warmongering.

 

[diefree666]

The South seceded because they wanted states to have the right to allow slavery. They stated it explicitly repeatedly.

Southerners like to wave their hands at Harper's Ferry but Brown was put down hard by the feds. Following secession, Fort Sumter and Lee's invasion of Maryland were the first provocation.

Sure the Northerners were opportunistic but had the South not seceded and attacked the North there is no reason to believe that Lincoln or anyone other president would have invaded the South. Their desire to keep slaves as property was the stated cause for secession.

States rights were just as big an issue north as south. Neither side wanted the other telling them how to behave.

If you want a real education start reading the diaries and letters from the people who fought and died and suffered in that war- not what the newspapers or politicians or generals said.

The Battle Cry of the North was PRESERVE THE UNION. The Battle cry of the South was WE WANT TO LIVE OUR WAY.

Racism was every bit as bad north or south; no real difference. Slavery was what I would call an accelerant to the war but not the primary cause. The primary cause was two sides willing to fight each other over their differences.

 

[adbutcher]

The war was a waste of people. Primarily young men, not Northern leaders or northern businessmen. Machinery and industrialization was going to cause the South to give up on slavery in a few years anyway. The North claimed to be great liberators of slavery, but in reality the changes were not that significant for a long time. Slaves became sharecroppers who had similar lifestyles. The sharecroppers lived in overt poverty until machinery and industrialization started to replace them. Even then, their families continued to live in poverty for the most part.

Yippie, the North "abolished" slavery but there were no jobs for the ex-slaves. If the North really cared about slaves, they would have forced some rules for how slaves were treated onto the South years before it came to a War.

The Union could have made slavery illegal in the Northern states, made it illegal to import slaves in all areas and then they could have slowly purchased slaves from the South until the supply dwindled to the point that the South could no longer rely on them. It was the dumbest war in the history of wars and completely unnecessary.

The real motivation was not even slavery. They used slavery as an excuse to do what they wanted to do which was to be in control of the south and to take the natural resources that were there without having to deal on the South's terms.

The North (Union) was basically doing the same thing the Mongols, Romans, Crusaders and others had done and what Hitler would later do. They wanted to be in charge of other people. The South wanted to be the owners of slaves. The North wanted to be the owners of the South. If you don't believe that, look up the history of Carpetbaggers. Hint, they were Northerners that came to the South after the war for person gain.

Was the Northern regime so incompetent they could not enforce any changes on the South over time using the processes available?

Here is one example of the real reasons behind the war:
Historically, southern slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization, and supported having the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manufacturing, could not compete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offering high prices for cotton imported from the South and low prices for manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.

The above issue was about money and control. The North wanted more money but the South resisted changes that would result in more money for the North and less for the South.

The Northern leaders and Northern businessmen wanted more power and money. They could care less about the slaves. Slavery was just their excuse for the war. They caused the following to happen in order to enrich and further empower themselves:

North:
110,000+ killed in action/died of wounds
230,000+ accident/disease deaths
25,000–30,000 died in Confederate prisons
365,000+ total dead, 282,000+ wounded
181,193 captured
Total: 828,000+ casualties

South:
94,000+ killed in action/died of wounds
26,000–31,000 died in Union prisons
290,000+ total dead
137,000+ wounded
436,658 captured
Total: 864,000+ casualties

People die in wars, astonishing I know.

 

[xwalker]

There is no reason whatsoever to think that the South's agrarian economy was about to switch to emancipation because of the north's industrialization. That is delusional. The southern elites were entrenched and their suppression for the following century shows the lie of that notion.

The South seceded, attacked the garrison at Fort Sumter and then invaded Maryland. That was how the war started.

Hell, several states including Texas explained why they seceded in public declarations.



https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Texas

The property they are fighting the usurpation of was their slaves. That is the popular lie nowadays: states rights and slavery were supposedly mutually exclusive concepts. In fact the primary state right they were clinging to was the ability to own humans as property.

The southern elites would become furious when new states like California did not have the "right" to be slave states. That was what the whole Missouri compromise's dipsute was centered around.

The Hitler comparison is cute but Grant did not round up the southern population and send them off to concentration camps nor line them up and execute them on the spot like SS squads. Meanwhile the south ran Andersonville.

What grant did was no different than the bombing raids or saturation bombing that the allies pummelled northern europe with from 1941 to the end of the war following the Battle of Britain. He sought to destroy the south's ability to wage war not commit genocide. You act like he sent dragoons after refugees which is plain ignorant.

Your stance here does explain quite a bit about why you got so butthurt when I compared John Wayne to Denzel Washington though.

I would not expect you to be able to step back and see the big picture. In fact you are the last person that I would expect to be able to do that. You, like many people with technical background, might be good with details but often can't see the forest for the trees. Apple does not bec

There is no reason whatsoever to think that the South's agrarian economy was about to switch to emancipation because of the north's industrialization. That is delusional. The southern elites were entrenched and their suppression for the following century shows the lie of that notion.

The South seceded, attacked the garrison at Fort Sumter and then invaded Maryland. That was how the war started.

Hell, several states including Texas explained why they seceded in public declarations.



https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Texas

The property they are fighting the usurpation of was their slaves. That is the popular lie nowadays: states rights and slavery were supposedly mutually exclusive concepts. In fact the primary state right they were clinging to was the ability to own humans as property.

The southern elites would become furious when new states like California did not have the "right" to be slave states. That was what the whole Missouri compromise's dipsute was centered around.

The Hitler comparison is cute but Grant did not round up the southern population and send them off to concentration camps nor line them up and execute them on the spot like SS squads. Meanwhile the south ran Andersonville.

What grant did was no different than the bombing raids or saturation bombing that the allies pummelled northern europe with from 1941 to the end of the war following the Battle of Britain. He sought to destroy the south's ability to wage war not commit genocide. You act like he sent dragoons after refugees which is plain ignorant.

Your stance here does explain quite a bit about why you got so butthurt when I compared John Wayne to Denzel Washington though.

You're the last person I would expect to see the big picture. Can't see the forest for the trees often comes to mind when I see your posts.

You're often good with details, but the big picture seems to allude you.

If the civil war was really about slaves, then invading Iraq was really about Saddam having Weapons of Mass Destruction. Both were just excuses to get the public to go along.

There are many ways the North could have used the process to make changes, but instead chose to provoke the South into war.

The founding fathers intended for States to be empowered with the federal government having the minimum necessary power. The civil war destroyed the power of the individual states which truly is not what was intended back in 1776. Much of today's problems can be tracked back to the lack of real power by the individual states. Empowering all of the individual states would be similar to a free market economy as compared to a socialist economy. People would be able to choose where they wanted to live based on the laws in that state. Eventually the worst states would suffer consequences and would end up adapting based on free market dynamics. Instead everyone is forced to live under the least common denominator way of doing things. Everything at the federal level has to be least common denominator or done such that the masses can live with it. Intelligent and progressive ways of doing things is almost impossible. The masses said that Ron Leary sucked in his 1st two years with the team, then the massed said they can't live without him after he was gone. The masses were really mad when the Cowboys waited to the 4th round to draft a QB and the masses exclaimed that Dak would not amount to much, and definitely couldn't do anything as a rookie.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

States rights were just as big an issue north as south. Neither side wanted the other telling them how to behave.

If you want a real education start reading the diaries and letters from the people who fought and died and suffered in that war- not what the newspapers or politicians or generals said.

The Battle Cry of the North was PRESERVE THE UNION. The Battle cry of the South was WE WANT TO LIVE OUR WAY.

Racism was every bit as bad north or south; no real difference. Slavery was what I would call an accelerant to the war but not the primary cause. The primary cause was two sides willing to fight each other over their differences.

I'm reading the declarations of the political bodies that made the decisions leading up to the war.

What Billy Capretbagger or Johnny Reb thought was pretty inconsequential; it's interesting for a far different reason but the fact is the plebs as per usual were ignored. They fought the war sure but they were not the reason the war was fought.

There is no reason whatsoever to ignore the listed causes the South Carolina or Texas legislature gave for secession nor Lee's calculus in invading Maryland. That had profound ramifications.

 

[xwalker]

States rights were just as big an issue north as south. Neither side wanted the other telling them how to behave.

If you want a real education start reading the diaries and letters from the people who fought and died and suffered in that war- not what the newspapers or politicians or generals said.

The Battle Cry of the North was PRESERVE THE UNION. The Battle cry of the South was WE WANT TO LIVE OUR WAY.

Racism was every bit as bad north or south; no real difference. Slavery was what I would call an accelerant to the war but not the primary cause. The primary cause was two sides willing to fight each other over their differences.

Great post.

The winner gets to write the history. The North contrived much of the history of the war in newspapers and books.

 

[xwalker]

I'm reading the declarations of the political bodies that made the decisions leading up to the war.

What Billy Capretbagger or Johnny Reb thought was pretty inconsequential; it's interesting for a far different reason but the fact is the plebs as per usual were ignored. They fought the war sure but they were not the reason the war was fought.

There is no reason whatsoever to ignore the listed causes the South Carolina or Texas legislature gave for secession nor Lee's calculus in invading Maryland. That had profound ramifications.

The North could have let the South secede, but they didn't want to get their butt's kicked economically.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would not expect you to be able to step back and see the big picture. In fact you are the last person that I would expect to be able to do that. You, like many people with technical background, might be good with details but often can't see the forest for the trees. Apple does not bec


You're the last person I would expect to see the big picture. Can't see the forest for the trees often comes to mind when I see your posts.

You're often good with details, but the big picture seems to allude you.

If the civil war was really about slaves, then invading Iraq was really about Saddam having Weapons of Mass Destruction. Both were just excuses to get the public to go along.

There are many ways the North could have used the process to make changes, but instead chose to provoke the South into war.

The founding fathers intended for States to be empowered with the federal government having the minimum necessary power. The civil war destroyed the power of the individual states which truly is not what was intended back in 1776. Much of today's problems can be tracked back to the lack of real power by the individual states. Empowering all of the individual states would be similar to a free market economy as compared to a socialist economy. People would be able to choose where they wanted to live based on the laws in that state. Eventually the worst states would suffer consequences and would end up adapting based on free market dynamics. Instead everyone is forced to live under the least common denominator way of doing things. Everything at the federal level has to be least common denominator or done such that the masses can live with it. Intelligent and progressive ways of doing things is almost impossible. The masses said that Ron Leary sucked in his 1st two years with the team, then the massed said they can't live without him after he was gone. The masses were really mad when the Cowboys waited to the 4th round to draft a QB and the masses exclaimed that Dak would not amount to much, and definitely couldn't do anything as a rookie.

I am just going to ignore the mindless ideology in that final wall of text. It is neither here nor there. I will only say that talking about the men who founded the country and acting like they all shared the same brain is pretty ignorant.

As for the causes of the war, comparing an issue that had been playing out in the legislature every time that a new state petitioned to join the union with bad intelligence in the modern era is precisely the type of facile analysis that I expect from you.

What the founders intended was inconsequential. The SCOTUS had repeatedly supported the South's rights to slavery. They continued that general sentiment through the Jim Crow era.

The concern was the 3/4th rule in amending the constitution. Every state that joined the union was a battle because following England's emancipation earlier in the century they knew the emancipation social movement was anathema to their slave economy.

Following the Missouri compromise there was a geographical divide over which states could be slave states that lasted decades. That lasted until California entered the union as a free state and the Southern politicians had kittens. That led to the Kansas Nebraska Act where it was decided that states themselves could decide the issue.

Nebraska and Kansas decided to be free states and when that happened and Lincoln was elected a few years later they seceded rather than risk a constitutional amendment that would outlaw slavery. they then stated that they were seceding so they could keep their slave economy.

Comparing it to modern politicians guessing on ambiguous intelligence is plain ignorant.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The North could have let the South secede, but they didn't want to get their butt's kicked economically.

Lee invaded the North.

The plantation owners were perpetually up to their ears in debt and there is no better illustration of economic superiority than war in the industrial era.

 

[xwalker]

People die in wars, astonishing I know.

It was was preventable. Some are not. The US couldn't avoid World War II. They could have easily avoided the Civil War.

Little was actually accomplished. Ex-slaves become impoverished share-croppers with similar lifestyles, and in some cases worse lifestyles. The abolition of slavery would have evolved without war just like civil rights evolved in the sixties.

Like I said before, if the North really cared about slaves, they could have pressured the South to implement rules to improve the conditions of slaves, but that never happened because the leaders and businessmen in the North only cared about their own power and wealth.

If you want more reality, the US didn't drop the bomb(s) on Japan to win the war. They did it to scare the crap out of the Soviets.

 

[xwalker]

I am just going to ignore the mindless ideology in that final wall of text. It is neither here nor there. I will only say that talking about the men who founded the country and acting like they all shared the same brain is pretty ignorant.

As for the causes of the war, comparing an issue that had been playing out in the legislature every time that a new state petitioned to join the union with bad intelligence in the modern era is precisely the type of facile analysis that I expect from you.

What the founders intended was inconsequential. The SCOTUS had repeatedly supported the South's rights to slavery. They continued that general sentiment through the Jim Crow era.

The concern was the 3/4th rule in amending the constitution. Every state that joined the union was a battle because following England's emancipation earlier in the century they knew the emancipation social movement was anathema to their slave economy.

Following the Missouri compromise there was a geographical divide over which states could be slave states that lasted decades. That lasted until California entered the union as a free state and the Southern politicians had kittens. That led to the Kansas Nebraska Act where it was decided that states themselves could decide the issue.

Nebraska and Kansas decided to be free states and when that happened and Lincoln was elected a few years later they seceded rather than risk a constitutional amendment that would outlaw slavery. they then stated that they were seceding so they could keep their slave economy.

Comparing it to modern politicians guessing on ambiguous intelligence is plain ignorant.

Come on mayne. The intentions of the founders of the constitution was/is inconsequential? Did you really say that?

 

[xwalker]

Lee invaded the North.

The plantation owners were perpetually up to their ears in debt and there is no better illustration of economic superiority than war in the industrial era.

If South's economy was doomed, the North could have let them secede and just waited for them to fail economically.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Come on mayne. The intentions of the founders of the constitution was/is inconsequential? Did you really say that?

In the face of Constitutional Amendment and how the SCOTUS was ruling? Yes I did say that. You really like taking things out of context.

That was the point. They could no longer control the legislature and the writing was on the wall for a Constitutional Amendment. They were doing everything they could to prevent emancipation.

You really are doing a good job dropping your trousers with the whole line about how slaves were no better off than when they were free though.