Started By
Message
re: Do you think the Civil War was started over slavery?
Posted on 2/13/15 at 7:48 am to scrooster
Posted on 2/13/15 at 7:48 am to scrooster
quote:
Southern states did not have all of our states' rights restored until WW I ... and even them only out of necessity for another war.
Reconstruction had ended by 1877 and Democrats had regained their political control in the south by that time.
This post was edited on 2/13/15 at 8:20 am
2
Posted on 2/13/15 at 7:56 am to Person of interest
Just as a followup on East Tennessee and political leanings
2008 / 2012 % for Republican
Johnson County - 70.1%, 74.4%
Sullivan County - 70.0%, 72.8%
Hawkins County - 70.0%, 72.8%
Carter County - 72.8%, 75.2%
Unicoi County - 69.4%, 71.0%
Washington County - 66.0%, 68.3% (most diverse county in Northeast TN)
Greene County - 69.5%, 72.0%
Cocke County - 71.7%, 73.9%
A republican has won election in the 1st District of Tennessee to the House (since redistricting in 2000)
2000 - 100.0% (no democratic challenge)
2002 - 98.8%
2004 - 73.9%
2006 - 61.1%
2008 - 71.8%
2010 - 80.8%
2012 - 76.0%
2014 - 82.8%
2008 / 2012 % for Republican
Johnson County - 70.1%, 74.4%
Sullivan County - 70.0%, 72.8%
Hawkins County - 70.0%, 72.8%
Carter County - 72.8%, 75.2%
Unicoi County - 69.4%, 71.0%
Washington County - 66.0%, 68.3% (most diverse county in Northeast TN)
Greene County - 69.5%, 72.0%
Cocke County - 71.7%, 73.9%
A republican has won election in the 1st District of Tennessee to the House (since redistricting in 2000)
2000 - 100.0% (no democratic challenge)
2002 - 98.8%
2004 - 73.9%
2006 - 61.1%
2008 - 71.8%
2010 - 80.8%
2012 - 76.0%
2014 - 82.8%
This post was edited on 2/13/15 at 8:01 am
Posted on 2/13/15 at 8:28 am to scrooster
quote:
Good gosh man ... we were a conquered country! We lost all of our rights! Reconstruction is why there is so much bitterness lingering still today.
You are probably the only person I know that is still bitter.
Posted on 2/13/15 at 8:33 am to SavageOrangeJug
quote:
Where do you think all that cotton from the South went?
It went straight to Northern textile factories.
wrong! most cotton was sold in europe where the south could buy goods cheaper than from the north. hence the high tariffs that the south hated.
Posted on 2/13/15 at 8:38 am to Stonehog
Public education. 
Posted on 2/13/15 at 8:40 am to Kashmir
quote:
wrong! most cotton was sold in europe where the south could buy goods cheaper than from the north. hence the high tariffs that the south hated.
Some of it was sold to Europe. Much of it went due North.
Where do think the Northern textile factories got their cotton?
Posted on 2/13/15 at 9:10 am to Person of interest
quote:
Reconstruction had ended by 1877 and Democrats had regained their political control in the south by that time.
Oh Good Lord.
lulz
The old disenfranchisement argument ... and next will come the klan bullshite.
I'm done.
Go do some homework ... double-check what you just posted and don't go into with the express intent of proving what you just posted - approach it like a scientist, as if your not sure, look for other information ... then come back here and try to sell what you just posted again.
Posted on 2/13/15 at 9:14 am to SavageOrangeJug
quote:
Some of it was sold to Europe. Much of it went due North.
Where do think the Northern textile factories got their cotton?
No, he's right. The majority of the South's cotton went to England. And this was part of the problem. Because Southern cotton that went into New York out of the Gulf and out of Savannah and Charleston, was under heavy import tariffs ... which is why the South didn't want to do business with the North. It was actually cheaper for northern textile mills to buy Southern cotton through European suppliers than it was to buy it directly from the South because of Clinton's tariff on Southern cotton in the early 19th century. And it wasn't just Southern cotton, is was many other things grown down here. And it was never under the guise of a slavery tariff ... it was always about funding a northern project, like the Erie canal, at the expense of Southern farmers.
Posted on 2/13/15 at 9:14 am to Stonehog
If it was started over slavery, why weren't they abolished BEFORE the war? It was tacked on to a list of many reasons midway through.
The end result was good though. At least they got rid of the worst part of this nation's history.
The end result was good though. At least they got rid of the worst part of this nation's history.
Posted on 2/13/15 at 9:28 am to scrooster
quote:
quote:
Some of it was sold to Europe. Much of it went due North.
Where do think the Northern textile factories got their cotton?
No, he's right.
thank you. obviously, some southern cotton went to the north. some southern planters banded together to buy their own ocean craft to cut down on shipping costs to europe.
if it hadn't been for egyptian and indian cotton, england would have declared war on the north strictly for economic reasons.
Posted on 2/13/15 at 9:47 am to Kashmir
quote:
Rare is the war that is fought for only one factor, tbh
Allah
Posted on 2/13/15 at 10:17 am to Stonehog
The civil war was the debate between the power of the federal government vs the states. It was about a cultural divide that had existed since the early colonial period between northern and southern colonies then states.
Slavery was the primary issue that brought the states rights debate to the boiling point and was the economic driver of that cultural divide.
The perfect example of this cultural divide can probably be exemplified by Alexander Hamilton's vision of an industrialized, urban nation vs Thomas Jefferson's vision of a nation of educated, rural, planters.
We still see the remnants of that cultural divide today in our regional differences and vast cultural and political differences between urban populations and rural/suburban populations.
Slavery was the primary issue that brought the states rights debate to the boiling point and was the economic driver of that cultural divide.
The perfect example of this cultural divide can probably be exemplified by Alexander Hamilton's vision of an industrialized, urban nation vs Thomas Jefferson's vision of a nation of educated, rural, planters.
We still see the remnants of that cultural divide today in our regional differences and vast cultural and political differences between urban populations and rural/suburban populations.
Posted on 2/13/15 at 10:34 am to Stonehog
Regardless of what the North wanted, the South wanted to keep their way of life. Their way of life was profitable for the people in charge. So they wanted to keep the status quo to keep their income. The poor whites wanted to keep slavery so they wouldn't be the bottom of the social ladder. They also knew that once they became free there was nothing stopping the freedmen from attacking their former slave owners. All of these along with other reasons
The north and south were so different morally and socially that the country was moving in 2 polar opposite directions. The violence in the territories and Mexican/American war just set the table for the issue to explode.
Was slavery the main reason for the war? It was the most important of many reasons but it was far from the only one. The South wanted to keep its way of life, which was directly tied to the slavery, but I think it was financially driver by the people that had the political power in the South.
The north and south were so different morally and socially that the country was moving in 2 polar opposite directions. The violence in the territories and Mexican/American war just set the table for the issue to explode.
Was slavery the main reason for the war? It was the most important of many reasons but it was far from the only one. The South wanted to keep its way of life, which was directly tied to the slavery, but I think it was financially driver by the people that had the political power in the South.
Posted on 2/13/15 at 10:44 am to Stonehog
yes
Posted on 2/13/15 at 11:00 am to Ancient Rome
quote:
Allah
even then, the men in power have ulterior motives for going to war. Sure, their peons were religious fanatics, but they had far more earthly reasons for going to war.
Posted on 2/13/15 at 11:18 am to scrooster
quote:Why does it seem to be an iron law of internet politics debates that the first person to ask for sources is the person who hasn't provided any themselves?
Go do some homework ... double-check what you just posted and don't go into with the express intent of proving what you just posted -
EDIT: And has ignored multiple posts providing sources that contradict them?
This post was edited on 2/13/15 at 11:33 am
Posted on 2/13/15 at 11:51 am to Landmass
quote:
they got rid of the worst part of this nation's history.
one of the worst parts, but yeah, I agree
And that's not an indictment of America as a whole. Every nation has dodgy parts of their history.
The USA actively looks to right those wrongs, though. Sometimes to a fault
Posted on 2/13/15 at 1:00 pm to Stonehog
no...it was more about expansion of the Union and the misrepresentation in Congress...it was also about tyranny imho...the South did not want war, they simply wanted to leave peacefully, just as they had entere(ratification)....Lincoln wanted war, because he knew that was what it would take to get slavery abolished...slavery would have ended eventually in the South and if it had not been force and then Reconstruction handled like it was I truly believe some of the racism that has occurred since would not be as prolific..just my .02
Posted on 2/13/15 at 2:49 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Though it was much easier to have that attitude when the region was made up of 1-2% of those types of people. I agree, it is something to be proud of, but I always get a bit of a chuckle when I hear people from Upper East Tennessee talking about places like South Georgia and Alabama and their "racism" (more of a Jim Crowe era thing than slavery). When blacks make up 3% of your population it is much easier to easily "integrate" and talk about equality than when it is 50/50. The racist language and overtones of life in Kingsport was much higher than anything I ever experienced in West Alabama or Georgia, and most of it was just from total lack of a relationship with those of a different color.
I don't disagree but Knoxville and a few outlying spots have always been closer to 6-8% which does make a difference. Ironically, Knox Co/Knoxville was the place being railed about most and one of the biggest critics was a preacher from the Kingsport/JC/Bristol area which is very different and where you've got your 1-3% as well as many racists.
The Quakers and abolitionist movement had a larger impact closer to Blount Co. and K-town even into places like what is today UNION CO which has about 0 black folks - even parts of CLAIBORNE nearest UNION Co and Knox were more liberal but only parts. Other areas just didn't want involvement or were pro-union and didn't give a shite about black folks. Ironically, just above UNION/KNOX places like SCOTT and CAMPBELL CO. were pretty bad except for their pro-union sentiments.
I would consider Upper-upper TN no different than N. Alabama and the same is true for places like JEFF CO and HAMBLEN but I do consider the areas where Quakers had more influence very different.
FWIW, I've always considered Kingsport/JC/Bristol absolutely horrific on race. I could never live there and don't know how you did.
This post was edited on 2/13/15 at 2:53 pm
Page 7 of 11
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News