3rd Confederate flag rises along North Carolina interstates

[Jazzhead]

Yeah, I'll admit it was a good one. 

[RoosGirl]

[sneakypete]

Oh, stop with the name calling and try a little persuasion, SP.     

So it's your view that the Civil War would have occurred had slavery not existed?

 


DUHHH!

Go ahead and make that argument

I don't have to. No less an authority than a guy named Abraham Lincoln made that case before the war began.

- I'm interested in hearing it.

No,you're not,or I wouldn't have had to mention it 3 or 4 times. You would have looked it up after the first mention if you were really interested.

I acknowledge the tension between the industrialized North and the agrarian South - but that tension existed in large part because the South's labor supply was conscripted in a way the rest of the world found morally abhorrent.

Send you to school,teach you to read and reason,and you still can't learn a damn thing. Just how much longer do you think slavery could have existed as an economical machine after the Cotton Gin came out. Do you REALLY think that wealthy cotton farmers in the south never asked themselves "Is there a better way to do this work that will maximize my profits while eliminating the colossal headache of having to master slaves while taking care of their food,water,housing,and medical care?"

PART of the "outrage" from the north was related to northern industrialists looking for cheap labor due to the poor white immigrants from Europe coming in getting tired of living conditions worse than European peasants  while working 12 hour days 6 days a week for poverty wages and who had started forming unions and demanding better pay,better living conditions,and shorter hours. Who better to replace them than ignorant slaves that had no clue about the value of a dollar that you could pay poverty wages while cheating and robbing them blind.

Also,need I remind you of the race riots in NYC due to whites being drafted to fight for blacks while blacks weren't required to fight? Every hear about new male immigrants on Ellis Island being told they wouldn't be allowed to enter the US unless they agreed to enlist in the Union Army,and who spent their first few days in America getting issued weapons,uniforms,and being taught to drill?

Or the fact that none other than General,later President,U.S. Grant owned slaves that he didn't free until after the war because NOBODY IN THE NORTH THAT OWNED SLAVES WERE ORDERED TO FREE THEM?

Or that "Mr.Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation "that freed the slaves,praise de lawd!" ONLY applied to slaves living in the Confederacy,where he had no dominion?

 

Do you predict a civil war occurring in today's American midwest because the great agribusinesses are pushing out family farmers?

No,the reality is there is no such critter as family farms anymore,other than small "hobby farms". They are now all incorporated,and the biggest ones are owned/controlled by people who have never worked on a farm a single day in their lives,as well as stockholders. Agribusiness is a serious player in the stock market,and even small farming corporations where all the stock is owned by the board members (usually small ones that used to be called "family farms" ) are corproations because of the tax breaks and other special perks.

For example,one local farmer around here that owns and operates what used to be called a family farm was running for a county commissioner office a couple of years ago,campaigning on
a "I'm a working man on a farm platform and can identify with your problems" platform. He had to drop out when it was revealed he was pulling in around 3 million a year from the government for acreage he had in the land bank and the timber bank. In short,he was being paid 3 million bucks a year by the taxpayers to NOT farm.

Yeah,you hear a lot of farmers complaining about welfare parasites,but just watch their eyes spin around in their heads when you tell them they are welfare kings being paid millions to not work by the feral government,so they were even worse. 

[Suppressed]

I acknowledge the tension between the industrialized North and the agrarian South - but that tension existed in large part because the South's labor supply was conscripted in a way the rest of the world found morally abhorrent.

@Jazzhead

There are others here who know the economics of the time better than I, but I think there were definitely additional economic issues that might very well have pushed toward a secession...and as we know, the tyrant Lincoln couldn't allow freedom of association or dissociation, so he might have ordered states to invade one another anyway.  But would many respond if not for abolition being an issue?  Probably not. 

We might have seen a peaceful separation. 

[sneakypete]

@Jazzhead

 

But would many respond if not for abolition being an issue?  Probably not. 

.

@Suppressed

See my replies above to Jazzman about the draft riots in NYC and how the feral government illegally forced immigrants to the US to enlist in the Union Army as a condition to be allowed to set foot in America.

[Suppressed]

  Just how much longer do you think slavery could have existed as an economical machine after the Cotton Gin came out. Do you REALLY think that wealthy cotton farmers in the south never asked themselves "Is there a better way to do this work that will maximize my profits while eliminating the colossal headache of having to master slaves while taking care of their food,water,housing,and medical care?"

Huh?

The cotton gin was invented in the 18th century, and it's what made slavery BOOM!  Slaves were needed to cultivate the vast amounts of cotton that the cotton gin could process.

Methinks you've got things a bit backwards, while you're insulting others over ignorance.

[Suppressed]

See my replies above to Jazzman about the draft riots in NYC and how the feral government illegally forced immigrants to the US to enlist in the Union Army as a condition to be allowed to set foot in America.

@sneakypete

The most recent branch of my family tree to come to America arrived in the 1850s.  One of several brothers from England who were in the Army only a few years after arriving.  Obviously not a condition of arrival, but it sure provided opportunity to some new immigrants.

Still, I think that without slavery as an issue, Lincoln wouldn't have raised nearly as many troops.  I'm pretty sure that some of my relatives who enlisted were going because of abolition -- they were very active in a abolitionist church.  Others, I don't know.

[austingirl]

I appreciate the links and the history,  thackney.  It's always good to learn something I didn't know before.

And yet, with your florid ignorance, you opine about places and things you know nothing about. 

[austingirl]

I didn't say shit about a gun.

But it's very telling that you have my penis on your mind.

@INVAR
 

[sneakypete]

Huh?

The cotton gin was invented in the 18th century, and it's what made slavery BOOM!  Slaves were needed to cultivate the vast amounts of cotton that the cotton gin could process.

Methinks you've got things a bit backwards, while you're insulting others over ignorance.

@Suppresed

Methinks

And that is where you started going wrong.

The Cotton Gin greatly reduced the number of workers/slaves needed to pick and process cotton.   The first one was build around 1800,but the exact date is not nailed down.

Guess what was first built in 1812? The first tractor. Yeah,it was a steam-powered dangerous monstrosity,but a blind man could see where slavery was going. The first one was produced in 1812,and by 1839 a mobile tractor was on the market. VERY crude and under-powered by today's standards,but how many horses pulling plows would it take to plow as many furrows in one day as the steam-powered tractor? And you have to know that on the first day it hit the fields pulling a plow,people started trying to figure out how to make it plant crops,too.This was 22 years BEFORE the Civil War began.

Slavery was on the way out,and anybody that bothered to look could see it. Machines might cost more to buy than slaves,but they don't get sick and they don't need overseers,and you don't have to provide them with food,clothing,shelter,and medical care. Putting moral issues aside,it just didn't make financial sense to keep buying and working slaves once mechanical planters and pickers  hit the fields. How many slaves do you think it would take to do the same amount of work in a 12 hour day in 1837 as a steam-powered tractor pulling a plow,followed by one pulling a planter?

Ever heard of a little company named John Deere? Formed in 1837 to make steel plow blades for farming,by 1853 the company was manufacturing a variety of farm equipment products in addition to plows, including wagons, corn planters, and cultivators.  By 1912 they were making 4wd gasoline powered tractors,but they were by far not the first. As noted above,tractors started being manufactured and sold in 1837. Remind me again when The War of Northern Aggression began. While you are looking this up,look up what types of mechanical farm machinery was in production at that time.

Granted,small farmers couldn't afford tractors,Cotton Gins,planters,etc,etc,etc,but they couldn't afford slaves,either. I don't know how accurate this figure is,but I have read that a healthy young black male slave could sell for $3,000 in 1860 money. That was a HELL of a lot of money in 1860. In fact,there were already a lot of freed slaves in the south in 1860. Not that it benefited them much. For the most part they had no education or work experience that wasn't related to farm work,and being freed slaves they pretty much had to either head north or live close to where they had been slaves so they could be hired as seasonal workers when the crops needed to be planted or picked. Like with the poor whites at the time,it was pretty much a hand to mouth existence.

[Bigun]

@Jazzhead

There are others here who know the economics of the time better than I, but I think there were definitely additional economic issues that might very well have pushed toward a secession...and as we know, the tyrant Lincoln couldn't allow freedom of association or dissociation, so he might have ordered states to invade one another anyway.  But would many respond if not for abolition being an issue?  Probably not. 

We might have seen a peaceful separation.

Since you quoted him (JH), I will respond with what another fellow who was around at the time had to say about what that war was about.

The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.

Karl Marx, 1861

[edpc]

Slavery was on the way out,and anybody that bothered to look could see it. Machines might cost more to buy than slaves,but they don't get sick and they don't need overseers,and you don't have to provide them with food,clothing,shelter,and medical care. Putting moral issues aside,it just didn't make financial sense to keep buying and working slaves once mechanical planters and pickers hit the fields.

The Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens would suggest otherwise.

[Suppressed]

The Cotton Gin greatly reduced the number of workers/slaves needed to grow and process cotton.

 :nometalk:

[Jazzhead]

And yet, with your florid ignorance, you opine about places and things you know nothing about. 

Gee, graciousness just isn't your thing. 

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete


Still, I think that without slavery as an issue, Lincoln wouldn't have raised nearly as many troops.   

@Suppressed

He wouldn't have needed ANY more troops if he hadn't started the war.

[sneakypete]

The Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens would suggest otherwise.

@edpc

Anybody can claim anything,but that doesn't mean they were right. John Brown claimed moral outrage over slavery was cause for him to lead a slave rebellion that resulted in the massacres
 of mostly white women and children. The husbands and fathers were out working when they hit the farm houses.

Are you going to claim the murder of innocents was justification because some insane preacher said it was?

[sneakypete]

:nometalk:

@Suppressed

There is no known cure for a closed mind. You learned all this stuff while being indoctrinated in public skools,and nothing will ever change your mind.

[DCPatriot]

I know, I know, everything's about you and your big bad gun.   Just how small is your penis?   

 

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed

There is no known cure for a closed mind. You learned all this stuff while being indoctrinated in public skools,and nothing will ever change your mind.

 

Just going on history and the data and reality.


https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent

The Effects of the Cotton Gin
After the invention of the cotton gin, the yield of raw cotton doubled each decade after 1800. Demand was fueled by other inventions of the Industrial Revolution, such as the machines to spin and weave it and the steamboat to transport it. By midcentury America was growing three-quarters of the world's supply of cotton, most of it shipped to England or New England where it was manufactured into cloth. During this time tobacco fell in value, rice exports at best stayed steady, and sugar began to thrive, but only in Louisiana. At midcentury the South provided three-fifths of America's exports -- most of it in cotton.

However, like many inventors, Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave.

Because of the cotton gin, slaves now labored on ever-larger plantations where work was more regimented and relentless. As large plantations spread into the Southwest, the price of slaves and land inhibited the growth of cities and industries. In the 1850s seven-eighths of all immigrants settled in the North, where they found 72% of the nation's manufacturing capacity. The growth of the "peculiar institution" was affecting many aspects of Southern life.

[edpc]

@edpc

Anybody can claim anything,but that doesn't mean they were right. John Brown claimed moral outrage over slavery was cause for him to lead a slave rebellion that resulted in the massacres
 of mostly white women and children. The husbands and fathers were out working when they hit the farm houses.

Are you going to claim the murder of innocents was justification because some insane preacher said it was?

Stephens wasn't just some dude.  He was the VP of the confederacy, openly stating the natural state of blacks was to be inferior of whites.  He was a literal white supremacist, declaring that philosophy to being an essential part of the confederate foundation.  If the Civil War had a different outcome, they wouldn't have said, "Oh, well....nevermind.  Y'all are free and can vote, too."

[INVAR]

Gee, graciousness just isn't your thing.

Like you got room to talk there buster.

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed

He wouldn't have needed ANY more troops if he hadn't started the war.

The question was whether we'd have had a war if there hadn't been slavery.  Are you arguing that the South wouldn't have seceded?  Or that that Lincoln wouldn't have started the war when the South seceded without slavery?

I'm suggesting that the South might still have seceded without slavery, but there would have been a more difficult time for Lincoln to invade if there hadn't been slavery.

[Frank Cannon]

[mountaineer]

I guess one excuse is as good as another when you need to explain why you deserted instead of fought.

He did fight. Several battles. Then he stopped.

[INVAR]

I'm suggesting that the South might still have seceded without slavery, but there would have been a more difficult time for Lincoln to invade if there hadn't been slavery.

Ahem..... Lincoln INVADED the South long before he made slavery a cassus belli to continue the war to force the South back into the Union.   

When was the firing on Fort Sumpter and the First Battle of Manassas? 

When was the Emancipation Proclamation given?

Slavery was just the excuse Lincoln used to continue to wage the war when he was losing support for it in the North.

Taxing the slaves and plantation owners at the behest of the industrial Northern states were the actions that led to the South Seceding. 

The war itself was fought by Lincoln to return by force - the Southern states into a compact the federal government violated in the first place.

America has been an imperial power instead of a true republic ever since.