Red Dot Arms Forum

Now some of you may have known these but I thought it was interesting.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/7-things-...uth_062015

These are all correct. None of the Southern states were involved in transporting slaves to the US that was all down to Northern states like Massachusetts. Nearly all Southern leaders supported the gradual freeing and emancipation of slaves. Most importantly, the civil war was never about slavery... that was the excuse used by Northern states to get Southern resources for pennies on the dollar. In all the writings of Southern soldiers from Generals to Infantrymen, not one person ever stated that they were fighting to preserve slavery. I've lived in the South for many years and my wife is a Southerner, so I feel particularly impassioned about this, since peoples idea that the war was about slavery is just plain 100% wrong.

I disagree. Slavery was a PART of the reason for the Civil War. Specifically the expansion of slavery. Also the abolish movement was a factor. You are correct however, in that the cotton gin was making slavery economically unviable. That is why the British abolished it. I would say slavery was a bigger deal in the North than the South clearly. A study of politics in the South and such leaders as "States Rights" Gist (his actual given name) prove that it was about states rights more than anything, and not willing to be told what to do by northern states. Interestingly enough the Civil War didn't prove or disprove a states right to leave the Union. It maintained the union by force of arms. It would be an interesting court case if a state filed suit to leave the Union, and let the SCOTUS decide the issue.

I will concede that slavery was a part of the reason, but a part argued more by the North than the South. In reality there were more abolitionist movements in the south than the North. Had the civil war not occurred, slavery would have ended in the south anyway. So if not really about slavery, what? The same problem we have today, an overarching central government that sees individual states as the problem not the solution. The Southern states quite rightly saw their individual sovereignty being eroded by Washington, and the had every right to secede. The South wanted to be left alone and free from central tyranny. How much times have changed since then, yet how little has changed since then too.

I would say the most accurate characterization is that it was about the balance of power (as it always is) and economy.

Slavery was the bases. The economy of the south depended on slavery at that time, regardless of where it was headed.

Then you had the new states and the fight over which were to be slave states and which were to be free, hence the balance of power in congress. You could say instead of democrat and republican caucusing together and determined the congressional leaders you had slave states and free states. Not exactly but close enough.

When Lincoln was elected the south determined the western states slave status would not go there way and the balance of power would go against them.

Combine that with a very independent and states rights attitude far exceeding what we see today, and it was a perfect mix.

The south, most specifically Virgina, viewed the war with the same perspective as they did the revolution. They saw a lineage of Virginians from Washington to Jefferson to Robert E. Lee, and the fight just a continuation.

Interesting for me is that not until the last 8 years under Obama have I been able to truly understand and empathize.

Well said Dutz. I too see the erosion of Liberty and Freedom to an all powerful government dictating every aspect of my life. Our fore fathers were right to warn us of the excesses of big government. I still wonder to this day what they would have thought of socialism. Take by force from the productive to reward those that vote for a living.

(08-11-2015, 11:09 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. Slavery was a PART of the reason for the Civil War. Specifically the expansion of slavery. Also the abolish movement was a factor. You are correct however, in that the cotton gin was making slavery economically unviable. That is why the British abolished it. I would say slavery was a bigger deal in the North than the South clearly. A study of politics in the South and such leaders as "States Rights" Gist (his actual given name) prove that it was about states rights more than anything, and not willing to be told what to do by northern states. Interestingly enough the Civil War didn't prove or disprove a states right to leave the Union. It maintained the union by force of arms. It would be an interesting court case if a state filed suit to leave the Union, and let the SCOTUS decide the issue.

I thought slavery was dying until the invention of the cotton gin not because of it. Less slaves may have been needed but plantations would have continued to grow in size because the owners would have been able to handle more with the slaves they had. Not unlike what has happened with farms today. Slavery alone did not scale well but slavery + mechanization does.

Well this seems to have engendered a bit of discussion. I think we can all agree that slavery is a bad thing, whatever role it had as a component of the war between the states. I also think we can agree that a major component was a resistance by the southern states to dictates from a large federal government. The southern states never wanted to take over the federal government, they just wanted to be left alone to govern themselves......what a heretical thought. Unfortunately the usurpation of states rights by the federal government just seems to continue. Although the recent decision by Alabama to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry on state rest area property (against federal dictates for gun restrictions) seems to be a sign of hope.

(08-11-2015, 11:02 PM)AcilletaM Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2015, 11:09 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. Slavery was a PART of the reason for the Civil War. Specifically the expansion of slavery. Also the abolish movement was a factor. You are correct however, in that the cotton gin was making slavery economically unviable. That is why the British abolished it. I would say slavery was a bigger deal in the North than the South clearly. A study of politics in the South and such leaders as "States Rights" Gist (his actual given name) prove that it was about states rights more than anything, and not willing to be told what to do by northern states. Interestingly enough the Civil War didn't prove or disprove a states right to leave the Union. It maintained the union by force of arms. It would be an interesting court case if a state filed suit to leave the Union, and let the SCOTUS decide the issue.

I thought slavery was dying until the invention of the cotton gin not because of it. Less slaves may have been needed but plantations would have continued to grow in size because the owners would have been able to handle more with the slaves they had. Not unlike what has happened with farms today. Slavery alone did not scale well but slavery + mechanization does.

My point was that Slavery was becoming an uneconomic model in the South. Just as it had in England, which is why it died off. There was no longer any cost benefit to it. The cotton Gin lowered the price of cotton by flooding the markets, thus ending the economic reason for slaves in the South. Slavery would have ended within 20 years anyway for purely economic reasons, as it had in much of the rest of the world. Slaves were expensive, and cost a lot to feed, house train, etc.
Much like mechanization today has reduced the need for labor.

Unfortunately slavery still exists in many parts of the world. Western civilization has abolished this practice, but it is those thinkers who see western civilization as the problem that still actively encourage slavery.

(08-12-2015, 06:45 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2015, 11:02 PM)AcilletaM Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2015, 11:09 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. Slavery was a PART of the reason for the Civil War. Specifically the expansion of slavery. Also the abolish movement was a factor. You are correct however, in that the cotton gin was making slavery economically unviable. That is why the British abolished it. I would say slavery was a bigger deal in the North than the South clearly. A study of politics in the South and such leaders as "States Rights" Gist (his actual given name) prove that it was about states rights more than anything, and not willing to be told what to do by northern states. Interestingly enough the Civil War didn't prove or disprove a states right to leave the Union. It maintained the union by force of arms. It would be an interesting court case if a state filed suit to leave the Union, and let the SCOTUS decide the issue.

I thought slavery was dying until the invention of the cotton gin not because of it. Less slaves may have been needed but plantations would have continued to grow in size because the owners would have been able to handle more with the slaves they had. Not unlike what has happened with farms today. Slavery alone did not scale well but slavery + mechanization does.

My point was that Slavery was becoming an uneconomic model in the South. Just as it had in England, which is why it died off. There was no longer any cost benefit to it. The cotton Gin lowered the price of cotton by flooding the markets, thus ending the economic reason for slaves in the South. Slavery would have ended within 20 years anyway for purely economic reasons, as it had in much of the rest of the world. Slaves were expensive, and cost a lot to feed, house train, etc.
Much like mechanization today has reduced the need for labor.

In the US where labor is expensive and the initial cost of mechanization therefore isn't as prohibitive. In China where labor is cheap the factory owners resist it. In my last job I visited factories in China where they made staplers and hole punches. It looked more like 1913 than 2013. The factory owners, very well off by the way, were willing to work with my company in any way to reduce costs as long as they didn't have to modernize or automate. If they needed more capacity they added more workers. They fed and housed them too.

(08-12-2015, 05:03 AM)British Gunner Wrote: [ -> ]Well this seems to have engendered a bit of discussion. I think we can all agree that slavery is a bad thing, whatever role it had as a component of the war between the states. I also think we can agree that a major component was a resistance by the southern states to dictates from a large federal government. The southern states never wanted to take over the federal government, they just wanted to be left alone to govern themselves......what a heretical thought. Unfortunately the usurpation of states rights by the federal government just seems to continue. Although the recent decision by Alabama to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry on state rest area property (against federal dictates for gun restrictions) seems to be a sign of hope.

I call bullshit on the southern states as bastions of state's rights. They had no issue with federal dictates when it benefitted them.

From Dennis Prager's site, Prager University.

Guess it's true, the victors always write the history

I don't know if If I agree with the General on all points, but Slavery was certainly the main issue. There were however many others as well. How much any one component made up is unclear, even today. His argument that it was not about States Rights, is not however, correct. This was a festering issue throughout the South from 1820 on. Usually caused by tariff disputes. Read up on the politics of the early mid-1800's and this becomes crystal clear.

(08-12-2015, 12:53 PM)AcilletaM Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-12-2015, 05:03 AM)British Gunner Wrote: [ -> ]Well this seems to have engendered a bit of discussion. I think we can all agree that slavery is a bad thing, whatever role it had as a component of the war between the states. I also think we can agree that a major component was a resistance by the southern states to dictates from a large federal government. The southern states never wanted to take over the federal government, they just wanted to be left alone to govern themselves......what a heretical thought. Unfortunately the usurpation of states rights by the federal government just seems to continue. Although the recent decision by Alabama to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry on state rest area property (against federal dictates for gun restrictions) seems to be a sign of hope.

I call bullshit on the southern states as bastions of state's rights. They had no issue with federal dictates when it benefitted them.

Very much like our civil rights leaders today. They don't care about civil rights, just there civil rights, and the ACLU who only care about the civil liberties of liberals.

(08-13-2015, 06:51 AM)Dutz Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-12-2015, 12:53 PM)AcilletaM Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-12-2015, 05:03 AM)British Gunner Wrote: [ -> ]Well this seems to have engendered a bit of discussion. I think we can all agree that slavery is a bad thing, whatever role it had as a component of the war between the states. I also think we can agree that a major component was a resistance by the southern states to dictates from a large federal government. The southern states never wanted to take over the federal government, they just wanted to be left alone to govern themselves......what a heretical thought. Unfortunately the usurpation of states rights by the federal government just seems to continue. Although the recent decision by Alabama to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry on state rest area property (against federal dictates for gun restrictions) seems to be a sign of hope.

I call bullshit on the southern states as bastions of state's rights. They had no issue with federal dictates when it benefitted them.

Very much like our civil rights leaders today. They don't care about civil rights, just there civil rights, and the ACLU who only care about the civil liberties of liberals.

I have to agree on that one... Recently a Florida airport installed a Muslim prayer room at the airport, the same one that was sued to remove Christmas decorations and a chapel by the ACLU. I have to wonder if the Muslim prayer room replaced the Christian chapel. Where is the lawsuit to remove this religious site from public property under the guise of separation on Church and State, or does that only apply to Christian organizations?

Agree with Dutz and Believin308. Anybody predict what will happen if a mosque refuses to marry a gay couple? When the constitution was set up, the rights of citizens were deemed to come from God, not the government, and as such government cannot take them away. Now rights are bestowed upon the populace by the benevolent government. Well the government giveth and the government taketh away.

(08-13-2015, 07:21 AM)British Gunner Wrote: [ -> ]Agree with Dutz and Believin308. Anybody predict what will happen if a mosque refuses to marry a gay couple? When the constitution was set up, the rights of citizens were deemed to come from God, not the government, and as such government cannot take them away. Now rights are bestowed upon the populace by the benevolent government. Well the government giveth and the government taketh away.

And people forget that to the founders, religious freedom and separation of Church and State meant that Government was never to interfere with the Church.

And our founding fathers knew government would always expand their powers and thus had to be restrained.

It's just like Black Lives Matter, they get mad when you say all lives matter because to them all lives don't matter.

I prefer black rifles.