Author Topic: Mississippi conservatives  (Read 6531 times)

Offline Contemporary Protestant

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2014, 10:56:58 PM »
No war is ever about one specific issue, slavery was the main issue but it was also about states rights

The north and south were inevitably going to have opposing interests, this is apparent even before the constitution was written

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2014, 11:00:31 PM »
There was more than just slavery. Many northerners wanted slaves as well and many cities rioted over it. It had a lot to do with the agrarian lifestyle, but to support the lifestyle required slaves because the technology of the day wouldn't support picking crops, cotton in particular until a guy name Eli Whitney came along and they had the backing of England who still had a bone to pick with the US federal government plus at the time England had a huge textile industry. Without the financial backing of England the confederacy would have been dead before it started.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Offline Hydra009

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2014, 12:20:56 AM »
I'm just going to leave this here:



It answers the age-old question in the first minute.  Kind of a no-brainer, tbh.

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2014, 12:41:53 AM »
Independence from laws preventing the ownership of slaves.
I have a low opinion of slave owners not southerners. Southerners who pretend the civil war wasn't about slavery are delusional.

Yeah, that was the only law that was in any way a factor.  Yep.  Exactly what you are supposed to think.  Good job.

You have correctly parroted the dumbed-down party line.  Congratulations.
Watch my fanfilm
The Null Zone

Film the sequel
Null Zone Part Two

Offline Hydra009

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2014, 02:04:56 AM »
It was individuals that owned slaves, in 11 Southern states and 5 Northern states.  It was Lincoln that established the first draft, a State owning slaves.
Are you referring to the border state of Maryland, which had a grand total of 87,189 slaves in 1860 (and almost as many free blacks) out of a total population of 687,049?

In contrast, Virginia had 490,865 slaves out of a total population 1,596,318.
North Carolina had 331,057 slaves  out of a total population of 992,622.
South Carolina had 402,406 slaves out of a total population of 703,708.
Georgia had 462,198 slaves out of a total population of 1,057,286.
Mississippi had 436,631 slaves out of a total population of 791,292.
Etc, etc.

The U.S. had nearly 4,000,000 slaves in 1860.  Take a wild guess where the vast majority of them were located.  Here's a hint:  it wasn't the region that had already freed almost all of their slaves.

Although border states did have some slaves, it wasn't even remotely on the same scale of the Confederate states.  Also, the border states' support of the war effort was deemed crucial and thus full abolition wasn't accomplished until late in the war.

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2014, 08:30:33 AM »
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
Quote
“Historians debating the origins of the American Civil War focus on the reasons why seven Southern states declared their secession from the Union and later joined to form the Confederate States of America (the "Confederacy"). The main explanation is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Southern slave owners held that such a restriction on slavery would violate the principle of states' rights.”

From Civil War.org
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/
Quote
“While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states.”

From History.net
http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war
Quote
“The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union, however, was the debate over the future of slavery.”

The fact is that if you remove the issue of slavery the war does not happen.
If the North accepts the decision of the Dred Scott case and allows the south to continue the ownership and transportation of slaves…there is no war.
If the south accepts the global trend away from slavery and decides to free the slaves…there is no war.
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2014, 08:42:31 AM »
That's how you keep the "Proles" in check, give them just enough benefits to keep them content with their poverty so they remain unambitious. Throw in a little Jesus and you're good to go.  It's brilliant if you think about it.  (Nice analogy Aletheia).

BTW, this seems to works on most demographics, conservative or not.

Cornbread and truck pulls?
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline stromboli

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2014, 10:27:13 PM »
Considering the fact that their lifestyle pretty much revolves around Pork, I don't think they are going to be rising again. There is a city in Kentucky that has a Ham festival. Boy, that's got to bring in the big names in entertainment.

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2014, 10:32:12 PM »
Considering the fact that their lifestyle pretty much revolves around Pork, I don't think they are going to be rising again. There is a city in Kentucky that has a Ham festival. Boy, that's got to bring in the big names in entertainment.
Like Ken Ham.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2014, 10:22:26 AM »
There was more than just slavery. Many northerners wanted slaves as well and many cities rioted over it. It had a lot to do with the agrarian lifestyle, but to support the lifestyle required slaves because the technology of the day wouldn't support picking crops, cotton in particular until a guy name Eli Whitney came along and they had the backing of England who still had a bone to pick with the US federal government plus at the time England had a huge textile industry. Without the financial backing of England the confederacy would have been dead before it started.

No doubt the cotton gin increased the growth of slavery and the dependence of Britain and France on imported cotton, but the confederacy overplayed their hand.
They put their trust in King Cotton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton and that it would lead to support from England and France in the war against the Union. However, that support never materialized as the Europeans had more reasons not to go to war with the U.S. than to go to war just to get cheaper cotton. Britain remained officially neutral and the confederacy received no aid.
 
Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Offline the_antithesis

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2014, 11:10:39 AM »
What do they mean by "the south will rise again" ?
Do they really believe slavery will make a comeback?

I think they're trying to overcome erectile dysfunction.

They keep saying the South will rise again because they can't get it up.

Offline SGOS

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #41 on: May 18, 2014, 06:18:17 AM »
It may have been around 30 years ago when the idea that the Civil War was not about slavery became fashionable.  I actually considered the possibility that it might be true, although I felt like I had to take liberties with reason.  Usually, it was simply stated, "It was not about slavery!"  You had to then fill in your own explanations.

Eventually, it was frequently stated, "It was not about slavery.  It was about economics!"  OK, I guess you could make a case for that, being that the economics of the South were viewed as being dependent on slavery.  But it was still about slavery.

Now, the issue of state's rights seems to often be used as the explanation for the Civil War.  It's the best alternative yet to slavery, because many of the western states also complain about their state's rights, and they are not advocating slavery.  However, this does not mean that southern state's right issues were not about slavery. 

The Civil War was an important and necessary war because it wiped out the gross inhumanity of slavery.  Many southerners now understand that slavery was a barbaric act of inhumanity, and they would like to forget that part of their past, so they come up with other explanations for the Civil War.  However, I have met Southerners that openly admit they fully support making black people slaves, even today.  But I think some Southerners that have a less barbaric attitude still wave their confederate flags because that's a popular thing to do in the South.  It probably means different things to different people.

But I don't buy that the Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery.

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2014, 06:54:37 AM »
No doubt the cotton gin increased the growth of slavery and the dependence of Britain and France on imported cotton, but the confederacy overplayed their hand.
They put their trust in King Cotton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton and that it would lead to support from England and France in the war against the Union. However, that support never materialized as the Europeans had more reasons not to go to war with the U.S. than to go to war just to get cheaper cotton. Britain remained officially neutral and the confederacy received no aid.
 
The Civil War is often credited for the rise of the Egyptian cotton industry. Britain was not happy with the idea of defending a slave-holding system.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2014, 06:57:31 AM »
But I don't buy that the Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery.
They demanded that the North accept they had certain rights which included what they called "our peculiar institution", i.e., slavery. The expansion westward meant more "border states" (like Missouri in status) that would probably tip the balance of the Senate toward "free" states. They saw it as inevitable that population growth would give the House of Representatives to the free staters, and they didn't see a way out of this geographic and demographic trap.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline Hydra009

Re: Mississippi conservatives
« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2014, 10:32:09 AM »
It may have been around 30 years ago when the idea that the Civil War was not about slavery became fashionable.  I actually considered the possibility that it might be true, although I felt like I had to take liberties with reason.  Usually, it was simply stated, "It was not about slavery!"  You had to then fill in your own explanations.

Eventually, it was frequently stated, "It was not about slavery.  It was about economics!"  OK, I guess you could make a case for that, being that the economics of the South were viewed as being dependent on slavery.  But it was still about slavery.

Now, the issue of state's rights seems to often be used as the explanation for the Civil War.  It's the best alternative yet to slavery, because many of the western states also complain about their state's rights, and they are not advocating slavery.  However, this does not mean that southern state's right issues were not about slavery.
Yep.  And now, it's apparently all about independence and freedom.  How very noble.  (And comical, considering the actual motivation)

And the old standby is that it's the war of "Northern Aggression" with no particular acts of aggression named.  You simply had to imagine that the North was bullying the South and Southerners were just defending themselves.  The actual history paints a very different story.