Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
We know the answer to that one
at least some of your Lost Cause revisionist comrades have a better grasp of the basics, like when the Industrial Revolution started, that the Importation of slaves was halted in 1808, and who the fuck fired the first shots.
The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
We know the answer to that one
The cotton gin was invented in 1794.
By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.
Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.
Electing Buchanan calmed these crazy ass Southerners down a bit, and he was every bit the suckass they wanted him to be.
Lincoln getting elected was what it took. They never even waited for him to take office to officially secede and commence hostilities.
The south didn't start the war.
Lincoln (illegally) sent troops and ships to invade Charleston (fort sumter) after the south had seceded...invading a foreign nation is an act of war. Any nation would be right to defend themselves from invaders.
Not so.
I showed in post #208 that that Jefferson Davis began the war.
Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s
So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?
Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s
So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?
Ok..we're done...ridiculous semantic distortions and word games are for kids...I'm out...
The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
We know the answer to that one
The cotton gin was invented in 1794.
By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.
Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.
We cross posted...but the effect was the same...looks like we found the hookworm revisionist pasta boy flies on: semantics.Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s
So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?
Ok..we're done...ridiculous semantic distortions and word games are for kids...I'm out...
It is your ridiculous assertion that slavery was on its way out due to mechanized cotton picking
Looks like you got handed your ass doesn't it?
Just like you think Obama is going to take away your guns.It's part and parcel of "The Lost Cause". After the war was over, the South had to come up with a new theme as to what the war was about.....since fighting FOR slavery was not really a pleasant thing to be remembered for.I think a running tally of PolitialChic's insanity is in order.
Yesterday, or whenever, it was Roosevelt prolonged WWII by 2 years. Today it's Slavery had nothing to do with the secession of the Confederate states.
Stay tuned for even more delightful dementia...
The weird thing about this lunacy of PC is that her premise isn't even an argument against slavery as the cause of the war,
and she doesn't even realize it. Her cockeyed argument is that the South felt confident that they could secede, and thus preserve the institution of slavery,
because they expected help from Great Britain.
The the war of northern aggression wasn't fought to preserve... nor abolish ....slavery.
Lincoln couldn't have cared less about the negroes either way. He said so himself.
The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
We know the answer to that one
The cotton gin was invented in 1794.
By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.
Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.
intelligent answer. chic.lol she calls herself chic. that's so cooleverybody wants to rule over the other guys? so what? the might of the north made them right as always in history. the south wanted to keep blacks doing their work and getting rich off of other peoples work. they called them slave owners now they call them stock holders, partners, investors etc... they won cause lincoln fought so his fellow men up north didn't have to slave like ******* in the fields for nothing but scrap pork. now we are all ******* in the true sense of the word. stupid ignorant servants doing jigs and yessirin our massers. I for one want to fight the south again. you ignant ******* don't noes no bettar or our too cowardly to admit you've been had bad. good luck keeping your ******* in line. they got some tough skin on there backs bye now.
Go home! The earth is full!
Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
Not to mention the huge missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely. It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.
Yep.Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
Not to mention the huge missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely. It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.
It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.
That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.
The South seceded because they had been itchin to...
The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.
The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)
The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.
Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
Here is an article from ----> OCT 1856, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond editorial, entitled: LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE
...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.
I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:
Here is the top line:
It begins:
"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.
The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.
....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."
And they go on:
Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within,
will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."
..
",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."
Those were the Southern sentiments well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships in January of 1861. They continue:
"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...
See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.
So?
I can find an "editorial" opinion from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.
Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848
Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".
Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
Not to mention the huge missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely. It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.
It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.
That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.
PC's blathering reveals she has little clue to anything outside of her extremely limited view of reality.
moonglow said:If I wrote thesis papers like that when I was in college I would have not been on the Deans List..
politicalchic said:Forgive me if I find your suggestion hard to believe....
One of us has both Dean's List and Valedictorian on their resume, and the other is you.
The first cotton harvester was patented in 1850..strippers and harvesters were used prior to then also.The industrial revolution was occuring and those automated looms needed an ever increasing supply of cotton. The only way to pick cotton was by hand. The traitorous south was making millions off the cotton trade.....should they share it with those actually doing the work?
We know the answer to that one
The cotton gin was invented in 1794.
By 1861 slavery was a fading, inefficient and destructive practice and everyone knew it at the time.
Read something besides wikipedia..you'll learn a lot more.
Cotton was picked by hand up till the 1930s
So are you claiming the Traitorous South would have had slaves up till the 1930s?
The South seceded because they had been itchin to...
The fires were burning many, many years before 1861, This is fact.
The slavery issue was a major one in the preceding presidential election. (not to mention the high intensity of the full 1850's decade...)
The South was itching for a fight, and they intended to take it home over that issue.
Let's go back, 4 years earlier, to just before the November, 1856 election.
Here is an article from ----> OCT 1856, from the New York Times, quoting a Richmond editorial, entitled: LOOK THE FUTURE IN THE FACE
...where future secessionists threaten war and the evil of what they term "Black Republicanism" (their term for the Republicans who favored emancipation ) is castigated, and where they predict, nay - taunt, the coming bloodbath.
I present a picture of the actual paper below...read it:
Here is the top line:
It begins:
"The Southern political Press has never been more open and frank in its avowal of political purposes and plans, than it is during the present canvass.
The triumphs of Slavery during the past four years,--the successful repeal of the Missouri Compromise, a measure for which oven Mr. CALHOUN never dared to hope,--and the ready, eager promptitude with which the Democratic party at Cincinnati yielded to the exactions of the Slaveholding power, seemed to have inspired the political leaders of the South with the belief, that time has come when they can safely and even with advantage to themselves, make open proclamation of the projects they have in store for the future.
....We invite attention to the following lead editorial from Richmond (the NY Times here quotes from the Southern paper) where Southerners state: "'Tis treason to cry "Peace!" "peace!" when there is no peace. There is, there can be, no peace, no lasting union between the south and Black Republicanism."
And they go on:
Forewarned...Forearmed!" We see the numbers, the characters, the designs of our enemies/ Let us prepare to resist them and drive them back
....A common danger from without, and a common necessity (Slavery) within,
will be sure to make the South a great, a united, a vigilant and a warlike people."
..
",...the division is sure to take place...Socialism, communism, infidelity,licentiousness and agrarianism, now scarcely suppressed by union with the conservative South will burst forth in a carnival of blood..."
Those were the Southern sentiments well before the Confederates started seizing forts and arsenals and firing on Unions ships in January of 1861. They continue:
"The great object of the South in supporting Buchanan is to promote and extend the perpetuation of the "conservative institution of Slavery." And the votes by which it is hoped he may be elected, are to become the basis of a secession movement and the formation of a Southern Slave Confederacy...
See the full newspaper article here: (!) Bold Avowals--The Election of Buchanan to be a Stop Towards Disunion. - Article - NYTimes.com
1856. Itchin' itchin itchin.
So?
I can find an "editorial" opinion from a contemporary newspaper that gives different causes.
Here's what a famous "leader" said about "secession";
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."
Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848
Lincoln was (probably) also in favor of the american revolution "secession" from england, one would have to assume...otherwise he wouldn't be "president".
Comparing it to the American Revolution, it would be tough to argue "no taxation without re
Well, when people jump off their meds, this kind of stuff happens. Poor PoliticalSchtick.
Not to mention the huge missing link in her OP, namely that the cotton industry in the South was doomed to fail were the slaves to be freed, BECAUSE the White plantation owners would then have to pay workers to do work that the slaves were doing for free, of course, because they were being held against their will. And since cotton picking required oodles of workers, with paid-workers, it was just not doable with the technology of that day. This is also the reason why vast swaths of the South remained dirt poor for generations after the end of our Civil War.
So, sure, it was a financial issue, but the lynchpin to all of this was indeed slavery.
Were this not the case, then there would have been no need for the Missouri Compromise of 1980, one of the more important moments in our history, because it slowed the onset of the war and also vastly delayed the admission of new years quite severely. It was a "balance of power" act that at the end, caused each side of the Mason-Dixon line to be even more bitter.
It wasn't an issue about wages. It was an issue about capital. Many of the slaves stayed on the plantation and were paid wages after the Civil War. However, a third of all the South's capital was tied up in slaves. And since most of the slaves were owned by the wealthy, upwards of half or more of their wealth was tied up in owning human beings. Many of these families borrowed to buy the slaves, and many went bankrupt after the war. So for the Southern plantation class, they had a tremendous amount to lose, with half or more of their wealth disappearing, and some being wiped out.
That's another reason why this "the Civil War was not about slavery" is so ludicrous. For the wealthy, they were literally fighting for everything they had.
It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.
It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....
...it was "why did the South secede."
Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.
[
It seems that you "accidentally" misquote the premise.
It wasn't "the Civil War was not about slavery" ....
...it was "why did the South secede."
Reminder: honesty is the best policy.....other wise you look ....ludicrous.
