Historical Inaccuracies

[bboy1827]

I got a question. If the civil war was an economic issue/preservation of the North. The south was built off of slavery and they had more ports because of the slave trade, wouldn't that make their economy based off slavery? Wouldn't that mean that, through a bunch of filters, the war was over Slavery, even if indirectly?

It's all about how you view it, you can't get around the fact that slavery was a huge point in the civil war, States rights being the other reason. IDK people try to make this war all complicated to sound smart and cool. The short and sweet of it is, the North wasn't down with the growing southern economy and their "separatist" movement, the south became separatist because of Slavery x High Taxes. We can sit and argue tit for tat but the long and short of it was disagreements over slavery and the role of the federal government. No matter what you read about the causes of the civil war, there will be a recurring theme of "Slavery"

http://americanhistory.ab...nu/a/cause_civil_war.htm just one article that supports my case, there are many more. Which is weird in this thread of "historical Inaccuracies" I don't see any articles posted that support these claims people make...damn NT slacking. lol

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by 2LipsLegit

Originally Posted by psk2310

I read some time ago that shark migratory patterns in the Atlantic follow the old slave trade shipping routes from African to Europe, America, & the Carribean. Ships used to dump slaves overboard so much so that sharks followed these ships to eat. To think that sharks still follow these migratory patterns is crazy.

If true, this is absolutely crazy.

Rashi

EDIT: Shark story has to be BS. All the places that tell this story speak about millions of africans being thrown overboard, but that would mean maaaany more millions had to be brought to the americas along those same routes just to facilitate that amount of people being thrown overboard due to death or sickness. The math doesnt really make sense, and then on top of that, sharks' short term memory is like 2 minutes.

About 25% of all those onboard slave trading ships (crew and slaves) died on these trips. They were riddled with disease with 200 or so slaves chained up in the hold and had attempted insurrections and fights regularly.

It doesn't sound true though - even with each ship dropping 50 bodies it's not like there were thousands of ships in the same patch of water. I can't imagine the density of free food for the sharks was high enough.

 

[essential1]

Some revisionist history in here...

1790 - close to 700,000 slaves
1860 - close to 4,000,000 slaves

while the % of slaves to total population decreased from 17% to 12%.... This can be explained through black population (freed and non freed) increasing by about 6-7 times of the 1790 population to the 1860 population.. Total population of the United States increased about 10x...

Virginia had the most slaves at 490,000 or so.. Followed by Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina...

As for the population percentage of slaves in the Confederate States (33%)...

And places like West Virginia which ironically now has a huge problem with race (if you haven't spent time there go see for yourself) was a small concentration for slavery (and was still part of Virginia in 1860)... Most of Virginias slave population was concentrated on the coast.. They didn't have a huge economic gain in Slavery and were the counties that overwhelmingly voted against Seccession, while the most densely populated areas of Virginia (the coastal area) voted for Secession (so the West Virginian counties lost to the Coastal Virginian counties)... This put those future Western Virginian counties in a difficult place of being caught in a Secession they didn't want to be in... And early on efforts were made to separate themselves from the more populated areas of Virginia...Due to the Wheeling Conventions they ironically seceded from the State that seceded from the Union and became a state and added to the Union forces in 1863...

You can paint the civil war in 100 different ways...But each way comes down to an important catalyst slavery....

 

[norcalhussla]

Europeans often claim they are superior based on "their" inventions. But as this Discovery Channel documentary shows, Europeans merely copied many inventions that originated in The East.

 

[ruxxx]

Originally Posted by kdawg

You want to read the book "Lies my teacher told me"

Good book right here.

 

[rashi]

I second this but mainly because Andrew Johnson (Lincolns VP who also once owned slaves) was so sympathetic to the southern cause, which was a total 180 from what republicans(northerners and abolitionists) at the time expected(hence his impeachment). 


General Grant owned slaves, and didn't free them until the 13th Amendment was ratified. Robert E. Lee freed his slaves way before the war started.

Rashi i know for the most part you are anti big gov but this was a case in American History where it's indisputable that the gov was needed for citizen protection from domestic terrorists..


I'm anti-government, period. Big or small.

The slavery issue existed because it was enforced by the government, the KKK formed because just felt they were disenfranchised and obviously racists, and had a deep hatred towards anyone of color. But hey, we have racists in the military now. This group was powerful because they had huge political influence that had influence on local governments.


My apologies

If the Civil War was over slavery, then wouldn't it make more sense for Lincoln to buy all the slaves in the South and then free them in the North (the Confederate Constitution BANNED the importation of slaves)? In 1860 the U.S. Census concluded that there were less than 260,000 slaves in the South and almost 225,000 in the North.

What I meant to say there were 260,000 free Blacks in the South, while there were 225,000 free Blacks in the North. Though, the Northern neglected to report slave populations.

The south was built off of slavery and they had more ports because of the slave trade, wouldn't that make their economy based off slavery? Wouldn't that mean that, through a bunch of filters, the war was over Slavery, even if indirectly?

Slavery was on the decline in the South. When the South seceded, their Constitution banned the importation of slaves, so there wasn't any trade of humans coming in when they left the Union. The excise taxes were on imports as well, which raised the costs of doing business with other countries. The South was paying a double tax. The Northern establishment and the Union could not survive without the taxes from the South.


History tells you that War is NEVER fought over principle, they're fought over POWER. He who wins the war writes the history.

Lincoln didn't provoke the South by sending troops to Charleston.


Lincoln sent warships by Charleston harbor where Southerners thought was an invasion like any other country would have...

 

[bboy1827]

rashi wrote:

The south was built off of slavery and they had more ports because of the slave trade, wouldn't that make their economy based off slavery? Wouldn't that mean that, through a bunch of filters, the war was over Slavery, even if indirectly?

Slavery was on the decline in the South. When the South seceded, their Constitution banned the importation of slaves, so there wasn't any trade of humans coming in when they left the Union. The excise taxes were on imports as well, which raised the costs of doing business with other countries. The South was paying a double tax. The Northern establishment and the Union could not survive without the taxes from the South.


History tells you that War is NEVER fought over principle, they're fought over POWER. He who wins the war writes the history.



You didn't really disagree with me, but your response doesn't exactly get to my point. Them banning the importation of slaves didn't end slavery in the south, and wasn't necessarily a sign that slavery itself was on the decline in the south. By this time they could breed slaves, which would be a lot more cost effective, and from books like Willie Lynch it's clear that south slave owners were apt at slave breeding. If they were being taxed largely on imports making a law that banned importation of slaves in the south would have had at least the two effects of relieving themselves from taxes and creating a faux-sign to the rest of the world that the south was on their way to end slavery, whether they would have ended it or not. This is assuming that they were thinking of a Confederate America after the civil war.

I'm not saying that there was a moral objection to slavery in principle in the north, thus causing the civil war, but rather the South wanting to preserve their way of life, and the North wanting to improve theirs.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by 2LipsLegit

Originally Posted by psk2310

I read some time ago that shark migratory patterns in the Atlantic follow the old slave trade shipping routes from African to Europe, America, & the Carribean. Ships used to dump slaves overboard so much so that sharks followed these ships to eat. To think that sharks still follow these migratory patterns is crazy.

If true, this is absolutely crazy.

Rashi

EDIT: Shark story has to be BS. All the places that tell this story speak about millions of africans being thrown overboard, but that would mean maaaany more millions had to be brought to the americas along those same routes just to facilitate that amount of people being thrown overboard due to death or sickness. The math doesnt really make sense, and then on top of that, sharks' short term memory is like 2 minutes.

There's also the fact that sharks have been around for 200 million years, so a couple hundred years of the slave trade is hardly a blip when it comes to their migratory patterns. Migratory patterns change over much longer periods of time.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by 2LipsLegit

Originally Posted by psk2310

I read some time ago that shark migratory patterns in the Atlantic follow the old slave trade shipping routes from African to Europe, America, & the Carribean. Ships used to dump slaves overboard so much so that sharks followed these ships to eat. To think that sharks still follow these migratory patterns is crazy.

If true, this is absolutely crazy.

Rashi

EDIT: Shark story has to be BS. All the places that tell this story speak about millions of africans being thrown overboard, but that would mean maaaany more millions had to be brought to the americas along those same routes just to facilitate that amount of people being thrown overboard due to death or sickness. The math doesnt really make sense, and then on top of that, sharks' short term memory is like 2 minutes.

There's also the fact that sharks have been around for 200 million years, so a couple hundred years of the slave trade is hardly a blip when it comes to their migratory patterns. Migratory patterns change over much longer periods of time.

This is completely untrue.   
Stated by some idiot NY congressman in the 90s.

"Also in the mid-1990s, Owens made headlines when he said, on the House floor, that during the trans-Atlantic slave trade some 200 million African slaves bound for America had been thrown overboard by their white captors. This, he explained, had permanently changed the ecology of the Atlantic Ocean and had caused sharks, as a species, to begin following ships (in search of food)."

 

[beh235]

Originally Posted by Winged Wheel

Originally Posted by cartune

Abraham Lincoln found out he was black on his mother's deathbed and which is why he free'd the slaves. Annnnnnd it was known but kept secret and out of history books

I've heard that the reason all presidents on U.S. coins have their backs turned to Lincoln is because he freed the slaves.

^ Hate to break it to you, but you're both wrong. The real reason Abraham Lincoln "freed" the slaves was that he was hoping that once they are free, they would find their way back to Africa. But most just stayed here because, yanno, it was illegal for them to learn and make something of themselves in captivity.

  

 

[pharelfor3]

Originally Posted by Ciscokid

Originally Posted by buggz05

Things I've learned over the years:

Egyptians had electricity.

Islam had made a big impression on the Philippines before Spanish Catholicism. (not exactly a big secret, but something they don't necessarily advertise. Interesting nonetheless since Islam came after Christianity)

America literally stole Hawaii from its own people and imprisoned it's people for speaking its native language.

We are actually at war with Mexico right now and have been for a long time. (this is vague because pointing out who Mexico "is", the people at power is complicated)

Modern Christianity was developed and is ran by the people who assassinated Jesus, or Yeshua. They took over the religion less than a century after the crucifixion. The original Christianity was much closer to Bhuddism and Tibetan practices.  

your gonna have to give me a little bit more on this

On the real, how you just gonna leave us hanging like that

 

[foxdawg2000]

Originally Posted by rashi

I second this but mainly because Andrew Johnson (Lincolns VP who also once owned slaves) was so sympathetic to the southern cause, which was a total 180 from what republicans(northerners and abolitionists) at the time expected(hence his impeachment). 

General Grant owned slaves, and didn't free them until the 13th Amendment was ratified. Robert E. Lee freed his slaves way before the war started.

Rashi i know for the most part you are anti big gov but this was a case in American History where it's indisputable that the gov was needed for citizen protection from domestic terrorists..


I'm anti-government, period. Big or small.

The slavery issue existed because it was enforced by the government, the KKK formed because just felt they were disenfranchised and obviously racists, and had a deep hatred towards anyone of color. But hey, we have racists in the military now. This group was powerful because they had huge political influence that had influence on local governments.


My apologies

If the Civil War was over slavery, then wouldn't it make more sense for Lincoln to buy all the slaves in the South and then free them in the North (the Confederate Constitution BANNED the importation of slaves)? In 1860 the U.S. Census concluded that there were less than 260,000 slaves in the South and almost 225,000 in the North.

What I meant to say there were 260,000 free Blacks in the South, while there were 225,000 free Blacks in the North. Though, the Northern neglected to report slave populations.

The south was built off of slavery and they had more ports because of the slave trade, wouldn't that make their economy based off slavery? Wouldn't that mean that, through a bunch of filters, the war was over Slavery, even if indirectly?

Slavery was on the decline in the South. When the South seceded, their Constitution banned the importation of slaves, so there wasn't any trade of humans coming in when they left the Union. The excise taxes were on imports as well, which raised the costs of doing business with other countries. The South was paying a double tax. The Northern establishment and the Union could not survive without the taxes from the South.


History tells you that War is NEVER fought over principle, they're fought over POWER. He who wins the war writes the history.

Lincoln didn't provoke the South by sending troops to Charleston.


Lincoln sent warships by Charleston harbor where Southerners thought was an invasion like any other country would have...

1.General Grant owned slaves, and didn't free them until the 13th Amendment was ratified. Robert E. Lee freed his slaves way before the war started.

Yes but that still doesn't have anything to do with Andrew Johnson being sympathetic to the southern way of life and white supremacy through terror being placed of black folks. Not "all" northerners were for the abolition of slavery but what I mean to say was that many in the republican congress were radical abolitionists but some were indifferent to the cause and only had interest in the union's success in the war irregardless of the "peculiar institution"

2.The slavery issue existed because it was enforced by the government, the KKK formed because just felt they were disenfranchised and obviously racists, and had a deep hatred towards anyone of color. But hey, we have racists in the military now. This group was powerful because they had huge political influence that had influence on local governments.

So tell me what came first here on this continent, slavery or the U.S. ?????  It was aided by the government yes, but a government in itself does not create something without an elite class that puts forth and supports it's ideas. One of the main beefs between the North and the South was the Fugitive Slave Act pushed by the south....(look it up) ....  The majority of the Union's States had already outlawed slavery by Lincoln's initial election (where he was basically elected by 39 percent of the vote almost exclusively in the north) hence the reason the South saw him as a threat to their way of life... How many free states were in the south? The KKK just formed because people were disenfranchised?  Had a hatred for people of color all of the sudden?  The whites saw free blacks as a threat to their domination of southern society, wealth and were bitter about their loss in the war and destruction of their homes.... When reconstruction ended there was no one to stop these terrorists from causing mayhem... Yes we have racists in our military, churches, hospitals and what's your point?  The underlying issue was being able to control black bodies... Slave Owners controlled black bodies during slavery through rape, separation of families and violence..These were the people who wanted government to stay out of their business... Guess what happened after government protection went away... the same things... Reconstruction wasn't a failure because the government intervened.. It was a failure because it intervened only half %!$....

Just out of curiosity what is your Opinion on Abortion's legality?

 

[essential1]

foxdawg2000 wrote:

---

Don't bother anything government is ABSOLUTELY GRUESOME... No matter what the government does, whether it is save his %@% or his life he would still go on a tangent about it..

As for your last point in the post Reconstruction's  absolutely terrible outcome occurred not because of Government Intervention, Half-%@% government intervention.... But the end or an absence of government intervention....

When the troops were removed from the South... The Confederate Veterans who were returning home were angry... And especially angry at the freed black citizens who they viewed still as their inferiors...They were so angry at getting their %@% kicked, and decided to take it out on the freed black people... And to an extent that would make it seem like slavery never ended...

Civil War  was UNDENIABLY about Slavery and its economic assistance to the South...

 

[foxdawg2000]

Originally Posted by Essential1

foxdawg2000 wrote:

---

Don't bother anything government is ABSOLUTELY GRUESOME... No matter what the government does, whether it is save his %@% or his life he would still go on a tangent about it..

As for your last point in the post Reconstruction's  absolutely terrible outcome occurred not because of Government Intervention, Half-%@% government intervention.... But the end or an absence of government intervention....

When the troops were removed from the South... The Confederate Veterans who were returning home were angry... And especially angry at the freed black citizens who they viewed still as their inferiors...They were so angry at getting their %@% kicked, and decided to take it out on the freed black people... And to an extent that would make it seem like slavery never ended...

Civil War  was UNDENIABLY about Slavery and its economic assistance to the South...
That's exactly what I was getting at.. that the troops protecting black suffrage/assistance in the South withdrew and all went to hell....hence Jim Crow... individuals were left to protect themselves and unless they migrated north ended up back on the same plantations they were once enslaved upon sharecropping at a net loss and forever indebted to the same slave owners...Even ones that went north faced discrimination and poverty in urban areas... The reason racism on blacks has persisted throughout the years particularly in the north is that European immigrants saw african americans as the lowest individuals and used them as a prop to escape being at the bottom of the social ladder... First the Irish, then German and Italian Americans often saw African Americans as their competition for the northern labor force...

 

[jthagreat]

interesting "info" posted in here. uppin

 

[uptownsdotnetstacky]

The knowledge that's splashing in here

 

[af1 1982]

Finally good to see some intellectual discussions on NT

. Anyone care to elaborate on the Jesus Christ and Cesare topic

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by foxdawg2000

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Wr


What a lot of people also fail to realize is that poor whites were in the same economic status of slaves ( not socially). There were whites working out in the fields as slaves as well. The actual percentage of slaveholder with plantations was in the minority.  The norm was having one slave for most whites with a decent amount of money and property. It was the elite families with large plots of land that had lots of slaves.  Slavery ended because it was ruining the economy of the u.s. The unfair labor system of slavery created too much surplus of product which would drive prices down. The north became industrialized and the south was too invested in keeping their lifestyle and social hierarchy. 

Poor whites fought the Civil War for a few rich plantation owners.  Just like in today's society, poor whites fight for the small percentage of the rich. 

its called the majority of the "tea party"

Yep. the type of people overly happy to be in a group of any kind.

 

[lil rell]

this a homework help thread in disguise?

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by foxdawg2000

Originally Posted by cguy610

Poor whites fought the Civil War for a few rich plantation owners.  Just like in today's society, poor whites fight for the small percentage of the rich. 

its called the majority of the "tea party"

Yep. the type of people overly happy to be in a group of any kind.

When you guys get a chance, take a look at some of the comments on the recent story about Warren Buffet coming out and saying that Congress needs to raise taxes on the rich.  You will see people arguing against Warren Buffet's logic. 

http://finance.yahoo.com/...=7&asset=&ccode=

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Stepped away for a while & came back to see a nice debate. Regarding the sharks migration & slave trade, I've read about it & saw it several times but it was some time ago (specifically around the time Amistad was released). I wouldn't go by the responses to the congressman from the 90's you find on "the internets". Those responses are reaction for early Tea-Party "folks". Tea Party = KKK with college degrees. I'd trust that like I'd trust any info coming fromone of those guys. I'll research the shark migration a little more beyond just google searching & get back to everyone.

 

[classy freshman]

bookmarked

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by psk2310

Stepped away for a while & came back to see a nice debate. Regarding the sharks migration & slave trade, I've read about it & saw it several times but it was some time ago (specifically around the time Amistad was released). I wouldn't go by the responses to the congressman from the 90's you find on "the internets". Those responses are reaction for early Tea-Party "folks". Tea Party = KKK with college degrees. I'd trust that like I'd trust any info coming fromone of those guys. I'll research the shark migration a little more beyond just google searching & get back to everyone.

Wait, what?  You're saying that anything on the internet is racist, KKK reaction?    How do you even know the source?
The only person who stated that the sharks changed their migration patterns stated that it was because of 200,000,000 slaves being tossed overboad.   The statement is so ridiculous in and of itself that you don't need to do any further "research."

 

[rashi]

Yes but that still doesn't have anything to do with Andrew Johnson being sympathetic to the southern way of life and white supremacy through terror being placed of black folks.


Why are you bringing up Jackson? The guy died years over 20 years before the Civil War even started. He also terrorized Indians too...

The Southern way of life was beyond slavery and continued after slavery, their culture was vastly different then the North. The institution of slavery is not over White supremacy. If you think that slavery if over race, you know very little about the economics of slavery.

So tell me what came first here on this continent, slavery or the U.S. ?????  It was aided by the government yes, but a government in itself does not create something without an elite class that puts forth and supports it's ideas. One of the main beefs between the North and the South was the Fugitive Slave Act pushed by the south....(look it up) ....

BUT WHO ENFORCES THE RULES? THE GOVERNMENT, RIGHT? IF THERE WASN'T A GOVERNMENT, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY INSTITUTION TO ENFORCE SLAVERY.

Just like Jim Crow Laws. Racism was enforced by the government whether businesses were racists or not.

Reconstruction wasn't a failure because the government intervened.. It was a failure because it intervened only half %!$....


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everytime the government does something and it "doesn't work" people always say "it didn't go far enough". How do you know it didn't go far enough? Don't you think possibly that Blacks would have been better off? Like I said the KKK had a lot of political influence paying off law enforcement agencies, paying of politicians, threatening their lives, ect. Could it be that the government is just incapable of fulfilling promises because there isn't any incentive to? Like the War on Poverty equaled more poverty, War on Drugs equaled more drugs, ect.

Just out of curiosity what is your Opinion on Abortion's legality?



I abhor abortion, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Them banning the importation of slaves didn't end slavery in the south, and wasn't necessarily a sign that slavery itself was on the decline in the south. By this time they could breed slaves, which would be a lot more cost effective, and from books like Willie Lynch it's clear that south slave owners were apt at slave breeding.


If every other business around you is using power tools to fix things and doing it a lot more efficiently and faster, why would you do the same work with your hands? Think about it.



I got a message for Warren Buffett

[h2]Financing the Debt[/h2][h3]Why does the debt sometimes decrease? [/h3]
The Public Debt Outstanding decreases when there are more redemptions of Treasury securities than there are issues.
[h3]How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt? [/h3]
There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

• You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
• You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
  
  Attn Dept G
  Bureau of the Public Debt
  P. O. Box 2188
  Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Good morning whiterails. No I'm not saying anything on the internet is racist or KKK reaction, I'm saying the source you're looking at which I'm familair with, has very racist overtones. Take a breath a relax. We're all niketalk fam here, these topics are dicussions which hopefully open to friendly debate. If you have a degree in history or marine biology, then I'll take your word for that it's rediculous. If not, then I know someone whose a marine biologist at a local aquarium (if she's still there. I'm going to be reaching out to her in the next few days to see if she can point me in the right direction. I'm a little old school so I'm not content with whatever info is available on the internet (most data not being really credible). I actually like to read books & periodicals so researching this will be interesting/fun for me. I also know some folks that work in a museum dedicated to Black History that will help me look further into this. I'll be happy to report if this is INACCURATE or not but it may take me a moment.