17 Sep 2011, 2:36 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,561
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
17 Sep 2011, 4:40 pm
17 Sep 2011, 5:26 pm
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
17 Sep 2011, 10:26 pm
18 Sep 2011, 12:01 pm
18 Sep 2011, 2:23 pm
Joker wrote:
And your point slavery ended during the civil war any way the south economy was fading away
There's a spectrum of beliefs about that, actually. Personally I think it was fading in the northern end of what were considered "slave" states (Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, probably Tennessee, and there was even still slavery in Delaware in 1860) but the picture becomes much less clear in the deep south. Possibly plantation slavery in places like Mississippi and Louisiana was more profitable than ever in 1860, but I've also read that in places like South Carolina the soil was so denuded of nutrients from decades of cotton planting that yields were drastically falling. And that land had become so relatively expensive that a lot of poor whites were actually leaving the deep South starting in 1830 or so, and moving to places like Illinois or Iowa...where their sons returned in blue uniforms a generation later.
But you can find economic historians all over the map on that point.
Quote:
and the norths was booming at the time
That was actually a bone in the collective South's throat. The North was booming , at least in part, because the US had very high tariff walls on foreign imports. This favored the Northern manufacturers and hurt the agrarian South, which wanted to buy cheaper (and possibly better quality) imports.
There was almost a Civil War circa the 1830s over the Nullification Crisis when South Carolina unilaterally declared the tariff laws passed by Congress void. BTW, I don't buy this as the cause of the Civil War twenty five years later, as Southern apologists sometimes try to claim.
Quote:
it was a poltical issue between the north can south plus most cherokee and others indians where on the souths side because it was the yanks that took their land in the first place
Since the Cherokee were originally from a space roughly running from Georgia to North Carolina, please explain how Yankees were the ones taking their land.
Curiously, the US Supreme Court upheld a treaty with the Cherokee that in large part would have let them stay where they were. Andrew Jackson ignored them, and hence the Trail of Tears. (Whether Jackson actually said [Chief Justice] "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" has its doubters, but I think most now take it as being an accurate quote. )
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,561
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
18 Sep 2011, 5:00 pm
WorldsEdge wrote:
Joker wrote:
And your point slavery ended during the civil war any way the south economy was fading away
There's a spectrum of beliefs about that, actually. Personally I think it was fading in the northern end of what were considered "slave" states (Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, probably Tennessee, and there was even still slavery in Delaware in 1860) but the picture becomes much less clear in the deep south. Possibly plantation slavery in places like Mississippi and Louisiana was more profitable than ever in 1860, but I've also read that in places like South Carolina the soil was so denuded of nutrients from decades of cotton planting that yields were drastically falling. And that land had become so relatively expensive that a lot of poor whites were actually leaving the deep South starting in 1830 or so, and moving to places like Illinois or Iowa...where their sons returned in blue uniforms a generation later.
But you can find economic historians all over the map on that point.
Quote:
and the norths was booming at the time
That was actually a bone in the collective South's throat. The North was booming , at least in part, because the US had very high tariff walls on foreign imports. This favored the Northern manufacturers and hurt the agrarian South, which wanted to buy cheaper (and possibly better quality) imports.
There was almost a Civil War circa the 1830s over the Nullification Crisis when South Carolina unilaterally declared the tariff laws passed by Congress void. BTW, I don't buy this as the cause of the Civil War twenty five years later, as Southern apologists sometimes try to claim.
Quote:
it was a poltical issue between the north can south plus most cherokee and others indians where on the souths side because it was the yanks that took their land in the first place
Since the Cherokee were originally from a space roughly running from Georgia to North Carolina, please explain how Yankees were the ones taking their land.
Curiously, the US Supreme Court upheld a treaty with the Cherokee that in large part would have let them stay where they were. Andrew Jackson ignored them, and hence the Trail of Tears. (Whether Jackson actually said [Chief Justice] "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" has its doubters, but I think most now take it as being an accurate quote. )
Davey Crockett, while in congress, had opposed Jackson in forcing the Cherokee to Indian country. That cost Davey his seat, which in turn spurned him to head to Texas, and the Alamo. The rest is history.
Or, perhaps to put it more succinctly-
OH MY GOD! Andrew Jackson killed Davey Crockett!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
19 Sep 2011, 6:31 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
WorldsEdge wrote:
Joker wrote:
And your point slavery ended during the civil war any way the south economy was fading away
There's a spectrum of beliefs about that, actually. Personally I think it was fading in the northern end of what were considered "slave" states (Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, probably Tennessee, and there was even still slavery in Delaware in 1860) but the picture becomes much less clear in the deep south. Possibly plantation slavery in places like Mississippi and Louisiana was more profitable than ever in 1860, but I've also read that in places like South Carolina the soil was so denuded of nutrients from decades of cotton planting that yields were drastically falling. And that land had become so relatively expensive that a lot of poor whites were actually leaving the deep South starting in 1830 or so, and moving to places like Illinois or Iowa...where their sons returned in blue uniforms a generation later.
But you can find economic historians all over the map on that point.
Quote:
and the norths was booming at the time
That was actually a bone in the collective South's throat. The North was booming , at least in part, because the US had very high tariff walls on foreign imports. This favored the Northern manufacturers and hurt the agrarian South, which wanted to buy cheaper (and possibly better quality) imports.
There was almost a Civil War circa the 1830s over the Nullification Crisis when South Carolina unilaterally declared the tariff laws passed by Congress void. BTW, I don't buy this as the cause of the Civil War twenty five years later, as Southern apologists sometimes try to claim.
Quote:
it was a poltical issue between the north can south plus most cherokee and others indians where on the souths side because it was the yanks that took their land in the first place
Since the Cherokee were originally from a space roughly running from Georgia to North Carolina, please explain how Yankees were the ones taking their land.
Curiously, the US Supreme Court upheld a treaty with the Cherokee that in large part would have let them stay where they were. Andrew Jackson ignored them, and hence the Trail of Tears. (Whether Jackson actually said [Chief Justice] "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" has its doubters, but I think most now take it as being an accurate quote. )
Davey Crockett, while in congress, had opposed Jackson in forcing the Cherokee to Indian country. That cost Davey his seat, which in turn spurned him to head to Texas, and the Alamo. The rest is history.
Or, perhaps to put it more succinctly-
OH MY GOD! Andrew Jackson killed Davey Crockett!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Thank you Kraichgauer btw africa sold us their slaves in the first place slavery was being practice every where not just in america
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,561
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Sep 2011, 6:45 pm
Joker wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
WorldsEdge wrote:
Joker wrote:
And your point slavery ended during the civil war any way the south economy was fading away
There's a spectrum of beliefs about that, actually. Personally I think it was fading in the northern end of what were considered "slave" states (Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, probably Tennessee, and there was even still slavery in Delaware in 1860) but the picture becomes much less clear in the deep south. Possibly plantation slavery in places like Mississippi and Louisiana was more profitable than ever in 1860, but I've also read that in places like South Carolina the soil was so denuded of nutrients from decades of cotton planting that yields were drastically falling. And that land had become so relatively expensive that a lot of poor whites were actually leaving the deep South starting in 1830 or so, and moving to places like Illinois or Iowa...where their sons returned in blue uniforms a generation later.
But you can find economic historians all over the map on that point.
Quote:
and the norths was booming at the time
That was actually a bone in the collective South's throat. The North was booming , at least in part, because the US had very high tariff walls on foreign imports. This favored the Northern manufacturers and hurt the agrarian South, which wanted to buy cheaper (and possibly better quality) imports.
There was almost a Civil War circa the 1830s over the Nullification Crisis when South Carolina unilaterally declared the tariff laws passed by Congress void. BTW, I don't buy this as the cause of the Civil War twenty five years later, as Southern apologists sometimes try to claim.
Quote:
it was a poltical issue between the north can south plus most cherokee and others indians where on the souths side because it was the yanks that took their land in the first place
Since the Cherokee were originally from a space roughly running from Georgia to North Carolina, please explain how Yankees were the ones taking their land.
Curiously, the US Supreme Court upheld a treaty with the Cherokee that in large part would have let them stay where they were. Andrew Jackson ignored them, and hence the Trail of Tears. (Whether Jackson actually said [Chief Justice] "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" has its doubters, but I think most now take it as being an accurate quote. )
Davey Crockett, while in congress, had opposed Jackson in forcing the Cherokee to Indian country. That cost Davey his seat, which in turn spurned him to head to Texas, and the Alamo. The rest is history.
Or, perhaps to put it more succinctly-
OH MY GOD! Andrew Jackson killed Davey Crockett!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Thank you Kraichgauer btw africa sold us their slaves in the first place slavery was being practice every where not just in america
Uh, I was talking about how Davey Crockett went off to his death to the Alamo because he had opposed Andrew Jackson's removal of Indians, and their march on the Trail of Tears. I had written nothing about the slave trade, or the presumed sole guilt of Americans, while ignoring the participation of black Africans.
For what it's worth, I am well aware of the fact that some African tribes raided other African tribes in order to supply the slave trade. My pastor, who had for years been a missionary in Nigeria, had told how those tribes who had been victimized by their neighbors centuries ago in the slave trade still burn with vengeance for what had been done to their ancestors.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
19 Sep 2011, 6:52 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Joker wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
WorldsEdge wrote:
Joker wrote:
And your point slavery ended during the civil war any way the south economy was fading away
There's a spectrum of beliefs about that, actually. Personally I think it was fading in the northern end of what were considered "slave" states (Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, probably Tennessee, and there was even still slavery in Delaware in 1860) but the picture becomes much less clear in the deep south. Possibly plantation slavery in places like Mississippi and Louisiana was more profitable than ever in 1860, but I've also read that in places like South Carolina the soil was so denuded of nutrients from decades of cotton planting that yields were drastically falling. And that land had become so relatively expensive that a lot of poor whites were actually leaving the deep South starting in 1830 or so, and moving to places like Illinois or Iowa...where their sons returned in blue uniforms a generation later.
But you can find economic historians all over the map on that point.
Quote:
and the norths was booming at the time
That was actually a bone in the collective South's throat. The North was booming , at least in part, because the US had very high tariff walls on foreign imports. This favored the Northern manufacturers and hurt the agrarian South, which wanted to buy cheaper (and possibly better quality) imports.
There was almost a Civil War circa the 1830s over the Nullification Crisis when South Carolina unilaterally declared the tariff laws passed by Congress void. BTW, I don't buy this as the cause of the Civil War twenty five years later, as Southern apologists sometimes try to claim.
Quote:
it was a poltical issue between the north can south plus most cherokee and others indians where on the souths side because it was the yanks that took their land in the first place
Since the Cherokee were originally from a space roughly running from Georgia to North Carolina, please explain how Yankees were the ones taking their land.
Curiously, the US Supreme Court upheld a treaty with the Cherokee that in large part would have let them stay where they were. Andrew Jackson ignored them, and hence the Trail of Tears. (Whether Jackson actually said [Chief Justice] "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" has its doubters, but I think most now take it as being an accurate quote. )
Davey Crockett, while in congress, had opposed Jackson in forcing the Cherokee to Indian country. That cost Davey his seat, which in turn spurned him to head to Texas, and the Alamo. The rest is history.
Or, perhaps to put it more succinctly-
OH MY GOD! Andrew Jackson killed Davey Crockett!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Thank you Kraichgauer btw africa sold us their slaves in the first place slavery was being practice every where not just in america
Uh, I was talking about how Davey Crockett went off to his death to the Alamo because he had opposed Andrew Jackson's removal of Indians, and their march on the Trail of Tears. I had written nothing about the slave trade, or the presumed sole guilt of Americans, while ignoring the participation of black Africans.
For what it's worth, I am well aware of the fact that some African tribes raided other African tribes in order to supply the slave trade. My pastor, who had for years been a missionary in Nigeria, had told how those tribes who had been victimized by their neighbors centuries ago in the slave trade still burn with vengeance for what had been done to their ancestors.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I said thank you because I agreed with you
Also I do not hold any kind of hatred for those that made my ancestors march in the trail of tears it was a sad time in history but the american indian people are strong are will still hasnt been broken
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,561
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Sep 2011, 7:00 pm
Joker wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Joker wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
WorldsEdge wrote:
Joker wrote:
And your point slavery ended during the civil war any way the south economy was fading away
There's a spectrum of beliefs about that, actually. Personally I think it was fading in the northern end of what were considered "slave" states (Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, probably Tennessee, and there was even still slavery in Delaware in 1860) but the picture becomes much less clear in the deep south. Possibly plantation slavery in places like Mississippi and Louisiana was more profitable than ever in 1860, but I've also read that in places like South Carolina the soil was so denuded of nutrients from decades of cotton planting that yields were drastically falling. And that land had become so relatively expensive that a lot of poor whites were actually leaving the deep South starting in 1830 or so, and moving to places like Illinois or Iowa...where their sons returned in blue uniforms a generation later.
But you can find economic historians all over the map on that point.
Quote:
and the norths was booming at the time
That was actually a bone in the collective South's throat. The North was booming , at least in part, because the US had very high tariff walls on foreign imports. This favored the Northern manufacturers and hurt the agrarian South, which wanted to buy cheaper (and possibly better quality) imports.
There was almost a Civil War circa the 1830s over the Nullification Crisis when South Carolina unilaterally declared the tariff laws passed by Congress void. BTW, I don't buy this as the cause of the Civil War twenty five years later, as Southern apologists sometimes try to claim.
Quote:
it was a poltical issue between the north can south plus most cherokee and others indians where on the souths side because it was the yanks that took their land in the first place
Since the Cherokee were originally from a space roughly running from Georgia to North Carolina, please explain how Yankees were the ones taking their land.
Curiously, the US Supreme Court upheld a treaty with the Cherokee that in large part would have let them stay where they were. Andrew Jackson ignored them, and hence the Trail of Tears. (Whether Jackson actually said [Chief Justice] "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" has its doubters, but I think most now take it as being an accurate quote. )
Davey Crockett, while in congress, had opposed Jackson in forcing the Cherokee to Indian country. That cost Davey his seat, which in turn spurned him to head to Texas, and the Alamo. The rest is history.
Or, perhaps to put it more succinctly-
OH MY GOD! Andrew Jackson killed Davey Crockett!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Thank you Kraichgauer btw africa sold us their slaves in the first place slavery was being practice every where not just in america
Uh, I was talking about how Davey Crockett went off to his death to the Alamo because he had opposed Andrew Jackson's removal of Indians, and their march on the Trail of Tears. I had written nothing about the slave trade, or the presumed sole guilt of Americans, while ignoring the participation of black Africans.
For what it's worth, I am well aware of the fact that some African tribes raided other African tribes in order to supply the slave trade. My pastor, who had for years been a missionary in Nigeria, had told how those tribes who had been victimized by their neighbors centuries ago in the slave trade still burn with vengeance for what had been done to their ancestors.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I said thank you because I agreed with you
Also I do not hold any kind of hatred for those that made my ancestors march in the trail of tears it was a sad time in history but the american indian people are strong are will still hasnt been broken
I apologize; I misunderstood your post.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
20 Sep 2011, 2:14 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Joker wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Joker wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
WorldsEdge wrote:
Joker wrote:
And your point slavery ended during the civil war any way the south economy was fading away
There's a spectrum of beliefs about that, actually. Personally I think it was fading in the northern end of what were considered "slave" states (Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, probably Tennessee, and there was even still slavery in Delaware in 1860) but the picture becomes much less clear in the deep south. Possibly plantation slavery in places like Mississippi and Louisiana was more profitable than ever in 1860, but I've also read that in places like South Carolina the soil was so denuded of nutrients from decades of cotton planting that yields were drastically falling. And that land had become so relatively expensive that a lot of poor whites were actually leaving the deep South starting in 1830 or so, and moving to places like Illinois or Iowa...where their sons returned in blue uniforms a generation later.
But you can find economic historians all over the map on that point.
Quote:
and the norths was booming at the time
That was actually a bone in the collective South's throat. The North was booming , at least in part, because the US had very high tariff walls on foreign imports. This favored the Northern manufacturers and hurt the agrarian South, which wanted to buy cheaper (and possibly better quality) imports.
There was almost a Civil War circa the 1830s over the Nullification Crisis when South Carolina unilaterally declared the tariff laws passed by Congress void. BTW, I don't buy this as the cause of the Civil War twenty five years later, as Southern apologists sometimes try to claim.
Quote:
it was a poltical issue between the north can south plus most cherokee and others indians where on the souths side because it was the yanks that took their land in the first place
Since the Cherokee were originally from a space roughly running from Georgia to North Carolina, please explain how Yankees were the ones taking their land.
Curiously, the US Supreme Court upheld a treaty with the Cherokee that in large part would have let them stay where they were. Andrew Jackson ignored them, and hence the Trail of Tears. (Whether Jackson actually said [Chief Justice] "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" has its doubters, but I think most now take it as being an accurate quote. )
Davey Crockett, while in congress, had opposed Jackson in forcing the Cherokee to Indian country. That cost Davey his seat, which in turn spurned him to head to Texas, and the Alamo. The rest is history.
Or, perhaps to put it more succinctly-
OH MY GOD! Andrew Jackson killed Davey Crockett!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Thank you Kraichgauer btw africa sold us their slaves in the first place slavery was being practice every where not just in america
Uh, I was talking about how Davey Crockett went off to his death to the Alamo because he had opposed Andrew Jackson's removal of Indians, and their march on the Trail of Tears. I had written nothing about the slave trade, or the presumed sole guilt of Americans, while ignoring the participation of black Africans.
For what it's worth, I am well aware of the fact that some African tribes raided other African tribes in order to supply the slave trade. My pastor, who had for years been a missionary in Nigeria, had told how those tribes who had been victimized by their neighbors centuries ago in the slave trade still burn with vengeance for what had been done to their ancestors.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I said thank you because I agreed with you
Also I do not hold any kind of hatred for those that made my ancestors march in the trail of tears it was a sad time in history but the american indian people are strong are will still hasnt been broken
I apologize; I misunderstood your post.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
No problem happens to me all the time
