TX schools will now teach that Civil War was all about slavery!!!

kudzu said:
With the introduction of the cotton gin the number of slaves needed was declining.. and they were in fact becoming a burden for most planters.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s the other way around. Cotton wasn’t a profitable crop at all until the Cotton Gin was invented. Then it became very profitable if you had a large enough supply of cheap labor to plant and harvest enough of it.

That was another tenet of the Lost Cause Mythologies. That slavery was already dyeing the south and it was just a matter of time before it died.

The facts speak otherwise. Both cotton and slavery were prospering as they had never before with the highest prices for both slaves and cotton ever seen. No slavery was prospering greatly and that’s why the land/slave owning aristocracy was pissed mightily that the rest of the nation wouldn’t permit them to expend into the territory’s.

So the facts are not only was slavery alive and well and prospering they were trying their damnedest to expand it.
 
Sailor said:
?????????????? The cotton gin increased the number of slaves and land needed. Dramatically.
Click to expand...

As I understand it slavery was waning by 1790 until the invention of the cotton ginn.

Eli Whitney said that 2 slaves using the ginn could clean as much cotton as 100 slaves by hand.

"This Ginn, if turned with horses or by water, two persons will clean as much cotton in one Day as a Hundred persons could cleane in the same time"
- Eli Whitney

Consequently more land was dedicated to cotton and more slaves were involved to the tune of perhaps 1.5 million people... but by 1850 there were too many for the southern planters to work or provide for.

I can't say when it became and dying institution ... some say by 1860.
 
kudzu said:
As I understand it slavery was waning by 1790 until the invention of the cotton ginn.

Eli Whitney said that 2 slaves using the ginn could clean as much cotton as 100 slaves by hand.

"This Ginn, if turned with horses or by water, two persons will clean as much cotton in one Day as a Hundred persons could cleane in the same time"
- Eli Whitney

Consequently more land was dedicated to cotton and more slaves were involved to the tune of perhaps 1.5 million people... but by 1850 there were too many for the southern planters to work or provide for.

I can't say when it became and dying institution ... some say by 1860.
Click to expand...

The cotton gin did increase the efficiency of cleaning cotton of seeds. By a hundred fold as you point out. Because of that they needed more and more cotton for the machines and the profit that came with it. The cotton gin was for de-seeding cotton only. It did not pick it. The cotton gin actually increased the need for slaves to pick more cotton. If it had not been invented, there is a very real chance cotton would have become economically nonviable, possibly ending slavery earlier.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so the United States Supreme Court ignored the reasons why the founding fathers created the federal government and by issuance of this opinion, changed the federal government to one of we the people, to one of we the elite.

maybe they should have had the Declaration of Independence read to them during the case.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Click to expand...

You lose again. We are governed by the Constitution NOT the Declaration of Independence
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Nothing in the constitution bans secession either. In fact many argue that the tenth amendment gives states the right to secede.

America was FOUNDED ON SECESSSION. The original 13 colonies seceded from england. The founding fathers took the right to secede for granted. THINK
Click to expand...

Many would argue that, dumbfuck. But they're just as fucking stupid as you.
 
domer76 said:
It was a federal fort, you fucking moron. It didn't become a Confederate fort just because the treasonous southerners said so.

Fucking idiot
Click to expand...


That was in question and not settled until 1841.. The land grant was to a guy named Laval I think.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
How many times must we explain this??? Everyone agrees the south supported slavery and it was a major reason why they seceded. But the south did not want a war and did not start one. There should have never been a civil war. The union should have let the south go.

Secession is very common in history.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. We could have simply let the South Walk. That certainly would have prevented the Civil War.

The question then is did the Union have a valid interest in stopping the Southern States from seceding?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top