2012 Integrity

88skisupreme · Backside 180 Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 1342 City: ATX

Well Schmaltz you've finnaly found a graphic the wakeboard companies won't steal

texasT · Posted: May 08, 2012 12:28 pm Post subject:

SCBrips has summed up this whole debate SO articulately that I will never speak about it again.

<3 wakeskating
<3 integrity

Jpage · Faceplant Joined: 23 Apr 2012 Posts: 24

I'll ride the Rebel Flag with pride down in Georgia, if you make it i will buy it! No i am not a racist but my family did fight in the civil war for the south and i support my heritage of standing up for what you believe in!

jdarr · Posted: May 08, 2012 12:44 pm Post subject:

SCBrips has summed up this whole debate SO articulately that I will never speak about it again.

True that - some people take this shizzle way to seriously. ITS ONLY A GRAPHIC

samcollett · Posted: May 08, 2012 1:09 pm Post subject:

wakemitch · Posted: May 08, 2012 1:10 pm Post subject:

samcollett · Posted: May 08, 2012 1:13 pm Post subject:

wakemitch · Posted: May 08, 2012 1:35 pm Post subject:

The South seceded from the Union because the South believed that individual states should hold more power than the federal government. So states can make laws that best serve their interests rather than the federal government deciding what is best for the nation as a whole. The Union favored giving more power to the Federal government which limits the power of the individual states.

At this time, new states were being formed regularly. New states being formed in the North were set up as free states, and new states in the South were set up as slave states. The way states were being formed as pairs one north and one south. This was to keep free vs slave states balanced. But when Minnesota and Oregon both came in as free states the balance was tipped to the North.
Because the majority of the states were now free states, the south was afraid that the north would abolish slavery. This would severely hurt the south's economic power which required slave labor to be competitive, whereas the north had primarily a manufacturing economy.

To protect their economy, the southern states fought for states rights. They wanted each state to be able to make it's own decisions, especially whether to from as a slave state or not. When the south was not granted the state power that it wanted, they seceded from the union.

So yes, the Civil War was not just about slavery, it was about economics (as any history teacher would tell you). But slavery was key to the south's economy. And it was a catalyst for much of the war.

Sorry for the history lesson, but I'm studying to be a history teacher and I have read much on the topic, from many points of few. I can see it from both sides, but ultimately it is wrong to depend on slaves for your economy to function.

samcollett · Posted: May 08, 2012 2:15 pm Post subject:

Well, seeing as I'm about to graduate with a degree in an economics, was forced against my will to write a dissertation on civil war economics, and that I'm a bit (okay more than a bit) of a nerd, I suppose I could sit here and type a long, well-organized post about how your knowledge about pre-civil war economics is limited at best and that you don't understand the real reasons for secession. Further, seeing that I've got an exam in 30 minutes, that wouldn't be very prudent on my part, so I'll try to keep it brief.

You are very right. The south seceded in part to protect individual states' rights and avoid the scary "big government" ideas of the north. However, your explanation is much too simple to even be considered accurate history. In the 18th century, slave labor comprised 22% of the would-be northern states' aggregate population. New England actually based its early economy on selling food to slaves in the Caribbean, in return for sugar and molasses (two of the most important commodities of the day). New England's economy became more and more profitable due to this exploitation of tropical slave labor, and thus became rooted in slavery (both domestically and internationally). The south supplied 62% of the WORLD's cotton before the civil war. The north exported 46% of that. The industrial revolution in the north was built on the backs of slaves in the south. Without the north's cotton lifeline, it's economy would collapse. Just to give you some empirical idea of what I'm talking about, southern slave numbers grew by almost 500% during the industrial revolution. With higher demand for cotton comes higher demand for slavery, and thus, the north catalyzed slavery's growth. So we've seen that your manufacturing industry was built on slave labor, but what many don't see is that the north's banking industry followed the same suit. Northern banks became rich off of the profits of southern states, and consequently, off of the blood of slaves. Some northern states fought the illegality of slavery, realizing that without slavery, they would lose substantial amounts of money. Northern banks began giving southern rich men unfavorable interest rates. Northern states began the headtax program against interstate commerce amongst themselves and the southern states. All of this was because of eny that the south was not forced to pay its labor. Rhode Island and Massachusetts both fostered the importation of illegal slaves after its illegality. Lincoln was quoted as saying that he never intended to make slavery illegal in the south as well as the north, because he understood the tragic economic implications that would follow. So what we've seen here is that the north depended on slavery just as much as the south did, and when it became illegal in the north, northern states were angered that southern states could get by without paying their labor and thus come to acquiring more profits off of slavery than northern states. THIS, my friend...envy derived from money...was the reason for the civil war. It had very little to do with "rights." Simple economics of supply and demand. The same can be seen in the drug trade today, or the effects of prohibition.

FWIW - New York City actually considered seceding with the southern states, based on advice from J.P. Morgan (think he owns a pretty big company now) that slave labor was absolutely necessary to facilitate economic growth. As Emerson said, "Cotton thread holds the Union together." So, the argument that "the north was fighting the good fight" always makes me laugh.

Sorry for the economics lesson. I couldn't help myself.

Jpage · Faceplant Joined: 23 Apr 2012 Posts: 24

TTUFAN24 · Posted: May 08, 2012 3:18 pm Post subject:

samcollett, Boo-yah

Schmaltz · Backside 180 Joined: 16 Sep 2003 Posts: 721 City: San Jose

It was meant to be as f'n serious as this.

JCB_Mutiny · Pop Shuvit Joined: 21 Mar 2012 Posts: 119 City: Fort Worth

Stop the history lessons surfer nerds. Learn to laugh, the look on that guys face is priceless schmaltz

DaeDae · Posted: May 08, 2012 3:49 pm Post subject:

Business in the front party in the back Smash

an cant we all get along n just be stoked on the common ground of wakeskating?botom line if u like the graphic buy it if not don't,an stop spending so much time bickering n more time skating?

Lollar · 360 flip Joined: 19 Jun 2007 Posts: 8253

Jpage · Faceplant Joined: 23 Apr 2012 Posts: 24

DaeDae · Posted: May 08, 2012 4:13 pm Post subject:

samcollett · Posted: May 08, 2012 4:35 pm Post subject:

Jpage, with you dude. I just got out of Poverty and Economic Growth. I waited until this morning to start looking over the stuff. Bad idea. Thursday I've got Urban/Regional Economics. I might start tonight....or I might just watch the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Schmaltz, that's my aunt dude.

Zero. · Posted: May 08, 2012 4:53 pm Post subject:

from many points or a few?