Political memes, Posters, Funny Pics, Etc.

[89Hen]

Meh, for anyone else I'd just go along with the fun, but for you... you've turned into something else lately.

This is pretty smug ^



Careful there 89... you're creepin' pretty close to the line

Maybe it came across that way, but I'm totally serious that it's sad to see Jelly turn into a parrot. As much as I disagree with him, I've always held him in somewhat higher regard.

[Ivytalk]

This is pretty smug ^



Careful there 89... you're creepin' pretty close to the line

Maybe it came across that way, but I'm totally serious that it's sad to see Jelly turn into a parrot. As much as I disagree with him, I've always held him in somewhat higher regard.

Yeah, I've always viewed AJ as more of a macaw than a parrot.

[Col Hogan]

[Skjellyfetti]

[Gil Dobie]

[Gil Dobie]

[Ivytalk]

J. Gilmour Dobie...on a roll!

[Chizzang]

[Ibanez]

Did we literally fight over proud Americans wanting to be Nazis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Did we literally fight over proud Americans wanting to be Nazis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's like a Germans bombed Pear Harbor thing, let it go, he's on a roll.

[kalm]

Did we literally fight over proud Americans wanting to be Nazis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We did have a war over that middle flag. Why do you losers keep unfurling it?

[Ibanez]

Did we literally fight over proud Americans wanting to be Nazis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We did have a war over that middle flag. Why do you losers keep unfurling it?

We had a war over a flag? I thought it was over the State's Right to enslave people.

[Skjellyfetti]

This headline wasn't very well thought out.

[Ibanez]

This headline wasn't very well thought out.

LET'S EAT OUT GRANDMA!

[CitadelGrad]

We did have a war over that middle flag. Why do you losers keep unfurling it?

We had a war over a flag? I thought it was over the State's Right to enslave people.

No. It was about the federal government's right to enslave states.

[GannonFan]

We had a war over a flag? I thought it was over the State's Right to enslave people.

No. It was about the federal government's right to enslave states.

Sure, ignore the elephant in the room of the South of 4 million people actually being slaves, in perpetuity, and make a coy parallel that the states were slaves to the federal government. It's an enlightening redirect on your part.

[Ibanez]

We had a war over a flag? I thought it was over the State's Right to enslave people.

No. It was about the federal government's right to enslave states.

The Union (operative word) wasn't enslaving states. The South held nearly 4 million slaves and fought to maintain that. The Southern States felt it was a State's Rights issue to determine the legality of slavery.

[CID1990]

Chattel slavery was the central issue of the war. As Bruce Catton said, the war had many causes, but the one cause that, if it had not existed the war would not have happened, was slavery.

The Confederate states did have several gripes along the lines of what CitadelGrad said, though. Northern states were using economic policies, such as the Morrill tariff act to try to artificially raise the costs of agriculture that employed slave labor. At the same time, there was the fight over new states being admitted as free or slave states, each side wanting to tip the legislative scales.

The southern states were, in effect, being subjugated politically and economically - but the motivation for this was abolition


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Chattel slavery was the central issue of the war. As Bruce Catton said, the war had many causes, but the one cause that, if it had not existed the war would not have happened, was slavery.

The Confederate states did have several gripes along the lines of what CitadelGrad said, though. Northern states were using economic policies, such as the Morrill tariff act to try to artificially raise the costs of agriculture that employed slave labor. At the same time, there was the fight over new states being admitted as free or slave states, each side wanting to tip the legislative scales.

The southern states were, in effect, being subjugated politically and economically - but the motivation for this was abolition


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree with the view on the Morrill Tarriff. First of all, that particular tariff itself would likely not have passed into law had it not actually been for the Southern states actually seceeding and removing their votes from the Senate that had been blocking passage of that bill. Once those Senators left, passage was all but assured. But beyond that, the primary goal, and not even the secondary one, had anything to do with slavery, per se. There was a particularly bad recession in 1857 that prompted the need for more revenues, and in the nineteenth century (and even before if you read the Federalist Papers) the main source of income for the federal government was import and export duties and tariffs. Basically, we needed more money and this was how governments went about getting money back then. And prior to this we were one of the lower tariff countries in the world so it's not like the example wasn't out there on how to raise money. In addition, rather than punishing the South, the tariff was more to promote the North - tariffs always had a motivation to protect domestic industry and obviously this tariff did protect Northern industries and manufacturing. But favoring the North is not the same as attacking slavery and the areas of the economy that used slavery. Heck, there were plenty of things taxed in that tariff that had nothing to do with slavery. Sure there were many in the North that would've been happy to make slavery more difficult to maintain, but there were bigger, more overriding reasons for tariff bills such as this one.

I agree with the Catton sentiment, though. Even if not necessarily spoken out loud all the time or stated as the reason for individuals to join the fight, if slavery didn't exist we wouldn't have had the war, at least not then, and maybe ever. It was the fundamental backdrop to all the sectional disagreements since the founding.

[Skjellyfetti]

Why so serious, guys?

[Chizzang]

Claiming the Civil War was entirely about economics is the earliest example of FAKE NEWS

[CitadelGrad]

Lincoln conducted an illegal war and suspended or violated many parts of the Constitution. The result was the murder of more than 300,000 who did nothing more than comply with the law of the United States. Slavery was legal and secession was legal.

[Skjellyfetti]

Lincoln conducted an illegal war and suspended or violated many parts of the Constitution. The result was the murder of more than 300,000 who did nothing more than comply with the law of the United States. Slavery was legal and secession was legal.

You lost. Get over it, snowflake.

[CID1990]

Chattel slavery was the central issue of the war. As Bruce Catton said, the war had many causes, but the one cause that, if it had not existed the war would not have happened, was slavery.

The Confederate states did have several gripes along the lines of what CitadelGrad said, though. Northern states were using economic policies, such as the Morrill tariff act to try to artificially raise the costs of agriculture that employed slave labor. At the same time, there was the fight over new states being admitted as free or slave states, each side wanting to tip the legislative scales.

The southern states were, in effect, being subjugated politically and economically - but the motivation for this was abolition


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree with the view on the Morrill Tarriff. First of all, that particular tariff itself would likely not have passed into law had it not actually been for the Southern states actually seceeding and removing their votes from the Senate that had been blocking passage of that bill. Once those Senators left, passage was all but assured. But beyond that, the primary goal, and not even the secondary one, had anything to do with slavery, per se. There was a particularly bad recession in 1857 that prompted the need for more revenues, and in the nineteenth century (and even before if you read the Federalist Papers) the main source of income for the federal government was import and export duties and tariffs. Basically, we needed more money and this was how governments went about getting money back then. And prior to this we were one of the lower tariff countries in the world so it's not like the example wasn't out there on how to raise money. In addition, rather than punishing the South, the tariff was more to promote the North - tariffs always had a motivation to protect domestic industry and obviously this tariff did protect Northern industries and manufacturing. But favoring the North is not the same as attacking slavery and the areas of the economy that used slavery. Heck, there were plenty of things taxed in that tariff that had nothing to do with slavery. Sure there were many in the North that would've been happy to make slavery more difficult to maintain, but there were bigger, more overriding reasons for tariff bills such as this one.

I agree with the Catton sentiment, though. Even if not necessarily spoken out loud all the time or stated as the reason for individuals to join the fight, if slavery didn't exist we wouldn't have had the war, at least not then, and maybe ever. It was the fundamental backdrop to all the sectional disagreements since the founding.

You aren't wrong on any of this- but what was going on politically between the northern and southern states was as much about perception as it was about actual effects (or intentions).

Take a look at the senate vote breakdown on the Morrill tariff in 1860. It broke completely between the northern and southern states. A high import tariff was in fact going to benefit northern industry, but at the same time it was going to deny the southern states the ability to purchase industrial products (like agricultural implements) except from ..... northern states. And the thought at the time was that those northern states were going to put the screws to the southern ones. We'll never know for sure, because as you said- about one year later several states seceded. Given the acrimony between the north and south - primarily over issues that were directly tangential to the slavery issue - it is easy to see how the perception of an attempt to diminish the political and economic power of the southern states was a real thing.

[Ibanez]

Lincoln conducted an illegal war and suspended or violated many parts of the Constitution. The result was the murder of more than 300,000 who did nothing more than comply with the law of the United States. Slavery was legal and secession was legal.

I'm pretty sure armed insurrection wasn't legal in 1860.