Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 11:47:20 GMT -5
Oh, I'm not saying it was all because of a moral objection to slavery. I am just saying it was because of slavery as the underlying issue.
I'm sure it was a seriously large spectrum of issues that brought everyone to join and jump in the war...concepts of freedom and govt, money, state rights, land, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 11:48:20 GMT -5
SECESSION, goddamnit. Secession. Seceding from the Union. Secession over....? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 24, 2017 11:55:33 GMT -5
 Here's a photo from the first meeting in which the democrats and the republicans decided to merge parties...John 'songbird' McCain can be seen, pictured at the bottom left... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 12:02:12 GMT -5
Slavery was underlying being the key.
The real reason was money. Nothin else.
It's why 90% + of the men in the south fought, despite only 5% of them owning slaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 24, 2017 12:03:40 GMT -5
Oh, I'm not saying it was all because of a moral objection to slavery. I am just saying it was because of slavery as the underlying issue. I'm sure it was a seriously large spectrum of issues that brought everyone to join and jump in the war...concepts of freedom and govt, money, state rights, land, etc. If you're legitimately interested...you can easily look up the numbers... What percentage of people were actually enslaved, and where/who they were enslaved by while in the US. Black african slaves were mostly owned by wealthy democrat plantation owners(tobacco and cotton), you'll find. And not in the vast numbers that are largely and inaccurately reported. So now you keep running into the same historical dilemma, where the people who owned and benefited from slavery were the ones who supposedly decided to fight against slavery... |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Aug 24, 2017 12:35:56 GMT -5
Where do all the millions of immigrants come pouring off of the boats? The destitute? The orphans? The Irish?
The North.
Where was there a massive work force of indentured servants, many forcibly shipped from Ireland to the colonies, to feed child labor, factories, mines, and ports run almost entirely on free labor?
The North.
When the South tried to emulate this tactic with their agricultural industry, the heat and malaria rendered it largely ineffective. Irish field workers all get sick, sunburned, and dead. Alabama ain't Dublin. And white slaves simply don't work on the south side of the Mason/Dixon line where warmer winters don't kill off mosquito larvae. The most meaningful divide between the North and the South was not moral but temperate, and the gravy train of white slave labor simply doesn't work below the frost line. The South was the North's little brother, economic bitch, and repeatedly failed to develop and thrive in the same way the North's booming populations were. Fresh boats every day. A thousand tiny hands ready for the factory floor. Complete economic and work force dominance. That is until some of the Spanish traders told them of a secret they'd learned from the Arab slavers. There's a place where there is an unlimited supply of cheap slave labor that is completely immune to malaria and to the sun, easily traded for and shipped, larger and stronger than the Irish slaves, and well conditioned to work in captivity from generational slavery in Africa. Too good to be true.
Enter black slavery and a massive economic boom in the south that would rival anything the North had ever done. And all of a fucking sudden, slavery is mega super bad and needs to be stopped immediately. Here's where much of the nuance of the war is lost, too. Many in the South actually agreed, see Lee's own writings, but wanted both reciprocation in the North with Indentured Servitude (Not gonna happen) as well as a gradual phasing out of slavery, not stopped cold turkey (Not gonna happen). That's too many Not gonna happens, folks. Seems like what you ACTUALLY want is for the South to go back to being a non threatening, non rivaling, little subservient region of your empire. So they said fuck you, we're out. And remember, at this time America is not what it is today. It was a very loose affiliation of strongly independent colonies, new states, very fragile alliance. People were much more loyal and much more strongly identified with their state than with America. Having another state tell you what to do, right or wrong, was simply NOT done at this time. You want to work with us and try to phase this out over the next few decades as you also phase out immigrant labor camps? Ok. You want to start giving orders and issuing threats? Girl bye. I have seen it convincingly argued that the vast majority of Southern soldiers fought to keep invaders out of their states and cities and NOT to protect a handful of wealthy slave plantations cash cows. And without the bread basket of the South the writing was on the wall, the break-up of the Union would e an economic disaster for the government and forever taint Lincoln's legacy, so the North chose not to let people opt out freely and peacefully, but rather to invade their lands, burn their capitals, and kill half-a-million people in order to bring them back into the fold against their will at the cost of unspeakable loss of life and property, the South was essentially wiped clean.
You know how the UK ended slavery? They argued about it for 20-30 years and then eventually agreed it was fucked up and stopped it voluntarily . . . in 1883 for fuck's sake, 17 years AFTER we did, and not a single city burned to the ground, not a single dipshit 17 yr old boy died in the mud for some fake sense of patriotism. They just worked it out, evolved, came to a higher ethical position over time, used pressure, and changed, much like we did with women's voting, prohibition, like we're starting to do with the drug war.
So, like all wars, there is a lot of propaganda on both sides, things are not that simple, and there was definitely a better way to handle all this, but once it's done, the winner was some sort of fucking Jesus figure who saved the world, right?
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
Abraham Lincoln
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 14:10:44 GMT -5
Regarding the winner being Jesus, I completely agree. Growing up in the north, I was fed a steady diet during my academic years about how we freed the slaves. While that was true, it was disingenuous to even imply that it was the reason the war was fought. I would wager people from my generation who were getting their education in the south have a very different perspective on why the war was fought. And they probably have the better one.
Got the same bullshit about World War II. I remember all of the baloney about D-Day and how we were there to save all of those in the concentration camps. My dad actually got pissed off when he heard me talking about it in the fifth grade. To the point that he went into my school and spoke with my teacher.
I suspect but can't be sure that the reason he had his perspective on World War II was because his father came here after fighting in it. For Italy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 15:01:58 GMT -5
The idea of slavery being the main reason for the Civil War is too vague and also not true. Most of the Northern people didn't really even have a problem with the idea of slavery, more they didn't think it was advantageous to them that the South was able to use such a large and cheap labor pool. At the time leading up to the Civil War, the South and North were becoming very divided economically, culturally, and politically. The North had a huge inflow of Irish, Italian and other non-African workers who while working for cheap, had their own rights and couldn't be owned. They were not going to be able to compete with the South and their labor pool of extremely cheap labor.
I do think people like Lincoln and many others in the North felt a moral obligation to stop slavery, however if they felt that it was serious enough to justify a full blown war over it, they would have done it 30 years earlier and also tried to enact laws to stop slave importing and trade. As Tony mentioned, the war was triggered by the South saying "fuck you North, we are going to become our own country and stomp you with our cheap labor pool who can't vote".
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 24, 2017 15:51:46 GMT -5
In regards to it being about getting rid of slavery, if it was, why did Lincoln actually say it wasn't because if it was "half the officers and three more states would rise"?
Why is everyone forgetting that the North didn't make slavery illegal, they just made it illegal in the South in an attempt to hurt their infrastructure and limit their military support? The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in states against the Union, while allowing Union-allied states to remain holding slaves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 18:16:07 GMT -5
I was told I was protecting racists because i said it isn't okay to hit people you disagree with. That's fucking silly, calling you racist for saying it's okay to hit people y.............wait. You said it's okay to hit people you disagree with?  I mean, it's not racist, it's just dumb I said it isn't okay to hit people you disagree with. Did you have a stroke? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 18:32:04 GMT -5
The South seceded over several things but yes, slavery was a central issue. It was in their Consitution for Christ's sake, by NAME.
Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, that is why there was a civil war. There were major differences between North and South ideology (strong vs weak central government) that also led to secession as well.
So to be absolutely clear, slavery was a reason for the South seceding, nobody can argue that. However, the war was over secession, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and only made slavery an issue as a strategic move to keep the South from getting allied support from other countries.
So it is true that the war wasn't over slavery but secession certainly was. Back then, both sides were racist so Democrat = whatever or Republican = whatever is dumb when looking back in history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 24, 2017 18:55:04 GMT -5
The South seceded over several things but yes, slavery was a central issue. It was in their Consitution for Christ's sake, by NAME. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, that is why there was a civil war. There were major differences between North and South ideology (strong vs weak central government) that also led to secession as well. So to be absolutely clear, slavery was a reason for the South seceding, nobody can argue that. However, the war was over secession, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and only made slavery an issue as a strategic move to keep the South from getting allied support from other countries.
So it is true that the war wasn't over slavery but secession certainly was. Back then, both sides were racist so Democrat = whatever or Republican = whatever is dumb when looking back in history. If you look back to the point I made earlier, he didn't make slavery an issue so much as he kept it legal except for states that didn't want to follow the union. Basically his version of highway money for drinking age. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 19:17:23 GMT -5
The South seceded over several things but yes, slavery was a central issue. It was in their Consitution for Christ's sake, by NAME. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, that is why there was a civil war. There were major differences between North and South ideology (strong vs weak central government) that also led to secession as well. So to be absolutely clear, slavery was a reason for the South seceding, nobody can argue that. However, the war was over secession, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and only made slavery an issue as a strategic move to keep the South from getting allied support from other countries.
So it is true that the war wasn't over slavery but secession certainly was. Back then, both sides were racist so Democrat = whatever or Republican = whatever is dumb when looking back in history. If you look back to the point I made earlier, he didn't make slavery an issue so much as he kept it legal except for states that didn't want to follow the union. Basically his version of highway money for drinking age. To be fair, I hardly ever read your posts... |
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Aug 24, 2017 20:24:26 GMT -5
I was told I was protecting racists because i said it isn't okay to hit people you disagree with. This is the state of the union today. If you say you think a antifa or BLM clown hitting a woman or sucker punching a random white guy is wrong, the response is that you are racist, support racists or defend them. NOT that yes, Antifa or BLM using violence is wrong. It's like it's not even on the table as an option. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 24, 2017 20:41:41 GMT -5
The South seceded over several things but yes, slavery was a central issue. It was in their Consitution for Christ's sake, by NAME. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, that is why there was a civil war. There were major differences between North and South ideology (strong vs weak central government) that also led to secession as well. So to be absolutely clear, slavery was a reason for the South seceding, nobody can argue that. However, the war was over secession, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and only made slavery an issue as a strategic move to keep the South from getting allied support from other countries. So it is true that the war wasn't over slavery but secession certainly was. Back then, both sides were racist so Democrat = whatever or Republican = whatever is dumb when looking back in history. Whatever is dumb, especially when looking back in history and discovering that your political party actually invented the kkk and segregation...not the other way around... So this notion that the war was fought over some grand principles of right and wrong is a fucking joke. Anyway, I'll sit here at my table and sip my coffee and laugh at the irony everytime the Democrats and their personal Gestapo(antifa) assault some Republican kid in the street as they chant "no nazis, no kkk, no fascist usa." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 21:15:25 GMT -5
The South seceded over several things but yes, slavery was a central issue. It was in their Consitution for Christ's sake, by NAME. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union, that is why there was a civil war. There were major differences between North and South ideology (strong vs weak central government) that also led to secession as well. So to be absolutely clear, slavery was a reason for the South seceding, nobody can argue that. However, the war was over secession, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and only made slavery an issue as a strategic move to keep the South from getting allied support from other countries. So it is true that the war wasn't over slavery but secession certainly was. Back then, both sides were racist so Democrat = whatever or Republican = whatever is dumb when looking back in history. Whatever is dumb, especially when looking back in history and discovering that your political party actually invented the kkk and segregation...not the other way around... So this notion that the war was fought over some grand principles of right and wrong is a fucking joke. Anyway, I'll sit here at my table and sip my coffee and laugh at the irony everytime the Democrats and their personal Gestapo(antifa) assault some Republican kid in the street as they chant "no nazis, no kkk, no fascist usa." You are literally arguing a point nobody made. |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Aug 24, 2017 23:50:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Aug 25, 2017 3:47:20 GMT -5
Slightly off topic: has a population of whites ever existed around lots of blacks, and then somehow NOT get vilified as evil racists who deserve death?
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 25, 2017 3:51:28 GMT -5
Slightly off topic: has a population of whites ever existed around lots of blacks, and then somehow NOT get vilified as evil racists who deserve death? Senegal, about 1%, and they treated just fine there. |
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Aug 25, 2017 4:12:58 GMT -5
Slightly off topic: has a population of whites ever existed around lots of blacks, and then somehow NOT get vilified as evil racists who deserve death? Senegal, about 1%, and they treated just fine there. In other words: no. Now go fucking kill yourself |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 25, 2017 5:28:28 GMT -5
Senegal, about 1%, and they treated just fine there. In other words: no. Now go fucking kill yourself Well what kind of size population did you mean? I will admit though Senegal is quite unique in the world in the way they are though. One of the most open and accepting communities in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Aug 25, 2017 7:32:21 GMT -5
In other words: no. Now go fucking kill yourself Well what kind of size population did you mean? I will admit though Senegal is quite unique in the world in the way they are though. One of the most open and accepting communities in the world. Muslims drinking beer openly too. Hope they don't arabicized. |
|
|
|
Post by CaveBearOG on Aug 25, 2017 7:34:23 GMT -5
In other words: no. Now go fucking kill yourself Well what kind of size population did you mean? I will admit though Senegal is quite unique in the world in the way they are though. One of the most open and accepting communities in the world. May be you can get a job there.... |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 25, 2017 8:32:02 GMT -5
Well what kind of size population did you mean? I will admit though Senegal is quite unique in the world in the way they are though. One of the most open and accepting communities in the world. Muslims drinking beer openly too. Hope they don't arabicized. Given their history, their leadership, the type of Islam that is predominate there, I seriously doubt it. I strongly believe that is where the US should be putting resources if they want to establish an example of how the Middle East (and more importantly for the future, Africa) can be run while being Islam dominate, but still secular and peaceful and under cooperative peace. You know its a different place when you are over 90% Muslim and they openly elect (and LOVE) a Catholic leader. |
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Aug 25, 2017 9:35:56 GMT -5
Muslims drinking beer openly too. Hope they don't arabicized. Given their history, their leadership, the type of Islam that is predominate there, I seriously doubt it. I strongly believe that is where the US should be putting resources if they want to establish an example of how the Middle East (and more importantly for the future, Africa) can be run while being Islam dominate, but still secular and peaceful and under cooperative peace. You know its a different place when you are over 90% Muslim and they openly elect (and LOVE) a Catholic leader. They will change their tune wheb wahhabist money starts pouring in. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 25, 2017 10:03:11 GMT -5
Whatever is dumb, especially when looking back in history and discovering that your political party actually invented the kkk and segregation...not the other way around... So this notion that the war was fought over some grand principles of right and wrong is a fucking joke. Anyway, I'll sit here at my table and sip my coffee and laugh at the irony everytime the Democrats and their personal Gestapo(antifa) assault some Republican kid in the street as they chant "no nazis, no kkk, no fascist usa." You are literally arguing a point nobody made. So what was the point then, captain jizz face? Valetudo is asking if the war was fought over slavery...like, what's the fucking point of that question? What direction was dude trying to go with that question? I don't know, why doesn't someone tell me.... |
|
|
|
Post by CaveBearOG on Aug 25, 2017 10:34:13 GMT -5
^^^^^^ he said jizz...lol😂😂😂
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 25, 2017 15:41:11 GMT -5
Given their history, their leadership, the type of Islam that is predominate there, I seriously doubt it. I strongly believe that is where the US should be putting resources if they want to establish an example of how the Middle East (and more importantly for the future, Africa) can be run while being Islam dominate, but still secular and peaceful and under cooperative peace. You know its a different place when you are over 90% Muslim and they openly elect (and LOVE) a Catholic leader. They will change their tune wheb wahhabist money starts pouring in. Oh they tried, thankfully it failed. I'm sure there will be more attempts to pervert the country's personality and faith, but so far they've failed. French imperialism and laziness ironically is what wound up giving the fortitude to stand up to them. |
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Aug 25, 2017 16:54:38 GMT -5
They will change their tune wheb wahhabist money starts pouring in. Oh they tried, thankfully it failed. I'm sure there will be more attempts to pervert the country's personality and faith, but so far they've failed. French imperialism and laziness ironically is what wound up giving the fortitude to stand up to them. Lmao! I could believe that. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Aug 25, 2017 17:09:49 GMT -5
Oh they tried, thankfully it failed. I'm sure there will be more attempts to pervert the country's personality and faith, but so far they've failed. French imperialism and laziness ironically is what wound up giving the fortitude to stand up to them. Lmao! I could believe that. But I think the other thing that really sets Senegal apart, besides the education part and their underlying culture, is their treatment of Islam. They reacted aggressively and violently towards this faux-Islam in the 1800s, and that attitude of disgust towards it still stands. Instead the traditional Islam was accepted, and taught properly thanks to not restricting literacy education because of the French using them as an Administration hub. That just further entrenched their disgust at this faux-Islam kill the infidels trend. They distrust those spreading it so much, that most of their elected officials are either Christian, or work closely with them, and they are adamant about maintaining secularism. |
|
