 |
| |
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
Using this line of thinking I am surprised you are not out warring on the evil forces of abortion. |
You don't know much about me do you? This statement is addressed to the wrong man. I fight this battle one pregnant patient at a time. I've even won a few rounds too. quote:
While it might be debatable whether or not holding slaves would yield a ticket to hell, there isn't any doubt concerning any mother, nurse or doctor involved in the murder of innocent unborn children. |
Interesting. On the one hand you ardently protest that you are not a supporter of slavery, on the other hand here you seem to be "debating" its morality. It was that way in 1861 too, and has been that way ever since. Apologists for the slave states' crude attempt to preserve their criminal way of life veil their true intentions under a smoke screen of "state's rights" and etc., etc., etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Interesting. On the one hand you ardently protest that you are not a supporter of slavery, on the other hand here you seem to be "debating" its morality. It was that way in 1861 too, and has been that way ever since. Apologists for the slave states' crude attempt to preserve their criminal way of life veil their true intentions under a smoke screen of "state's rights" and etc., etc., etc. |
Nice try doc. Color me rascist and make my position a moot point. You got me. I intend to overthrow the government and place all blacks in chains. Right.
It is easy to judge southerners criminals for the institution of slavery using the enlightented vision of hindsight. It would be another thing to experience the issue from the inside out. I grew up in the South. I grew up in this culture. You don't have to lecture me about the evils of racism. I have lived amid the hail and brimstone whose smoke you only sniff at a distance.
If you want to pursue, or rather, maintain the simplistic view of the history of this war that brands the South and its people evil bastards, each and every one, it is neither my job nor a good use of my time to try to set you right.
But I will not yield my position that it was a war like any other, a fuse lit by politicians to suit there own personal agendas. The only thing close to just warfare American has been in would possibly be the world war, mostly likely WW2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Nope, that's not the case either.
In the late nineteenth century, white Northerners and white Southerners that included Civil War veterans reconciled with one another in the spirit of white supremacy.
As a result, the North lost the Civil War by reconciling with the South on their terms, in regards to race relations.
And because of this reconciliation through the fraternal spirit of white supremacy, the losers of the war have done a great job in mythologizing the causes of that war -- an exception to the historical norm of the victor always writing myths of a war.
Read David Blight's book -- Race and Reunion. |
That's hilarious. Really priceless. What do you call that, a conclusion three times removed from the truth by multiple levels of mythology and six shovels of horseshit?
I'll pass on the book. I have heard it all before.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
You Southerners who lament the casualties seem to have a hard time understanding who started the war. |
We understand it clearly. Secession was intended to be a peaceful political resolution to an intractible dispute. As sovereign states, our respective states agreed to form a union with other states, with a weak central government limited in its authority and scope. The Yankees later found it inconvient to adhere to the intent and purposes of the original agreement, so they started to abrogate that agreement, and further announced their intent to do so, so our states responded by leaving peaceably.
We should have been the aggressors, and sucked it up for another year while every damned bale of cotton was traded for rifled artillery, rifled muskets, copper and tooling, until we were in a position to negotiate with you people from your new provisional capital in Bangor, Maine. 
In the runup to Fort Sumter, Lincoln and his agents lied repeatedly, and the Sumter "resupply" expedition had 29 guns and over 1400 men who could take up arms as an invasion force - given ol' Abe's track record with good faith negotiation, anyone in his right mind would have concluded that force was a serious threat, and the good hotheads of Charleston were under no obligation to let that threat become an actual landing force.
If you have a burglar coming through your front door and you shoot at him, you're not the aggressor for shooting first, nor are you the one who "started it."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
It's funny how many Southerners think Northern conceptions of the South are based on that antebellum and Civil War period, rather than on 20th Century history.
The idea that slavery was going anywhere peacefully is laughable, gien yours states reactions to the Civil Rights movement. Sharecropping, debt peonage, tennant farming, night riders, lynching, Jim Crow, poll taxes, and chain gangs all served to continue the institution of slavery in another form up until the 1960s. I suggest that freedom delayed 100 years is no freedom at all.
If the South hadn't tried to defend the indefensible, no one would have died.
If you refuse to fight aganst evil in your own country, how can you justify fighting it abroad?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
But of course, the north was a beacon of freedom and brotherhood in that century, as well. |
Despite the problems, Black people did sem to think so. Black newspapers kept writing articles telling Southern Blacks to move North, and during the Great Migration, almost half the Black population moved to the North in the three decades from 1930 through 1960. (In spite of some rather bad race riots in Chicago and Springfield, IL.)
quote:
And it's awfully nice to redefine the word slavery to incorporate any and every form of social and economic injustice or lack of power. |
They were replacements which replicated slavery for all intents and purposes. In the case of the chain-gangs, it was slavery. Oh, need 50 workers to build a road, go round up 50 "vagrants" and the state will even provide housing and guards for your convict workers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
MtG, the "war" started before the first shot was fired when several of the Southern States seceeded -- unilaterally. Clearly there was a dispute about whether this was legal. That issue should have been by petition to the Supreme Court by the Southern states that asserted they had that right. Absent such a petition, the Union had no choice but to reinforce its garrisons and deny the legality of what had happened.
|
Secession is a political matter, not one of law, and the authority of SCOTUS to settle political matters does not exist. There is also a jurisdictional point, in that states petitioning the Federal judiciary to adjudicate any dispute are admitting Federal jurisdiction over them as a matter of law, thus mooting a case regarding secession even if SCOTUS had the authority to determine political matters.
The Union, i.e. the United States of America, had every choice - this was not a matter of subordinate units of government rebelling, it was a matter of sovereign states who voluntarily chose to form a sort of limited confederation determining that they no longer wished to do so, as was their right as sovereign states. Nothing in the Constitution ever extinguished the sovereignty of individual states.
quote:
It is not sufficient to point to the reasons for secession, however justified those reasons may have been, to avoid an orderly legal process. If it were not for the Civil War, I think the Supremes may have supported the unilateral right of secession. |
The Federal judiciary is dependent on the Federal executive for enforcement of it's decisions, so even if SCOTUS had the authority, and the United States waived the issue of personal jurisdiction over the State of South Carolina, (an executive decision, as the Solicitor General is subordinate to the Attorney General), it would still be a matter of executive action to comply with any such decision - and ol' Abe made his position clear.
There was no valid legal process available - only a political process, which each seceding state defined.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:33
|
|
Not sure how you came to that conclusion from available evidence Ned.
Are you stating the North instigated and started the Civil War for the sole purpose of removing troublsome states from the law making process so they could ammend the Constitution to free the slaves? Waited a little long to do that if this is the case, shuffled their feet for 5-6 years. The motivation for the North to participate in hostilities was in no way linked to freeing the slaves. There was a very vocal minoity of acitvists who did espouse such thoughts, but they are not representative in the slightest of the vast number of Northern citizens or its political leaders. Maybe some influential politicals did later, but never the Northern people themselves. Even a cursory study of Union wartime diaries clearly shows freeing slaves was not on most of their minds, especially in the early war. I would abandon this line of thougth if Iwere you.....
Che, what exactly would an industrial society do wout 10 million slaves? Produce goods so they can buy them themselves with their own money and then GIVE them to their servants? You need a POOR working class as apossed to a slave one to sell your stuff too. You keep them poor to keep them economically dependant on you, as a steady source of income at exagerated gain.
The South did have slaves working in factories, the one mill within 100 miles  There is no comparison between that and using slavey as your main workforce in a fully industrialized economy. And like I said, I was sure you would bring up egregiously minority exceptions, but industrial slave work in third world coountries today "works" because;
1) They are third world, America was anything but in the 1800s.
2) What you call a "slave" today rarely are. They are just abused workers working for underpaid wages much like every factory worker in America in the 1850-1880. Perhaps we can call them "economic slaves" but they are hardly the same thing as the pre-civil war American black version.
3) These people are hardly indicative to the average worker in the world wide integrated economy. The black slave WAS the average worker in the limited Southern economy of the day.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-01-2004 18:11
|