 |
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
This is common knowledge.
BTW MarkG - This site's subscription to SpellChecker.net has expired.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
Anyone know any good sites where I can wait out my ban?
Btw, whatever happened to that wierd SMAC site?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
I can not disappoint an audience which awaits.
Correction: Cracker Heritage is all about race. I can think of plenty of other pejoratives for the less enlightened folks down further south.
The monolith argument is as full of BS as any of the southern revisionists' claims.
Seven of fourteen states who did not willingly support the Union did so for reasons clearly identified with slavery, however, tariffs and other forms of regional economic warfare (between cotton planters in the south and wholesale consumers in the north) played a role in aggravating the north-south political divide.
Other states seceded or declared neutrality for different reasons - Virginia being the only state to first reject secession, then approve it after Lincoln's call for "volunteers" to be furnished by the states and put under Federal control. Virginia was directed to raise and turn over some 2300 "volunteers" to invade other states, and was itself to be the clear invasion route for Federal armies.
The north fighting to get rid of slavery argument is a crock also. The Emancipation Proclamation was very unpopular throughout much of the Union Army, particularly the less gentrified folks out west, (most of 'em probably couldn't read those big words, or see ol' Abe with his fingers crossed behind his back  )
Delaware remained a Union slave state until passage of the 13th Amendment, and if you read the full text of the Emancipation Proclamation and research the background to it, it was a document declaring a form of ecnomic warfare, rather than a beacon of freedom for the black man. A number of abolitionists were disgusted with it, and one of the cabinet (I think it was Stanton) referred to it as not freeing those blacks in Union control, and freeing those not in Union control.
The transparency of that document is obvious if people read it: It had a starting trigger of January 1, 1863, over three month after issuance, and provided that slaves would be declared free only in those areas not within the union at the time. Any state or region which rejoined the union would have been allowed to keep it's slaves, and that's stated on the face of the document.
Let's be practical for a moment (and un-PC as all hell ), and assume there was no secesh and no little war. That Sumter was just a fireworks show for the enjoyment of the citizenry, and Major Anderson and Captain Doubleday were the guests of honor.
Do you really think the north was going to free six million slaves, and tell everyone "ok, you're free, so the bossman has to pay you cash wages, and if you don't like what he pays, you're free to move about anywhere you want?" Mind you, you have a southern economy that is illiquid by nature (a fact that was hardened by the crash of 1857), southern plantation owners in debt to Yankee banks for the purchase of slaves, and a north that was recovering from the effects of the 1857 liquidity crisis? (one reason for passage of tariff laws to extract currency from the south, or force it to trade domestically with northern mills and buy northern products in trade at inflated prices).
Tell me now, how much political support (absent a war to "preserve the Union"  would there be for:
Giving freed slaves their 40 acres and a mule in lieu of the Homestead Act of 1862, which was for the benefit of white people?
Having the Federal government take over the debt of plantation owners whose "collateral" had just walked off to go up north looking for paying work?
Yankee banks forgiving their slave debt, rather than foreclosing on plantation owners, and then selling the plantations over to their friends and political cronies, the Yankee mill owners?
Having a Federal tax on white people (since the just-freed slaves didn't have any money, who else would you tax) to provide some form of relief to the just freed slaves?
Having hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves moving into northern cities and towns competing with white unskilled labor? (Maybe the Molly Maguires would have been the start of the Yankee Klan)
Giving blacks full civil rights including suffrage? (mind you, it would be 60 more years before white males deigned to give women the vote?)
Accepting blacks for military service (as something other than camp labor)?
How about Federal taxes to pay blacks to return to Africa (sort of Liberia on a mass scale)? That's about the closest chance you had to do something absent a war for other purposes.
So tell me how resoundingly the north was out to free the slaves?  That came along when the war was all but won, when people were so distracted by battle news, casualties, the draft and other issues that things like paper money and debt financing of government were unquestioned.
Mind you, in northern cities such as Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia, and others, restrictive covenants on land (agreements not to sell to "negros" and jews) were common until declared unenforceable by SCOTUS. Remember that famous trial by Clarence Darrow, where a black man was put on trial for murder for shooting a white man in a mob that was there to burn him and his family out of their home? What part of the country was that in, huh? And when?
"Moral abolitionists" (those opposed to slavery purely on the grounds of rights, as opposed to those opposed to it because it was the underpinning of the southern economy and the key to breaking the backs of the cotton producers) were a very small minority on the political scene in 1860.
The current "Heritage" movement in the south is of course contaminated by *******s who realize white sheets immediately turns off 3/4 of your audience, and makes most of the rest quietly back away a few steps. The worst thing is that most of the dumbasses aren't from the social class that ever held slaves in the first place, so it's not even their ancestor's sins they deny.
There's nothing that an acknowledgement of the evils of slavery (and Jim Crow) and efforts to cure that legacy would do to diminish southern heritage (after all, we still kicked your asses in anything close to a standup fight  ) There are plenty of fundamental evils in the history of the American colonies and the US in general that the south doesn't need to duck away from it's share.
Instead, what you've got is competing schools of revisionists. So many axes, so few grindstones.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 30-12-2002 at 23:18
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
"Let's be practical for a moment (and un-PC as all hell ), and assume there was no secesh and no little war. That Sumter was just a fireworks show for the enjoyment of the citizenry, and Major Anderson and Captain Doubleday were the guests of honor.
Do you really think the north was going to free six million slaves, and tell everyone "ok, you're free, so the bossman has to pay you cash wages, and if you don't like what he pays, you're free to move about anywhere you want?"
This is a very fair question, and parts of the North to this day are inhospitable to blacks (but not to American Indians, or Indians, or Chinese oddly, at least in the part of Ohio where I'm from). I would only point out that much/most of the South feared that they were on the losing end of the question politically. Otherwise, there was no reason to secede.
Do you think that these fears were unjustified?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
"Moral abolitionists" (those opposed to slavery purely on the grounds of rights, as opposed to those opposed to it because it was the underpinning of the southern economy and the key to breaking the backs of the cotton producers) were a very small minority on the political scene in 1860."
Actually moral abolitionism was bigger then that. When Uncle Tom's Cabin came out, it got the North very angry at slavery. It helped inspire anti-slavery fighters in bleeding Kansas. It helped cause the North to try to subvert the fugitive slave law. It was the cause of the raid on John Brown's raid on Harper Fairy.
Of course the North was going to stop slavery outright once the war had started. Maryland(albeit due to authoritarian political tactics), Delaware, and Kentucky all had slaves when war started. If Delaware and Kentucky had seceded it might have changed the course of the war, and while Maryland might not have been in a position to secede, they could have been insurrections, more support of CSA forces or inssurections in the Maryland miltia. I think the North definitely did want to ban slavery but they realized it was more prudent to wait until after the war to do so.
"(after all, we still kicked your asses in anything close to a standup fight ) "
*cough* Gettysburg *cough*
The South did have an advantage at first because it was on the defensive for the most part, at the civil war certainly was advantageous to the defender, and for the early part of the war our generals sucked. Once Grant and Sherman got established though, the South got it's asswhooping.
And in any case, now adays the Confederate Flag, at least the CSA battle flag, has come to be associated with the efforts to perserve Jim Crow and current White Supremisict movements. That seems like reason enough to ban it from schools where it could indeed be viewed as intimidating.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
"Let's be practical for a moment (and un-PC as all hell ), and assume there was no secesh and no little war. That Sumter was just a fireworks show for the enjoyment of the citizenry, and Major Anderson and Captain Doubleday were the guests of honor.
Do you really think the north was going to free six million slaves, and tell everyone "ok, you're free, so the bossman has to pay you cash wages, and if you don't like what he pays, you're free to move about anywhere you want?"
This is a very fair question, and parts of the North to this day are inhospitable to blacks (but not to American Indians, or Indians, or Chinese oddly, at least in the part of Ohio where I'm from). I would only point out that much/most of the South feared that they were on the losing end of the question politically. Otherwise, there was no reason to secede.
Do you think that these fears were unjustified? |
Politically, the only thing that the north could do absent war (and some playing with states rights ) was to enact laws affecting the interstate sale or transportation of slaves. It would be a hell of a long time before you could annex enough free states to have a 3/4 majority for amendment ratification, and the fact still remains that the north was socially and economically unwilling to accept allowing six million former slaves the ability to move about freely and compete in primarily unskilled and rural labor markets. Marginalized northern whites in direct economic competition with the newly freed slaves would have raised unholy hell over the issue.
Practically, a large number of blacks would have been stuck in the same sort of sharecropping arrangements as in the Jim Crow south, which was slavery in all but name anyway. There was no minimum wage laws, no workplace safety ;aws, hours of work laws were soon to be tested (the baker's strike and the 100 hour workweek), and employment law was as laissez-faire as you could get, so freedom in that context would have been pretty token.
Although preservation of slavery was the rallying call for the landed elite, I think the overall issue goes deeper than that, to a power struggle between elites on both sides of the line, due to the economic value of cotton, and the division of profits between producers and manufacturers. There was an effective trade war, of which slavery was a key ingredient, but the issue for the economic elites was not really about the "rights" of a bunch of kidnapped Africans and their descendants.
That was seen pretty clearly by the Yankee soldiers who saw gentrified clowns and politicians become instant colonels and generals, and who referred often to the conflict as "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Moral abolitionists" (those opposed to slavery purely on the grounds of rights, as opposed to those opposed to it because it was the underpinning of the southern economy and the key to breaking the backs of the cotton producers) were a very small minority on the political scene in 1860."
Actually moral abolitionism was bigger then that. When Uncle Tom's Cabin came out, it got the North very angry at slavery. It helped inspire anti-slavery fighters in bleeding Kansas. It helped cause the North to try to subvert the fugitive slave law. It was the cause of the raid on John Brown's raid on Harper Fairy. |
Those were still minority actions, and I was referring more to political influence. Uncle Tom's Cabin brough some of the horrors of slavery to the popular attention, but indignation among a literate audience doesn't translate to active political support to suffer financial and economic consequences on behalf of freed slaves. A lot of people wouldn't have minded slavery going away, as long as ex-slaves didn't become their problem. I distinguish that general lump of the populace (and psychotic bastards like Brown, who was more looking for an excuse for killing, and had a bit of a messiah complex), from those who actively devoted themselves to helping ex-slaves with education and craft training so they could support themselves as free men.
quote:
Of course the North was going to stop slavery outright once the war had started.
|
Not according to ol' Abe as of September, 1862. Any southern states who came to daddy before the end of the year were to be allowed to keep their slaves.
quote:
"(after all, we still kicked your asses in anything close to a standup fight ) "
*cough* Gettysburg *cough*
|
The Yankees had a 5 to 4 numerical advantage, defensive ground, cavalry on the scene, and still barely won. The only reasons the Yankee army didn't collapse on the first day were Stuart's getting cute over 400 wagons, Rodes' mishandling his first division command, Baldy Ewell being *****-whipped, and ol' Jubilee's hemmorhoids acting up. Even given those advantages, on the second day, it was random luck (exploding shells overhead) causing severe injuries to Dorsey Pender and John Bell Hood, taking them out of the fight at critical junctures.
quote:
The South did have an advantage at first because it was on the defensive for the most part, at the civil war certainly was advantageous to the defender, and for the early part of the war our generals sucked. Once Grant and Sherman got established though, the South got it's asswhooping.
|
The south spent most of the war on the strategic defensive, but the only first half southern defensive victory in the east was at Fredericksburg, and that because of Burnside's stupidity. At First and Second Manassas, the Seven Days, Jackson's Valley Campaign, Chancellorsville, and even at the breaking up of the Yankee assaults at Sharpsburg, it was southern attacks which carried the day.
If you look at Grant's and Sherman's casualty figures compared with Lee's and Johnston's, it was hardly an asswhomping. More like a progressive meatgrinder, with the two Yankee butchers realizing they had more meat to throw into the grinder. Sherman only made real headway when Davis got so pissed off at Johnston (again) that he put a laudanum-stoned double amputee in charge of the Army of Tennessee.
quote:
And in any case, now adays the Confederate Flag, at least the CSA battle flag, has come to be associated with the efforts to perserve Jim Crow and current White Supremisict movements. That seems like reason enough to ban it from schools where it could indeed be viewed as intimidating. |
I agree - until enough southerners take action to divorce the generic battle flag from white supremacist actions and general racism, it is inappropriate.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 31-12-2002 at 00:36
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
Having the Federal government take over the debt of plantation owners
Why would they want to do this? If you've based your wealth on slaves, excuse me while I fail to weep when you aren't compensated for your "loss." If that's what you're trying to say with this. If you're referring to the banks who loaned money to the plantationers, well, too bad for them too, although it's more understandable. Sometimes there's a price to be paid for something good.
And by the way, your general point about the North not abolishing slavery on its own is correct. After all, back then the South controlled almost half of the government being that it had a vote, and the North was far too split on the issue to ever coalesce against it. It was a darn lucky thing you Southerners forced the issue back then! I guess there is something I respect the Rebs for!
"Moral abolitionists" (those opposed to slavery purely on the grounds of rights, as opposed to those opposed to it because it was the underpinning of the southern economy and the key to breaking the backs of the cotton producers) were a very small minority on the political scene in 1860."
So called "Christian conservatives" were actually quite a minority back in the late 70's and 80's, when they started coming to prominence. That was what the Democrats kept telling themselves, at least, and I'm willing to believe it was true. That said, they were a minority that was far more influential than their numbers ever told. And they still are more influential than they "should be" based on strict numbers alone.
I suspect it was much the same with the abolitionists. Numerical insignificance does not always translate to political insignificance.
after all, we still kicked your asses in anything close to a standup fight
And yet oddly enough, when the CSA used a general who actually believed this drivel (like, say, Hood over Johnston in Georgia), they got whupped! Fascinating!
The reason that the CSA had better generals much of the war was precisely because they fought unfairly, which I applaud 'em for- 'cause in a fair fight, we all know what happens to the puny little Confederates. ;-)
Even given those advantages, on the second day, it was random luck
Hey, it wasn't all Confederate mistakes that caused y'all to lose. Everybody remembers Chamberlain and his actions on Little Round Top, but how about the 1st Minnesota's little charge? It takes 2 to fight a battle.
I think that is the longest post of his I've ever seen. I wonder how close it got to the limit.
You need to read more classic MtG.
"a rich man's war and a poor man's fight"
I won't argue with you that maybe this was used in the North too, but I'm sure this was a Southern expression, being that they had the same issue with rich people getting exempted from army service. The difference is, the South had a lot fewer people, so lots more poor people were required.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-12-2002 21:26
|