RIP Civil War
Comments
-
I agree war was not the preferable route. Lincoln would agree war was not the preferable route.SpoonieLuv said:The unpopularity of my position is not lost on me yet it is not devoid of serious scholarship on the issue. It stems from the evaluation of using a ground war to solve societal differences which have sewn the seeds of the turmoil which exists at present. It's not unreasonable to question whether Lincoln's war was the correct action to eliminate the obviously odious institution of slavery and its strong foothold in the southern (albeit it plantation owners were a very small minority of the southern population - not excusing it but it is not factual the a substantial number of them were slave-owners regardless of whether it was a supported position) institutions. A war on such scale should have been the last resort for the elimination of state approved slavery and the fact that the majority of all other countries ended slavery without a bloody conflict on this scale should be the only proof necessary to make one skeptical.
But war was never Lincoln's plan to free the slaves. He was forced into it by the secession of the states combined with the southern attack on federal forces.
Now we can argue he shouldn't have declared war regardless, but IMO at that point the south more than had it coming. -
I’m hearing they plan to call it the Domestic Dispute moving forward.
-
The South being the place where these newly emancipated people had lived all their lives. Isn't your thought just Liberia Lite?SpoonieLuv said:
Apples and oranges.HHusky said:
https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/exclusion_laws/#.XvZX6G5Fw0QSpoonieLuv said:
Yes, bring the former slaves to the north where there would have a been a far easier transition to normalcy given social milieu of the time.HHusky said:
The issue was not that buying the slaves' freedom never occurred to anyone.SpoonieLuv said:Not a joke, did Great Britain not end slavery in a similar manner avoiding an obviously generationally divisive war? I’m certain there are nuances to the differences between the US situation and theirs however an all out war was probably the worst possible solution to the problem of slavery in North America.
And "forcing incompatible cultures to coexist in the same region"?
The comparative reference was the contemporaneous climate in the south. -
Niggard pleaseHHusky said:
I'm a niggard.MikeDamone said:
Everyday is a new low. Next thing someone will have to apologize fro using the word “niggardly”.. oh wait, that’s happened alreadyNorthwestFresh said:
You’re late to 2020?MikeDamone said:Why do people even think it has anything to do with the American Civil war? A civil war is basically a war between citizens of the same country/state?
This decision is both arrogant and ignorant
-
In the momentous step which our State [Mississippi] has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.SpoonieLuv said:The unpopularity of my position is not lost on me yet it is not devoid of serious scholarship on the issue. It stems from the evaluation of using a ground war to solve societal differences which have sewn the seeds of the turmoil which exists at present. It's not unreasonable to question whether Lincoln's war was the correct action to eliminate the obviously odious institution of slavery and its strong foothold in the southern (albeit it plantation owners were a very small minority of the southern population - not excusing it but it is not factual the a substantial number of them were slave-owners regardless of whether it was a supported position) institutions. A war on such scale should have been the last resort for the elimination of state approved slavery and the fact that the majority of all other countries ended slavery without a bloody conflict on this scale should be the only proof necessary to make one skeptical.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
"Lincoln's War" -
I'm sure the Romans and English probably owe me reparations! Fork it over!
-
Agreed. But succession should have been allowed and the northern states do anything they, at a personal level, to bring slaves to their rightful freedomsdnc said:
I agree war was not the preferable route. Lincoln would agree war was not the preferable route.SpoonieLuv said:The unpopularity of my position is not lost on me yet it is not devoid of serious scholarship on the issue. It stems from the evaluation of using a ground war to solve societal differences which have sewn the seeds of the turmoil which exists at present. It's not unreasonable to question whether Lincoln's war was the correct action to eliminate the obviously odious institution of slavery and its strong foothold in the southern (albeit it plantation owners were a very small minority of the southern population - not excusing it but it is not factual the a substantial number of them were slave-owners regardless of whether it was a supported position) institutions. A war on such scale should have been the last resort for the elimination of state approved slavery and the fact that the majority of all other countries ended slavery without a bloody conflict on this scale should be the only proof necessary to make one skeptical.
But war was never Lincoln's plan to free the slaves. He was forced into it by the secession of the states combined with the southern attack on federal forces.
Now we can argue he shouldn't have declared war regardless, but IMO at that point the south more than had it coming.
I have the exact same opinion of every other war, notably Enduring/Iraqi Freedom of which I was a part of, as I do of the Civil War. If you feel strongly about the issue please pick up your weapon and volunteer to fight but do not throw an entire society of mixed views and opinions to fight under the auspices of a collective value. It’s counterproductive at best. -
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
Texas wants what's best for everybody! -
Irish?Sledog said:I'm sure the Romans and English probably owe me reparations! Fork it over!
It figures. -
Correct attribution but economically devoid as the southern actual racists did not understand the infeasibility of their positions. Actual racist positions. Holds the same weight as arguments of American colonialists purposely providing smallpox infected blankets long before the germ theory of disease.HHusky said:
In the momentous step which our State [Mississippi] has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.SpoonieLuv said:The unpopularity of my position is not lost on me yet it is not devoid of serious scholarship on the issue. It stems from the evaluation of using a ground war to solve societal differences which have sewn the seeds of the turmoil which exists at present. It's not unreasonable to question whether Lincoln's war was the correct action to eliminate the obviously odious institution of slavery and its strong foothold in the southern (albeit it plantation owners were a very small minority of the southern population - not excusing it but it is not factual the a substantial number of them were slave-owners regardless of whether it was a supported position) institutions. A war on such scale should have been the last resort for the elimination of state approved slavery and the fact that the majority of all other countries ended slavery without a bloody conflict on this scale should be the only proof necessary to make one skeptical.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
"Lincoln's War" -
Again, "a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."SpoonieLuv said:
Correct attribution but economically devoid as the southern actual racists did not understand the infeasibility of their positions. Actual racist positions. Holds the same weight as arguments of American colonialists purposely providing smallpox infected blankets long before the germ theory of disease.HHusky said:
In the momentous step which our State [Mississippi] has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.SpoonieLuv said:The unpopularity of my position is not lost on me yet it is not devoid of serious scholarship on the issue. It stems from the evaluation of using a ground war to solve societal differences which have sewn the seeds of the turmoil which exists at present. It's not unreasonable to question whether Lincoln's war was the correct action to eliminate the obviously odious institution of slavery and its strong foothold in the southern (albeit it plantation owners were a very small minority of the southern population - not excusing it but it is not factual the a substantial number of them were slave-owners regardless of whether it was a supported position) institutions. A war on such scale should have been the last resort for the elimination of state approved slavery and the fact that the majority of all other countries ended slavery without a bloody conflict on this scale should be the only proof necessary to make one skeptical.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
"Lincoln's War"
How do you price that? -
You seem to be ignoring some basic issues like human nature. Throughout human history violence has been used to settle intractable differences. Sometimes its a one banana and two monkeys type of thing. I want what you have and I'm going to take it. You either give it up or fight over it. It doesn't take two to fight. It just takes one and then a decision has to be made. You think the Germans and Japanese didn't regret starting World War II? Turned out pretty badly for them. A peaceful solution is always preferable if it is a solution for both sides. No slavery wasn't a solution for the South. Should have been but humans make bad decisions.
-
Sounds like you have something against the Polls.Sledog said: -
Nope.HHusky said: -
next thing apple cup will too offensive because of the latinos have to pick them in WA
-
Have to? I say get to.FireCohen said:next thing apple cup will too offensive because of the latinos have to pick them in WA
-
It was because the South didn't feel they would have a voice in the union anymore. It wasn't fought over slavery.dnc said:It wasn't a war fought to perpetuate slavery, it was a war fought to free the fucking slaves. Which it did, incidentally.
The Civil War has a much better racial connotation than say, the name Oregon or Oregon State.
SoFuckingIrritating.gif -
Half truth. Noble, "lost cause" myth.haie said:
It was because the South didn't feel they would have a voice in the union anymore. It wasn't fought over slavery.dnc said:It wasn't a war fought to perpetuate slavery, it was a war fought to free the fucking slaves. Which it did, incidentally.
The Civil War has a much better racial connotation than say, the name Oregon or Oregon State.
SoFuckingIrritating.gif
The chief concern they had regarding not having a voice was the threat to the institution of slavery. Each state made a proclamation on their reasons for leaving. You can find those statement online. Why not believe them? -
Can’t we just all be friends and understand that wars, especially civil wars are complex and multi faceted events that are difficult to pinpoint to just one singular cause or event, evenmoreso when trying to take into account the specific motivations of the general masses within those battling groups?
How many wars, other than the Trojan war for some fine demigod snatch, can be boiled down to entire armies being motivated by one singular issue?
-
Lincoln ran on no new slave states. Hondo would have told the south that no one was coming to take your slaves
The south didn't believe that. When they seceded Lincoln vowed to save the Union and the north thought they would win rather easily.
It was about slavery for the south. That was was not hugely popular in the north hence the draft riots
Eventually abolishing slavery was a military decision
The Reconstruction was where it was all lost -
#RaceWasThereRaceBannon said:Lincoln ran on no new slave states. Hondo would have told the south that no one was coming to take your slaves
The south didn't believe that. When they seceded Lincoln vowed to save the Union and the north thought they would win rather easily.
It was about slavery for the south. That was was not hugely popular in the north hence the draft riots
Eventually abolishing slavery was a military decision
The Reconstruction was where it was all lost -
We can understand that the Civil War is not going to have happened absent the issue of slavery, even if there were other Southern resentments.Houhusky said:Can’t we just all be friends and understand that wars, especially civil wars are complex and multi faceted events that are difficult to pinpoint to just one singular cause or event, evenmoreso when trying to take into account the specific motivations of the general masses within those battling groups?
How many wars, other than the Trojan war for some fine demigod snatch, can be boiled down to entire armies being motivated by one singular issue? -
I don't know how you could have sustained the political will to keep Reconstruction going. Face facts, the old Southern Rat party members were irredeemable racists and you were going to have to slaughter even more of them before they would agree with equality for the newly freed slaves. By 1876 even the Northern Republicans has lost the will to keep Reconstruction going. As is said over and over, Slavery is this country's original sin and we will continue to pay a price for it now that the Cultural and political Marxists have realized their ability to capitalize on racial animosity to achieve their political goals.RaceBannon said:Lincoln ran on no new slave states. Hondo would have told the south that no one was coming to take your slaves
The south didn't believe that. When they seceded Lincoln vowed to save the Union and the north thought they would win rather easily.
It was about slavery for the south. That was was not hugely popular in the north hence the draft riots
Eventually abolishing slavery was a military decision
The Reconstruction was where it was all lost
The goal that you and I grew up with of achieving a color blind society is fucking dead and the left has zero interest in ever achieving that goal, there are far too many benefits to them politically going in the other direction. -
False.HHusky said:
Half truth. Noble, "lost cause" myth.haie said:
It was because the South didn't feel they would have a voice in the union anymore. It wasn't fought over slavery.dnc said:It wasn't a war fought to perpetuate slavery, it was a war fought to free the fucking slaves. Which it did, incidentally.
The Civil War has a much better racial connotation than say, the name Oregon or Oregon State.
SoFuckingIrritating.gif
The chief concern they had regarding not having a voice was the threat to the institution of slavery. Each state made a proclamation on their reasons for leaving. You can find those statement online. Why not believe them? -
Yeah this is revisionist bullshit. Read what the defectors said at the time of secession, not what they said to cast themselves as the victims years later. Read the declarations of secession. Read the cornerstone speech.haie said:
It was because the South didn't feel they would have a voice in the union anymore. It wasn't fought over slavery.dnc said:It wasn't a war fought to perpetuate slavery, it was a war fought to free the fucking slaves. Which it did, incidentally.
The Civil War has a much better racial connotation than say, the name Oregon or Oregon State.
SoFuckingIrritating.gif
The Confederacy was entirely about slavery. -
Why do people get emotional over this? I hate the south. But the civil war wasn't over slavery.dnc said:
Yeah this is revisionist bullshit. Read what the defectors said at the time of secession, not what they said to cast themselves as the victims years later. Read the declarations of secession. Read the cornerstone speech.haie said:
It was because the South didn't feel they would have a voice in the union anymore. It wasn't fought over slavery.dnc said:It wasn't a war fought to perpetuate slavery, it was a war fought to free the fucking slaves. Which it did, incidentally.
The Civil War has a much better racial connotation than say, the name Oregon or Oregon State.
SoFuckingIrritating.gif
The Confederacy was entirely about slavery. -
Ask yourself this. If there were no slavery in the US would there have been a Civil War? The South was fighting to be able to keep the institution of slavery. Yeah they had other issues but nearly all of them were tied to keeping slavery.haie said:
Why do people get emotional over this? I hate the south. But the civil war wasn't over slavery.dnc said:
Yeah this is revisionist bullshit. Read what the defectors said at the time of secession, not what they said to cast themselves as the victims years later. Read the declarations of secession. Read the cornerstone speech.haie said:
It was because the South didn't feel they would have a voice in the union anymore. It wasn't fought over slavery.dnc said:It wasn't a war fought to perpetuate slavery, it was a war fought to free the fucking slaves. Which it did, incidentally.
The Civil War has a much better racial connotation than say, the name Oregon or Oregon State.
SoFuckingIrritating.gif
The Confederacy was entirely about slavery. -
What fucking “decision” driven by virtue signaling shitbird cry-bullies isn’t?MikeDamone said:Why do people even think it has anything to do with the American Civil war? A civil war is basically a war between citizens of the same country/state?
This decision is both arrogant and ignorant
Get in line, Nazi fascist. Otherwise they’ll call you a racist in public and ruin your livelihood, because feelings are more important than facts or context.
Enjoy living under the new rules, which will be made up as things go along. -
Because a. It's a lie. and b. That lie has been used for 150 years to justify all kinds of nonsense.haie said:
Why do people get emotional over this? I hate the south. But the civil war wasn't over slavery.dnc said:
Yeah this is revisionist bullshit. Read what the defectors said at the time of secession, not what they said to cast themselves as the victims years later. Read the declarations of secession. Read the cornerstone speech.haie said:
It was because the South didn't feel they would have a voice in the union anymore. It wasn't fought over slavery.dnc said:It wasn't a war fought to perpetuate slavery, it was a war fought to free the fucking slaves. Which it did, incidentally.
The Civil War has a much better racial connotation than say, the name Oregon or Oregon State.
SoFuckingIrritating.gif
The Confederacy was entirely about slavery.
