13th April 2010, 11:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 14th April 2010, 8:23 PM by A Black Falcon.)
I actually wrote this a few days ago and didn't post it, meaning to do more with it or something, but eh... I think it's good enough, so I'll just post it as is.
You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole I was hoping you wouldn't go in... but saying that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War should be just as unacceptable as the Turkish government's claims that the Armenian genocide never happened, or Serbs saying that what they did in Bosnia was okay. It's insane, stupid, and horrible.
So you decided to abandon actual facts and go with made up lies that make you feel better or something? Awesome, go ahead, I won't try to stop you, but it certainly doesn't make any of it even remotely true.
Just because you don't like the government doesn't mean that back then they disliked the government for similar reasons, or that somehow things would have been better off if the South had won, even if we look at issues other than slavery. This was seen during the war in fact, or can also be seen by looking at how nonfunctional the US government was under the Articles of Confederation. When the states have too much power it's almost impossible to get anything done, which is why we created the Constitution in the first place. The South was seceeding over slavery, uusing "state's rights" as their excuse, but they did put it into practice too (didn't want to be THAT contradictory or something I guess?) and it hurt them. Just like the US before the Constitution, the Confederate government had a hard time getting much done, which was good for America in general (helped sabotage their cause, etc, because two Americas, one with slavery, would obviously not have been a good thing). Nobody should seriously want those days back.
... You do know that I said the exact opposite of that, right? And anyway that's ridiculous, Southerners dominated the Civil War history field for a long time, which is how things got to the point I was describing. As I said they were the ones who kept talking about it. It's the South that talks constantly about the Civil War, keep flying the Confederate flag, that symbol of horrific racism, and pretending that it's "just heritage"... the North doesn't really care that much. Why do you think they do?
Anyway, they're the ones manipulating history, so the whole thing's academic anyway. They succeeded at making their version the "standard version" of Civil War era history it for a long time, but they aren't getting away with it any more, fortunately. Some people are actually standing up to idiotic things like the new Texas school history book codes.
It's widely known that Lee fought not because of belief in slavery, but because he believed in his state more than his country, so when Virginia seceded he left too.
On that note that is one of the most important things that came out of the Civil War. People started talking about being citizens of America first, not citizens of their state first. It was a very important advance, obviously, and a very good one. How can we have a country if people will abandon it the second their state doesn't like something about it? That's not much of a nation.
Building that sense of union was an aftereffect of the war, brought on by the trauma, but it was an important step forward. Of course, had that feeling existed before the war would never have gotten that far, keep Virginia in the Union and the Confederacy folds quickly... so sure, if you look just at that you could say "see, it's not just about slavery, it's about state over country being the way people thought"... which is true, but of course one of the major blocks separating the states was of course slavery. The major block, from the early 1800s on. I find it impossible to imagine that the country would not have unionized (said "The United States Is" instead of "The United States Are", for instance) much quicker had slavery not been in the way. Of course from the beginning there were many worries about the federal government, but slavery was the big one. The South really didn't want the government coming in and taking their slaves away. That, and that they really wanted more territories to expand slavery into and were frustrated at the limited areas they had (with the North and much of the West slave free), and they thought that if slavery was limited to just the areas it had it would probably eventually wither and they couldn't allow that...
No hillbillies are needed. Just go to the nearest Republican party convention, you'll find more than enough racist views and pro-Confederate stuff to last a long time. This is certainly not confined to the South, but it's most prevalent there, as you would expect considering the success of the Southern Strategy.
Most of the Confederate troops were poor people who owned no slaves. They weren't necesarially going to fight hard to defend an institution that didn't benefit them directly. Now, it did benefit them some, because even the poorest white person could say "At least I am better than THOSE people" (and this was an important boost to their morale), but not enough. So the Confederate governments fed them a story about how it was really all about states rights and self-determination, and not about what it was actually about, just like how in the North they told people that it was all about union and not all about slavery, becuase that's what people there wanted to hear.
In both cases while as I said those feelings (of the question of states versus union) were key to understanding why the war happened, without slavery the impetus that drove the entire mechanism would not have existed. Civil war would have been no more likely than between Rhode Island and Massachusetts or Delaware and Pennsylvania or something.
True, but it would have taken a lot longer that way, a lot more people would have suffered, and anyway, that requires agreeing that secession from the U.S. is possible, which the Constitution does not allow (by not mentioning it). States can't just leave. The Republican Party had run in part on stopping the surrendering that the government had been doing for years, not continuing to give in to the South every time they demanded more slavery-related concessions "or else we'll leave!"
Also, I think the durability of racism in the South, from Jim Crow to the racism of today, says that in the deep South I wouldn't be surprised if it had held on quite a while... they still had Apartheid in South Africa until the early 1990s after all, and that put black South Africans in a near-slavelike position.
You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole I was hoping you wouldn't go in... but saying that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War should be just as unacceptable as the Turkish government's claims that the Armenian genocide never happened, or Serbs saying that what they did in Bosnia was okay. It's insane, stupid, and horrible.
Quote:Wow, Falcon. Just...wow. I guess I can label you into the "typical liberal" category, right? First off, what did I say at the end of my statement? Again, stop vomiting up everything you were taught in your public history textbooks. Everything you stated is nothing more than the same shit that I had pumped into my skull when I was in high school. You know happened to me? I GREW up. I opened my mind to the real truth.
So you decided to abandon actual facts and go with made up lies that make you feel better or something? Awesome, go ahead, I won't try to stop you, but it certainly doesn't make any of it even remotely true.
Just because you don't like the government doesn't mean that back then they disliked the government for similar reasons, or that somehow things would have been better off if the South had won, even if we look at issues other than slavery. This was seen during the war in fact, or can also be seen by looking at how nonfunctional the US government was under the Articles of Confederation. When the states have too much power it's almost impossible to get anything done, which is why we created the Constitution in the first place. The South was seceeding over slavery, uusing "state's rights" as their excuse, but they did put it into practice too (didn't want to be THAT contradictory or something I guess?) and it hurt them. Just like the US before the Constitution, the Confederate government had a hard time getting much done, which was good for America in general (helped sabotage their cause, etc, because two Americas, one with slavery, would obviously not have been a good thing). Nobody should seriously want those days back.
Quote:Gee, maybe that's because they're sick and tired of having their history manipulated in a way that always paints them as hateful.
... You do know that I said the exact opposite of that, right? And anyway that's ridiculous, Southerners dominated the Civil War history field for a long time, which is how things got to the point I was describing. As I said they were the ones who kept talking about it. It's the South that talks constantly about the Civil War, keep flying the Confederate flag, that symbol of horrific racism, and pretending that it's "just heritage"... the North doesn't really care that much. Why do you think they do?
Anyway, they're the ones manipulating history, so the whole thing's academic anyway. They succeeded at making their version the "standard version" of Civil War era history it for a long time, but they aren't getting away with it any more, fortunately. Some people are actually standing up to idiotic things like the new Texas school history book codes.
Quote:You seem to have completely ignored everything I said. Go back and read what I said about Generals like Lee showing opposition to slavery. Go read the information regarding the letters about soldiers showing no desire to fight for keeping slavery alive.
It's widely known that Lee fought not because of belief in slavery, but because he believed in his state more than his country, so when Virginia seceded he left too.
On that note that is one of the most important things that came out of the Civil War. People started talking about being citizens of America first, not citizens of their state first. It was a very important advance, obviously, and a very good one. How can we have a country if people will abandon it the second their state doesn't like something about it? That's not much of a nation.
Building that sense of union was an aftereffect of the war, brought on by the trauma, but it was an important step forward. Of course, had that feeling existed before the war would never have gotten that far, keep Virginia in the Union and the Confederacy folds quickly... so sure, if you look just at that you could say "see, it's not just about slavery, it's about state over country being the way people thought"... which is true, but of course one of the major blocks separating the states was of course slavery. The major block, from the early 1800s on. I find it impossible to imagine that the country would not have unionized (said "The United States Is" instead of "The United States Are", for instance) much quicker had slavery not been in the way. Of course from the beginning there were many worries about the federal government, but slavery was the big one. The South really didn't want the government coming in and taking their slaves away. That, and that they really wanted more territories to expand slavery into and were frustrated at the limited areas they had (with the North and much of the West slave free), and they thought that if slavery was limited to just the areas it had it would probably eventually wither and they couldn't allow that...
Quote:Once again: strawman. You don't back-up your claims with any sort of facts. Are there racists in the South? Of course. I'm not saying there aren't. The problem that I have is that you're acting as if everyone down there is a Hillbilly that has missing teeth. I've seen more respectful people in the South than I have anyone else in this country. If you think everyone is hateful, you need a serious reality check.
No hillbillies are needed. Just go to the nearest Republican party convention, you'll find more than enough racist views and pro-Confederate stuff to last a long time. This is certainly not confined to the South, but it's most prevalent there, as you would expect considering the success of the Southern Strategy.
Quote:Another interesting thing about the Civil War is that soldiers who fought for the war were against it. Many of the letters that soldiers in the south sent home to their families stated that they were fighting for the principles of self-government and self-determination (Woods, 2007, pg. 76).
Most of the Confederate troops were poor people who owned no slaves. They weren't necesarially going to fight hard to defend an institution that didn't benefit them directly. Now, it did benefit them some, because even the poorest white person could say "At least I am better than THOSE people" (and this was an important boost to their morale), but not enough. So the Confederate governments fed them a story about how it was really all about states rights and self-determination, and not about what it was actually about, just like how in the North they told people that it was all about union and not all about slavery, becuase that's what people there wanted to hear.
In both cases while as I said those feelings (of the question of states versus union) were key to understanding why the war happened, without slavery the impetus that drove the entire mechanism would not have existed. Civil war would have been no more likely than between Rhode Island and Massachusetts or Delaware and Pennsylvania or something.
Quote:"Slavery was doomed politically even if Lincoln had permitted the small Gulf Coast Confederacy to depart in peace. The Republican controlled Congress would have been able to work toward emancipation within the border states, where slavery was already declining. In due course the Radicals could have repealed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. With chattels fleeing across the border and raising slavery's enforcement costs, and peculiar institution's destruction within an independent cotton South was inevitable" (Woods, pg. 76, 2007).
True, but it would have taken a lot longer that way, a lot more people would have suffered, and anyway, that requires agreeing that secession from the U.S. is possible, which the Constitution does not allow (by not mentioning it). States can't just leave. The Republican Party had run in part on stopping the surrendering that the government had been doing for years, not continuing to give in to the South every time they demanded more slavery-related concessions "or else we'll leave!"
Also, I think the durability of racism in the South, from Jim Crow to the racism of today, says that in the deep South I wouldn't be surprised if it had held on quite a while... they still had Apartheid in South Africa until the early 1990s after all, and that put black South Africans in a near-slavelike position.
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}