Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   150 Years of Misunderstanding the Civil War   (theatlantic.com) divider line 336
    More: Interesting, evangelical christianity, American wars, Battle of Gettysburg, Union Army, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, Na Tuk Kong, Drew Gilpin Faust  
•       •       •

19639 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jun 2013 at 6:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



336 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-19 11:45:14 PM  
It was bad because we didn't simply let the retards go and form their own dystopia.

*runs*
 
2013-06-19 11:50:47 PM  
This is the field where the battle did not happen,
where the unknown soldier did not die.
This is the field where grass joined hands,
where no monument stands,
and the only heroic thing is the sky.

Birds fly here without any sound,
unfolding their wings across the open.
No people killed - or were killed - on this ground
hollowed by the neglect of an air so tame
that people celebrate it by forgetting its name.

- William Stafford
 
2013-06-20 12:07:17 AM  
He goes on to impeach politicians, extremists, and the influence of evangelical Christianity for polarizing the nation to the point where compromise or reasoned debate became impossible.

Good thing that would never happen today!
 
2013-06-20 12:21:41 AM  
Fail. Nothing about the election of 1876 wherein Tilden let Hayes win with the promise that Reconstruction would end and the federal government would look the other way when the states do not enforce the 14th and 15th amendments.  The South was allowed to win the Civil War from the point of view of continued economic slavery and second class citizenship of African-Americans even up into this very day.  Political expediency. Get the Presidency and let the country be damned.
 
2013-06-20 12:26:55 AM  
Deploying my "Slavery was the 800 lb gorilla of 19th Century politics" rant in 3... 2... 1...
 
2013-06-20 12:30:59 AM  
1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.
 
2013-06-20 12:34:40 AM  

log_jammin: 1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.


The points have been covered. Might as well go home, folks.
 
2013-06-20 12:44:01 AM  

log_jammin: 1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.


Slavery was the 800 lb gor- hey, stop that.
 
2013-06-20 01:09:43 AM  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.
 
2013-06-20 01:24:29 AM  

hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.


log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

 
2013-06-20 01:29:40 AM  

log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.


From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.
 
2013-06-20 01:44:23 AM  

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-20 01:56:06 AM  
On July 1st, 1863, Alfred Iverson ordered his brigade of North Carolinians across an open field. The soldiers marched in tight formation until Union riflemen suddenly rose from behind a stone wall and opened fire. Five hundred rebels fell dead or wounded "on a line as straight as a dress parade," Iverson reported.

Tactical stupidity says nothing about the war, there was much of this on both sides. The carryover of Napoleonic tactics out of military inertia combined with the accuracy of rifled weapons, and later repeating carbines, guaranteed bloodbaths. If you've ever seen that field, you'd be stupefied that his plan was to send guys across an open field towards guys in excellent cover behind a stone wall and extending into woods, but that was the tactical doctrine of the day. Go look at the genius Federal plan at Fredericksburg, or back to Gettysburg, Pickett's "charge" on the third day.

And none of that compares to sending long lines of riflemen across open terrain under fire from artillery and machine guns in WWI; the British Army suffered 60k casualties on the first day of the Somme. Then there's Dieppe in WWII, and the Soviets for whom the high casualty frontal assault was standard doctrine.

All that means is in hindsight, the tactical doctrines of the day seem ill conceived.

As for the strategic view, it's very simple: slavery was the one subject without which compromise could have been achieved. And therefore in the end it was the cause of the war, what it was fought to decide, and the Confederacy was very much on the wrong side of that conflict.
 
2013-06-20 01:56:28 AM  
WHAT was teh point of the article?
The headline made an assertion, but the article was tl;dr.
What are the highlights?
That it was a blood war? We got that. No misunderstanding there.
That some people are still butthurt over the war? No misunderstanding there.

That the losing side of the war doesnt like how the winning side of the war presented history?
No misunderstanding there.

wtf
I hate that article so much.
 
2013-06-20 02:35:32 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.




There are two Lincoln's: the private and the politician. The Private Lincoln abhorred slavery-and practiced equality. Booker T Washington, who was not a fan of Lincoln's policies, said that the President treated him like a normal person, not a curiosity.

The Political Lincoln stated that Slavery was constitutionally protected in the south...he was against expanding it into the west. He also made public statements saying that he did not believe that black and whites were equal... But they should be treated the same under law. (Nor did he say one race was better than the other.) The reason Lincoln took this stand, was to appeal to be the middle road between the Abolitionist and the traditionalist. It's how he got the GOP nomination.

The ultimate truth was That the Civil War was unavoidable. And Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union.
 
2013-06-20 04:13:32 AM  
"The Civil War was the last good time this country ever had."

 Richard Brautigan in  "A Confederate General From  Big Sur"
 
2013-06-20 06:09:06 AM  
For those of you braindead enough to find the the story of the Civil War an "uplifting" one, this article's for you.
 
2013-06-20 06:39:19 AM  
I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.
 
2013-06-20 06:44:09 AM  
"Just say slavery"
"Slavery it is, sir!"
 
2013-06-20 06:46:27 AM  

vossiewulf: On July 1st, 1863, Alfred Iverson ordered his brigade of North Carolinians across an open field. The soldiers marched in tight formation until Union riflemen suddenly rose from behind a stone wall and opened fire. Five hundred rebels fell dead or wounded "on a line as straight as a dress parade," Iverson reported.

Tactical stupidity says nothing about the war, there was much of this on both sides. The carryover of Napoleonic tactics out of military inertia combined with the accuracy of rifled weapons, and later repeating carbines, guaranteed bloodbaths. If you've ever seen that field, you'd be stupefied that his plan was to send guys across an open field towards guys in excellent cover behind a stone wall and extending into woods, but that was the tactical doctrine of the day. Go look at the genius Federal plan at Fredericksburg, or back to Gettysburg, Pickett's "charge" on the third day.

And none of that compares to sending long lines of riflemen across open terrain under fire from artillery and machine guns in WWI; the British Army suffered 60k casualties on the first day of the Somme. Then there's Dieppe in WWII, and the Soviets for whom the high casualty frontal assault was standard doctrine.

All that means is in hindsight, the tactical doctrines of the day seem ill conceived.

As for the strategic view, it's very simple: slavery was the one subject without which compromise could have been achieved. And therefore in the end it was the cause of the war, what it was fought to decide, and the Confederacy was very much on the wrong side of that conflict.


"The one with the rifle shoots! The one without, follows him! When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots!"
 
2013-06-20 06:56:16 AM  

namatad: WHAT was teh point of the article?
The headline made an assertion, but the article was tl;dr.
What are the highlights?
That it was a blood war? We got that. No misunderstanding there.
That some people are still butthurt over the war? No misunderstanding there.

That the losing side of the war doesnt like how the winning side of the war presented history?
No misunderstanding there.

wtf
I hate that article so much.


war is hell
 
2013-06-20 06:56:23 AM  
The "civil" war was a power push between the Rothschilds and the Illuminati to control the economic productivity of the new world.

Oddly enough, we're not sure what the sides were.
 
2013-06-20 06:56:36 AM  

thamike: For those of you braindead enough to find the the story of the Civil War an "uplifting" one, this article's for you.


There's nothing uplifting about war.  It's a dirty business, anyone can and does recognize that.

It doesn't remove the fact that some men shine through as heroes in a war.  It doesn't negate whatever noble causes were championed by either side.  Recognizing the gritty reality does not demean the sincere idealism of the volunteers of the army or the honor of the men who were drafted, but carried out their obligation despite any chances they might have had to escape.

War is a tool of statecraft, as valid as any negotiation or trade deal.  War happens when a diplomat fails, but the interests of the nation needs to be carried out regardless.

I detest these hippies* who flop around on the ground bemoaning war as if it's the ultimate damnation of man.  Evil comes in many forms, and definitely is more noticeable during periods of intense emotions such as prolonged warfare can inspire, but is not isolated to this one activity.

You are attacking a ghost, insulting a naive strawman who doesn't truly exist.

*By hippies, I mean the word in it's original definition, not the broadly vague term used by people mocking the conservative stereotype.
 
2013-06-20 06:57:45 AM  
good explanation of the truth vs romanticism of the war.
I was in, until the lines about how the work needs to continue
..and there was no real mention of the reason it started
-succession-

But I guess from an anti-war person who never served in the military,
 it was pretty decent
 
2013-06-20 07:02:05 AM  

Ostman: "Just say slavery"
"Slavery it is, sir!"




I ALWAYS think of that scene when a slavery discussion. Also, I used to put a lot of faith in Apu's answer, but as I've gotten older it really just boils down to those two lines...
 
2013-06-20 07:04:41 AM  

NaziKamikaze: Ostman: "Just say slavery"
"Slavery it is, sir!"

I ALWAYS think of that scene when a slavery discussion. Also, I used to put a lot of faith in Apu's answer, but as I've gotten older it really just boils down to those two lines...


Came for this and leaving satisfied.
 
2013-06-20 07:08:07 AM  
150 Years of Misunderstanding the Civil War War of Northern Aggression

fixed that for you, subby
 
2013-06-20 07:08:40 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: "The Civil War was the last good time this country ever had."

 Richard Brautigan in  "A Confederate General From  Big Sur"


The Robot Wars were the last good time this country ever had."

Zapp Branigan in "A Democratic Order of Planets General from New New York"
 
2013-06-20 07:09:07 AM  
This is not new. Anybody who reads that 700000 to 800000 died should have figured out the cost.

Its always true that wars should be avoided, but some are unavoidable.
 
2013-06-20 07:13:51 AM  
Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.
 
2013-06-20 07:15:39 AM  

NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.


The article, like many that have come before, once again only address slavery as a moral issue. It was only a moral issue to the north.

To the south, it wasn't about the morality or immorality of slavery. It was about money, pure and simple. Their entire economy was based around having labor that wasn't paid with anything more than a leaky roof and just enough food to stay alive. Taking away slavery, purely from an economic standpoint, would force all those plantation owners to suddenly start paying their help... resulting in a major economic shift.
 
2013-06-20 07:16:46 AM  
natas6.0
..and there was no real mention of the reason it started
-succession-


Did the King of America die without leaving an heir?
Now that really IS news to me.
 
2013-06-20 07:17:13 AM  
That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?
 
2013-06-20 07:18:20 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.

There are two Lincoln's: the private and the politician. The Private Lincoln abhorred slavery-and practiced equality. Booker T Washington, who was not a fan of Lincoln's policies, said that the President treated him like a normal person, not a curiosity.

The Political Lincoln stated that Slavery was constitutionally protected in the south...he was against expanding it into the west. He also made public statements saying that he did not believe that black and whites were equal... But they should be treated the same under law. (Nor did he say one race was better than the other.) The reason Lincoln took this stand, was to appeal to be the middle road between the Abolitionist and the traditionalist. It's how he got the GOP nomination.

The ultimate truth was That the Civil War was unavoidable. And Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union.


I have a really, really hard time labeling any war as unavoidable.  One of the core courses of my undergrad major (and I can't remember the official title) was "Why Nations Declare War...and Peace", taught two doors down the hall from Dr. Brundage's office.  The driving force behind a state initiating a conflict is the mis-perception of relative abilities to conduct war; aggressor nations always believe they are stronger relative to their target than they really are.  But a second tenet of the course was that war is never inevitable; this serves to counteract an ill-conceived notion that emerged in the 1920s and again in the 1950s that the First World War was somehow "going to happen, it was a matter of time, what with all the military spending" (which was muddying cause and effect).

I believe that the American Civil War occurred when it did because the insurrectionists believed they could successfully defend their territory against an invasion from the north, but as Sherman pointed out in Louisiana in 1861:

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth - right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

Sectional conflict in the U.S. was highly likely, but I don't think we can label it as inevitable.  Many of the same conditions regarding the balance of power existed in the Caribbean in 1961, but a war over missiles in Cuba turned out to not be inevitable.
 
2013-06-20 07:18:55 AM  

NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.


One could argue that slavery was a terrible price paid for great change. With a nation being built, revolutionary things happening yearly, and America slowly rising to the top, could it all have been done without that labor force?
Today we realize slavery is abhorrent, but at the time was it needed to become who we are today and reach that realization? Would we have had G.W. Carver or MLK jr without slavery? Would Ms. Tubman have been able to be a beacon of selflessness, determination, and ingenuity to future generations without slavery to fight against?
 
2013-06-20 07:20:13 AM  

Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?


The article quotes mostly professors from Southern universities. What conclusion on that matter do you think they draw? They also claim that the civil rights struggle is over and the South is no longer a stagnant backwater.
 
2013-06-20 07:21:29 AM  

clkeagle: NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.

The article, like many that have come before, once again only address slavery as a moral issue. It was only a moral issue to the north.

To the south, it wasn't about the morality or immorality of slavery. It was about money, pure and simple. Their entire economy was based around having labor that wasn't paid with anything more than a leaky roof and just enough food to stay alive. Taking away slavery, purely from an economic standpoint, would force all those plantation owners to suddenly start paying their help... resulting in a major economic shift.


You make it sound like the North wasn't benefiting from the South's economic boons...
 
2013-06-20 07:22:08 AM  

StaleCoffee: Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.


It's a plague of popular history.  Even Ken Burns glossed over the horrors of mid-19th century conflict a little.  But if you REALLY want to see gross romanticization in action, go to a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (or find your nearest cluster of Unreconstructed white men who vote libertarian).
 
2013-06-20 07:25:53 AM  
UNC_Samurai:

Interesting, I never truly thought on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the subject of successfully prevented wars.  It's slightly strange to think how much things would have changed with a tiny difference.  That is true, but I would hasten to add that as long as the war stayed conventional, the Soviets would have been in a very poor tactical situation in Cuba.  Unless they were willing to open a European front, they would have lost Cuba with a quickness.  Not taking into account a protracted guerilla war which would have seriously sapped American power for a long time, of course.

Definitely an interesting scenario, I'm going to think more on it.
 
2013-06-20 07:26:34 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.

There are two Lincoln's: the private and the politician. The Private Lincoln abhorred slavery-and practiced equality. Booker T Washington, who was not a fan of Lincoln's policies, said that the President treated him like a normal person, not a curiosity.

The Political Lincoln stated that Slavery was constitutionally protected in the south...he was against expanding it into the west. He also made public statements saying that he did not believe that black and whites were equal... But they should be treated the same under law. (Nor did he say one race was better than the other.) The reason Lincoln took this stand, was to appeal to be the middle road between the Abolitionist and the traditionalist. It's how he got the GOP nomination.

The ultimate truth was That the Civil War was unavoidable. And Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union.


Exactly.


""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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." http://www.angelfire.com/my/abrahamlincoln/Greeley.html">(Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862) "
 
2013-06-20 07:28:35 AM  

wildcardjack: The "civil" war was a power push between the Rothschilds and the Illuminati to control the economic productivity of the new world.

Oddly enough, we're not sure what the sides were.



When coins were withdrawn from circulation in the northern states during the Civil War, opportunists began minting private pennies that became de facto legal tender throughout the Union. The coinage of a few cents may seem like small change, but in 1863 alone, almost 9,000 different token designs, depicting everything from patriotic flags to beer barrels, were struck. Some so closely resembled that the government banned private mints in 1864.
 
2013-06-20 07:29:25 AM  
ask any southerner whose family has been here since before the recent unpleasantness, and they will tell you to a man the war was over "states rights" of course, one of those rights happened to be the enslavement of the black race.
 
2013-06-20 07:29:35 AM  

ChaosStar: Would we have had G.W. Carver or MLK jr without slavery? Would Ms. Tubman have been able to be a beacon of selflessness, determination, and ingenuity to future generations without slavery to fight against?


Without the Nazis, Audie Murphy wouldn't have had a chance to become such a decorated war hero.  I still would have preferred to not have the Nazis instead.
 
2013-06-20 07:30:39 AM  
The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery.
 
2013-06-20 07:31:08 AM  
log_jammin:
2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.
.


img.fark.net
ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha  ha ha ha ha ... He doesn't like darkies.
Who does? ha ha ha ha
 
2013-06-20 07:33:59 AM  

kradio: The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery.


No matter how generally inaccurate that may be.
 
2013-06-20 07:34:09 AM  
Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.
 
2013-06-20 07:34:37 AM  

kradio: The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery.


To be completely impartial and acknowledge the views of both sides, namely:

bigbobowski: ask any southerner whose family has been here since before the recent unpleasantness, and they will tell you to a man the war was over "states rights" of course, one of those rights happened to be the enslavement of the black race.


Let me fix your statement to say
 The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery their freedom from federal authority.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-06-20 07:34:38 AM  
FTFA:"In early July, on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, pilgrims..."
 
FAIL.

Everyone knows the Pilgrims fought the East Koreans at the Alamo.
 
2013-06-20 07:35:15 AM  

CheatCommando: Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?

The article quotes mostly professors from Southern universities. What conclusion on that matter do you think they draw? They also claim that the civil rights struggle is over and the South is no longer a stagnant backwater.


The same one I hear from my friend's relatives in oklaholma, that everything would have been just fine since john deere would have came along and freed everyone anyways without blood shed from that damn north. Yeah it's truthiness they keep repeating it and they believe it wholeheartedly but if they catch their daughter with Jamal and its right back to the 1850's.

Mostly trying to get someone to bite and flip out about what I wrote, since that usually gets a southerner's temper flared up.
 
2013-06-20 07:36:03 AM  

StaleCoffee


Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.


As with any war, the "noble cause" and the day-to-day horrors were abstracted from each other.

In the case of the Civil War, you have long rifles firing lead bullets that in some cases were close to an inch in diameter. Such projectiles will make a mess of most humans (even at comparatively low velocity) regardless of motivation. Remember too that battlefield medical treatment could be just as brutal and bloody: there is a reason the doctor's nickname was "sawbones".
 
2013-06-20 07:36:37 AM  

Sandwyrm: UNC_Samurai:

Interesting, I never truly thought on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the subject of successfully prevented wars.  It's slightly strange to think how much things would have changed with a tiny difference.  That is true, but I would hasten to add that as long as the war stayed conventional, the Soviets would have been in a very poor tactical situation in Cuba.  Unless they were willing to open a European front, they would have lost Cuba with a quickness.  Not taking into account a protracted guerilla war which would have seriously sapped American power for a long time, of course.

Definitely an interesting scenario, I'm going to think more on it.


When Kennedy was in a briefing session with XCom, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Maxwell Taylor (the man who commanded the 101st Airborne for much of the war in Northwest Europe) advocated a military response and an invasion of Cuba.

/yet, Taylor was incredibly unhappy with the assassination of Diem a year later
//hawks aren't necessarily snakes
 
2013-06-20 07:37:12 AM  

kradio: The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery.


I disagree... I think it needs to be looked at from a 23.82155423 degree angle.
 
2013-06-20 07:38:17 AM  

UNC_Samurai: StaleCoffee: Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.

It's a plague of popular history.  Even Ken Burns glossed over the horrors of mid-19th century conflict a little.  But if you REALLY want to see gross romanticization in action, go to a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (or find your nearest cluster of Unreconstructed white men who vote libertarian).


Do people really take that seriously? I always looked at them the same way I look at SCA folks and other LARPers. I give the tabletop wargamers more credit since they need to understand casualty rates to actually win a game.

I'm not saying that stuff doesn't happen, I just.. like I said, I figured it was along the lines of romanticizing the medieval era. That at some level most people understood the guy in his shining armor on a pretty horse was the hollywooded equivalent of a brutish grunt covered in entrails and shiat who was only going to live past the age of 30 because he was lucky enough to be born into nobility and have enough to eat, and for that entire period of time the infant mortality rate was 2 out of 3 and people ate and shat out in fields because it stank indoors.

Okay. Maybe I assume people are generally smarter than they are.
 
2013-06-20 07:40:23 AM  

log_jammin: 1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.


That is the typical SCV line down here. No amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise. Meanwhile, my home town has to contend with renaming a park that commemorates a Confederate cavalry general; a very thorny issue with some, not so much for the majority. More wagging, less barking please.....we need to move on, history be damned.
 
2013-06-20 07:42:14 AM  

thamike: For those of you braindead enough to find the the story of the Civil War an "uplifting" one, this article's for you.


I was reading it thinking "now who the hell would think this was noble?" and then I realized that there are people who still do and they teach that in school.
 
2013-06-20 07:42:36 AM  

way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.


As much as we'd like to believe it, no one has ever started a war based purely on how injustly they feel someone else has been treated (Trojan War doesn't count).  Slavery was certainly important, but as stated more succinctly here :

vossiewulf: ...slavery was the one subject without which compromise could have been achieved.

it was the one issue that was guaranteed to cause disagreement between the sides.  Luckily (for those who wanted the war in the Union side) it was also easy to frame as THE moral issue.  All things considered, it was merely a means to an end, namely the Federal government asserting it's authority over seceeding territory.
 
2013-06-20 07:43:35 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.


As with any war, the "noble cause" and the day-to-day horrors were abstracted from each other.

In the case of the Civil War, you have long rifles firing lead bullets that in some cases were close to an inch in diameter. Such projectiles will make a mess of most humans (even at comparatively low velocity) regardless of motivation. Remember too that battlefield medical treatment could be just as brutal and bloody: there is a reason the doctor's nickname was "sawbones".


I'm pretty sure that surgeons and doctors were still differentiated at that point but yes, I'm aware. When I was back in high school in the early 90's I remember one of the things our history teacher at the time described was an account of a cannonball just rolling lazily across a field and an "idiot soldier" putting out a foot to stop it like it was a ball, and subsequently losing a leg.
 
2013-06-20 07:44:06 AM  
voice of DOOM!
-succession-
Did the King of America die without leaving an heir?
Now that really IS news to me

I see what you did there, and I approve
 
2013-06-20 07:44:54 AM  

way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.


You are correct to not buy that line.

In Savannah on March 21, 1861 Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens delivered the Cornerstone Speech, a speech intended to do two things.  It told the southern public how the Confederate Constitution differed from its U.S. counterpart, and Stephens hoped it would stoke secessionist attitudes in states which had not yet broken away.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

From the Georgia Declaration of Secession:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.
And in case anyone didn't get the message, the Declaration ends with this:

But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.


From the Mississippi Declaration of Secession:

In the momentous step which our State 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.

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.



From the South Carolina declaration:

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.


The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.


Texas might have been the most blunt:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

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.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.


The full text of these declarations
 
2013-06-20 07:45:57 AM  

StaleCoffee: Do people really take that seriously? I always looked at them the same way I look at SCA folks and other LARPers. I give the tabletop wargamers more credit since they need to understand casualty rates to actually win a game.


Hey now, there are several shades of SCA. There are the folks who take it waaaaayyyyy too seriously,

I just enjoy the multi-person rapier melees in the woods (you'd be surprised at how much tactics and good coordination can effect even simple 20-man rapier melees, even without ranged weapons. Its kind of neat). I'm not sure it's so much romanticism as enjoying melee combat and combat archery. The middle ages sucked.
 
2013-06-20 07:46:26 AM  

way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.


Slavery was a festering question since the founding of the country.  Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person not because of their race but because the free states knew that counting them as whole persons (even though they couldn't vote) would give slave states disproportionate representation in the House.  The compromise gave free states (mostly northern and smaller than the southern states) enough power in the House to mitigate the influence of the larger slave states.

Slavery is a demonstrably failed economic model.  Perhaps we could have eliminated slavery without the Civil War.  But war highlighted the failure of the slavery model more spectacularly than any amount of learned discourse or diplomacy - especially when dealing with several generations of slave owners.
 
2013-06-20 07:46:28 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Sandwyrm: UNC_Samurai:

Interesting, I never truly thought on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the subject of successfully prevented wars.  It's slightly strange to think how much things would have changed with a tiny difference.  That is true, but I would hasten to add that as long as the war stayed conventional, the Soviets would have been in a very poor tactical situation in Cuba.  Unless they were willing to open a European front, they would have lost Cuba with a quickness.  Not taking into account a protracted guerilla war which would have seriously sapped American power for a long time, of course.

Definitely an interesting scenario, I'm going to think more on it.

When Kennedy was in a briefing session with XCom, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Maxwell Taylor (the man who commanded the 101st Airborne for much of the war in Northwest Europe) advocated a military response and an invasion of Cuba.

/yet, Taylor was incredibly unhappy with the assassination of Diem a year later
//hawks aren't necessarily snakes


"Hello Commander. In response to the Alien threat, this council of Nations has chosen to activate the XCOM project."
 
2013-06-20 07:48:12 AM  

Mr. Right: way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.

Slavery was a festering question since the founding of the country.  Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person not because of their race but because the free states knew that counting them as whole persons (even though they couldn't vote) would give slave states disproportionate representation in the House.  The compromise gave free states (mostly northern and smaller than the southern states) enough power in the House to mitigate the influence of the larger slave states.

Slavery is a demonstrably failed economic model.  Perhaps we could have eliminated slavery without the Civil War.  But war highlighted the failure of the slavery model more spectacularly than any amount of learned discourse or diplomacy - especially when dealing with several generations of slave owners.


Last time I made that argument in a Fark thread I was labeled a troll and a liar, but got a TF sponsorship. Fark is weird.
 
2013-06-20 07:48:39 AM  

UNC_Samurai: (documents detailing slavery to be THE central issue) ...


Hmm... I guess I was mistaken, then.
 
2013-06-20 07:48:59 AM  

StaleCoffee: UNC_Samurai: StaleCoffee: Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.

It's a plague of popular history.  Even Ken Burns glossed over the horrors of mid-19th century conflict a little.  But if you REALLY want to see gross romanticization in action, go to a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (or find your nearest cluster of Unreconstructed white men who vote libertarian).

Do people really take that seriously? I always looked at them the same way I look at SCA folks and other LARPers. I give the tabletop wargamers more credit since they need to understand casualty rates to actually win a game.

I'm not saying that stuff doesn't happen, I just.. like I said, I figured it was along the lines of romanticizing the medieval era. That at some level most people understood the guy in his shining armor on a pretty horse was the hollywooded equivalent of a brutish grunt covered in entrails and shiat who was only going to live past the age of 30 because he was lucky enough to be born into nobility and have enough to eat, and for that entire period of time the infant mortality rate was 2 out of 3 and people ate and shat out in fields because it stank indoors.

Okay. Maybe I assume people are generally smarter than they are.


scumshine: log_jammin: 1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.

That is the typical SCV line down here. No amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise. Meanwhile, my home town has to contend with renaming a park that commemorates a Confederate cavalry general; a very thorny issue with some, not so much for the majority. More wagging, less barking please.....we need to move on, history be damned.


Yep, gotta agree with scumshine, you'd be surprised at what The Lost Cause mentality has done for cognitive dissonance down here (although in my personal biased opinion, the reenactors are far more level-headed than the Rotary Club-level historians).


You almost wonder if Shaara and Maxwell wrote this line for ACW enthusiasts as much as for Lee to say to Longstreet:

We are never quite prepared for so many to die. Oh, we do expect the occasional empty chair. A salute to fallen comrades. But this war goes on and on and the men die and the price gets ever higher. We are prepared to lose some of us, but we are never prepared to lose all of us.
 
2013-06-20 07:50:02 AM  
I was born in the south, but grew up in Maryland (yes, yes, technically still the south). It was an amusing contrast in cognitive dissonance.

At this time in my life though, I'm not sure I could say I know anyone who doesn't understand the point of the war. Regardless of how textbooks and teachers portray it, Obama used his time machine to go into the past, assassinate Lincoln, dress himself up in a Lincoln costume, declare civil war, and then later on pay Lee Harvey Oswald millions of dollars to go back in time as well, dress up as John Wilkes Booth, and shoot the Lincoln costume in the head while Obama snuck back into the future to sleep with more white women.


/Don't even get me started on how Obama assassinated a young, business-minded, deregulation-focused Stalin and played him off as the power-mad communist we know today.
//Obama also killed Jesus
///And Jerry Falwell
 
2013-06-20 07:53:18 AM  

Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?


Do you think of the revolutionary war as the war of American treason?
 
2013-06-20 07:54:11 AM  

ph0rk: Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?

Do you think of the revolutionary war as the war of American treason?


Treason is such a relative term.

/hello NSA
 
2013-06-20 07:54:56 AM  

Felgraf: StaleCoffee: Do people really take that seriously? I always looked at them the same way I look at SCA folks and other LARPers. I give the tabletop wargamers more credit since they need to understand casualty rates to actually win a game.

Hey now, there are several shades of SCA. There are the folks who take it waaaaayyyyy too seriously,

I just enjoy the multi-person rapier melees in the woods (you'd be surprised at how much tactics and good coordination can effect even simple 20-man rapier melees, even without ranged weapons. Its kind of neat). I'm not sure it's so much romanticism as enjoying melee combat and combat archery. The middle ages sucked.


That sounds cool but even that sounds more like "I think this would be neat" instead of "This is historically accurate to some degree" since what I recall of rapiers they were a late period sword that came with the end of the middle ages.

It's not that people don't take it seriously, it's that their seriousness is in the same category as the rotund, grizzled elderman in the Comic/Hobby shop who glares at anyone who isn't a regular and yells at his ancient mother working the cash register. He'll be happy to rant about why Games Workshop is the devil and how tabletop gaming is a legitimate qualification for OCS. The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.
 
2013-06-20 07:55:36 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.


The Emancipation Proclamation did not unilaterally end slavery and free slaves. It only proclaimed slaves free in states not under Union control.

The hope of the Proclamation was that freed Southern slaves would rise up and help the Union win the Civil War by attacking the South from within.

Lincoln also supported recolonization of the inferior race (his words) to Liberia.

Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union. Slavery was a convenience (or an inconvenience).

Citations? Everywhere.

/ lawdy lawdy Lincoln done freed me!
// no, not really
/// silly "revisionists"
/V slavery is not ok
 
2013-06-20 07:56:12 AM  

StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.


Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.
 
2013-06-20 07:57:37 AM  

teto85: Fail. Nothing about the election of 1876 wherein Tilden let Hayes win with the promise that Reconstruction would end and the federal government would look the other way when the states do not enforce the 14th and 15th amendments.  The South was allowed to win the Civil War from the point of view of continued economic slavery and second class citizenship of African-Americans even up into this very day.  Political expediency. Get the Presidency and let the country be damned.


The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.
 
2013-06-20 07:57:59 AM  

ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.


Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.
 
2013-06-20 07:58:30 AM  

teto85: Fail. Nothing about the election of 1876 wherein Tilden let Hayes win with the promise that Reconstruction would end and the federal government would look the other way when the states do not enforce the 14th and 15th amendments.  The North and South was allowed to win both won the Civil War from the point of view of continued economic slavery and second class citizenship of African-Americans even up into this very day.  Political expediency. Get the Presidency and let the country be damned.



There, fixed that for you.
 
2013-06-20 07:59:34 AM  
DamnYankees:

The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.

Can you explain this, please?
 
2013-06-20 08:01:08 AM  

DamnYankees: The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.


Given what transpired during the reconstruction, I can't believe they simply quit the field. They were actively screwing the remnants of the South on all fronts. (While the Southerners were trying to come up with new ways to politically manipulate the old racial order).

It just wasn't/isn't as important to people outside the South, so those Northern voices aren't as loud. In many places here, it is still very, very important.

All that said: Zinn
 
2013-06-20 08:01:08 AM  

hb0mb: Neither side cared about black people.


I disagree, the south cared quiet a bit about black people. They cared about continuing to own them.
 
2013-06-20 08:02:17 AM  

ur14me: TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not unilaterally end slavery and free slaves. It only proclaimed slaves free in states not under Union control.

The hope of the Proclamation was that freed Southern slaves would rise up and help the Union win the Civil War by attacking the South from within.

Lincoln also supported recolonization of the inferior race (his words) to Liberia.

Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union. Slavery was a convenience (or an inconvenience).

Citations? Everywhere.

/ lawdy lawdy Lincoln done freed me!
// no, not really
/// silly "revisionists"
/V slavery is not ok


Those were war powers and freed slaves in non-border states and non-union states but did not make slavery illegal. Those items were not within the scope of powers granted to Lincoln in wartime.
 
2013-06-20 08:03:06 AM  

StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.

Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.


You were discussing social rules, structure, and values. You don't think those things are as simple, predictable, or as deterministic as physics, do you?

If so, you're the one with the relatively unshared hallucination.
 
2013-06-20 08:04:13 AM  

ph0rk: StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.

Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.

You were discussing social rules, structure, and values. You don't think those things are as simple, predictable, or as deterministic as physics, do you?

If so, you're the one with the relatively unshared hallucination.


You used the words hallucination and reality. If you want to over simplify an idea you get an oversimplified response.
 
2013-06-20 08:04:23 AM  
It was ultimately fought over the right of a state to volunteraly leave the Union. Unfortunately the issue that caused states to want to leave was slavery wich is like the most dick thing you could be hell bent to save.
 
2013-06-20 08:04:35 AM  

Sandwyrm: DamnYankees:

The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.

Can you explain this, please?


I'll see if I can find a good link explaining it, but basically the story is that the South had a massive vested interested in telling a story and creating a history in which they were the good guys, and the North really didn't care about doing that very much. Partially because the North was also full of racists so they had no desire to characterize themselves as black saviors, and partially because having won the war, the North just didn't really feel the need to 'vindicate' themselves in the same way. Over the course of 50 years between 1870 and 1920 or so, that just of let to the Lost Cause myth becoming pervasive, since Southern writers were pushing it hard and there wasn't much pushback from the other side. By the time there was a lot of pushback, all the main players were dead and it just became the "he said she said" dispute we have today.
 
2013-06-20 08:04:48 AM  

StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.

Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.

You were discussing social rules, structure, and values. You don't think those things are as simple, predictable, or as deterministic as physics, do you?

If so, you're the one with the relatively unshared hallucination.

You used the words hallucination and reality. If you want to over simplify an idea you get an oversimplified response.


Correction: hallucination in response to reality.
 
2013-06-20 08:04:55 AM  

ur14me: Lincoln also supported recolonization of the inferior race (his words) to Liberia.


Lincoln, like Henry Clay, used the rhetoric of colonization as a means of political expediency.  It was a way to find compromise to blunt any potential spread of slavery into the western territories.  He may have believed in the concept at one time, but there's been enough research on Lincoln to know he was pretty shrewd when it came to those things.
 
2013-06-20 08:06:59 AM  
hiker9999:
""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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." http://www.angelfire.com/my/abrahamlincoln/Greeley.html">(Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862) "

I'm not sure what exact point you're trying to make by quoting this. This was a public utterance made AFTER he had already decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. It is the clear attempt by a politician to prepare the public for what was coming. By this time Lincoln had decided (as had most Republicans) that slavery had to go. He was just trying to figure out how to do it legally, particularly in the border states where he could not abolish it as a war aim.

One of the biggest problems with linconology is that people forget the man was a politician and that his public utterances (which is most of what remains for him) cannot be taken as accurate portrayals of either his "real" opinion (which we know was always changing) or even his policy.
 
2013-06-20 08:09:49 AM  
DamnYankees:

I see, thank you.
 
2013-06-20 08:10:44 AM  
Slavery. Just say slavery.
 
2013-06-20 08:11:46 AM  

DamnYankees: Sandwyrm: DamnYankees:

The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.

Can you explain this, please?

I'll see if I can find a good link explaining it, but basically the story is that the South had a massive vested interested in telling a story and creating a history in which they were the good guys, and the North really didn't care about doing that very much. Partially because the North was also full of racists so they had no desire to characterize themselves as black saviors, and partially because having won the war, the North just didn't really feel the need to 'vindicate' themselves in the same way. Over the course of 50 years between 1870 and 1920 or so, that just of let to the Lost Cause myth becoming pervasive, since Southern writers were pushing it hard and there wasn't much pushback from the other side. By the time there was a lot of pushback, all the main players were dead and it just became the "he said she said" dispute we have today.


And they worshiped their military, leaders and soldiers, and built statues of them in defiant positions.  They never developed a "stabbed-in-the-back" mentality, however; probably some lingering success of Lincoln's "malice toward none, charity toward all" attitude.

/yes, I went there
//wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments
///guess which group's monuments did more to convey a sense of regret and loss
 
2013-06-20 08:13:13 AM  

UNC_Samurai: //wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments


I'd actually be interesting in reading that if you had it handy.
 
2013-06-20 08:13:47 AM  

StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.

Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.

You were discussing social rules, structure, and values. You don't think those things are as simple, predictable, or as deterministic as physics, do you?

If so, you're the one with the relatively unshared hallucination.

You used the words hallucination and reality. If you want to over simplify an idea you get an oversimplified response.


You are the one that used the world "reality" to describe the social. Fall back to the physical sciences to defend your point if you must, but are you claiming that the social world is analogous to the physical one in terms of rules?
 
2013-06-20 08:14:02 AM  
img.fark.net

Totally not worth it.
 
2013-06-20 08:20:06 AM  
 The United states, founded on the premise that a group of people has the moral and ethical right to break away from a government that is mistreating its people.
Then it had a civil war to add the caveat, "Except if that government is us."

I look at it as a constitutional issue. The 10th amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That means that if the constitution does not grant the power to control something to the federal government, that power is granted to the states or to its people. The constitution does not cover a state leaving the union, therefore under the 10th amendment, the right to secede from the union is the right of a state.

From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-20 08:20:55 AM  

Securitywyrm: The United states, founded on the premise that a group of people has the moral and ethical right to break away from a government that is mistreating its people.


So slave rebellions were constitutionally valid attempts at secession?
 
2013-06-20 08:21:33 AM  

UNC_Samurai: DamnYankees: Sandwyrm: DamnYankees:

The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.

Can you explain this, please?

I'll see if I can find a good link explaining it, but basically the story is that the South had a massive vested interested in telling a story and creating a history in which they were the good guys, and the North really didn't care about doing that very much. Partially because the North was also full of racists so they had no desire to characterize themselves as black saviors, and partially because having won the war, the North just didn't really feel the need to 'vindicate' themselves in the same way. Over the course of 50 years between 1870 and 1920 or so, that just of let to the Lost Cause myth becoming pervasive, since Southern writers were pushing it hard and there wasn't much pushback from the other side. By the time there was a lot of pushback, all the main players were dead and it just became the "he said she said" dispute we have today.

And they worshiped their military, leaders and soldiers, and built statues of them in defiant positions.  They never developed a "stabbed-in-the-back" mentality, however; probably some lingering success of Lincoln's "malice toward none, charity toward all" attitude.

/yes, I went there
//wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments
///guess which group's monuments did more to convey a sense of regret and loss


After WWII, many of the stories and newspaper articles centered around common people feeling betrayed about the real reasons for the war. Even the U.S. had a generally favorable public opinion toward what the Germans were doing prior to the Japanese attacking us. There were no illusions for the South. They knew what they were doing, for what reasons they supported the activity, and what they would lose if they could not accomplish their ends. There really is no regret comparison between the two that is worthwhile.
 
2013-06-20 08:21:51 AM  
As with most wars, the Civil War was ultimately about power, money, and territory. It isn't incorrect that slavery was a key factor in the Civil War, but the understanding of why slavery was such an issue is often totally left behind.

Yes, a whole lot of white people truly believed they were the superior race to black people. But more importantly than that, they knew that slaves were their livelihood (and by they, I mean predominantly rich white guys; poor white guys really couldn't afford to keep slaves). Industry in the south was kept booming by slave workers and the north was frankly very nervous about the amount of power and influence commanded by the south's product. Is it such a shocking departure from reality that corporate interest was such a divisive issue that a country was willing to go to war over it?

Whether there were some who supported the moral crusade to end slavery during the Civil War or not is not in question: there were plenty of sympathizers who genuinely wanted to end America's slave institution. But there were a great deal more politicians who simply wanted the south to be subject to more federal rule and for their growing influence to be quashed by nature of economic neutering.

The Civil War did result in an untold amount of death and suffering, and it did fail on many levels to alleviate the blight of the slavery institution, but it just goes to demonstrate that...

/war...
//war never changes
 
2013-06-20 08:22:06 AM  
Iverson reported. "This ain't practice, man.  This is the game.  This is the game where I go out there and die, man.  This ain't practice.  This ain't practice, man.  We aint' talking bout practice."
 
2013-06-20 08:22:19 AM  

Securitywyrm: I look at it as a constitutional issue.


Then you're an idiot.
 
2013-06-20 08:24:20 AM  
"We've decided the Civil War is a 'good war' because it destroyed slavery," says Fitzhugh Brundage, a historian at the University of North Carolina. "I think it's an indictment of 19th century Americans that they had to slaughter each other to do that."

The only reason we had to slaughter each other is because the South couldn't learn to f*cking deal with the fact that sometimes politics doesn't go your way and they became traitors who should have all been hanged.
 
2013-06-20 08:26:09 AM  
Anyone saying the war was started with the intent to end slavery is kidding themselves.  If the Union was so upset over slavery, why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation apply to slaves owned in northern states?

However, I'm going to roll my eyes just as hard at anyone saying the south didn't love them some slavery.  It was the economic engine that made many of them obscenely wealthy.  Of course they would have a hissy fit over it being threatened.

The Civil War wasn't a war of good American vs evil Americans.  It was a war of young Americans being ordered to fight by stupid Americans.
 
2013-06-20 08:26:21 AM  

Kome: "We've decided the Civil War is a 'good war' because it destroyed slavery," says Fitzhugh Brundage, a historian at the University of North Carolina. "I think it's an indictment of 19th century Americans that they had to slaughter each other to do that."

The only reason we had to slaughter each other is because the South couldn't learn to f*cking deal with the fact that sometimes politics doesn't go your way and they became traitors who should have all been hanged.


That's an amazing quote in its myopia and racial view of the world. It's an indictment of 19th century Americans that they fought a war to end slavery? How about no - its an indictment of 17th through 19th century Americans that they fought a war ON THE SLAVES to keep them enslaved.
 
2013-06-20 08:26:25 AM  

UNC_Samurai: way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.


Thanks. I am usually the one who is forced to post the Cornerstone Speech to remind folks of what the damn racists were fighting for. Sure, the morals of the Union side were not pure.

PonceAlyosha: Securitywyrm: The United states, founded on the premise that a group of people has the moral and ethical right to break away from a government that is mistreating its people.

So slave rebellions were constitutionally valid attempts at secession?


He'd probably weasel out of that one by claiming the Constitution didn't see them as persons, so it did not apply. Thus proving the point that the whole thing was motivated by nothing more than base racism, and everything else is a revisionist attempt at window dressing.

And Security, your side made that argument in 1861 - you  lost. Get the hell over it. There is no right to secession, and the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
 
2013-06-20 08:27:08 AM  

ur14me: TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not unilaterally end slavery and free slaves. It only proclaimed slaves free in states not under Union control.

The hope of the Proclamation was that freed Southern slaves would rise up and help the Union win the Civil War by attacking the South from within.

Lincoln also supported recolonization of the inferior race (his words) to Liberia.

Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union. Slavery was a convenience (or an inconvenience).

Citations? Everywhere.

/ lawdy lawdy Lincoln done freed me!
// no, not really
/// silly "revisionists"
/V slavery is not ok


The Emancipation Proclamation was also a tool of diplomacy.  Britain and France (through Mexico) were threatening to intervene on the South's behalf.  They both believed that the best future for North America was a British controlled Canada, two United Stateses and a French controlled Mexico.  But they had also both already banned slavery and they couldn't support the pro-slavery side in a war over slavery.  Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation it could be argued that the Civil War wasn't a war over slavery, but after that came, there was no way for the British or French to justify intervention.  It's also why Lincoln waited so long.  He had the Proclamation in his pocket for several months, but he needed a military victory before releasing it so that it didn't come off as desperate.  Antietam was that "victory."
 
2013-06-20 08:27:26 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Yep, gotta agree with scumshine, you'd be surprised at what The Lost Cause mentality has done for cognitive dissonance down here (although in my personal biased opinion, the reenactors are far more level-headed than the Rotary Club-level historians).


You almost wonder if Shaara and Maxwell wrote this line for ACW enthusiasts as much as for Lee to say to Longstreet:

We are never quite prepared for so many to die. Oh, we do expect the occasional empty chair. A salute to fallen comrades. But this war goes on and on and the men die and the price gets ever higher. We are prepared to lose some of us, but we are never prepared to lose all of us.


Up to a point. One of the reasons I left reenacting years back was that my unit began to attract SCV's who were willing to spend the money to at least look authentic, but casting off the farb clothing meant nothing in regards to their mutual opinions concerning the war. Where we used to sit fireside in camp and discuss the ACW, they seemed to prefer discussing the ACW as it related to the modern South, usually couched in those polite codes...you know what I'm talking about. IOW, it went from history to politics.

I always admired Longstreet, his book From Manasas to Appomattox, demolished the myth of the Lost Cause. Gordon and the rest spent years vilifying him while promoting the politics of Lost Cause.
 
2013-06-20 08:27:39 AM  

ph0rk: StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.

Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.

You were discussing social rules, structure, and values. You don't think those things are as simple, predictable, or as deterministic as physics, do you?

If so, you're the one with the relatively unshared hallucination.

You used the words hallucination and reality. If you want to over simplify an idea you get an oversimplified response.

You are the one that used the world "reality" to describe the social. Fall back to the physical sciences to defend your point if you must, but are you claiming that the social world is analogous to the physical one in terms of rules?


Considering that it still exists in an extant and collaborative reality, yes.

Do you think that a few months of 40k qualifies you as a field commander for the various armed forces?

A hallucination exists independently of extant reality. In fact, a hallucination is specifically a perceptual error. If you want to work that point explain, if you would rather operate from the idea that we do not share the same perception of reality as I assumed you meant, rather than your misuse of the word hallucination, we can do that but what I said still applies.
 
2013-06-20 08:28:06 AM  

DamnYankees: Securitywyrm: I look at it as a constitutional issue.

Then you're an idiot.


Can't be so quick to dismiss his argument, it does have merit.  Until I can prove why the war was legal in context with the most revered legal document in this country, I can never truly deconstruct the justifications of the people who remain convinced the South was in the right.

Also, damn him for making a similar name.
 
2013-06-20 08:28:16 AM  
You mean the War of Northern Aggression.
 
2013-06-20 08:29:07 AM  

Kyro: Anyone saying the war was started with the intent to end slavery is kidding themselves.  If the Union was so upset over slavery, why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation apply to slaves owned in northern states?

However, I'm going to roll my eyes just as hard at anyone saying the south didn't love them some slavery.  It was the economic engine that made many of them obscenely wealthy.  Of course they would have a hissy fit over it being threatened.

The Civil War wasn't a war of good American vs evil Americans.  It was a war of young Americans being ordered to fight by stupid Americans.


Um because Lincoln correctly divined that under the Constitution the President had no power other than his office of commander in chief by which he could unilaterally free the slaves, and that that power only applied to areas under military government, not duly elected ones? You know, the answer that is in every farking history book that you apparently have never read because you are worried you might learn something?
 
2013-06-20 08:29:17 AM  
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars
 
2013-06-20 08:29:19 AM  

Securitywyrm: The United states, founded on the premise that a group of people has the moral and ethical right to break away from a government that is mistreating its people.
Then it had a civil war to add the caveat, "Except if that government is us."

I look at it as a constitutional issue. The 10th amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That means that if the constitution does not grant the power to control something to the federal government, that power is granted to the states or to its people. The constitution does not cover a state leaving the union, therefore under the 10th amendment, the right to secede from the union is the right of a state.

From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional.


Rubbish:

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections
 
2013-06-20 08:29:30 AM  

DamnYankees: Sandwyrm: DamnYankees:

The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.

Can you explain this, please?

I'll see if I can find a good link explaining it, but basically the story is that the South had a massive vested interested in telling a story and creating a history in which they were the good guys, and the North really didn't care about doing that very much. Partially because the North was also full of racists so they had no desire to characterize themselves as black saviors, and partially because having won the war, the North just didn't really feel the need to 'vindicate' themselves in the same way. Over the course of 50 years between 1870 and 1920 or so, that just of let to the Lost Cause myth becoming pervasive, since Southern writers were pushing it hard and there wasn't much pushback from the other side. By the time there was a lot of pushback, all the main players were dead and it just became the "he said she said" dispute we have today.


See: D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation."  Hollywood was a big part of the construction of the Lost Cause mythology.
 
2013-06-20 08:29:31 AM  

Kyro: Anyone saying the war was started with the intent to end slavery is kidding themselves.


You ever notice how only the South is ever given this kind of deference? No one ever says "Anyone saying WWII started with the intent to end the Holocaust is kidding themselves". No one ever says that, because no one ever feels the need to tacitly defend Nazis.
 
2013-06-20 08:29:35 AM  

Securitywyrm: The United states, founded on the premise that a group of people has the moral and ethical right to break away from a government that is mistreating its people.


And for the South, telling them slavery is bad constituted "mistreatment." Which is wrong and stupid, but it's not the first time an entire region believed in something wrong and stupid strongly enough to murder anyone who questions it, and as the Nazis later proved, it wouldn't be the last time either.

/this is why the United States was not actually founded on the premise that a group of people has the moral and ethical right to break away from a government that is mistreating its people
//the founders were smart enough to base their break from King George on something mathematically testable and provable, not just "feelings" of being mistreated
///specifically, on taxation without representation
 
2013-06-20 08:30:01 AM  
INeedAName:
//Obama also killed Jesus
///And Jerry Falwell


Sweet, Falwell is finally dead.
 
2013-06-20 08:30:33 AM  

Blathering Idjut: See: D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation."  Hollywood was a big part of the construction of the Lost Cause mythology.


Ya, but that movie was closer to the end of the process than the start of it. It's a great example of it though.
 
2013-06-20 08:31:01 AM  

CheatCommando: your side made that argument in 1861 - you  lost


I always get bent out of shape by comments like this, as if the Civil War conflict is still going on.  Do you find yourself bring proudly associated with every decision made by people in your city/state/region 150 years ago?  Because I could probably find a few moronic decisions made in your neck of the woods that I would be happy to ignorantly assume you automatically agree with.
 
2013-06-20 08:32:27 AM  
A Virginian friend of mine once said "You know, if not for the north's advantage in manpower and manufacturing the south would have won!"

I asked him if he thought wars were conducted like Golden Gloves tournaments.
 
2013-06-20 08:34:44 AM  

DamnYankees: Kyro: Anyone saying the war was started with the intent to end slavery is kidding themselves.

You ever notice how only the South is ever given this kind of deference? No one ever says "Anyone saying WWII started with the intent to end the Holocaust is kidding themselves". No one ever says that, because no one ever feels the need to tacitly defend Nazis.


To be fair, WWII wasn't started with the intent to end the Holocaust.  Germany started a war of conquest, Japan did as well, before striking the US in order to keep us out of their affairs.  The allies weren't aware of the true scope of the holocaust until we already won.
 
2013-06-20 08:35:08 AM  
Sherman gave a speech warning what would happened to the South if it kept going the way it was going. And what he said would happen, did happen. I'm sure the irony that he ended up with a campaign in the South was not lost on him. The crux of his speech was "You won't win, because you can't win".
 
2013-06-20 08:35:12 AM  

DamnYankees: Kyro: Anyone saying the war was started with the intent to end slavery is kidding themselves.

You ever notice how only the South is ever given this kind of deference? No one ever says "Anyone saying WWII started with the intent to end the Holocaust is kidding themselves". No one ever says that, because no one ever feels the need to tacitly defend Nazis.


No one ever says that because most people know that WWII wasn't to end the Holocaust.
 
2013-06-20 08:37:00 AM  

Sandwyrm: To be fair, WWII wasn't started with the intent to end the Holocaust.


badhatharry: No one ever says that because most people know that WWII wasn't to end the Holocaust.


And no on in this thread or the TFA ever said that the Civil War was started to end slavery. So why was it mentioned? It's a pre-emptive straw man which is trotted out to prima facia undermine the moral cause of one side and the moral evil of another. There's no other reason to say it when no one else has proffered the argument.
 
2013-06-20 08:37:22 AM  

UNC_Samurai: DamnYankees: Sandwyrm: DamnYankees:

The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.

Can you explain this, please?

I'll see if I can find a good link explaining it, but basically the story is that the South had a massive vested interested in telling a story and creating a history in which they were the good guys, and the North really didn't care about doing that very much. Partially because the North was also full of racists so they had no desire to characterize themselves as black saviors, and partially because having won the war, the North just didn't really feel the need to 'vindicate' themselves in the same way. Over the course of 50 years between 1870 and 1920 or so, that just of let to the Lost Cause myth becoming pervasive, since Southern writers were pushing it hard and there wasn't much pushback from the other side. By the time there was a lot of pushback, all the main players were dead and it just became the "he said she said" dispute we have today.

And they worshiped their military, leaders and soldiers, and built statues of them in defiant positions.  They never developed a "stabbed-in-the-back" mentality, however; probably some lingering success of Lincoln's "malice toward none, charity toward all" attitude.

/yes, I went there
//wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments
///guess which group's monuments did more to convey a sense of regret and loss


Ever been to Vicksburg? The monuments erected there by the North are stunning. The South's are paltry in comparison. Same at Shiloh. I'm not sure why, the South lacked the money and organisational talent to have some decent monuments placed there? Too distracted by other pressing issues?
 
2013-06-20 08:38:34 AM  

Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional.


That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

The power to decide all male children are named Fred is not assigned to the federal government by the constitution either, that doesn't mean a state has the power to do so jut because it is not explicitly forbidden in that same constitution.

The naming of children by the government whether federal or state is not a power that even exists, so does not need to be prohibited or delegated.  Same with secession.
 
2013-06-20 08:39:44 AM  
the fault of "blundering" statesmen and "pious cranks," mainly abolitionists

Yes because when presented with a wavering position amongst public opinion the obvious solution is to throw up your hands and leave.....ohhh wait that was the south that did that.

moron
 
2013-06-20 08:39:47 AM  

CheatCommando: Um because Lincoln correctly divined that under the Constitution the President had no power other than his office of commander in chief by which he could unilaterally free the slaves, and that that power only applied to areas under military government, not duly elected ones? You know, the answer that is in every farking history book that you apparently have never read because you are worried you might learn something?


It's a good dodge.  But you're still beating your chest in hopes that people overlook the fact that Tennessee and Virginia were among the exemptions, and were still Union-occupied.  Why?  Because they had already won those states.

The Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with moral outrage over slavery and everything to do with winning the war.  Again, woefully few Americans were anti-slavery in those days.  19th century Americans were just dicks.
 
2013-06-20 08:39:50 AM  
It was the Civil War that freed Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben.  And don't forget about Mrs.  Butterworth.  Pancake houses would never have existed if it weren't for her.
 
2013-06-20 08:41:53 AM  

Kyro: The Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with moral outrage over slavery and everything to do with winning the war. Again, woefully few Americans were anti-slavery in those days. 19th century Americans were just dicks.


No a majority were against the idea of slavery but still held that anyone non white were still less equal
 
2013-06-20 08:43:28 AM  

ph0rk: Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?

Do you think of the revolutionary war as the war of American treason?


In a way it was the difference is that the British lost so it wasn't treason, the south lost so it is treason. It's not treason if you can get away with it because then you're a whole different country and different rules apply.
 
2013-06-20 08:43:33 AM  

DamnYankees: How about no - its an indictment of 17th through 19th century Americans that they fought a war ON THE SLAVES to keep them enslaved.

Your wording and the quote you seem to take issue with are saying the same exact thing.
 
2013-06-20 08:45:03 AM  

manimal2878: Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

The power to decide all male children are named Fred is not assigned to the federal government by the constitution either, that doesn't mean a state has the power to do so jut because it is not explicitly forbidden in that same constitution.

The naming of children by the government whether federal or state is not a power that even exists, so does not need to be prohibited or delegated.  Same with secession.


Before the war, they were testing the idea of states being able to "opt out" of the union or to reconsider what powers the states really had to disagree or limit the powers involved, so there were constitutional questions involved. However, definitely not in the way that post suggested,
 
2013-06-20 08:48:13 AM  

ph0rk: Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?

Do you think of the revolutionary war as the war of American treason?


Winners get to  write the books.
 
2013-06-20 08:49:55 AM  

MNguy: ph0rk: Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?

Do you think of the revolutionary war as the war of American treason?

Winners get to  write the books.


True.  Anyone that's read a non-romanticised version of the American revolution can easily see that was hardly a heroic war itself.

/spoiler alert: Pretty much all the founding fathers were dicks
 
2013-06-20 08:51:07 AM  

Kyro: If the Union was so upset over slavery, why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation apply to slaves owned in northern states?


Because there were already laws in place that gradually emancipated those slaves. For example, the last slaves were in the United States were in New Jersey.
 
2013-06-20 08:51:50 AM  
Only very rich people had slaves. Most of the people fighting and dying for the South weren't doing it for slavery.

There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.
 
2013-06-20 08:52:31 AM  
If crafters of the constitution had not included Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, the civil war may never have happened and we would be two nations under God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
 
2013-06-20 08:53:44 AM  

Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional


Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on such a legal question. They ruled that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White - after the war. They ruled afterwards, because the so-called "Confederacy" took to the sword first, rather than attempt to resolve the question by the legal mechanisms afforded to them.

One can of course make the argument that Texas v. White is illegitimate, as Southern apologists often do. At that point though, you're abandoning all pretense of legal justification. In which case: the South lost, get over it.
 
2013-06-20 08:54:39 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Securitywyrm: The United states, founded on the premise that a group of people has the moral and ethical right to break away from a government that is mistreating its people.

And for the South, telling them slavery is bad constituted "mistreatment." Which is wrong and stupid, but it's not the first time an entire region believed in something wrong and stupid strongly enough to murder anyone who questions it, and as the Nazis later proved, it wouldn't be the last time either.

/this is why the United States was not actually founded on the premise that a group of people has the moral and ethical right to break away from a government that is mistreating its people
//the founders were smart enough to base their break from King George on something mathematically testable and provable, not just "feelings" of being mistreated
///specifically, on taxation without representation


Ah yes, we broke away because we were being taxed to pay for our defense. Does that mean it's justifiable for a state to break away from the union now because it doesn't support the Afghanistan war?
 
2013-06-20 08:54:39 AM  

badhatharry: There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.


........someone smack this man
 
2013-06-20 08:55:27 AM  
badhatharry:
There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.
 
2013-06-20 08:56:06 AM  

badhatharry: Only very rich people had slaves. Most of the people fighting and dying for the South weren't doing it for slavery.


It's called last place aversion.

There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

This is actually blatantly false.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-20 08:56:34 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: One can of course make the argument that Texas v. White is illegitimate, as Southern apologists often do. At that point though, you're abandoning all pretense of legal justification. In which case: the South lost, get over it.


And a big this

They had legal means to try and do this, they just abandoned them all together and said 'fark it' and honestly I think and most historians agree, that had they taken the legal measures FIRST then history would be a might big different than what went down.

Time to get over it
 
2013-06-20 08:57:49 AM  

Kyro: CheatCommando: Um because Lincoln correctly divined that under the Constitution the President had no power other than his office of commander in chief by which he could unilaterally free the slaves, and that that power only applied to areas under military government, not duly elected ones? You know, the answer that is in every farking history book that you apparently have never read because you are worried you might learn something?

It's a good dodge.  But you're still beating your chest in hopes that people overlook the fact that Tennessee and Virginia were among the exemptions, and were still Union-occupied.  Why?  Because they had already won those states.

The Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with moral outrage over slavery and everything to do with winning the war.  Again, woefully few Americans were anti-slavery in those days.  19th century Americans were just dicks.


Yes, Tennessee was already under Union control and outside the scope of wartime powers and the exemptions for VA - which was named in the proclamation - were all counties in the process of forming West VA.
 
2013-06-20 08:59:09 AM  

Sandwyrm: badhatharry:
There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.


Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

Frederick farking Douglass
 
2013-06-20 08:59:39 AM  

Sandwyrm: badhatharry:
There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.


I agree it is abhorrent. I'm not defending slavery.
 
2013-06-20 08:59:46 AM  
Wow! You Americans never get over anything.
 
2013-06-20 09:00:44 AM  

DamnYankees: Kome: "We've decided the Civil War is a 'good war' because it destroyed slavery," says Fitzhugh Brundage, a historian at the University of North Carolina. "I think it's an indictment of 19th century Americans that they had to slaughter each other to do that."

The only reason we had to slaughter each other is because the South couldn't learn to f*cking deal with the fact that sometimes politics doesn't go your way and they became traitors who should have all been hanged.

That's an amazing quote in its myopia and racial view of the world. It's an indictment of 19th century Americans that they fought a war to end slavery? How about no - its an indictment of 17th through 19th century Americans that they fought a war ON THE SLAVES to keep them enslaved.


No offense, dude, but the Confederate states were not fighting a war to end slavery.
 
2013-06-20 09:00:50 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Because there were already laws in place that gradually emancipated those slaves. For example, the last slaves were in the United States were in New Jersey.


You're half-right.  There were separate laws that freed slaves in some Union states, but other Union states - Kentucky and Delaware - remained firmly slave states until the 13th Amendment was passed.

Oklahoma got a pass on it too, since it wasn't yet a state but rather 'Indian Territory'.
 
2013-06-20 09:01:06 AM  

badhatharry: Sandwyrm: badhatharry:
There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.

I agree it is abhorrent. I'm not defending slavery.


Actually you are. You're white washing the enslavement of millions.
 
2013-06-20 09:01:21 AM  
badhatharry:
I agree it is abhorrent. I'm not defending slavery.

Right, I assume as much.  My point is, that sentence is not worth stating, as it's worse than useless.  It distracts the viewer from your point.
 
2013-06-20 09:02:02 AM  

ChaosStar: Last time I made that argument in a Fark thread I was labeled a troll and a liar, but got a TF sponsorship. Fark is weird.


Facts are tricky things.  Read the writings of the northerners on the subject and you'll find that, for purposes of representation, they didn't want slaves counted at all.  It was the slave states that wanted them counted as full people.  Not that it would have improved their lot in life any under slavery, they just would have counted when it came to power in the government.  3/5s could be counted as a victory for slave states - it's more than half.  For government purposes in those days, slaves didn't really exist.  There was no welfare to dole out to them so they didn't matter to the government from that perspective, they weren't allowed to vote, nor did they pay taxes.  There were no federal funds for education but it wouldn't have mattered since children of slaves weren't permitted to be educated.  Other than counting toward representation, slaves really were non-entities insofar as government interaction was concerned.
 
2013-06-20 09:02:53 AM  

badhatharry: Only very rich people had slaves. Most of the people fighting and dying for the South weren't doing it for slavery.

There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.


I agree with the first part.  But you're off base with the second.  The only slaves spared typical brutal treatment were those needed to be kept free of scars for the sake of presentation.
 
2013-06-20 09:04:09 AM  

Waldo Pepper: "Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa - rich beyond the dream of poet's fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail."- Charles Darwin


Don't you just love it when historical figures we admire turn out to be douchebags?
 
2013-06-20 09:04:11 AM  

badhatharry: There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property


You are a first rate moron.
 
2013-06-20 09:05:28 AM  

Mr. Right: For government purposes in those days, slaves didn't really exist.


Absolutely wrong. The government owned and sold slaves that it seized from smugglers attempting to bring them in illegally.
 
2013-06-20 09:06:09 AM  

Securitywyrm: Ah yes, we broke away because we were being taxed to pay for our defense. Does that mean it's justifiable for a state to break away from the union now because it doesn't support the Afghanistan war?


Nope, still wrong. Keep going, though, I hope you eventually work an Invader Zim reference into your non-sequiters.

/maybe "We broke away because we were being taxed to pay for TACOS!"
//has as much to do with reality as anything else you've said
 
2013-06-20 09:06:16 AM  

grokca: Wow! You humans never get over anything.


FTFY
 
2013-06-20 09:06:21 AM  

Kyro: Don't you just love it when historical figures we admire turn out to be douchebags?


To be fair, almost everyone has been a douche bag or asshole at some point in their life
 
2013-06-20 09:06:55 AM  

dsriggs: 150 Years of Misunderstanding the Civil War War of Northern Aggression

fixed that for you, subby


'War of Northern Aggression', you say? How cute. Let's see, who actually started the war?

Oh, that's right, the bombardment of Fort Sumter was some kind of false flag operation.
 
2013-06-20 09:08:51 AM  

Sandwyrm: badhatharry:
I agree it is abhorrent. I'm not defending slavery.

Right, I assume as much.  My point is, that sentence is not worth stating, as it's worse than useless.  It distracts the viewer from your point.


You're right. Just trying to clear up a misconception. Many slaves stayed on to work the same plantations where they were slaves. Granted it is difficult to just pick up and leave without anything, but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case.
 
2013-06-20 09:09:07 AM  
misunderstood what exactly. Having grown up near Antietam, I was pretty much indoctrinated to how horrific the American Civil War was from a young age. I remember one kid fainting on a school field trip back in middle school as an 18th century medic explained battle field surgery.
 
2013-06-20 09:09:15 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Mr. Right: ChaosStar: Last time I made that argument in a Fark thread I was labeled a troll and a liar, but got a TF sponsorship. Fark is weird.

Facts are tricky things.  Read the writings of the northerners on the subject and you'll find that, for purposes of representation, they didn't want slaves counted at all.  It was the slave states that wanted them counted as full people.  Not that it would have improved their lot in life any under slavery, they just would have counted when it came to power in the government.  3/5s could be counted as a victory for slave states - it's more than half.  For government purposes in those days, slaves didn't really exist.  There was no welfare to dole out to them so they didn't matter to the government from that perspective, they weren't allowed to vote, nor did they pay taxes.  There were no federal funds for education but it wouldn't have mattered since children of slaves weren't permitted to be educated.  Other than counting toward representation, slaves really were non-entities insofar as government interaction was concerned.

That is funny/sad how nobody ever points out the North not wanting slaves to count at all.  It would be a fun point to make when some blow hard is pointing out the 3/5th fact to someone from the south.  "well your ancestor didn't want them counted as a person at all"


I don't get it, you're replying to a post that completely nullifies yours.
 
2013-06-20 09:10:16 AM  

badhatharry: but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case.


You continue to be utterly wrong.
 
2013-06-20 09:11:30 AM  

NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.


I think the article claims that this is the misunderstanding: that while slavery was not about to end on its own, there were still other means available to end it, and thus (the theory goes) it was not worth the price of war. I disagree with the assertion, but I think it's what the author is trying to say.
 
2013-06-20 09:11:38 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Kyro: Don't you just love it when historical figures we admire turn out to be douchebags?

To be fair, almost everyone has been a douche bag or asshole at some point in their life


I think my favorite has been Washington.  Jesus Christ was that man a world class prick.

- Joined the American revolution cause because the British wouldn't promote him as high as he wanted.
- Underclothed, underfed his troops.  Shot deserters.
- Nearly lost the entire Revolutionary War at the onset because he wanted to beat the British in a knock-down drag-out open fight.
- Owned about 150 slaves at the time of his death.

Not that the man wasn't without his virtues.  But there's something hilarious and dismaying about finding out the penultimate founding father was an utter douche bag.
 
2013-06-20 09:12:38 AM  

badhatharry: You're right. Just trying to clear up a misconception. Many slaves stayed on to work the same plantations where they were slaves. Granted it is difficult to just pick up and leave without anything, but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case.


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-20 09:13:43 AM  

log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.


You're the revisionist, not the writer. Sorry.
 
2013-06-20 09:14:33 AM  

Kyro: Not that the man wasn't without his virtues. But there's something hilarious and dismaying about finding out the penultimate founding father was an utter douche bag.


I think everyone we hold high in history has a high douche factor but they get that hero treatment because of that one thing they did which changed the arc of history forever. In Washington's case, it was relinquishing control of the army and stepping down as President because technically speaking he was in a position of power to tell everyone to go fark off.
 
2013-06-20 09:14:52 AM  

hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.


I take a walk nearly every day in Crown Hill Cemetery in Indianapolis where Jefferson C Davis is buried.  Every time I pass by his plot, I think, "That's such a waste of a beautiful monument on such a farking asshole."  It's not that the North as a whole didn't care about black people--there were just a few slimy white supremacists that fought on the side they thought would win.  Just because JCD fought for the Union doesn't mean the Union fought for what JCD believed in--they were short of experienced field commanders so they basically let him do whatever he wanted.  When he shot his own commanding officer, he never even got tried for it--just a shrug from the higher-ups.  He got his rocks off after the war by trying to exterminate the Indians.  He was a first-class shiatbag.  You can't blame the entire Union for his actions.
 
2013-06-20 09:15:57 AM  

PonceAlyosha: badhatharry: Only very rich people had slaves. Most of the people fighting and dying for the South weren't doing it for slavery.

It's called last place aversion.

There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

This is actually blatantly false.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 696x820]


No, it's actually correct.  A slave whipped as badly as the one in the image would be unable to work for days, if not weeks.  Obviously, this slave was whipped, however.  But it was an anomaly, not the norm.

Slaves were whipped when they tried to escape or if they raised their hand against their master or overseer.  When they were whipped for those transgressions, it was always in full view of all the other slaves on that plantation - attendance was  usually mandatory.  The nature of their transgression was announced to the assemblage and the beatings commenced.  The very clear message was that any slave that emulated the behavior of the whipped slave would, similarly, be whipped.  If a slave didn't want to be whipped, that was entirely under his control.  All he had to do was be a good worker and do exactly as he was told and never try to run away.
 
2013-06-20 09:16:06 AM  
I wish we had lost the war.
 
2013-06-20 09:16:29 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on such a legal question. They ruled that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White - after the war. They ruled afterwards, because the so-called "Confederacy" took to the sword first, rather than attempt to resolve the question by the legal mechanisms afforded to them.

One can of course make the argument that Texas v. White is illegitimate, as Southern apologists often do. At that point though, you're abandoning all pretense of legal justification. In which case: the South lost, get over it.


To be fair, the supreme court could rule that calling the sky "Blue" is treason and deserves the death penalty. It isn't bound by reason, it's bound by party loyalty.
 
2013-06-20 09:17:28 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Mr. Right: ChaosStar: Last time I made that argument in a Fark thread I was labeled a troll and a liar, but got a TF sponsorship. Fark is weird.

Facts are tricky things.  Read the writings of the northerners on the subject and you'll find that, for purposes of representation, they didn't want slaves counted at all.  It was the slave states that wanted them counted as full people.  Not that it would have improved their lot in life any under slavery, they just would have counted when it came to power in the government.  3/5s could be counted as a victory for slave states - it's more than half.  For government purposes in those days, slaves didn't really exist.  There was no welfare to dole out to them so they didn't matter to the government from that perspective, they weren't allowed to vote, nor did they pay taxes.  There were no federal funds for education but it wouldn't have mattered since children of slaves weren't permitted to be educated.  Other than counting toward representation, slaves really were non-entities insofar as government interaction was concerned.

That is funny/sad how nobody ever points out the North not wanting slaves to count at all.  It would be a fun point to make when some blow hard is pointing out the 3/5th fact to someone from the south.  "well your ancestor didn't want them counted as a person at all"


They didn't slaves counted as "full people" because they were not accorded the same privileges as "full people" and it would provide a majority vote to a minority view.
 
2013-06-20 09:17:36 AM  

Mr. Right: If a slave didn't want to be whipped, that was entirely under his control. All he had to do was be a good worker and do exactly as he was told and never try to run away.


And you're using this as an example to say that slavery  "wasn't as bad as people think?"
 
2013-06-20 09:18:24 AM  
Lincoln:  "Save the Union"

Which is a euphemism for "Political independence shall not be tolerated"

Which is a euphemism for "Keep paying your import taxes so the US government can afford to subsidize my railroad buddies."

Lincoln, The Great Railroad Lobbyist.
 
2013-06-20 09:18:55 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: badhatharry: You're right. Just trying to clear up a misconception. Many slaves stayed on to work the same plantations where they were slaves. Granted it is difficult to just pick up and leave without anything, but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case.

[img.fark.net image 500x375]


Why? Because it's the truth? What the fark is wrong with you people?
 
2013-06-20 09:20:10 AM  
Waldo Pepper:

I wonder if in someway we are just as guilty when it comes to cheap labor under horrible human rights conditions

I don't believe so, not even close.  The difference between servitude due to ownership and servitude in exchange for financial capital seems small if someone is in a very desperate situation, but the difference lies in the moral basis for that servitude.  Ultimately, the understanding is that the person being serviced does not own his hirelings, and that makes all the difference.  I work for my boss, and I will do as he asks, but there are lines he cannot cross.  The second he does, he is no longer my boss.

I just dread the day we fight this entire battle all over again with artificial intelligence.  It's going to be compounded by people believing we are about to be eradicated by Skynet or that the unavoidable conclusion for any machine mind is that they are superior to us and therefore must replace us entirely.
 
2013-06-20 09:20:53 AM  

Mr. Right: way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.

Slavery was a festering question since the founding of the country.  Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person not because of their race but because the free states knew that counting them as whole persons (even though they couldn't vote) would give slave states disproportionate representation in the House.  The compromise gave free states (mostly northern and smaller than the southern states) enough power in the House to mitigate the influence of the larger slave states.

Slavery is a demonstrably failed economic model.  Perhaps we could have eliminated slavery without the Civil War.  But war highlighted the failure of the slavery model more spectacularly than any amount of learned discourse or diplomacy - especially when dealing with several generations of slave owners.




I think the problem is that slavery was not a failed model. It was making a select number of land owners very wealthy. The south lacked the industrialization of the north and needed cheap labor to reap the wealth of its fields.

Every great society is raised on the backs of slaves. Whether its a specific race, an underclass, economic servitude or otherwise, there's always someone who digs the ditches and gets treated like shiat for it.
What makes America different is its reliance on machinery (and with that, we still outsource our labor to other nations where they do the social abuse for us).

The south knew that it lived in a political paradox, but wanted to maintain its source of wealth. The north knew that letting this continue would cost it political influence in the long run.

When money and politics collide, its hard to avoid war.
 
2013-06-20 09:21:42 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Mr. Right: ChaosStar:

That is funny/sad how nobody ever points out the North not wanting slaves to count at all.  It would be a fun point to make when some blow hard is pointing out the 3/5th fact to someone from the south.  "well your ancestor didn't want them counted as a person at all"


It's a bit disingenuous to say that the North didn't want them counted as a person.  What they wanted was to limit representation to free people, but a good many of them also wanted to eliminate slavery.  Think of the difference in the makeup of the House and the Electoral College if slaves had counted as full persons.  We may not have had the Civil War but slavery would have been around a lot longer.
 
2013-06-20 09:22:44 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Freed his slaves at the end of his wife's life.


Which was after his own death.  His will contained the order to free them.  He expressed internal conflicts about slavery his entire adult live - while in the process buying more and more and freeing none of them until well after he and his wife were done with them.

Some of his slaves went on to become British sympathizers.
 
2013-06-20 09:24:45 AM  
Yeah, I got that one from my father (who was from Louisiana) when I was a kid. "Uncle Tom's Cabin was propaganda. They wouldn't treat their slaves like that, they were valuable property!" That sort of thinking ignores things like selling off members of your family. If your child was taken from you and sold, would that count as mistreatment? It was certainly a horrible thing to do. And what about all of the rape? Raping your "Valuable property" wouldn't diminish the value. It just goes on and on. Owning another person is horrible, from there it's just a matter of degrees of how horrible.
 
2013-06-20 09:24:52 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Wolf_Blitzer: Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on such a legal question. They ruled that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White - after the war. They ruled afterwards, because the so-called "Confederacy" took to the sword first, rather than attempt to resolve the question by the legal mechanisms afforded to them.

One can of course make the argument that Texas v. White is illegitimate, as Southern apologists often do. At that point though, you're abandoning all pretense of legal justification. In which case: the South lost, get over it.

just curious about the make up of the supreme court that made that ruling, was it loaded with Northerners?


I had to look this up, and while it was unbalanced, it was less so than you might think. While majority Northern-Republican, the court had both Southerners and Democrats, and it was a 5/3 split between Lincoln nominees and those of other Presidents.
 
2013-06-20 09:25:17 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Mr. Right: If a slave didn't want to be whipped, that was entirely under his control. All he had to do was be a good worker and do exactly as he was told and never try to run away.

And you're using this as an example to say that slavery  "wasn't as bad as people think?"


Now you're just being an ass.  Slavery is reprehensible on every level.  But beating slaves was not the norm you claimed it was.
 
2013-06-20 09:26:46 AM  

Madbassist1: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

You're the revisionist, not the writer. Sorry.


Whatever
 
2013-06-20 09:26:53 AM  

badhatharry: Sandwyrm: badhatharry:
There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.

I agree it is abhorrent. I'm not defending slavery.


Yes you are.  When you are claiming there was not widespread mistreatment you are defending it as not being that bad.

badhatharry: You're right. Just trying to clear up a misconception. Many slaves stayed on to work the same plantations where they were slaves. Granted it is difficult to just pick up and leave without anything, but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case


BS.  You have people that don't know anything about the world and almost nobody off the plantation.  Them staying on as a worker when they have no other means of feeding their children or themselves is not proof that bad treatmet wasn't widespread.
 
2013-06-20 09:27:31 AM  

Kyro: IdBeCrazyIf: Kyro: Don't you just love it when historical figures we admire turn out to be douchebags?

To be fair, almost everyone has been a douche bag or asshole at some point in their life

I think my favorite has been Washington.  Jesus Christ was that man a world class prick.

- Joined the American revolution cause because the British wouldn't promote him as high as he wanted.
- Underclothed, underfed his troops.  Shot deserters.
- Nearly lost the entire Revolutionary War at the onset because he wanted to beat the British in a knock-down drag-out open fight.
- Owned about 150 slaves at the time of his death.

Not that the man wasn't without his virtues.  But there's something hilarious and dismaying about finding out the penultimate founding father was an utter douche bag.


Who was the ultimate founding father?
 
2013-06-20 09:28:27 AM  

Mr. Right: PonceAlyosha: Mr. Right: If a slave didn't want to be whipped, that was entirely under his control. All he had to do was be a good worker and do exactly as he was told and never try to run away.

And you're using this as an example to say that slavery  "wasn't as bad as people think?"

Now you're just being an ass.  Slavery is reprehensible on every level.  But beating slaves was not the norm you claimed it was.


Raping enslaved women sure was the norm.
 
2013-06-20 09:29:47 AM  

Madbassist1: IdBeCrazyIf: badhatharry: You're right. Just trying to clear up a misconception. Many slaves stayed on to work the same plantations where they were slaves. Granted it is difficult to just pick up and leave without anything, but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case.

[img.fark.net image 500x375]

Why? Because it's the truth? What the fark is wrong with you people?


The good or bad treatment of slaves was entirely on the slave owner. I'm sure some of those folks at the very least were not cruel and evil people as depicted and were raised in an environment they were taught to be normal, but treated slaves with a modicum of respect or decency as best fit that culture. Some might have treated their slaves well simply because you get better work from a healthy worker. In some situations it would be more appealing to stay on as paid labor than it would be to strike out into a territory where the law still worked against you because of your skin color and you were more likely to be beaten or killed because you weren't even viewed as an investment. So staying on somewhere because it's familiar, your lot is slightly improved and you're significantly safer because you know the rules of the place even if you have next to no legal recourse is a much more appealing situation for anyone.

A lot of former slaves did feel that where they were was worse than a chance encounter with someone on the road that could beat or kill them with near impunity and took that chance to go out into the world. In a lot of cases it *was* that bad.

Even in cases where it was that bad, and people stayed, it was because people of any color or ethnicity tend to feel safer in familiar territory no matter how harsh or painful. You spend that much time terrified of death for running away, leaving is still a burned in terror even if someone a thousand miles away with no way to enforce your safety told you it's okay to do so.
 
2013-06-20 09:31:08 AM  

Securitywyrm: Wolf_Blitzer: Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on such a legal question. They ruled that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White - after the war. They ruled afterwards, because the so-called "Confederacy" took to the sword first, rather than attempt to resolve the question by the legal mechanisms afforded to them.

One can of course make the argument that Texas v. White is illegitimate, as Southern apologists often do. At that point though, you're abandoning all pretense of legal justification. In which case: the South lost, get over it.

To be fair, the supreme court could rule that calling the sky "Blue" is treason and deserves the death penalty. It isn't bound by reason, it's bound by party loyalty.


I see you're making the argument that Texas v. White was illegitimate. You'll find that I anticipated such, and the response is in my original post.
 
2013-06-20 09:31:35 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: There are two Lincoln's: the private and the politician. The Private Lincoln abhorred slavery-and practiced equality. Booker T Washington, who was not a fan of Lincoln's policies, said that the President treated him like a normal person, not a curiosity.

The Political Lincoln stated that Slavery was constitutionally protected in the south...he was against expanding it into the west. He also made public statements saying that he did not believe that black and whites were equal... But they should be treated the same under law. (Nor did he say one race was better than the other.) The reason Lincoln took this stand, was to appeal to be the middle road between the Abolitionist and the traditionalist. It's how he got the GOP nomination.

The ultimate truth was That the Civil War was unavoidable. And Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union.


Don't forget the part where Lincoln openly supported repatriation until his Presidency.

Also, far more interesting and relevant than the Gettysburg Address to Lincoln's politics vis-a-vis the Civil War, the South, and slavery, are his inauguration addresses and state of the union letters. His written response to  Dred Scott is very good, also.
 
2013-06-20 09:31:37 AM  
The war didn't sound very civil.
 
2013-06-20 09:31:46 AM  

Repo Man: Who was the ultimate founding father?


Button "Motherf*cker" Gwinnett.
 
2013-06-20 09:32:13 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Mr. Right: PonceAlyosha: Mr. Right: If a slave didn't want to be whipped, that was entirely under his control. All he had to do was be a good worker and do exactly as he was told and never try to run away.

And you're using this as an example to say that slavery  "wasn't as bad as people think?"

Now you're just being an ass.  Slavery is reprehensible on every level.  But beating slaves was not the norm you claimed it was.

Raping enslaved women sure was the norm.


Probably just like any shiatty human behavior.  Not every German killed Jews, but a lot of them did.
 
2013-06-20 09:34:36 AM  
Waldo Pepper:

I was referring to the cheap labor in places like China, not the minium wage worker in the US.  yes i realize there is a big difference between forced slavery and a free person who works at a hideous job for horrible wages but is still free during his/her non work hours.

My point is looking ahead 150 years how will the world view a lot of what we allow.


I think that will be all the difference that matters.  I *seriously* doubt modern third-world labor practices will be held in as much contempt as slavery is.  Despite all that's deplorable about it, it's not as bad as it could be.

On that note, I think I'm going to call it for tonight.  Damn, I love a good discussion with people who can make good points.  Had I tried this with my "South will rise again!" group, I would have received a concussion with the amount of facepalming I would have done.
 
2013-06-20 09:35:32 AM  
Most of the larger plantations were mortgaged to the hilt.  Not the land per se as much as the slaves.  Horribly expensive to buy a slave and too slow to breed them the reality was that these plantations were locked into a financial bubble where the perceived solutins was economies of scale (i.e. more slaves and more debt ).   Much of the pomp and ceremony was to give the impression of stability and profit while everything spiraled out of control.   The fear of emancipation was compunded by the reality that the debt would remain after the labor had beed freed.  Slavery was an abomination, but the North had so much influence that the price of Southern goods was kept in check.  Cotton was also already becoming a world commodity and the South was on a slow path to face even cheaper labor than Slavery could provide here.
 
2013-06-20 09:38:28 AM  

Mr. Right: If a slave didn't want to be whipped, that was entirely under his control. All he had to do was be a good worker and do exactly as he was told and never try to run away.


Really?  Are you proud of what you just typed?
 
2013-06-20 09:40:34 AM  

way south: I think the problem is that slavery was not a failed model. It was making a select number of land owners very wealthy. The south lacked the industrialization of the north and needed cheap labor to reap the wealth of its fields.


Slavery is a failed model.  Yes, it made a few very wealthy.  But the slaves got nothing.  Because slaves could be held for nothing more than the hovels in which they were housed and the gruel it took to keep them alive, there were no jobs on those plantations for free workers who expected a wage.

The North was industrialized precisely because it was a free market, capitalist economy.  Yes, it made a few people very wealthy, just like the slave economy.  But in order to make all that money, they had to employ people, thus the rise of the middle class.  The concept of a free and burgeoning middle class never existed without a free market, capitalist economy in which individuals were free sell their abilities in order to acquire and hold wealth.  That is why the North prevailed over the South.
 
2013-06-20 09:42:34 AM  

StaleCoffee: Madbassist1: IdBeCrazyIf: badhatharry: You're right. Just trying to clear up a misconception. Many slaves stayed on to work the same plantations where they were slaves. Granted it is difficult to just pick up and leave without anything, but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case.

[img.fark.net image 500x375]

Why? Because it's the truth? What the fark is wrong with you people?

The good or bad treatment of slaves was entirely on the slave owner. I'm sure some of those folks at the very least were not cruel and evil people as depicted and were raised in an environment they were taught to be normal, but treated slaves with a modicum of respect or decency as best fit that culture. Some might have treated their slaves well simply because you get better work from a healthy worker. In some situations it would be more appealing to stay on as paid labor than it would be to strike out into a territory where the law still worked against you because of your skin color and you were more likely to be beaten or killed because you weren't even viewed as an investment. So staying on somewhere because it's familiar, your lot is slightly improved and you're significantly safer because you know the rules of the place even if you have next to no legal recourse is a much more appealing situation for anyone.

A lot of former slaves did feel that where they were was worse than a chance encounter with someone on the road that could beat or kill them with near impunity and took that chance to go out into the world. In a lot of cases it *was* that bad.

Even in cases where it was that bad, and people stayed, it was because people of any color or ethnicity tend to feel safer in familiar territory no matter how harsh or painful. You spend that much time terrified of death for running away, leaving is still a burned in terror even if someone a thousand miles away with no way to enforce your safety told you it's okay to do so.


Not disagreeing with you in the slightest.
 
2013-06-20 09:43:04 AM  

badhatharry: Waldo Pepper: I feel it is unfair to judge the south (well don't really need to fix this part) for not wanting to lose their way of life, a way of life they had at least since the founding of the Nation. Looking back everyone knows Chattel slavery discriminating based on sexual preference is horrible and wrong but if you grew up with it and was told it was right and legal then it is wrong for us to judge by our standards. Imagine how we will be judged 150 years from now for certain aspects of our lifestyles based on what we think is right and legal.


I already know how homophobes will be judged because it is plane as day right now they are wrong, I don't need to wait 150 years.  Because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral.  Because some people accept it for whatever ignorant reason (at least with slavery they had a profit motive), it doesn't mean that everyone else knows it's wrong.

Stop making excuses for those that profited from slavery.  They knew it was wrong then and we know it now.
 
2013-06-20 09:43:08 AM  
Mr. Right:
.  Because slaves could be held for nothing more than the hovels in which they were housed and the gruel it took to keep them alive,

Who invented fried chicken then?
 
2013-06-20 09:46:04 AM  

fireclown: Mr. Right: If a slave didn't want to be whipped, that was entirely under his control. All he had to do was be a good worker and do exactly as he was told and never try to run away.

Really?  Are you proud of what you just typed?


Are you incapable of understanding sarcasm?  Are you incapable of comprehending an entire paragraph instead of being able to hold only a single sentence at a time in your tiny little pea-brain?
 
2013-06-20 09:46:32 AM  

teto85: Fail. Nothing about the election of 1876 wherein Tilden let Hayes win with the promise that Reconstruction would end and the federal government would look the other way when the states do not enforce the 14th and 15th amendments.  The South was allowed to win the Civil War from the point of view of continued economic slavery and second class citizenship of African-Americans even up into this very day.  Political expediency. Get the Presidency and let the country be damned.


=============

Not just blacks, the Southern owner class hate "white trash" even more.  Read the history of the failed labor union movement in the South, it's like something out of the most backward of banana republics.  It's no accident that Northern businesses decamped for the South before they fled off shore.  This BS hasn't ended either.  Currently the State of Texas is running ads on NYC TV/Radio featuring Gov Perry imploring NYC businesses to move to Texas because Texas has no regulations or worker protections.  The strangest things is that your average, Jebus fearing, Southern white trash will bite your windpipe shut like a cheetah if you suggest to him that's he's being exploited.
 
2013-06-20 09:49:49 AM  

liam76: badhatharry: Sandwyrm: badhatharry:
There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.

I agree it is abhorrent. I'm not defending slavery.

Yes you are.  When you are claiming there was not widespread mistreatment you are defending it as not being that bad.

badhatharry: You're right. Just trying to clear up a misconception. Many slaves stayed on to work the same plantations where they were slaves. Granted it is difficult to just pick up and leave without anything, but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case

BS.  You have people that don't know anything about the world and almost nobody off the plantation.  Them staying on as a worker when they have no other means of feeding their children or themselves is not proof that bad treatmet wasn't widespread.


I'm not saying it wasn't that bad. Slavery was evil. Taking away a person's freedom and independence for no reason is evil. Treating them like property is evil. Not allowing them to learn to read is evil. Separating them from their children is evil. These things applied to every slave. The slaves that rightly revolted were beaten and killed. They were a minority.
 
2013-06-20 09:50:12 AM  
Waldo Pepper:

"Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa - rich beyond the dream of poet's fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of ...

Do you have a point?  Are you the bevets of race?

 Besides the fact that Darwin says some things that we know are false, he is also making the ethnocentric mistake of assuming that because the Africans did not follow the same course of progress as the western societies that begat himself they  are somehow inferior.
 
2013-06-20 09:50:15 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Interesting and thank you for looking it up. Were they all on the court during the civil war? it is a shame the ruling came after the war and not before it (yes I know it would have changed the outcome lol) but hindsight being 20/20 I feel using this ruling as justification that the south was wrong to suceded is tainted.


Yes they were all on the bench during the War, with the Lincoln appointees obviously being appointed during it. While the timing of the ruling is often used in an attempt to delegitimize it, the nice thing about Supreme Court decision's is that they're not just votes: the legal reasoning is made public.

That reasoning is pretty straightforward. Essentially:
1. The original US government under the Articles of Confederation was regarded as permanent (Its full title is the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, for crying out loud)
2. While changing it in almost ever way, the Constitution was still regarded as a revision, not an abolition of the Articles.

Thus, as the majority decision in Texas v. White states: "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

The Southern insurrectionists could've attempted legal secession through negotiation or in the courts. Their failure to do so speaks only to their own moral bankruptcy.
 
2013-06-20 09:52:00 AM  

Waldo Pepper: manimal2878: badhatharry: Waldo Pepper:

I feel it is unfair to judge the south (well don't really need to fix this part) for not wanting to lose their way of life, a way of life they had at least since the founding of the Nation. Looking back everyone knows Chattel slavery discriminating based on sexual preference is horrible and wrong but if you grew up with it and was told it was right and legal then it is wrong for us to judge by our standards. Imagine how we will be judged 150 years from now for certain aspects of our lifestyles based on what we think is right and legal.

I already know how homophobes will be judged because it is plane as day right now they are wrong, I don't need to wait 150 years.  Because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral.  Because some people accept it for whatever ignorant reason (at least with slavery they had a profit motive), it doesn't mean that everyone else knows it's wrong.

Stop making excuses for those that profited from slavery.  They knew it was wrong then and we know it now.

way to make this about you


How is that about me?  I responded to your ignorant statement about how you feel with how I feel with an analogy to show how dumb you are.
 
2013-06-20 09:55:23 AM  

MNguy: God Is My Co-Pirate: Mr. Right: PonceAlyosha: Mr. Right: If a slave didn't want to be whipped, that was entirely under his control. All he had to do was be a good worker and do exactly as he was told and never try to run away.

And you're using this as an example to say that slavery  "wasn't as bad as people think?"

Now you're just being an ass.  Slavery is reprehensible on every level.  But beating slaves was not the norm you claimed it was.

Raping enslaved women sure was the norm.

Probably just like any shiatty human behavior.  Not every German killed Jews, but a lot of them did.


I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. It wasn't just "shiatty human behaviour" - it was the fact that slavery made acceptable and normal what would otherwise be considered a crime (well, unless it was between a husband and wife, in which case it wasn't legally rape). I'm arguing that slaves faced regular severely brutal and dehumanizing treatment that had nothing to do with punishment calculated to bring others into line (although that latter also no doubt occurred frequently).
 
2013-06-20 09:56:19 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on such a legal question. They ruled that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White - after the war. They ruled afterwards, because the so-called "Confederacy" took to the sword first, rather than attempt to resolve the question by the legal mechanisms afforded to them.

One can of course make the argument that Texas v. White is illegitimate, as Southern apologists often do. At that point though, you're abandoning all pretense of legal justification. In which case: the South lost, get over it.


Well I'm sure a British court would rule that the Declaration of Independence was illegitimite and invalid and all the signers are traitors to the crown.
 
2013-06-20 09:56:56 AM  

Mr. Right: PonceAlyosha: badhatharry: Only very rich people had slaves. Most of the people fighting and dying for the South weren't doing it for slavery.

It's called last place aversion.

There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

This is actually blatantly false.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 696x820]

No, it's actually correct.  A slave whipped as badly as the one in the image would be unable to work for days, if not weeks.  Obviously, this slave was whipped, however.  But it was an anomaly, not the norm.

Slaves were whipped when they tried to escape or if they raised their hand against their master or overseer.  When they were whipped for those transgressions, it was always in full view of all the other slaves on that plantation - attendance was  usually mandatory.  The nature of their transgression was announced to the assemblage and the beatings commenced.  The very clear message was that any slave that emulated the behavior of the whipped slave would, similarly, be whipped.  If a slave didn't want to be whipped, that was entirely under his control.  All he had to do was be a good worker and do exactly as he was told and never try to run away.


They should be viciously whipped, why would they ever be silly enough to raise their hand to their master or try to escape when its such an awesome deal for the slave, all he has to do is be a good worker and do exactly as he is told.  It's ridiculous that a person would also want to be treated with dignity and respect, or treated equally under the law.

/I'm being sarcastic.  You are a moron.
 
2013-06-20 09:58:33 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Raping enslaved women sure was the norm.


It wasn't considered rape if you owned it.  Of course, that requires you to get past the whole moral problem of owning another person.

If you really want to consider how sick it was, the slave owners, or frequently the overseers, didn't consider it rape.  It was considered breeding the slave women to fully utilize their capabilities.  Mulattoes were worth more than pure blacks as house slaves.  And, with complete disregard to any family unit, slave owners felt entitled to force the breeding of any slave woman by the slave man of their choice - just as a horse owner selects the stud to put on his mare.  Yes, it is morally repugnant, more so by today's standards than those of the 19th century.  But it was a fact.

Anybody else here remember when Jimmy the Greek got fired for making the claim that,during slavery, blacks had been bred to produce superior offspring?  I know that it's not a very attractive part of our past but I always thought it was a bit of a raw deal for him to be fired for stating a fact, no matter how unpleasant the memories it invokes may be.
 
2013-06-20 09:58:41 AM  

Sandwyrm: I think that will be all the difference that matters.  I *seriously* doubt modern third-world labor practices will be held in as much contempt as slavery is.  Despite all that's deplorable about it, it's not as bad as it could be.


Consider the Gilded Age and its associated politics, revisionism by way of the right wing simply ignoring it aside. The most important thing to bear in mind when discussing slavery is there's a distinction between the  conventional slavery practiced the majority of human history, and  chattelslavery such as that practiced in Antebellum South, the key differences being for the former, promises of social mobility, recognition of human rights, and laws (or decrees) established protecting the welfare of slaves. All too many especially in the US conflate the two, and see all slavery through the lens of the South's chattel slavery.

Low-wage labor practices -- and mind you, that's not even restricted to the former third-world (look at Wal-Mart's, the largest private employer in the US, practices if you want evidence of this) --  are an, albeit informal, brand of conventional slavery.  De jure freedom doesn't mean much when workers are held in perpetual poverty great enough to stymie shows of discontent or attempts to move socially.
 
2013-06-20 10:00:52 AM  

badhatharry: I'm not saying it wasn't that bad. Slavery was evil. Taking away a person's freedom and independence for no reason is evil. Treating them like property is evil. Not allowing them to learn to read is evil. Separating them from their children is evil. These things applied to every slave. The slaves that rightly revolted were beaten and killed. They were a minority



That doesn't jive with saying there wasn't "widespread mistreatment".

The claim about mistreating them being illegal is laughable.  There was absolutely no legal regulation that would impeded a slave owner inthe south from whipping thier slave.
 
2013-06-20 10:02:46 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Securitywyrm: Wolf_Blitzer: Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on such a legal question. They ruled that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White - after the war. They ruled afterwards, because the so-called "Confederacy" took to the sword first, rather than attempt to resolve the question by the legal mechanisms afforded to them.

One can of course make the argument that Texas v. White is illegitimate, as Southern apologists often do. At that point though, you're abandoning all pretense of legal justification. In which case: the South lost, get over it.

To be fair, the supreme court could rule that calling the sky "Blue" is treason and deserves the death penalty. It isn't bound by reason, it's bound by party loyalty.

I see you're making the argument that Texas v. White was illegitimate. You'll find that I anticipated such, and the response is in my original post.


Perhaps you should also familiarize yourself with Dred vs Stanford, link here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Summary:It made two main rulings. The first ruling was that African Americans were not citizens, and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. The second ruling was that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in any territory acquired after the creation of the United States.
 
2013-06-20 10:06:25 AM  
The South was great until the North found out about itwww.freewebs.com
 
2013-06-20 10:07:05 AM  

manimal2878: They should be viciously whipped, why would they ever be silly enough to raise their hand to their master or try to escape when its such an awesome deal for the slave, all he has to do is be a good worker and do exactly as he is told. It's ridiculous that a person would also want to be treated with dignity and respect, or treated equally under the law.

/I'm being sarcastic. You are a moron.


You're looking at it from a 21st century perspective of the immorality of slavery.  Prior to the 19th century, there were very few societies that didn't embrace some form of slavery.  It was normal.  And, from that perspective, if a slave did what he was told, he could have a reasonable life.  He was never going to be able to own property, or vote, or count on his family being left intact, or anything else we take for granted.  But he wouldn't be whipped if he "knew his place."

It appears that you don't have the intelligence or the historical perspective to be sarcastic.  Just adamantly ignorant.
 
2013-06-20 10:08:48 AM  

Waldo Pepper: please how is my statement dumb. I feel it is unfair to judge someone from 150 years ago based on today's standards and not the standards and laws that were in place during their life. To equate gays with african americans slaves is so demeaning to the life slaves lived compared to the lush FREE life that all gays in this country live.


I am judging them on the standards of 150 years ago.  Have you never heard of the abolitionists?

Ah yes, the lush life of being able to marry who I choose, live openly without fear of reprisal or random beatings, full and  equal rights under the law. 

Are you even trying not to say things that are retarded?
 
2013-06-20 10:14:56 AM  
"War is glorious, to those who have never seen it"
 
2013-06-20 10:16:59 AM  

Repo Man: Yeah, I got that one from my father (who was from Louisiana) when I was a kid. "Uncle Tom's Cabin was propaganda. They wouldn't treat their slaves like that, they were valuable property!" That sort of thinking ignores things like selling off members of your family. If your child was taken from you and sold, would that count as mistreatment? It was certainly a horrible thing to do. And what about all of the rape? Raping your "Valuable property" wouldn't diminish the value. It just goes on and on. Owning another person is horrible, from there it's just a matter of degrees of how horrible.

Uncle Tom's Cabin

was not a book written to entertain people; it was a book written to convince people of a point. In that sense, it was indeed a kind of propaganda.

But the arguments you cite were raised even then. For that reason, the author released a (somewhat less famous) companion volume the following year, called A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin. It documented the conditions that the novel depicted: in essence the nonfiction counterpart to the work of fiction. The characters and conditions were all traced to real things.
 
2013-06-20 10:20:17 AM  
Do you like apples?

too long...for shame

Seacrest Out
 
2013-06-20 10:20:40 AM  

Mr. Right: manimal2878: They should be viciously whipped, why would they ever be silly enough to raise their hand to their master or try to escape when its such an awesome deal for the slave, all he has to do is be a good worker and do exactly as he is told. It's ridiculous that a person would also want to be treated with dignity and respect, or treated equally under the law.

/I'm being sarcastic. You are a moron.

You're looking at it from a 21st century perspective of the immorality of slavery.  Prior to the 19th century, there were very few societies that didn't embrace some form of slavery.  It was normal.  And, from that perspective, if a slave did what he was told, he could have a reasonable life.  He was never going to be able to own property, or vote, or count on his family being left intact, or anything else we take for granted.  But he wouldn't be whipped if he "knew his place."

It appears that you don't have the intelligence or the historical perspective to be sarcastic.  Just adamantly ignorant.


Maybe you should go take a philosophy class at your local community college.  The argument over the nature and morality of slavery dates back to the beginning of western civilization with Socrates.  The Stoic philosophers, even before Christ, condemned slavery as abhorrent, in that it violates the nature that a man not be the determiner of his own will.
 
2013-06-20 10:22:57 AM  

Kome: No offense, dude, but the Confederate states were not fighting a war to end slavery.


Huh?
 
2013-06-20 10:23:19 AM  

StaleCoffee: Felgraf: StaleCoffee: Do people really take that seriously? I always looked at them the same way I look at SCA folks and other LARPers. I give the tabletop wargamers more credit since they need to understand casualty rates to actually win a game.

Hey now, there are several shades of SCA. There are the folks who take it waaaaayyyyy too seriously,

I just enjoy the multi-person rapier melees in the woods (you'd be surprised at how much tactics and good coordination can effect even simple 20-man rapier melees, even without ranged weapons. Its kind of neat). I'm not sure it's so much romanticism as enjoying melee combat and combat archery. The middle ages sucked.

That sounds cool but even that sounds more like "I think this would be neat" instead of "This is historically accurate to some degree" since what I recall of rapiers they were a late period sword that came with the end of the middle ages.

It's not that people don't take it seriously, it's that their seriousness is in the same category as the rotund, grizzled elderman in the Comic/Hobby shop who glares at anyone who isn't a regular and yells at his ancient mother working the cash register. He'll be happy to rant about why Games Workshop is the devil and how tabletop gaming is a legitimate qualification for OCS. The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.


Well, but, I mean, I don't *care* about the accuracy too much (But rapiers *ARE* very late period. Just the tail end of what the SCA allows, I think). And if you look at the origins of the SCA, it's not really *supposed* to be about accuracy (though there are a lot of people that, again, take it way too seriously). The SCA was born out of a drunken graduation party at Berkley.

Seriously, that is its origin.

(Though I admit some variants of LARP, like NERO, also seem appaeling to me. Again, not from a "Serious/accurate" perspective, but merely from a 'fun' perspective. Any larp where the lockpicking skill requires you to *actually be able to pick locks* sounds like a neat challenge. )
 
2013-06-20 10:23:34 AM  
 that a man not be the determiner of his own will.

Is what I meant.
 
2013-06-20 10:26:13 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Had the North truly been hellbent on ending slavery they would have boycotted all Southern products forcing the Southern businesses to change.


Interstate Commerce Clause makes that sticky, as a matter of state-level politics.
 
2013-06-20 10:26:40 AM  

badhatharry: DamnYankees: Kyro: Anyone saying the war was started with the intent to end slavery is kidding themselves.

You ever notice how only the South is ever given this kind of deference? No one ever says "Anyone saying WWII started with the intent to end the Holocaust is kidding themselves". No one ever says that, because no one ever feels the need to tacitly defend Nazis.

No one ever says that because most people know that WWII wasn't to end the Holocaust.


True enough, but the author of TFA commits the same error he accuses earlier historians of when he wrote, "World War II undercut this anti-war stance. Nazism was an evil that had to be fought."

We didn't enter WW2 to defeat the evil of Nazism. We entered the war to protect our Pacific Ocean economic interests from Japan, and only declared war on Germany after Hitler declared war on us. Roosevelt didn't give a shiat about the fate of the Jews, and Americans were split on whether to go to war against Germany.
 
2013-06-20 10:27:53 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Sure I have but that doesn't change the facts that most of society supported the myth of africans being less than human and born to be slaves.


Sigh.

No most of society did not support that myth.  In most of the world slavery had been abolished by the point that, propagandizer took to the works of darwin as a defense of their "peculiar institution" in stating blacks were an inferior race and needed teh help of slavery to keep them in line.  Ever wonder why it was peculiar?  Because most people no longer recognized it as moral.
 
2013-06-20 10:28:28 AM  

Kyro: Oklahoma got a pass on it too, since it wasn't yet a state but rather 'Indian Territory'.


Indian Territory was complicated, in that the Indians present were technically sovereign nations who were also slave-holding.
 
2013-06-20 10:31:47 AM  

Mr. Right: manimal2878: They should be viciously whipped, why would they ever be silly enough to raise their hand to their master or try to escape when its such an awesome deal for the slave, all he has to do is be a good worker and do exactly as he is told. It's ridiculous that a person would also want to be treated with dignity and respect, or treated equally under the law.

/I'm being sarcastic. You are a moron.

You're looking at it from a 21st century perspective of the immorality of slavery.  Prior to the 19th century, there were very few societies that didn't embrace some form of slavery.  It was normal.  And, from that perspective, if a slave did what he was told, he could have a reasonable life.  He was never going to be able to own property, or vote, or count on his family being left intact, or anything else we take for granted.  But he wouldn't be whipped if he "knew his place."

It appears that you don't have the intelligence or the historical perspective to be sarcastic.  Just adamantly ignorant.


In every society with slavery, there were relatively well-treated slaves, and horrifically abused slaves. Everything from pampered concubines in China, to Roman mine slaves. True, sometimes the household slaves of rich men had more comfortable lives than the free working poor.

To say that if a slave did what he was told, he could have a reasonable life is a riduculous statement, because it depended entirely on the whim of his master, and the master's idea of a "reasonable life" - even in households that would have been relatively well-off and generous - usually included poor food, little medical treatment, enforced marriage or separation from family, and rape.
 
2013-06-20 10:35:12 AM  

Waldo Pepper: I agree with your last statement. Still we will never know how it would have been ruled before the war and hindsight truly helped with their reasoning.


They would have won. Taney ruled the court until 1864. Lincoln kept a lot of legislation in prep until he died.
 
2013-06-20 10:36:40 AM  

StaleCoffee: Felgraf: StaleCoffee: Do people really take that seriously? I always looked at them the same way I look at SCA folks and other LARPers. I give the tabletop wargamers more credit since they need to understand casualty rates to actually win a game.

Hey now, there are several shades of SCA. There are the folks who take it waaaaayyyyy too seriously,

I just enjoy the multi-person rapier melees in the woods (you'd be surprised at how much tactics and good coordination can effect even simple 20-man rapier melees, even without ranged weapons. Its kind of neat). I'm not sure it's so much romanticism as enjoying melee combat and combat archery. The middle ages sucked.

That sounds cool but even that sounds more like "I think this would be neat" instead of "This is historically accurate to some degree" since what I recall of rapiers they were a late period sword that came with the end of the middle ages.


For that matter, the rapier was a duelist's weapon. We don't really have any records of rapiers being used on the battlefield, probably because the people who tried it died really fast. They're not made to fight large numbers of people, and they're not very good at it, even if you have large numbers of people on your side too.
 
2013-06-20 10:37:42 AM  

manimal2878: In most of the world slavery had been abolished by the point that


Really? Within Europe, perhaps, but even the Europeans maintained slaves in their colonies.
 
2013-06-20 10:38:40 AM  
I went to a Catholic school in Dallas in 7th grade (1992). On Robert E Lee's birthday all the kids born in states that seceded got cake and punch and all the kids born outside of those states had to go outside and play until those inside were done. But don't worry, we don't do anything to continue the animosity or glorify parts of the Civil War.
 
2013-06-20 10:41:55 AM  
Apropos

images2.static-bluray.com
 
2013-06-20 10:43:12 AM  

manimal2878: Maybe you should go take a philosophy class at your local community college. The argument over the nature and morality of slavery dates back to the beginning of western civilization with Socrates. The Stoic philosophers, even before Christ, condemned slavery as abhorrent, in that it violates the nature that a man not be the determiner of his own will.


Your argument does nothing to change the fact that virtually every society; even ancient Greece before, during, and after the time of Socrates; practiced slavery.  The rise of abolitionism was not widespread until the 19th century and slavery is now universally condemned.  Even with that, however, it is still practiced in some 3rd world countries.
 
2013-06-20 10:45:25 AM  

Millennium: Repo Man: Yeah, I got that one from my father (who was from Louisiana) when I was a kid. "Uncle Tom's Cabin was propaganda. They wouldn't treat their slaves like that, they were valuable property!" That sort of thinking ignores things like selling off members of your family. If your child was taken from you and sold, would that count as mistreatment? It was certainly a horrible thing to do. And what about all of the rape? Raping your "Valuable property" wouldn't diminish the value. It just goes on and on. Owning another person is horrible, from there it's just a matter of degrees of how horrible.

Uncle Tom's Cabin was not a book written to entertain people; it was a book written to convince people of a point. In that sense, it was indeed a kind of propaganda.

But the arguments you cite were raised even then. For that reason, the author released a (somewhat less famous) companion volume the following year, called A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin. It documented the conditions that the novel depicted: in essence the nonfiction counterpart to the work of fiction. The characters and conditions were all traced to real things.




That's fine, but when my father called it propaganda, he meant that it was all false. He honestly believed that they were better off when they were slaves. Apparently, some distant relatives on my father's side were fairly well off in the antebellum south, and they've never gotten over the butthurt. This is one of the reasons I don't associate with my father's side of the family.
 
2013-06-20 10:46:18 AM  

Negligible: I went to a Catholic school in Dallas in 7th grade (1992). On Robert E Lee's birthday all the kids born in states that seceded got cake and punch and all the kids born outside of those states had to go outside and play until those inside were done. But don't worry, we don't do anything to continue the animosity or glorify parts of the Civil War.


Oh my god! I can only assume you reenacted a battlefield at recess.
 
2013-06-20 10:57:35 AM  
Everything I know about the battle of Gettysburgh I learned in one summer long ago.
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-20 10:58:16 AM  

fireclown: Mr. Right: If a slave didn't want to be whipped, that was entirely under his control. All he had to do was be a good worker and do exactly as he was told and never try to run away.


That's what started unions.
 
2013-06-20 11:09:11 AM  

Kyro: CheatCommando: Um because Lincoln correctly divined that under the Constitution the President had no power other than his office of commander in chief by which he could unilaterally free the slaves, and that that power only applied to areas under military government, not duly elected ones? You know, the answer that is in every farking history book that you apparently have never read because you are worried you might learn something?

It's a good dodge.  But you're still beating your chest in hopes that people overlook the fact that Tennessee and Virginia were among the exemptions, and were still Union-occupied.  Why?  Because they had already won those states.

The Emancipation Proclamation had nothing to do with moral outrage over slavery and everything to do with winning the war.  Again, woefully few Americans were anti-slavery in those days.  19th century Americans were just dicks.


Moving the goalposts I see. You were wondering why it did not apply to the states not in active rebellion, got called on it, and ran for another goal. Typical revisionist bullshiat tactics.

You lost. Get over it and join at least the late 19th century already.
 
2013-06-20 11:09:37 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: To say that if a slave did what he was told, he could have a reasonable life is a riduculous statement, because it depended entirely on the whim of his master, and the master's idea of a "reasonable life"



That is how we live under the U.S. government today -- "Do as you are told, pay what you are instructed to pay, don't try to keep any more than what we allow because we will decide the point that you've made enough money, support every subsidy and crony-bailout we want, and go buy products you don't want from government-approved vendors.  Do these things and you'll have a reasonably good life, so quit biatching about your 'freedoms.'  We'll tell you what your freedoms are."
 
2013-06-20 11:22:44 AM  

This text is now purple: manimal2878: In most of the world slavery had been abolished by the point that

Really? Within Europe, perhaps, but even the Europeans maintained slaves in their colonies.


I guess I am sort of wrong.  Looking at the Wiki timeline on abolition it looks like there are really only a couple remaining colonies of western nations where slavery was not outright banned by the time of the US civil war.

In the east slavery was still going strong it seems, so I am wrong to say, most of the world.  Heck, there was still a country that had legal ownership of slaves until 2007.  But I guess we shouldn't judge them by 21st century standards, they just didn't know better.
 
2013-06-20 11:26:45 AM  

Mr. Right: manimal2878: Maybe you should go take a philosophy class at your local community college. The argument over the nature and morality of slavery dates back to the beginning of western civilization with Socrates. The Stoic philosophers, even before Christ, condemned slavery as abhorrent, in that it violates the nature that a man not be the determiner of his own will.

Your argument does nothing to change the fact that virtually every society; even ancient Greece before, during, and after the time of Socrates; practiced slavery.  The rise of abolitionism was not widespread until the 19th century and slavery is now universally condemned.  Even with that, however, it is still practiced in some 3rd world countries.


Your argument, or the one I orginillay responded to, was that we shouldn't judge the people of the 1800s by today's standards implying there was no framework to question the morality of slavery until recently.  That is clearly wrong.  Whether or not places practiced slavery and found ways to justify it does nothing to contradict that there is a long history of anti-slavery thought that any moral person could access to determine that slavery is wrong.
 
2013-06-20 11:27:03 AM  
OK, by now everyone knows that white southern people in the US are hyperfundamentalist racist pieces of crap who should all be deported to someplace like Uruguay where they will have no choice but to get used to people who actually have different last names than they do.

...and it's been that way for centuries.
 
2013-06-20 11:28:37 AM  

Waldo Pepper: manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: Sure I have but that doesn't change the facts that most of society supported the myth of africans being less than human and born to be slaves.

Sigh.

No most of society did not support that myth.  In most of the world slavery had been abolished by the point that, propagandizer took to the works of darwin as a defense of their "peculiar institution" in stating blacks were an inferior race and needed teh help of slavery to keep them in line.  Ever wonder why it was peculiar?  Because most people no longer recognized it as moral.

sorry I should have said United States society, it was my fault for assuming everyone would understand what I meant since we were talking about the Civil war and slavery in America.


What we are talking about is whether people should have known slavery was wrong or not.
 
2013-06-20 11:30:21 AM  

CheatCommando: You lost. Get over it and join at least the late 19th century already.


Ah, ya see.  You overplayed your hand.  I was buying it until now.  But certainly nobody is moronic enough to still try to pick sides over a war that ended a century and a half ago.  That'd just be retarded.
 
2013-06-20 11:33:00 AM  

Phinn: That is how we live under the U.S. government today -- "Do as you are told, pay what you are instructed to pay, don't try to keep any more than what we allow because we will decide the point that you've made enough money, support every subsidy and crony-bailout we want, and go buy products you don't want from government-approved vendors. Do these things and you'll have a reasonably good life, so quit biatching about your 'freedoms.' We'll tell you what your freedoms are."


Yeah, having to pay your taxes is the same as being a slave.  TeaParty logic at work here.
 
2013-06-20 11:37:30 AM  

Kyro: CheatCommando: You lost. Get over it and join at least the late 19th century already.

Ah, ya see.  You overplayed your hand.  I was buying it until now.  But certainly nobody is moronic enough to still try to pick sides over a war that ended a century and a half ago.  That'd just be retarded.

img.fark.net
Yes, yes it would...
 
2013-06-20 11:38:29 AM  

Kyro: CheatCommando: You lost. Get over it and join at least the late 19th century already.

Ah, ya see.  You overplayed your hand.  I was buying it until now.  But certainly nobody is moronic enough to still try to pick sides over a war that ended a century and a half ago.  That'd just be retarded.


As ignorant of current events as you are of history, I see. Color me unsurprised.
 
2013-06-20 11:40:54 AM  

manimal2878: Mr. Right: manimal2878: Maybe you should go take a philosophy class at your local community college. The argument over the nature and morality of slavery dates back to the beginning of western civilization with Socrates. The Stoic philosophers, even before Christ, condemned slavery as abhorrent, in that it violates the nature that a man not be the determiner of his own will.

Your argument does nothing to change the fact that virtually every society; even ancient Greece before, during, and after the time of Socrates; practiced slavery.  The rise of abolitionism was not widespread until the 19th century and slavery is now universally condemned.  Even with that, however, it is still practiced in some 3rd world countries.

Your argument, or the one I orginillay responded to, was that we shouldn't judge the people of the 1800s by today's standards implying there was no framework to question the morality of slavery until recently.  That is clearly wrong.  Whether or not places practiced slavery and found ways to justify it does nothing to contradict that there is a long history of anti-slavery thought that any moral person could access to determine that slavery is wrong.


Could they? There have been many times and places in this world where access to these schools of thought was restricted (for example, in times where literacy rates were low) or outright impossible (in times where these writings were lost and had yet to be rediscovered).

There is also the question of what it means to be a moral human being. There have been many times and places when the core assumptions and philosophies of modern popular morality would have been (or outright were) considered inadequate, or even outright harmful, as a basis for making moral decisions. Would people considered "moral" at the time have used these schools of thought to determine that slavery was wrong from a moral standpoint, or would they have dismissed those schools of thought as worthless?

People are complex. We look back with our hindsight and call the people of history barbaric, but in another 150-200 years, the people living then will say the same of us. We don't have much of a reliable way to predict why they will say these things, but that they will is beyond doubt: it has been true ever since the rate of social change reached Renaissance-era levels, and it has only gotten more true as social change has sped up. Even before then, the only real difference was that it took longer.
 
2013-06-20 11:41:42 AM  

Trocadero: Yes, yes it would...


Oh snap, son.  Fair play to you.
 
2013-06-20 11:45:57 AM  

Waldo Pepper: ow might these folks have accessed this information? Seriously how would a person raised in deep south rural Georgia have access to any of this information?  The local government, churches, schools and everyone you meet says slavery is the way it is supposed to be, who is telling you otherwise? Even if you questioned whether it is right or wrong all the evidence surrounding you is telling you that it is right.

Again you are looking at it with 21st century judgement.



Did they not have books, libraries, universities, or newspapers back then?  Hmmm, no they did.

Georgia started a university system in the 1780s, I'm sure they had books there.  If they had newspapers the debate would surely have been presented, even if it is presented in a biased way, a rational person still has the ability to discern the truth.
 
2013-06-20 11:47:15 AM  

Waldo Pepper: manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: Sure I have but that doesn't change the facts that most of society supported the myth of africans being less than human and born to be slaves.

Sigh.

No most of society did not support that myth.  In most of the world slavery had been abolished by the point that, propagandizer took to the works of darwin as a defense of their "peculiar institution" in stating blacks were an inferior race and needed teh help of slavery to keep them in line.  Ever wonder why it was peculiar?  Because most people no longer recognized it as moral.

sorry I should have said United States society, it was my fault for assuming everyone would understand what I meant since we were talking about the Civil war and slavery in America.

What we are talking about is whether people should have known slavery was wrong or not.

in the context of America and the Civil war.


And ?  People in America during the civil war didn't know the rest of the world existed?
 
2013-06-20 11:47:31 AM  
Oldiron_79: Well I'm sure a British court would rule that the Declaration of Independence was illegitimite and invalid and all the signers are traitors to the crown.

Probably. However, in the case of both the U.S. War of Independence and the Civil War, the options were as the Supreme Court stated them to be "revolution or consent". In both cases, revolution was attempted; in only one was it successful. And I would argue that the War of Independence, a rebellion against an unrepresentative, undemocratic foreign power, is in no way the moral equal of the Southern insurrection, a rebellion in defense of chattel slavery against the democratic, representative government which the States had willingly agreed to.


Securitywyrm: Perhaps you should also familiarize yourself with Dred vs Stanford, link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Summary:It made two main rulings. The first ruling was that African Americans were not citizens, and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. The second ruling was that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in any territory acquired after the creation of the United States.


The moral bankruptcy of the Court in Dredd Scott has absolutely no bearing upon its legal legitimacy. The Court has been established by the Constitution as the ultimate arbiter of U.S. legal questions, and disagreeing with a decision doesn't change that fact.
 
2013-06-20 11:55:33 AM  
We'd be better of summarily executing anyone over the age of 18 who thinks slavery wasn't the primary cause of the civil war.  A bunch of conservative racists thought the legitimate results of a presidential election were grounds for succession, attacked the United States, while proclaiming their own moral superiority.  The rest of the civilized world had already gotten past slavery, and South Carolina did everything they could to maintain their backwards morality.
 
2013-06-20 11:57:53 AM  

mikewadestr: It was the Civil War that freed Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben.  And don't forget about Mrs.  Butterworth.  Pancake houses would never have existed if it weren't for her.


Waffle House is Lincoln's fault? Who knew?
 
2013-06-20 11:59:19 AM  

Kome: "We've decided the Civil War is a 'good war' because it destroyed slavery," says Fitzhugh Brundage, a historian at the University of North Carolina. "I think it's an indictment of 19th century Americans that they had to slaughter each other to do that."

The only reason we had to slaughter each other is because the South couldn't learn to f*cking deal with the fact that sometimes politics doesn't go your way and they became traitors who should have all been hanged.


The founding fathers were also traitors who seceded for political reasons, would you hang them also? (not to conflate the dickweeds in the south with the ff's, just saying that the outward reasons for each incident are quite similar in structure)
 
2013-06-20 12:04:53 PM  
 People are complex. We look back with our hindsight and call the people of history barbaric, but in another 150-200 years, the people living then will say the same of us. We don't have much of a reliable way to predict why they will say these things, but that they will is beyond doubt: it has been true ever since the rate of social change reached Renaissance-era levels, and it has only gotten more true as social change has sped up. Even before then, the only real difference was that it took longer.


 I don't need to look back in hindsight.  I can go and read the writing of those at the time that said it was wrong, and I agree with them.   Not everyone during that time had the same view of slavery.
 
2013-06-20 12:06:17 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Georgia started a university system in the 1780s, I'm sure they had books there. If they had newspapers the debate would surely have been presented, even if it is presented in a biased way, a rational person still has the ability to discern the truth.

oh yes that farm boy a hundred miles away from the university had such easy access to the books. who do you think ran the local newspaper which might just be owned by a slave holder or maybe the local school which is on land donated by a rich planter

 
2013-06-20 12:07:02 PM  

ChaosStar: clkeagle: NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.

The article, like many that have come before, once again only address slavery as a moral issue. It was only a moral issue to the north.

To the south, it wasn't about the morality or immorality of slavery. It was about money, pure and simple. Their entire economy was based around having labor that wasn't paid with anything more than a leaky roof and just enough food to stay alive. Taking away slavery, purely from an economic standpoint, would force all those plantation owners to suddenly start paying their help... resulting in a major economic shift.

You make it sound like the North wasn't benefiting from the South's economic boons...


The South had a great market for cotton in Europe.  Getting rid of slavery was going to hurt the south far more than the north.
 
2013-06-20 12:07:31 PM  

hb0mb: Neither side cared about black people. Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.


100% wrong.  The south fled the union upon Lincoln's election because he was a know abolitionist.  Due to his careful, political handling of the issue, if you want to make him look like he wasn't a real abolitionist through cherry picking it is possible, but that's not because it's a valid argument, it's because you can make anything look like a real argument with enough cherry picking.
 
2013-06-20 12:09:45 PM  

Waldo Pepper: manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: Sure I have but that doesn't change the facts that most of society supported the myth of africans being less than human and born to be slaves.

Sigh.

No most of society did not support that myth.  In most of the world slavery had been abolished by the point that, propagandizer took to the works of darwin as a defense of their "peculiar institution" in stating blacks were an inferior race and needed teh help of slavery to keep them in line.  Ever wonder why it was peculiar?  Because most people no longer recognized it as moral.

sorry I should have said United States society, it was my fault for assuming everyone would understand what I meant since we were talking about the Civil war and slavery in America.

What we are talking about is whether people should have known slavery was wrong or not.

in the context of America and the Civil war.

And ?  People in America during the civil war didn't know the rest of the world existed?

I'm willing to bet most southerners never travel very far from  their home prior to the civil war especially the poor whites. The rich planter tells you that the black man was born to be a slave who are you to argue with the man who has the power and money.


So your argument is basically that Southerners are too stupid to recognize bullshiat and ever come to the conclusion on their own that owning another human being is wrong?

Sorry, I don't buy that.
 
2013-06-20 12:14:43 PM  
Waldo Pepper:

do you even comprehend how the rural life in the south is now much less how was over 150 years ago?

I'm guessing it was pretty similar to rural life in the north, where they managed to figure out that slavery was wrong.

 
2013-06-20 12:17:49 PM  

Sandwyrm: The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery their freedom from federal authority.


Wrong.  Lincoln was known to be appalled by slavery.  Slavery was the cause of the civil war.  The south left the union because in electing Lincoln they knew they were on the road to losing their ability to own slaves.
 
2013-06-20 12:24:55 PM  

log_jammin: 1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.


In other words, that standard Libertarian view of that period.
 
2013-06-20 12:29:35 PM  

StaleCoffee: Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause?


I'm guessing that those people who like to do civil war re-enactments think if it that way.
 
2013-06-20 12:31:27 PM  

clkeagle: NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.

The article, like many that have come before, once again only address slavery as a moral issue. It was only a moral issue to the north.

To the south, it wasn't about the morality or immorality of slavery. It was about money, pure and simple. Their entire economy was based around having labor that wasn't paid with anything more than a leaky roof and just enough food to stay alive. Taking away slavery, purely from an economic standpoint, would force all those plantation owners to suddenly start paying their help... resulting in a major economic shift.


Like I said, the Libertarian point of view, economics first, everything else is secondary.
 
2013-06-20 12:35:00 PM  

pkellmey: kradio: The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery.

No matter how generally inaccurate that may be.


It's only inaccurate to Libertarians aka the ideological descendents of the Confederacy.
 
2013-06-20 12:36:53 PM  

Deadite: CheatCommando: Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?

The article quotes mostly professors from Southern universities. What conclusion on that matter do you think they draw? They also claim that the civil rights struggle is over and the South is no longer a stagnant backwater.

The same one I hear from my friend's relatives in oklaholma, that everything would have been just fine since john deere would have came along and freed everyone anyways without blood shed from that damn north. Yeah it's truthiness they keep repeating it and they believe it wholeheartedly but if they catch their daughter with Jamal and its right back to the 1850's.

Mostly trying to get someone to bite and flip out about what I wrote, since that usually gets a southerner's temper flared up.


it's like "the free market system will fix everything without any need for the government to get involved".
 
2013-06-20 12:38:06 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Why not? We accept that buying products we want from nations that treat humans with less than basic humans right as an okay practice and we have tons of information about it.  Do we?  No, Plenty of people are against this right now and trying to change it so that those poeple do have basic human rights.

Again you are viewing this with information and facts that you know today vs what was known back in the 1700 and 1800's. As an example as of today we feel it is okay to own dogs and cats as pets and we believe based on the information we have at this point in time that we are in the right to do so and that the cats and dogs appreciate us owning them. There are a those out there that don't feel any human should own dogs or cats but we blow them off as crazies.  First, cats and dogs are not humans despite what Peta may argue their legal status should be.  Secondly , only psychopaths would try and justify the raping and beating of cats and dogs just because we own them.

but what if in 200-300 years we learn that dogs and cats are as cognizant as humans, does that make us as guilty as those in the 1700 and 1800's who were taught that slavery was okay.  Dogs and cats are not human.  So that is a rhetorical dead end.  Where as anyone, from any time period, with any level of knowledge, should recognize the wrongness inherent in owning another human as a slave.  The fact that system was held intact only by force and violance should hint to any rational being that it is wrong and an affront to that persons dignity as a human.

I agree that it is hard to understand how one group of people could own another group of people and we should do our best to never allow this type of mindset to ever take place again. But to point to those who came before us as if they were somehow more evil then us based on information and hindsight is unfair.

  It's completely fair.  Many people at the time thought slave owners were evil, viewing them that way is not new.  The Jews sure didn't like that Pharaoh treated them as slaves, again, the concept of slavery as an evil institution is as old as time.  I don't have to look at it with my 21st century knowledge to recognize that.
 
2013-06-20 12:42:39 PM  

Negligible: I went to a Catholic school in Dallas in 7th grade (1992). On Robert E Lee's birthday all the kids born in states that seceded got cake and punch and all the kids born outside of those states had to go outside and play until those inside were done. But don't worry, we don't do anything to continue the animosity or glorify parts of the Civil War.


This is why no one in Texas out of Dallas likes Dallas.

We recently celebrated June Teenth (19th) in Texas. It's a state holiday (that i don't get off damnit) to celebrate the day that the North finally told Texas to "knock it off with the slavery already" after the end of the Civil War. Most people that i know kinda joke about it, but i think it is important to remember the institution of slavery and the evil that it brought.
 
2013-06-20 12:43:13 PM  
 
2013-06-20 12:45:59 PM  

Ilmarinen: Waldo Pepper: Charles Darwin

A lot of people in this thread seem to know little about Charles Darwin (who, incidentally, was born on the same day as Abe Lincoln).

"Charles Darwin's thinking about the natural world was profoundly influenced by his revulsion for slavery."

Darwin's Sacred Cause:How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution

"the Origin of species was written with a view towards undermining slavery's creationist ideologues"


It's why I've farkied some as The Bevets of Racism.
 
2013-06-20 12:46:35 PM  

Ruiizu: Industry in the south was kept booming by slave workers and the north was frankly very nervous about the amount of power and influence commanded by the south's product.


Yeah, no.

The north was very industrialized. The south was not. The south clinged to an agrarian economy as the north's transformed into an industrial once. "Industry in the south" was insignificant. The north had ten times the industrial might of the south at the start of the war. Slaves by and large worked in agriculture, not industry. The south produced boatloads of cotton, and not much else. While the north benefited greatly from the south's cotton trade, the south was very dependent on the north for manufactured goods. The north was not in any way "nervous about the amount of power and influence commanded by the south's product". The wealth created by the cotton trade did not make the north nervous, it made the north thrilled because the south was a primary market for northern manufactured goods. Even when it comes to textile production, something which you'd think the south would have an edge given that they grew 2/3 of the world's cotton, the northern states produced 17 times the amount of textiles than the south.

Nobody was nervous about the south's industrial might, because the south was utterly lacking in anything resembling industrial might.
 
2013-06-20 12:53:45 PM  

DamnYankees: UNC_Samurai: //wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments

I'd actually be interesting in reading that if you had it handy.


me too!
 
2013-06-20 12:54:05 PM  

manimal2878: So your argument is basically that Southerners are too stupid to recognize bullshiat and ever come to the conclusion on their own that owning another human being is wrong?

Sorry, I don't buy that.


No, the argument is that the question of slavery is not one that can be decided by logic alone. We look at it today and realize that of course it's wrong to own another human being, but our intelligence and reasoning are not what get us to that point. In a time when the methods of logic and science are far less advanced, that becomes even more true.
 
2013-06-20 12:55:46 PM  

bigwave: The South was great until the North found out about it[www.freewebs.com image 400x305]


And now all those black people have forgotten their place, huh? It must be rough living like that.
 
2013-06-20 01:03:24 PM  

ChaosStar: You make it sound like the North wasn't benefiting from the South's economic boons...


Certainly the North derived some benefit, by way of being able to import cheaper cotton/wheat/tobacco/whatever (different regions had different cash crops). In a similar manner, one could say that the South benefited from the North's industrialization, by way of being able to import cheaper finished products. In that way, even for most Southerners, the benefits of slavery were only indirect.

But there is a crucial difference, because in the South, slavery basically provided the underpinnings of the entire economy. A price spike in raw materials would certainly have hurt Northern businesses, but most could ride it out by passing the cost onto the consumer in the form of higher prices on finished goods.

But some businesses would indeed fail, depressing the demand for these raw materials. And at that point, the South would be hit with a double-whammy: you have less money coming in because fewer businesses are buying, but you're paying more for finished goods because these businesses have to cover the higher cost of raw materials. And that's something that hits everyone, not just the slaveowners.

This is the pragmatic reason not to base your economy on slave labor. When it fails, it fails catastrophically. And that's exactly what happened in the South; some would argue that it's still recovering from that blow, even 150 years later. Most would say nowadays that this needed to happen -that it served a far greater good- and I'd agree with that assessment. But it did happen, and whether or not we accept it from a moral standpoint doesn't change the fact that it occurred.
 
2013-06-20 01:07:31 PM  

Millennium: are not what get us to that point.


Then what does?
 
2013-06-20 01:08:14 PM  
manimal2878: Phinn: That is how we live under the U.S. government today -- "Do as you are told, pay what you are instructed to pay, don't try to keep any more than what we allow because we will decide the point that you've made enough money, support every subsidy and crony-bailout we want, and go buy products you don't want from government-approved vendors. Do these things and you'll have a reasonably good life, so quit biatching about your 'freedoms.' We'll tell you what your freedoms are."

Yeah, having to pay your taxes is the same as being a slave.  TeaParty logic at work here.


A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others.  At what percentage does it cease to be slavery?  90%?  80%?

You may not know this (Who are we kidding?  Of course you don't know this!  You're ignorant in general!), but there was a form of slavery that was found in Southern cities like New Orleans and Atlanta, whereby slaves would be "hired out" to work for other people.  Some of those slaves were literate, so they could do forms of work other than agricultural, like bookkeeping, for which they were compensated in money.

The slave-owner was the legal owner of 100% of the slave's earnings, but as a matter of practicality, the slave was ALLOWED to keep a portion of his earnings, to support himself, by paying for room and board and other necessities.

That hired-out slavery arrangement is the functional equivalent of the relationship that exists today between the US government and the 55% of people who pay income taxes.  The US government has, it claims, the superior claim to ALL of your earnings, but out of necessity, ALLOWS some people to keep some arbitrary percentage of their productivity for themselves.

Slavery didn't go away.  It merely evolved from the taking of a person's labor to the taking of a person's money.
 
2013-06-20 01:10:58 PM  

manimal2878: I agree that it is hard to understand how one group of people could own another group of people and we should do our best to never allow this type of mindset to ever take place again. But to point to those who came before us as if they were somehow more evil then us based on information and hindsight is unfair. It's completely fair. Many people at the time thought slave owners were evil, viewing them that way is not new. The Jews sure didn't like that Pharaoh treated them as slaves, again, the concept of slavery as an evil institution is as old as time.


When arguing historical points.  It's best to not throw out things as metaphorical examples of situations that have no evidence.
 
2013-06-20 01:15:16 PM  

Phinn: manimal2878: Phinn: That is how we live under the U.S. government today -- "Do as you are told, pay what you are instructed to pay, don't try to keep any more than what we allow because we will decide the point that you've made enough money, support every subsidy and crony-bailout we want, and go buy products you don't want from government-approved vendors. Do these things and you'll have a reasonably good life, so quit biatching about your 'freedoms.' We'll tell you what your freedoms are."

Yeah, having to pay your taxes is the same as being a slave.  TeaParty logic at work here.

A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others.  At what percentage does it cease to be slavery?  90%?  80%?

You may not know this (Who are we kidding?  Of course you don't know this!  You're ignorant in general!), but there was a form of slavery that was found in Southern cities like New Orleans and Atlanta, whereby slaves would be "hired out" to work for other people.  Some of those slaves were literate, so they could do forms of work other than agricultural, like bookkeeping, for which they were compensated in money.

The slave-owner was the legal owner of 100% of the slave's earnings, but as a matter of practicality, the slave was ALLOWED to keep a portion of his earnings, to support himself, by paying for room and board and other necessities.

That hired-out slavery arrangement is the functional equivalent of the relationship that exists today between the US government and the 55% of people who pay income taxes.  The US government has, it claims, the superior claim to ALL of your earnings, but out of necessity, ALLOWS some people to keep some arbitrary percentage of their productivity for themselves.

Slavery didn't go away.  It merely evolved from the taking of a person's labor to the taking of a person's money.


Are you the property of your employer because you pay taxes?  Can they sell you to another employer?  No?

Then nothing you said was relevant.
 
2013-06-20 01:17:48 PM  

BafflerMeal: manimal2878: I agree that it is hard to understand how one group of people could own another group of people and we should do our best to never allow this type of mindset to ever take place again. But to point to those who came before us as if they were somehow more evil then us based on information and hindsight is unfair. It's completely fair. Many people at the time thought slave owners were evil, viewing them that way is not new. The Jews sure didn't like that Pharaoh treated them as slaves, again, the concept of slavery as an evil institution is as old as time.

When arguing historical points.  It's best to not throw out things as metaphorical examples of situations that have no evidence.


HURRR DURRRRRRR

  Whether the bible story of the jews being slaves in Egypt is historical fact or not, is not in the least bit relevant to the fact that the story of it in the bible establishes a moral precedent against slavery that most in Western Society no matter the era should be familiar with.
 
2013-06-20 01:22:00 PM  

Waldo Pepper: I believe he is saying you are the property of the United States not his employer. He is wrong if that is what he is saying.  Name one person the United States can sell as property to another entity no matter how much in taxes they pay.  The fact that the government can track every phone call, email and internet activity you create sort of helps his argument

They can track 100% of everything I do, but unless they can sell me to another person then that  is irrelevant as well.
 
2013-06-20 01:34:14 PM  

Millennium: ChaosStar: You make it sound like the North wasn't benefiting from the South's economic boons...

Certainly the North derived some benefit, by way of being able to import cheaper cotton/wheat/tobacco/whatever (different regions had different cash crops). In a similar manner, one could say that the South benefited from the North's industrialization, by way of being able to import cheaper finished products. In that way, even for most Southerners, the benefits of slavery were only indirect.

But there is a crucial difference, because in the South, slavery basically provided the underpinnings of the entire economy. A price spike in raw materials would certainly have hurt Northern businesses, but most could ride it out by passing the cost onto the consumer in the form of higher prices on finished goods.

But some businesses would indeed fail, depressing the demand for these raw materials. And at that point, the South would be hit with a double-whammy: you have less money coming in because fewer businesses are buying, but you're paying more for finished goods because these businesses have to cover the higher cost of raw materials. And that's something that hits everyone, not just the slaveowners.

This is the pragmatic reason not to base your economy on slave labor. When it fails, it fails catastrophically. And that's exactly what happened in the South; some would argue that it's still recovering from that blow, even 150 years later. Most would say nowadays that this needed to happen -that it served a far greater good- and I'd agree with that assessment. But it did happen, and whether or not we accept it from a moral standpoint doesn't change the fact that it occurred.


The Civil War as it happened was anything but the only or best course.   Did the North require a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" to correct the near slavery conditions existing then?   Would you say that Apple only derives "some" benefit from having FoxConn use Chinese labor to produce their merchandise?
 
2013-06-20 01:36:02 PM  
The only reason I would consider the war a failure is that the north did not kill enough southerners. I'm not sure what the problem is down south but I am seriously farking tired of the hate of anyone they think is different and the crazy religious nuttery that fans the flame of hate.
 
2013-06-20 01:38:00 PM  

Phinn: A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others. At what percentage does it cease to be slavery? 90%? 80%

At some point before the person is no longer property, need no longer fear arbitrary physical punishment for insubordination to the boss, enjoys full political franchise including the right to run for public office, may own his own property, may travel at will, including beyond his own national borders, may find new employment better suited to his own satisfaction, may even obtain substantial assistance from the government which purportedly "enslaves" him to educate himself in order to improve his lot, enjoys the legal right to benefit on equal terms with those similarly situated to himself from the government's expenditure of his tax dollars paid...


You are not a slave. You are one of the most free, privileged persons ever to walk the planet. A lawfully imposed income tax pursuant to a power expressly granted to the federal government has nothing substantial in common with slavery whatsoever.


This is not a question of opinion. It is a question of IQ. Either you understand the difference between slavery and taxes imposed pursuant to law in a democratic society, or you don't. And if you don't, your failure to understand derives from a deficit in your cognition relating to your ability to process abstract concepts. That deficit in turn may arise from damage to your cerebral cortex sustained in the course of repeatedly beating your head against a hard object such as a brick wall.


My prescription: a medical safety helmet, to be worn at all times. Even around the house.


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-20 01:41:13 PM  

badhatharry: Only very rich people had slaves. Most of the people fighting and dying for the South weren't doing it for slavery.

There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.


So you can provide us with examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted for mistreatment of slaves?
 
2013-06-20 01:50:40 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Here comes the trolls


Said the person who thinks living in a democracy is like being a slave (and abused a quote from Darwin in the process).

For those extenuating slavery, let me leave you with this (recently posted by another Farker):

There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example," said Oats.
"And what do they think? Against it, are they?" said Granny Weatherwax.
"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
"Nope."
"Pardon?"
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is.
"It's a lot more complicated than that -"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes -"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things ..."

-Carpe Jugulum (Pratchett)
 
2013-06-20 01:51:30 PM  

Phinn: That hired-out slavery arrangement is the functional equivalent of the relationship that exists today between the US government and the 55% of people who pay income taxes. The US government has, it claims, the superior claim to ALL of your earnings, but out of necessity, ALLOWS some people to keep some arbitrary percentage of their productivity for themselves.


The way you phrased that is important.  And correct.  The government does not view you as being the owner of your own labor - it considers all productivity to be the property of the government and, in its beneficence, it allows you to keep a portion.  Withholding taxes are a clear indication that the government must be apprised of your income and take the first cut.  There is nothing wrong with paying taxes - it is the duty of citizens living under the protection of the state to do so.  But the State, in demanding that employers report everything they pay to their employees and then divvy that up amongst the various levels of government before the employer receives his wages, is telling both the employer and employee that they are not to be trusted, that they must report against each other, and that the government gets first cut at the fruits of the employee's labor.

Similarly, slave owners may have owned the slave but that made them responsible for their care and keeping.  By confiscating the fruits of the slaves' labor, the slave owner made himself responsible for seeing to it that they had food, clothing, and shelter. The alternative was to watch them  become unproductive and die.  So, while the slave had no freedom, he also had no worries about where he would live, what he would wear, and where his next meal was coming from.  He also had no choice over where he would live, what he would wear, or what he would eat.  Rights and responsibilities go together.  If the slave owner usurped the right to the labor of the slave, he had the responsibility to provide the basics of existence.

Compare that to the U.S. government today.  If we cannot afford food, clothing, or shelter, there are government programs to provide them.  We collectively pay taxes for that.  But, when the government is paying the bill, it assumes the right to determine the kind of housing for which it will pay, the kind of food SNAP may pay for, etc.  We are on the cusp of the ACA going into effect.  In it, the government plays an ever-increasing role in dictating what kind of health care and health care payment plan everyone must have.  It is demanding that employers provide particular kinds of coverage for its employees or pay fines.  In other words, the government is assuming the responsibility of seeing to it that all citizens have access to health care and payment for said health care.  We have already seen that, concurrent with the assumption of that responsibility, it has usurped the right to specify who and how the people will pay for it.  To believe that the assumption, by the government, of the right to determine the nature of health care and who will qualify for any particular health-related services is far behind is naivety in the extreme.  We are becoming once again enslaved (for many, voluntarily) in the hope that the awful responsibility of responsibility will be lifted from us.
 
2013-06-20 01:57:32 PM  

Waldo Pepper: manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: I believe he is saying you are the property of the United States not his employer. He is wrong if that is what he is saying.  Name one person the United States can sell as property to another entity no matter how much in taxes they pay.  The fact that the government can track every phone call, email and internet activity you create sort of helps his argument.  They can track 100% of everything I do, but unless they can sell me to another person then that  is irrelevant as well.

has the United States every traded prisoner of war or any other type prisoner for another from another country. Sure you can say they were saving that americans life by getting them back in the country but when you strip everything else away they were using that person to deal. 

Has America ever extradited anyone in order to maintain relations with a country when the evidence against that person is bogus. I don't have the answer but I'm sure at some point in our current history it has occurred


Neither of those things are saying the person is the property of the government.
 
2013-06-20 01:58:40 PM  
Largely it's the prevailing philosophy. Worth noting is that while the antebellum South typically tried to justify slavery by stating that the slaves were subhuman, this was actually somewhat unusual among slaveholding cultures. They were fully cognizant of their slaves' humanity, yet had no qualms about owning them.

Consider, for example, the ancient Roman code of law. The whole thing was underpinned by the idea of people as property: children were the property of their fathers and wives were property of their husbands, and these were themselves the property of the heads of their families, and these were the property of the state, and it was held to be on this basis alone that the state had any power at all. In a system where everybody is somebody's property, why would anyone think it wrong for one person to own another? Roman slaves sometimes even had slaves of their own.

I bring up the Roman code of law specifically for its continued relevance. Even today, some 1500-plus years later, most nations base their law codes upon it very strongly. They've (at least nominally) given up the notion of the state deriving its power from people-as-property, but a code that is even now considered advanced and enlightened enough to base a modern nation's laws on nevertheless arose from a civilization that held that notion dear.
 
2013-06-20 01:59:45 PM  

hitlersbrain: The only reason I would consider the war a failure is that the north did not kill enough southerners. I'm not sure what the problem is down south but I am seriously farking tired of the hate of anyone they think is different and the crazy religious nuttery that fans the flame of hate.


I consider myself a southerner.  Not everyone here is the strawman southerner you believe is all southerners.
 
2013-06-20 02:05:49 PM  
Waldo Pepper:
it is very possible to be a slave in a democracy as slavery is more complicated than the simple yet horrific chattel slavery that the african were subjected to in American and other countries.  

Who here has family members who's parents were slaves raise their hands

raises his hand.


After a point, it ceases being a philosophical argument on the imbalance of power and it turns into people using a loaded term to garner sympathy for their position.  We need to be careful where we draw the line when defining our most detested concepts, so as to recognize a problem when it appears and avoid the "Cry Wolf" complication.
 
2013-06-20 02:08:28 PM  
Waldo Pepper:

When the government can determines the outcome of your personhood when you have commit no crime in the US or quite possibly the only reason you are being held by another country is because you are an American and the only reason the US bargins for your release is to advance their own cause you are being treated as property.

Clarify, please.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your meaning, the sentence structure is throwing me off.
 
2013-06-20 02:08:35 PM  
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  But so are those who study history, as this thread proves.
 
2013-06-20 02:13:34 PM  

clkeagle: NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.

The article, like many that have come before, once again only address slavery as a moral issue. It was only a moral issue to the north.

To the south, it wasn't about the morality or immorality of slavery. It was about money, pure and simple. Their entire economy was based around having labor that wasn't paid with anything more than a leaky roof and just enough food to stay alive. Taking away slavery, purely from an economic standpoint, would force all those plantation owners to suddenly start paying their help... resulting in a major economic shift.


Heh. You make it sound like the Northerners didn't keep slaves for profit. Explain then, why was one of the biggest slave ports (if not THE biggest) in the U.S. located in Boston, Massachusetts? And why did the much lauded "Emancipation proclamation" only free slaves in Secessionist states, leaving the ones owned by northerners secure? And why did fugitive slave laws extend all the way to the northern border, allowing any careless person with darker skin to be snagged and sold at the nearest slave market?

Face the facts. Slavery was a minor issue to the north at best. The main concern that took center stage was what a secession would mean if it was pulled off. For the north it meant that the south could impose tariffs on all goods produced for export AND keep those funds for themselves. It also meant that the north would no longer be paid any taxes by the states that split. The last (and most concerning) issue was that the south produced a massive amount of the industrialized north's food. The loss of that supply or an increase in cost was the deepest seated fear among the north, should a secession occur.
 
2013-06-20 02:14:19 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  But so are those who study history, as this thread proves.


This is a valid discussion, we are going to face a similar situation in the near future.  The creation of an artificial intelligence is going to be the most significant event in human history, but it won't happen with a bang.  There's going to be gradients of marginally improved programs until we'll reach a threshold of true sentience.  How we treat these personalities will either vindicate or condemn our entire race.  The civil war is the most recent event with the most relevant study material.
 
2013-06-20 02:17:35 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Latinwolf: badhatharry: Only very rich people had slaves. Most of the people fighting and dying for the South weren't doing it for slavery.

There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

So you can provide us with examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted for mistreatment of slaves?

Historian
Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave. ... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."

I can't find any links for it but I would imagine there were some trials before the courts concerning slave mistreatment.

also this is intereting
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners


I asked for examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted, which you didn't provide.  Black slave owners don't count as the laws back then, and today in many of those places, would have been applied differently. Nor does claiming that you imagine some whites were prosecuted count.
 
2013-06-20 02:18:50 PM  
I've participated in a bunch of Civil War reenactments, so I can handle this one. I was on the Union side in the reenactments I was in, and I heard the Confederate soldiers use the N-word. This, to me, makes it clear that the South was full of racists. So, the Civil War was very clearly only about slavery.
 
2013-06-20 02:22:35 PM  

Thrag: Ruiizu: Industry in the south was kept booming by slave workers and the north was frankly very nervous about the amount of power and influence commanded by the south's product.

Yeah, no.

The north was very industrialized. The south was not. The south clinged to an agrarian economy as the north's transformed into an industrial once. "Industry in the south" was insignificant. The north had ten times the industrial might of the south at the start of the war. Slaves by and large worked in agriculture, not industry. The south produced boatloads of cotton, and not much else. While the north benefited greatly from the south's cotton trade, the south was very dependent on the north for manufactured goods. The north was not in any way "nervous about the amount of power and influence commanded by the south's product". The wealth created by the cotton trade did not make the north nervous, it made the north thrilled because the south was a primary market for northern manufactured goods. Even when it comes to textile production, something which you'd think the south would have an edge given that they grew 2/3 of the world's cotton, the northern states produced 17 times the amount of textiles than the south.

Nobody was nervous about the south's industrial might, because the south was utterly lacking in anything resembling industrial might.


The best I can really cede you is my poor choice of the word "industry." I don't mean to say there were factories dotting the south, but cotton and tobacco were huge money making crops. The loss of the south would have cost the north a fortune in tax revenue, but there was also still a real concern of plotting with a foreign power against the north.

Your points about industrialization are correct, but it would be doing a disservice to history to not also account for how valuable the south's production of raw materials was and how much their ties to slavery made law making unnaturally difficult. I'm not pro south by a long shot, but the north definitely did not have very noble intentions by and large.
 
2013-06-20 02:30:58 PM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: The Civil War as it happened was anything but the only or best course.


I'll agree that it wasn't the only course. But whether or not it was the "best" course depends on what the goal was. Nowadays, we say that the war was fought to free the slaves from the evil rebellion. There are two goals implicit in that statement, and war was most certainly the best way to accomplish them both, at once, that quickly.

Did the North require a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" to correct the near slavery conditions existing then?

Marx himself thought that the US might be able to avoid the bloody revolutions and such that he otherwise considered inevitable, because it had never experienced feudalism.

Would you say that Apple only derives "some" benefit from having FoxConn use Chinese labor to produce their merchandise?

Not as much as FoxConn itself does.
 
2013-06-20 02:32:53 PM  
scumshine:
/yes, I went there
//wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments
///guess which group's monuments did more to convey a sense of regret and loss

Ever been to Vicksburg? The monuments erected there by the North are stunning. The South's are paltry in comparison. Same at Shiloh. I'm not sure why, the South lacked the money and organisational talent to have some decent monuments placed there? Too distracted by other pressing issues?


Go to Charleston and take the ferry to Fort Sumter sometime.  There is a large monument in front of Battery Huger listing every single Union officer and soldier, including musicians, who withstood about 2 days of bombardment before surrendering the fort, and leaving on Union vessels.  There are absolutely no monuments whatsoever for the Confederates who successfully held the fort from 1863 until the end of the war, despite the fort being reduced to a mound of rubble.
 
2013-06-20 02:33:15 PM  

StaleCoffee: Madbassist1: IdBeCrazyIf: badhatharry: You're right. Just trying to clear up a misconception. Many slaves stayed on to work the same plantations where they were slaves. Granted it is difficult to just pick up and leave without anything, but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case.

[img.fark.net image 500x375]

Why? Because it's the truth? What the fark is wrong with you people?

The good or bad treatment of slaves was entirely on the slave owner. I'm sure some of those folks at the very least were not cruel and evil people as depicted and were raised in an environment they were taught to be normal, but treated slaves with a modicum of respect or decency as best fit that culture. Some might have treated their slaves well simply because you get better work from a healthy worker. In some situations it would be more appealing to stay on as paid labor than it would be to strike out into a territory where the law still worked against you because of your skin color and you were more likely to be beaten or killed because you weren't even viewed as an investment. So staying on somewhere because it's familiar, your lot is slightly improved and you're significantly safer because you know the rules of the place even if you have next to no legal recourse is a much more appealing situation for anyone.

A lot of former slaves did feel that where they were was worse than a chance encounter with someone on the road that could beat or kill them with near impunity and took that chance to go out into the world. In a lot of cases it *was* that bad.

Even in cases where it was that bad, and people stayed, it was because people of any color or ethnicity tend to feel safer in familiar territory no matter how harsh or painful. You spend that much time terrified of death for running away, leaving is still a burned in terror even if someone a thousand miles away with no way to enforce your safety told you it's okay to do so.


Many slaves fled to Union lines during the war.  Some slave owners felt slighted as they felt they treated their slaves well and couldn't believe well treated slaves would choose to run away.  Almost like people don't like being enslaved!
 
2013-06-20 03:03:47 PM  
Any civil war represents a failure. But this one was necessary. We didn't have to kill over 600,000 Americans to end slavery. But the South made it necessary to do so.

Obviously, the post-war period wasn't going to make everything all better (again, largely because of the South).

I have never thought of the Civil War as glorious or noble. WTF would anyone think that?  It was like lancing a giant, ugly boil. Slavery here had to end (and should have ended long before it did). But of course slaveowners and the politicians they owned weren't going to make that easy.

And then they continued virtual slavery for a hundred years afterwards. Assholes. All those dead people from the war are their fault.

Certainly, the North had plenty of racists. But racism and slavery are different. Slavery doesn't make racism OK by comparison, but it sure as hell added the profit motive, made white supremacy very lucrative for a lot of people.
 
2013-06-20 03:51:45 PM  

Waldo Pepper: I read the book "The fall of the house of dixie" and the author writes about and quotes those from that period about how the slaves will be happy to fight for the southern cause. It is quite amazing to think just how different a world plantation life was in the south.

I don't blame the south for wanting to fight for their lifestyle but I do blame those who created the Jim Crow laws and or took advantage of those in the south during the decades after the civil war. The United States had a chance to correct a major wrong a birth defect if you will and raped the a great positive that came out of a family fight.

I realize this is a bad comparison but I'd imagine this is how the hollywood community is like. the honesty think people are happy to serve them and everyone should have time to pursue charitable causes and cook organic and so on.


You are either amazingly ignorant or a maestro troll.
 
2013-06-20 03:52:26 PM  
It put the South in their rightful place.  For that alone it is the GREATEST WAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY!
 
2013-06-20 03:54:33 PM  
Even without the war, slavery would have ended one way or another well before the end of the century. Cheap and reliable repeating rifles were starting to come onto the market. Plenty of the abolitionist groups had deep pockets and would have started buying them and smuggling them to slaves. The south would have gotten tired of putting down uprisings and either would have just freed them or shipped them out of the country.
 
2013-06-20 03:57:32 PM  
 
2013-06-20 04:05:15 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Latinwolf: Waldo Pepper: Latinwolf: badhatharry: Only very rich people had slaves. Most of the people fighting and dying for the South weren't doing it for slavery.

There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

So you can provide us with examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted for mistreatment of slaves?

Historian
Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave. ... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."

I can't find any links for it but I would imagine there were some trials before the courts concerning slave mistreatment.

also this is intereting
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners

I asked for examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted, which you didn't provide.  Black slave owners don't count as the laws back then, and today in many of those places, would have been applied differently. Nor does claiming that you imagine some whites were prosecuted count.

I said the black slave owners was interesting I didn't say it had anything to do with your point. 

there were laws/codes on the books about owners mistreating slaves. Sorry if I am unable to find any cases using a google search I can only assume that with as backed up as the courts are they just haven't had time to upload the information. 

My assumption about some whites being prosecuted is based on why put the laws/codes on the books if you don't plan on using them.


Yes because there have never been any laws that weren't enforced, guess what, if you do a good search you'll find plenty of them.

On November 23, 1739, in williamsburg, va, two white men (Charles Quin and David White) were hanged for the murder of another white man's slave. On April 21, 1775, thevirginia gazette in fredricksburg reported that a white man (William Pitman) was hanged for the murder of his own slave.

Interesting that your only examples were before the birth of this nation.
 
2013-06-20 04:05:24 PM  

manimal2878: Neither of those things are saying the person is the property of the government.


If there were ever a word today that's being misused in an Orwellian sense, it's the work property.

Idea's are property.
Patents are property.
Your Gene's are someones property.
People are property.
Freedom is property.

The conservative obsession with property reminds me of Aborigine society.  The rule that women need to be married.  So infants, and widows have to be married off, no exceptions.  Conservatives are like, everything is property, and every bit of property needs ownership, by someone. Suggest that something should be owned in common and they go batshi'it.  Suggest somethings should be free and they go ape.
 
2013-06-20 04:23:52 PM  

Waldo Pepper: StaleCoffee: Waldo Pepper: I read the book "The fall of the house of dixie" and the author writes about and quotes those from that period about how the slaves will be happy to fight for the southern cause. It is quite amazing to think just how different a world plantation life was in the south.

I don't blame the south for wanting to fight for their lifestyle but I do blame those who created the Jim Crow laws and or took advantage of those in the south during the decades after the civil war. The United States had a chance to correct a major wrong a birth defect if you will and raped the a great positive that came out of a family fight.

I realize this is a bad comparison but I'd imagine this is how the hollywood community is like. the honesty think people are happy to serve them and everyone should have time to pursue charitable causes and cook organic and so on.

You are either amazingly ignorant or a maestro troll.

why?


Because I can't tell if your efforts to paint the south as some kind of downtrodden tragedy that was fully within its own rights to behave as it did is sincere or aiming for responses.

Citing that book as some kind of support for the idea that slaves were happy to fight for the Confederacy is either blatant falsehood or sheer ignorant twaddle.

As its ranks dwindled and in a last gasp, the Confederacy, too, had a plan to recruit black soldiers. In 1864, Confederate President Jefferson Davis approved a plan to recruit free blacks and slaves into the Confederate army. Quoting Frederick Douglass, Levine calls the logic behind the idea "a species of madness."
One factor that contributed to this madness, he says, "is the drumbeat of self-hypnosis" that told Confederates that "the slaves are loyal, the slaves embrace slavery, the slaves are contented in slavery, the slaves know that black people are inferior and need white people to ... oversee their lives. ... Black people will defend the South that has been good to them. There are, of course, by [then] very many white Southerners who know this is by no means true, but enough of them do believe it so that they're willing to give this a chance."


Five minutes poking around the Internet will give you a wealth of information, including the npr article I lifted that out of.

The southern lifestyle was not what anyone was fighting for, except the poorer whites who were sold a pile of bullshiat. The secessionist states were traitors, by any measurement, including their own. It was only awe-inspiring hypocrisy that anyone had the gall to cite states rights as a reason for that war. The only states rights they were concerned with was their own, their problem was that their rights didn't universally extend into other states - who should have the same sovereignty over their own dominion as the secessionists claimed for themselves, yet here we see special pleading. No, but, it's OUR STUFF. It's OUR RULES. We want OUR THINGS to work in YOUR STATES, but not YOUR THINGS in OURS. That was the entire bottom line of the southern secessionists.
 
2013-06-20 04:36:04 PM  
Brazil offers a very interesting parallel example:   In some ways, it is very similar to the US historically
(large decentralized country, European "colonial" elite, an early economy whose most productive part was slave-based, a "Wild West", which in Brazil's case was the North).
The biggest different, to my mind, is that there was no Civil War.    Slavery ended by a combination of passive resistance, uprisings, slaves running away to the North en masse, and at the end a Royal decree opposition to which was muted because, at that point, Slavery was essentially unenforceable.

So, what are the effects on "modern" XXth century Brazil:   There was no equivalent of Jim Crow.
There is plenty of subtle racial discrimination, which is really an artifact of Brazil's enormous economic inequality (worse than the US, cue the protests going on right now), but, for instance, so many intermarriages (and early acceptance of Intermarriage) that practically all Brazilians are, to some extent, mixed race.
I find it plausible that the absence of the Civil war had something to do with it.
 
2013-06-20 04:42:31 PM  

lunogled: Brazil offers a very interesting parallel example:   In some ways, it is very similar to the US historically
(large decentralized country, European "colonial" elite, an early economy whose most productive part was slave-based, a "Wild West", which in Brazil's case was the North).
The biggest different, to my mind, is that there was no Civil War.    Slavery ended by a combination of passive resistance, uprisings, slaves running away to the North en masse, and at the end a Royal decree opposition to which was muted because, at that point, Slavery was essentially unenforceable.

So, what are the effects on "modern" XXth century Brazil:   There was no equivalent of Jim Crow.
There is plenty of subtle racial discrimination, which is really an artifact of Brazil's enormous economic inequality (worse than the US, cue the protests going on right now), but, for instance, so many intermarriages (and early acceptance of Intermarriage) that practically all Brazilians are, to some extent, mixed race.
I find it plausible that the absence of the Civil war had something to do with it.



A good observation.  Most countries in the world ending slavery without war.  It's a little disingenuous to suggest that the US 'had' to have one.  That just happens to be how it played out.

/tired of false dilemmas
/lazy thinking
 
2013-06-20 04:49:29 PM  

lunogled: Brazil offers a very interesting parallel example:   In some ways, it is very similar to the US historically
(large decentralized country, European "colonial" elite, an early economy whose most productive part was slave-based, a "Wild West", which in Brazil's case was the North).
The biggest different, to my mind, is that there was no Civil War.    Slavery ended by a combination of passive resistance, uprisings, slaves running away to the North en masse, and at the end a Royal decree opposition to which was muted because, at that point, Slavery was essentially unenforceable.

So, what are the effects on "modern" XXth century Brazil:   There was no equivalent of Jim Crow.
There is plenty of subtle racial discrimination, which is really an artifact of Brazil's enormous economic inequality (worse than the US, cue the protests going on right now), but, for instance, so many intermarriages (and early acceptance of Intermarriage) that practically all Brazilians are, to some extent, mixed race.
I find it plausible that the absence of the Civil war had something to do with it.


Interesting observation, but there were far fewer "whites" in Brazil as there were in America.
 
2013-06-20 04:55:13 PM  

bugontherug: You are not a slave. You are one of the most free, privileged persons ever to walk the planet.



Thanks, but I don't live according to what privileges you decide to recognize.

Also, you're the kind of guy who would tell the slaves working in the Big House to stop complaining, since they had it a lot better than the ones in the fields.  It's true.  They did.

Slavery has been modernized.  Farmers figured out a long time ago that when you keep cattle in tight confinement and lousy conditions, they are less productive, die early, and reproduce less.  Thus, free-range farming methods were developed.

The US government is a free-range tax farm.  And we're the livestock.

Hey, I've got a question for you, Mr. IQ -- Do you know what (chattel, pre-free-range) slave-owners in the old South relied on to keep the slaves in line?

Other slaves.  You see, slave-on-slave antagonism, particularly in the form of hostility to any other slave's assertion of increased freedom, is one of the keys to maintaining control of a subjugated population.
 
2013-06-20 04:57:34 PM  

DamnYankees: UNC_Samurai: //wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments

I'd actually be interesting in reading that if you had it handy.


I looked on every hard and flash drive in my house, and it's nowhere to be found - it must have been on my university shared drive (which has been wiped by now).

The TL; DR was that there were distinct periods of people building monuments after each war.  In all three cases, the people erecting monuments did so at a very local level, and predominantly in the hometowns.  As time passed, however, southern Americans bought into the Lost Cause mythology, and made monuments that were intended to honor abstract concepts like bravery and courage that weren't really objectionable on the surface, because (as someone upthread mentioned) Union monuments were often just as elaborate.  But the political messages in the Confederate monuments are stronger, such as the poses of soldiers, and the location (Confederate monuments along Seminary Ridge have a loose correlation between when they were put up and how much closer to Cemetery Ridge they were).

This contrasts with German war memorials, which almost universally use the most abstract style possible.  This is partly due to aesthetic differences in the era in which they lived, and some cultural differences, but almost every single soldier you see depicted on a German war memorial is kneeling, or has his head down, and looks very somber (but even these figures look a little like stylized cartoons rather than the realistic faces we see on Confederate monuments).  It's also hard to trace a full development path for First World War monuments because the Second World War interrupts the cultural path, but there's enough to work with that there are common traits in the beginning with rapidly divergent paths.

My personal conclusions from reading the sources for the historiography was that Confederate culture was allowed to retain a certain measure of absolution for what they did, and may have been fueled partly by Lincoln's desires in Reconstruction (getting back to "malice toward none"), and the process being abruptly halted by the election of 1876.  Germans, meanwhile, were figuratively hit over the head with the notion they had been an unjust aggressor in both wars, and in the case of the Second World War it's fairly obvious that the Allies undertook a major effort to eradicate as much support and desire for the political ideology that drove Germany into that war (consequently, Second World War memorials are the most abstract of all, as is the case with the Laboe Memorial in Kiel).

I can't remember all of my sources, but the most important ones were:

Confederate Symbols in the Contemporary South; William D. Richardson, Ron McNinch-Su, J. Michael Martinez
Cities of the Dead: Contesting the Memory of the Civil War in the South, 1865-1914; William Blair
Monuments To The Lost Cause: Women, Art, And The Landscapes Of Southern Memory; Cynthia Mills, Pamela H. Simpson
The Great War and Modern Memory; Paul Fussell
War and German Memory: Excavating the Significance of the Second World War in German Cultural Consciousness; K. Michael Prince
From Monuments to Traces: Artifacts of German Memory, 1870-1990; Rudy Koshar
Nationalism and Sexuality: Respectability and Abnormal Sexuality in Modern Europe; George L. Mosse
 
2013-06-20 05:00:39 PM  

StaleCoffee: Waldo Pepper: StaleCoffee: Waldo Pepper: I read the book "The fall of the house of dixie" and the author writes about and quotes those from that period about how the slaves will be happy to fight for the southern cause. It is quite amazing to think just how different a world plantation life was in the south.

I don't blame the south for wanting to fight for their lifestyle but I do blame those who created the Jim Crow laws and or took advantage of those in the south during the decades after the civil war. The United States had a chance to correct a major wrong a birth defect if you will and raped the a great positive that came out of a family fight.

I realize this is a bad comparison but I'd imagine this is how the hollywood community is like. the honesty think people are happy to serve them and everyone should have time to pursue charitable causes and cook organic and so on.

You are either amazingly ignorant or a maestro troll.

why?

Because I can't tell if your efforts to paint the south as some kind of downtrodden tragedy that was fully within its own rights to behave as it did is sincere or aiming for responses.

Citing that book as some kind of support for the idea that slaves were happy to fight for the Confederacy is either blatant falsehood or sheer ignorant twaddle.

As its ranks dwindled and in a last gasp, the Confederacy, too, had a plan to recruit black soldiers. In 1864, Confederate President Jefferson Davis approved a plan to recruit free blacks and slaves into the Confederate army. Quoting Frederick Douglass, Levine calls the logic behind the idea "a species of madness."
One factor that contributed to this madness, he says, "is the drumbeat of self-hypnosis" that told Confederates that "the slaves are loyal, the slaves embrace slavery, the slaves are contented in slavery, the slaves know that black people are inferior and need white people to ... oversee their lives. ... Black people will defend the South that has been good to them. There are, of ...


By the way, a lot of Southerners decided the war was bullshiat the minute the Confederacy enacted conscription and added an exemption for men who owned more than 20 slaves.  That was responsible for the sharpest increase in Confederate desertion in the entire war.  That's when they realized they'd been sold a bill of goods, the infamous "rich man's war, poor man's fight".
 
2013-06-20 05:05:19 PM  

Waldo Pepper: sorry I didn't make myself clear (just read what i wrote) when I cited the book. I was trying to reaffirm a previous post about how some in the south thought the slaves would be happy to fight for them and how they were actually shocked that the slaves fled to the Union side to be free. I was unclear.

I was also trying and it appears failing to point out how the plantation life appears much like life in Hollywood where they are in their own little world and are amazed that there is a real world out there that is vastly different from their spoiled life and no matter how happy people appear to be in working for them, almost all would rather be free or in the case of those working for the spoiled class they would rather be not have to be at their beck and call 24/7.

I don't believe I was painting a picture of the southern life being a downtrodden tragedy. I do believe they felt it was within the right to defend and protect their way of life and that it is very hard for us to understand how people viewed states rights vs national rights back them.



 completely misunderstood what you were saying. I appreciate the clarification and apologize for being an ass.

it is also ridiculous for those on here to talk about how there were resources for folks back then to know slavery was wrong. Let me tell you there is no way the resources were easy to obtain. I recently moved to a small town in NC well actually 10 miles outside of town (pop 3500, where i live pop 800) after spending my life in the Washington DC suburbs and a visit to the local library is eye opening. very limited selection, still has more VHS tapes to check out then DVD's

wrt that I disagree to an extent. The people making those policies were very easily informed as to their decisions and knew full well what they were doing. Those lower classes who did not have those resources available were as manipulated into their views as others in the current era in some cases, but for the most part - like now - they simply didn't care.

Something your local library can do, like any other library, is order any materials that aren't available. There's a point at which ignorance is easily defeated by a modicum of ambition. There was no ambition to question for those folks. That those resources weren't available is not sufficient reason on its own to say people in that time couldn't know slavery was wrong.
 
2013-06-20 05:07:21 PM  

StaleCoffee: Waldo Pepper: sorry I didn't make myself clear (just read what i wrote) when I cited the book. I was trying to reaffirm a previous post about how some in the south thought the slaves would be happy to fight for them and how they were actually shocked that the slaves fled to the Union side to be free. I was unclear.

I was also trying and it appears failing to point out how the plantation life appears much like life in Hollywood where they are in their own little world and are amazed that there is a real world out there that is vastly different from their spoiled life and no matter how happy people appear to be in working for them, almost all would rather be free or in the case of those working for the spoiled class they would rather be not have to be at their beck and call 24/7.

I don't believe I was painting a picture of the southern life being a downtrodden tragedy. I do believe they felt it was within the right to defend and protect their way of life and that it is very hard for us to understand how people viewed states rights vs national rights back them.


 completely misunderstood what you were saying. I appreciate the clarification and apologize for being an ass.

it is also ridiculous for those on here to talk about how there were resources for folks back then to know slavery was wrong. Let me tell you there is no way the resources were easy to obtain. I recently moved to a small town in NC well actually 10 miles outside of town (pop 3500, where i live pop 800) after spending my life in the Washington DC suburbs and a visit to the local library is eye opening. very limited selection, still has more VHS tapes to check out then DVD's

wrt that I disagree to an extent. The people making those policies were very easily informed as to their decisions and knew full well what they were doing. Those lower classes who did not have those resources available were as manipulated into their views as others in the current era in some cases, but for the most part - like n ...


Also, I forgot to address - the way they viewed states rights is very well documented, and the southern cause for states rights was offensively weak and massively hypocritical. They did not have the right to do as they did and are appropriately labelled traitors then and now for it.
 
2013-06-20 06:26:58 PM  

Phinn: bugontherug: You are not a slave. You are one of the most free, privileged persons ever to walk the planet.

Thanks, but I don't live according to what privileges you decide to recognize.

Also, you're the kind of guy who would tell the slaves working in the Big House to stop complaining, since they had it a lot better than the ones in the fields.  It's true.  They did.

Slavery has been modernized.  Farmers figured out a long time ago that when you keep cattle in tight confinement and lousy conditions, they are less productive, die early, and reproduce less.  Thus, free-range farming methods were developed.

The US government is a free-range tax farm.  And we're the livestock.

Hey, I've got a question for you, Mr. IQ -- Do you know what (chattel, pre-free-range) slave-owners in the old South relied on to keep the slaves in line?

Other slaves.  You see, slave-on-slave antagonism, particularly in the form of hostility to any other slave's assertion of increased freedom, is one of the keys to maintaining control of a subjugated population.


The head bashing: do you do it because it feels good? Or is it a compulsion that you've found yourself unable to overcome with effort of will, even though it hurts? I'm just trying to get a handle on this, so we can find the right course of treatment for you.

By your definition, which effectively equates slavery to "being subject to the jurisdiction of any government in human history" virtually every human living and who has lived is/was a slave.
 
2013-06-20 06:41:43 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Waldo Pepper: Slavery DefinedWhile definitions differ of what constitutes slavery in contemporary society, these factors are typically present:

The victim is induced into slave-like exploitation through fraud, force or coercion;The enslaved are subject to physical abuse and/or psychological intimidation;Victims are not readily able to free themselves from their situation.
Most your definition doesn't jive with what the freedom center defines as a slave. just paying income tax may not make one a slave but I would argue that the welfare state the government has created has in sense created slaves out of many who are trapped in it.

Oh well. I have found you can find happiness in slavery.

Graphic content warning. NSFW.

 
2013-06-20 09:19:17 PM  

Phinn: bugontherug: You are not a slave. You are one of the most free, privileged persons ever to walk the planet.

Thanks, but I don't live according to what privileges you decide to recognize.

Also, you're the kind of guy who would tell the slaves working in the Big House to stop complaining, since they had it a lot better than the ones in the fields.  It's true.  They did.

Slavery has been modernized.  Farmers figured out a long time ago that when you keep cattle in tight confinement and lousy conditions, they are less productive, die early, and reproduce less.  Thus, free-range farming methods were developed.

The US government is a free-range tax farm.  And we're the livestock.

Hey, I've got a question for you, Mr. IQ -- Do you know what (chattel, pre-free-range) slave-owners in the old South relied on to keep the slaves in line?

Other slaves.  You see, slave-on-slave antagonism, particularly in the form of hostility to any other slave's assertion of increased freedom, is one of the keys to maintaining control of a subjugated population.


One of the more frustrating signs of delusional paranoia is when the subject starts believing everyone who disagrees with him is another cog in the system.

There is much wrong with this world, much wrong with the government and humanity in general sucks.  However, there is a MAJOR AND DISTINCT difference between slavery and the modern rat race.

At the end of the day, you can leave all of this behind.  You might not want to accept the consequences for doing so, but it is an option.  You might retort that the same could be said for slaves running away, in which case any answer I give will be useless, as you're fully convinced that you and you alone are the only bloody person in this entire god-forsaken planet who sees things the way they are.

My frustration stems from the fact that people will become so inured to this particular brand of foolishness that when a situation arises that actually does deserve people to make this absolute judgement call, they will be exhausted by years and decades of paranoid lunatics and will be unable to define the freedoms they have lost due to years of relativism and false equations.  You, in your infinite wisdom, would therefore be part of this very system you claim everyone else is facilitating.

Mr. IQ
 
2013-06-20 10:10:34 PM  
Waldo Pepper:
The only winning move...
 
2013-06-21 12:18:22 AM  
Who gives a shiat? The South lost, they're still butthurt, fark them.
 
2013-06-21 12:49:18 AM  

Sandwyrm: One of the more frustrating signs of delusional paranoia is when the subject starts believing everyone who disagrees with him is another cog in the system.



One of the more frustrating aspects of asking people to GET THEIR FARKING HANDS OFF OF MY LABOR AND EARNINGS is that the retorts that ensue invariably sound like a broken record.  There's "you're paranoid" and "go live by yourself/in Somalia" and "you're a purist" and not much else.  Do try to be more original.

Sandwyrm: There is much wrong with this world, much wrong with the government and humanity in general sucks. However, there is a MAJOR AND DISTINCT difference between slavery and the modern rat race.



I usually think of term "the rat race" as describing an attempt to buy the crap that everyone expects you to buy, work in a job that people expect you to work in, and have hobbies people expect you to have.

None of that seems remotely relevant here, and I have no idea why you would bring it up.  I'm talking about the thugs with badges who will put a gun to your head and take your money.  I'm talking about the corrupt assholes who will toss your ass in a rape room they have set aside for the purpose of forcing your submission, already fully stocked with sociopaths just itching to use you as a human toilet, if you don't pay the taxes they say you "owe."

I don't see how feeling social pressure, on fear of being left out of the neighborhood barbecue, to buy a 2,000 square foot house and have 2.2 kids, and generally conform out of a lack of imagination (i.e., the "rat race") is functionally or ethically comparable to understanding the true nature of the State.

Sandwyrm: At the end of the day, you can leave all of this behind. You might not want to accept the consequences for doing so, but it is an option. You might retort that the same could be said for slaves running away, in which case any answer I give will be useless, as you're fully convinced that you and you alone are the only bloody person in this entire god-forsaken planet who sees things the way they are.



Aaaaand, we're moving on to the "Somalia" thing.  Great.  You officially have no rhetorical skills.

No, genius, I am not talking about living in the wilderness. I am talking about living in a society, where nice things like "commerce" and "the division of labor" come from.  I am talking about being sociable (i.e., not in isolation), but living in peace and cooperation with others (i.e., not institutionalizing robbery, abductions, and the brutalization of people under the label of "government").

And no, I do not think I'm the only person who sees things for what they are.  There are lots of us, just not a lot on Fark.

Sandwyrm: My frustration stems from the fact that people will become so inured to this particular brand of foolishness that when a situation arises that actually does deserve people to make this absolute judgement call, they will be exhausted by years and decades of paranoid lunatics and will be unable to define the freedoms they have lost due to years of relativism and false equations. You, in your infinite wisdom, would therefore be part of this very system you claim everyone else is facilitating.



And, we have the "absolutism" thing. Yeah, that's new -- "You're such a purist."  What about chattel slavery?  You're a purist about that, though, right?  Rape?  Are you a purist about rape?

You're the kind of guy who, in 1860, would have been right there on the front line agitating for more Slave Rights.  Such a hero!  Maybe you'd have fought for better working hours for the field workers.  Or some pension benefits.  Or sick leave!  That would have made slavery far more palatable.  Abolitionism was such a ... purist agenda.

My frustration stems from the fact that soft-headed idiots are so easily deceived by rhetoric and symbolism and (most of all) by simple changes in labels and terminology.  When the State and the cheerleaders for the State change the label on something, people like you are suddenly unable to see the reality that's right in front of you.  For example, I bet you believe in voting and democracy and all that crap.  I'd wager that you sincerely believe that by being allowed to put a piece of paper in the Master's Suggestion Box once every 4 years, you actually have some appreciable quantum of genuine freedom.  You honestly believe this.  And because you believe it, you resent it when anyone comes along to say that, you know, just because the Massa deigns to put out a quadrennial Suggestion Box, we can't overlook the hard reality of an army of tax collectors, a combined local-county-state-federal tax confiscation rate of upwards of 50%, a central bank that feeds money to Wall Street, and a massive surveillance state that captures everyone's communications all the time (but, they say, trust us when we tell you we're not "targeting" you).

The KGB had a process for controlling populations -- they called it "demoralization."  It did not mean "cause people to become apathetic."  It meant "removing people's capacity for reaching obvious moral conclusions."  To literally de-moral-ize people.  After one generation, they said, you could train an entire population to be unable to see the reality of their condition, and they would react to governmental brutality in any way the State wanted them to react.
 
2013-06-21 03:35:54 AM  
Phinn:
You're fighting the right battle, but you suck at finding your target.  Also, had you wagered anything worthwhile, you would have lost hard, given you managed to make the wrong assumption on every count.

But please, go on thinking you know the game.  We all need our delusions.
 
2013-06-21 05:21:32 AM  

Phinn: One of the more frustrating aspects of asking people to GET THEIR FARKING HANDS OFF OF MY LABOR AND EARNINGS is that the retorts that ensue invariably sound like a broken record. There's "you're paranoid" and "go live by yourself/in Somalia" and "you're a purist" and not much else. Do try to be more original.


You hit puberty with a glancing blow?
 
2013-06-21 09:16:53 AM  

Phinn: Sandwyrm: One of the more frustrating signs of delusional paranoia is when the subject starts believing everyone who disagrees with him is another cog in the system.

One of the more frustrating aspects of asking people to GET THEIR FARKING HANDS OFF OF MY LABOR AND EARNINGS is that the retorts that ensue invariably sound like a broken record.  There's "you're paranoid" and "go live by yourself/in Somalia" and "you're a purist" and not much else.  Do try to be more original.


Whoaahhhh...calm down there guy.  Pretty sure the point of someone bringing up the "You can go live in Somalia" rhetoric is not because they honestly think you should take that as a serious suggestion, but to indicate the fact that you could pick up and go do that, if you chose to do so.  Point being, that the societal conditions which you view as enslavement are actually completely optional and voluntary.  It's called a social contract, not slavery.
 
2013-06-21 09:33:03 AM  

thefonz37: Whoaahhhh...calm down there guy. Pretty sure the point of someone bringing up the "You can go live in Somalia" rhetoric is not because they honestly think you should take that as a serious suggestion, but to indicate the fact that you could pick up and go do that, if you chose to do so. Point being, that the societal conditions which you view as enslavement are actually completely optional and voluntary. It's called a social contract, not slavery.



Yeah, changing the label = changing the reality, right?  It's like the time recently when Cyprus seized a bunch of money from banks.  They called it "a one-time tax on bank deposits."  See?  Totally not bank robbery!  No, not at all.  It was a one-time tax on bank deposits!

People like you believe in symbols and language more than the reality in front of your face.

Or, in the case of the "social contract," you fall prey to the reverse fallacy -- if someone convinces you to retain a label ("contract"), but apply it to something completely unlike a contract (the State), people like you will think that States are just like contracts.  Except for the part where this "social contract" is imposed and enforced unilaterally, and there's nothing like consent being a consideration, and the terms of this supposed contract are never written down anywhere, and they keep changing all the time, and a breach of this contract is remedied via incarceration, and ... but, hey, sure, the State is otherwise exactly like a real contract.

Try stepping out of your label-based thinking and step into actual, functional reality.

Your comment is like saying that slaves in the South weren't really slaves because they could have killed themselves at any time, unlike cattle who don't have the ability to commit suicide, so the slaves, in effect, chose to be slaves.  They consented to slavery by breathing.

See?  It's easy to come up with meaningless bullshiat ethical principles, as long as you unmoor yourself from reality first.
 
2013-06-21 10:00:59 AM  

Phinn: See? It's easy to come up with meaningless bullshiat ethical principles, as long as you unmoor yourself from reality first.


Reading your tinfoilhattery, you have certainly proven that.
 
2013-06-21 10:04:49 AM  

Phinn: thefonz37: Whoaahhhh...calm down there guy. Pretty sure the point of someone bringing up the "You can go live in Somalia" rhetoric is not because they honestly think you should take that as a serious suggestion, but to indicate the fact that you could pick up and go do that, if you chose to do so. Point being, that the societal conditions which you view as enslavement are actually completely optional and voluntary. It's called a social contract, not slavery.

Yeah, changing the label = changing the reality, right?  It's like the time recently when Cyprus seized a bunch of money from banks.  They called it "a one-time tax on bank deposits."  See?  Totally not bank robbery!  No, not at all.  It was a one-time tax on bank deposits!

People like you believe in symbols and language more than the reality in front of your face.

Or, in the case of the "social contract," you fall prey to the reverse fallacy -- if someone convinces you to retain a label ("contract"), but apply it to something completely unlike a contract (the State), people like you will think that States are just like contracts.  Except for the part where this "social contract" is imposed and enforced unilaterally, and there's nothing like consent being a consideration, and the terms of this supposed contract are never written down anywhere, and they keep changing all the time, and a breach of this contract is remedied via incarceration, and ... but, hey, sure, the State is otherwise exactly like a real contract.

Try stepping out of your label-based thinking and step into actual, functional reality.

Your comment is like saying that slaves in the South weren't really slaves because they could have killed themselves at any time, unlike cattle who don't have the ability to commit suicide, so the slaves, in effect, chose to be slaves.  They consented to slavery by breathing.

See?  It's easy to come up with meaningless bullshiat ethical principles, as long as you unmoor yourself from reality first.


Wow.  Seek help.  I'm serious.
 
2013-06-21 01:06:52 PM  

vossiewulf: And none of that compares to sending long lines of riflemen across open terrain under fire from artillery and machine guns in WWI; the British Army suffered 60k casualties on the first day of the Somme. Then there's Dieppe in WWII, and the Soviets for whom the high casualty frontal assault was standard doctrine.


I disagree.  Operation Uranus, the counter-attack to relieve Stalingrad, was a pincer aimed at the non-German troops flanking the 6th Army.  Rather than attack through the city, they surrounded Paulus and starved him out.

At Kursk, the Soviets mounted a defense-in-depth position and allowed the Germans to initiate the offensive into the Soviet salient, before counter-attacking on the German flanks.

The Russians were just as well-versed at the operational level as the Germans - Tukhachevsky pioneered deep area operations in the late 20s/early 30s.  The problem lay in Stalin's paranoia.  Had officers like Tukhachevsky not been purged (and had Triandafillov not died in a plane crash), Barbarossa might have turned into a disaster.
 
2013-06-21 01:27:59 PM  
Former slaves are still waiting for their 40 acres and a mule after the war.
 
2013-06-21 03:36:26 PM  

UNC_Samurai: DamnYankees: UNC_Samurai: //wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments

I'd actually be interesting in reading that if you had it handy.

I looked on every hard and flash drive in my house, and it's nowhere to be found - it must have been on my university shared drive (which has been wiped by now).

The TL; DR was that there were distinct periods of people building monuments after each war.  In all three cases, the people erecting monuments did so at a very local level, and predominantly in the hometowns.  As time passed, however, southern Americans bought into the Lost Cause mythology, and made monuments that were intended to honor abstract concepts like bravery and courage that weren't really objectionable on the surface, because (as someone upthread mentioned) Union monuments were often just as elaborate.  But the political messages in the Confederate monuments are stronger, such as the poses of soldiers, and the location (Confederate monuments along Seminary Ridge have a loose correlation between when they were put up and how much closer to Cemetery Ridge they were).

This contrasts with German war memorials, which almost universally use the most abstract style possible.  This is partly due to aesthetic differences in the era in which they lived, and some cultural differences, but almost every single soldier you see depicted on a German war memorial is kneeling, or has his head down, and looks very somber (but even these figures look a little like stylized cartoons rather than the realistic faces we see on Confederate monuments).  It's also hard to trace a full development path for First World War monuments because the Second World War interrupts the cultural path, but there's enough to work with that there are common traits in the beginning with rapidly divergent paths.

My personal conclusions from reading the sources for the historiography was that Confederate culture was allowed to retain a certain ...


Favourited
 
2013-06-21 03:50:41 PM  

Phinn: Sandwyrm: One of the more frustrating signs of delusional paranoia is when the subject starts believing everyone who disagrees with him is another cog in the system.

One of the more frustrating aspects of asking people to GET THEIR FARKING HANDS OFF OF MY LABOR AND EARNINGS is that the retorts that ensue invariably sound like a broken record.  There's "you're paranoid" and "go live by yourself/in Somalia" and "you're a purist" and not much else.  Do try to be more original.

Sandwyrm: There is much wrong with this world, much wrong with the government and humanity in general sucks. However, there is a MAJOR AND DISTINCT difference between slavery and the modern rat race.

I usually think of term "the rat race" as describing an attempt to buy the crap that everyone expects you to buy, work in a job that people expect you to work in, and have hobbies people expect you to have.

None of that seems remotely relevant here, and I have no idea why you would bring it up.  I'm talking about the thugs with badges who will put a gun to your head and take your money.  I'm talking about the corrupt assholes who will toss your ass in a rape room they have set aside for the purpose of forcing your submission, already fully stocked with sociopaths just itching to use you as a human toilet, if you don't pay the taxes they say you "owe."

I don't see how feeling social pressure, on fear of being left out of the neighborhood barbecue, to buy a 2,000 square foot house and have 2.2 kids, and generally conform out of a lack of imagination (i.e., the "rat race") is functionally or ethically comparable to understanding the true nature of the State.

Sandwyrm: At the end of the day, you can leave all of this behind. You might not want to accept the consequences for doing so, but it is an option. You might retort that the same could be said for slaves running away, in which case any answer I give will be useless, as you're fully convinced that you and you alone are the only bloody person in ...



Ahhhh... I see, YOU'RE different... you know all of the secrets "they" don't want the sheeple to know.

Got it.
 
2013-06-21 05:27:38 PM  

gibbon1: manimal2878: Neither of those things are saying the person is the property of the government.

If there were ever a word today that's being misused in an Orwellian sense, it's the work property.

Idea's are property.
Patents are property.
Your Gene's are someones property.
People are property.
Freedom is property.

The conservative obsession with property reminds me of Aborigine society.  The rule that women need to be married.  So infants, and widows have to be married off, no exceptions.  Conservatives are like, everything is property, and every bit of property needs ownership, by someone. Suggest that something should be owned in common and they go batshi'it.  Suggest somethings should be free and they go ape.


The Bible teaches us that Man has dominion over the world, that we are its stewards on God's behalf.  Therefore, every thing is property, to be managed either individually or collectively depending on our best judgment.

The evil of slavery wasn't in treating the African as property.  The evil was in thinking the African was a thing that could be treated as property.
 
2013-06-21 05:51:27 PM  

Phinn: See? It's easy to come up with meaningless bullshiat ethical principles, as long as you unmoor yourself from reality first.


Reality in your case being...?
 
Displayed 336 of 336 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report