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 390
    More: Interesting, evangelical christianity, American wars, Battle of Gettysburg, Union Army, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, Na Tuk Kong, Drew Gilpin Faust  
•       •       •

19628 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jun 2013 at 6:27 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 08:46:47 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.


Don't forget about Power.  The north by making new states non slave states helped gain votes and power on their political side in washington. The south wanted the new states to be slave states to keep their power base strong and in control as it had been for decades. 

I feel it is unfair to judge the south 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 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. 

Had the North truly been hellbent on ending slavery they would have boycotted all Southern products forcing the Southern businesses to change. But of course money rules and the Northern businesses and population benefited greatly from slave labor. 

Which is worse the Pimp who owns the hooker and profits off of her/him or the john who pays for the hooker and enjoys the benefits of her/her without the shame of owning another person.
 
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 08:56:44 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.


just curious about the make up of the supreme court that made that ruling, was it loaded with Northerners?
 
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'.
 
Displayed 50 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report