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  
•       •       •

19632 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»



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 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 09:02:38 AM

PonceAlyosha: 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


"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
 
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 09:06:58 AM

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"
 
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 09:13:28 AM

Kyro: 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?


well I don't admire or despise him but I get your point.   I think it helps to remember that not only was religion used to justify slavery but so was science. There was an honest viewpoint supported by religion and science that africans weren't fully human or not fully capable of learning.   Sure seems just assine now.

This is why I hate hearing anyone talk about how horrible people were for owning slaves. A good portion of these folks truly believed that slaves were born to serve and this was supported by the "facts" of the day.  

I wonder if in someway we are just as guilty when it comes to cheap labor under horrible human rights conditions
 
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 09:16:59 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.


Freed his slaves at the end of his wife's life.
Gum Springs is the oldest African American Community in Fairfax County, formaly established in 1833. West Ford, a former slave, founded the community after being freed by George Washington.
 
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 09:26:37 AM

Sandwyrm: 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.


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.
 
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.
 
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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report