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 389
    More: Interesting, evangelical christianity, American wars, Battle of Gettysburg, Union Army, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, Na Tuk Kong, Drew Gilpin Faust  
•       •       •

19637 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»



389 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 09:33:38 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: 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.


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.
 
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 09:41:26 AM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: 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.


This is what I don't get about those who argue about how horrible the South was for having slaves and again I think we have to keep in mind not only was it legal but also it helped to get this country off the ground and growing. 

What was the solution to the slave problem. Has there every been a solution given that would have worked for all sides without the horror that is the ghettos of the north factory area or the Jim Crow laws and where those businesses in the south not going belly up.
 
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 09:49:12 AM  

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
 
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 09:55:19 AM  

Wolf_Blitzer: 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.


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.
 
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 09:59:24 AM  

manimal2878: 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.


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.
 
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 10:15:06 AM  

manimal2878: 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?


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. 

yes compared to the life of a slave gays have a lush life. You can choose to live with anyone you choose without fear of being separated someone other than each other, own a home and other stuff, if you choose to have a child your child won't be taken away from you and sold off. random beatings of anyone for any reason in this country are rare compared to the hourly chance of being whipped for any reason that a slave had to fear. 

so stop trying to compare your plight to those of slaves and stay on topic.
 
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 10:51:44 AM  

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.
 
Displayed 50 of 389 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 »
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