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 387
    More: Interesting, evangelical christianity, American wars, Battle of Gettysburg, Union Army, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, Na Tuk Kong, Drew Gilpin Faust  
•       •       •

19634 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»



387 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 11:08:58 AM  
so instead of spending all this energy on debating the civil war and slavery we should instead focus on getting rid of other of our money making institutions that demean and enslave their workers such as the porn and sex trade industry.
 
2013-06-20 11:09:11 AM  

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Sigh.

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

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


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

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


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

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


Yeah, having to pay your taxes is the same as being a slave.  TeaParty logic at work here.
 
2013-06-20 11:34:32 AM  

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

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

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


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

Again you are looking at it with 21st century judgement.
 
2013-06-20 11:35:39 AM  

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

Sigh.

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

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

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


in the context of America and the Civil war.
 
2013-06-20 11:37:30 AM  

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Trocadero: Yes, yes it would...


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

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

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



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

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

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

in the context of America and the Civil war.


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

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


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


The moral bankruptcy of the Court in Dredd Scott has absolutely no bearing upon its legal legitimacy. The Court has been established by the Constitution as the ultimate arbiter of U.S. legal questions, and disagreeing with a decision doesn't change that fact.
 
2013-06-20 11:52:14 AM  

manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: ow might these folks have accessed this information? Seriously how would a person raised in deep south rural Georgia have access to any of this information?  The local government, churches, schools and everyone you meet says slavery is the way it is supposed to be, who is telling you otherwise? Even if you questioned whether it is right or wrong all the evidence surrounding you is telling you that it is right.

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


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

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


oh yes that farm boy a hundred miles away from the university had such easy access to the books. who do you think ran the local newspaper which might just be owned by a slave holder or maybe the local school which is on land donated by a rich planter
 
2013-06-20 11:55:33 AM  
We'd be better of summarily executing anyone over the age of 18 who thinks slavery wasn't the primary cause of the civil war.  A bunch of conservative racists thought the legitimate results of a presidential election were grounds for succession, attacked the United States, while proclaiming their own moral superiority.  The rest of the civilized world had already gotten past slavery, and South Carolina did everything they could to maintain their backwards morality.
 
2013-06-20 11:57:53 AM  

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


Waffle House is Lincoln's fault? Who knew?
 
2013-06-20 11:58:12 AM  

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

in the context of America and the Civil war.

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


I'm willing to bet most southerners never travel very far from  their home prior to the civil war especially the poor whites. The rich planter tells you that the black man was born to be a slave who are you to argue with the man who has the power and money.
 
2013-06-20 11:59:19 AM  

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

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


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


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

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

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

 
2013-06-20 12:07:02 PM  

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

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

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

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


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

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


100% wrong.  The south fled the union upon Lincoln's election because he was a know abolitionist.  Due to his careful, political handling of the issue, if you want to make him look like he wasn't a real abolitionist through cherry picking it is possible, but that's not because it's a valid argument, it's because you can make anything look like a real argument with enough cherry picking.
 
2013-06-20 12:09:22 PM  

manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: Georgia started a university system in the 1780s, I'm sure they had books there. If they had newspapers the debate would surely have been presented, even if it is presented in a biased way, a rational person still has the ability to discern the truth.

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


a rational person surrounded by a lifestyle made possible by slavery or a desire to have have the lifestyle afforded by slavery would have viewed these so called article how?

do you even comprehend how the rural life in the south is now much less how was over 150 years ago?
 
2013-06-20 12:09:45 PM  

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

in the context of America and the Civil war.

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

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


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

Sorry, I don't buy that.
 
2013-06-20 12:11:04 PM  

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

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

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

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

The South had a great market for cotton in Europe.  Getting rid of slavery was going to hurt the south far more than the north.



Northern shippers reaped a large part of the profits from the cotton trade; they would load bales of cotton at southern ports, transport them to England, sell their cargo for pounds, and buy needed manufactured goods for sale in the United States

 from  http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/outlines/chapter-16-the-south- a nd-the-slavery-controversy-1793-1860/
 
2013-06-20 12:14:43 PM  
Waldo Pepper:

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

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

 
2013-06-20 12:17:49 PM  

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


Wrong.  Lincoln was known to be appalled by slavery.  Slavery was the cause of the civil war.  The south left the union because in electing Lincoln they knew they were on the road to losing their ability to own slaves.
 
2013-06-20 12:22:37 PM  

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

in the context of America and the Civil war.

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

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

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

Sorry, I don't buy that.


Why not? We accept that buying products we want from nations that treat humans with less than basic humans right as an okay practice and we have tons of information about it.

Again you are viewing this with information and facts that you know today vs what was known back in the 1700 and 1800's.  As an example as of today we feel it is okay to own dogs and cats as pets and we believe based on the information we have at this point in time that we are in the right to do so and that the cats and dogs appreciate us owning them. There are a those out there that don't feel any human should own dogs or cats but we blow them off as crazies.

but what if in 200-300 years we learn that dogs and cats are as cognizant as humans, does that make us as guilty as those in the 1700 and 1800's who were taught that slavery was okay. 

I agree that it is hard to understand how one group of people could own another group of people and we should do our best to never allow this type of mindset to ever take place again. But to point to those who came before us as if they were somehow more evil then us based on information and hindsight is unfair.
 
2013-06-20 12:24:55 PM  

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

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

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

4. The north started the war.

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


In other words, that standard Libertarian view of that period.
 
2013-06-20 12:27:10 PM  

manimal2878: Waldo Pepper:

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

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


I wonder if those in the North would have figured out slavery was wrong if their businesses and profits had required it to run as it did in the south.  

it is quite easy to protest something as wrong if there is little to no benefit to you.
 
2013-06-20 12:29:35 PM  

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

No matter how generally inaccurate that may be.


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

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

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

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

Mostly trying to get someone to bite and flip out about what I wrote, since that usually gets a southerner's temper flared up.


it's like "the free market system will fix everything without any need for the government to get involved".
 
2013-06-20 12:37:25 PM  

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

I'm guessing that those people who like to do civil war re-enactments think if it that way.


it touch a good portion of the American population and for a lot of folks there was direct verbal and written family history. the last civil war veteren died in 1956 and the last civil war widow in 2004.  Also there is something very noble and romantic about fighting for what you believe in even if you lose and more so if you are the underdog and have fought well. 

I think how the south been crushed/defeated in the first year of the war most of this "romance" would have never happened, they would have crawled back home with their tail between their legs and behaved like a good dog.
 
2013-06-20 12:38:06 PM  

Waldo Pepper: Why not? We accept that buying products we want from nations that treat humans with less than basic humans right as an okay practice and we have tons of information about it.  Do we?  No, Plenty of people are against this right now and trying to change it so that those poeple do have basic human rights.

Again you are viewing this with information and facts that you know today vs what was known back in the 1700 and 1800's. As an example as of today we feel it is okay to own dogs and cats as pets and we believe based on the information we have at this point in time that we are in the right to do so and that the cats and dogs appreciate us owning them. There are a those out there that don't feel any human should own dogs or cats but we blow them off as crazies.  First, cats and dogs are not humans despite what Peta may argue their legal status should be.  Secondly , only psychopaths would try and justify the raping and beating of cats and dogs just because we own them.

but what if in 200-300 years we learn that dogs and cats are as cognizant as humans, does that make us as guilty as those in the 1700 and 1800's who were taught that slavery was okay.  Dogs and cats are not human.  So that is a rhetorical dead end.  Where as anyone, from any time period, with any level of knowledge, should recognize the wrongness inherent in owning another human as a slave.  The fact that system was held intact only by force and violance should hint to any rational being that it is wrong and an affront to that persons dignity as a human.

I agree that it is hard to understand how one group of people could own another group of people and we should do our best to never allow this type of mindset to ever take place again. But to point to those who came before us as if they were somehow more evil then us based on information and hindsight is unfair.

  It's completely fair.  Many people at the time thought slave owners were evil, viewing them that way is not new.  The Jews sure didn't like that Pharaoh treated them as slaves, again, the concept of slavery as an evil institution is as old as time.  I don't have to look at it with my 21st century knowledge to recognize that.
 
2013-06-20 12:42:39 PM  

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


This is why no one in Texas out of Dallas likes Dallas.

We recently celebrated June Teenth (19th) in Texas. It's a state holiday (that i don't get off damnit) to celebrate the day that the North finally told Texas to "knock it off with the slavery already" after the end of the Civil War. Most people that i know kinda joke about it, but i think it is important to remember the institution of slavery and the evil that it brought.
 
2013-06-20 12:43:13 PM  
 
2013-06-20 12:45:59 PM  

Ilmarinen: Waldo Pepper: Charles Darwin

A lot of people in this thread seem to know little about Charles Darwin (who, incidentally, was born on the same day as Abe Lincoln).

"Charles Darwin's thinking about the natural world was profoundly influenced by his revulsion for slavery."

Darwin's Sacred Cause:How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution

"the Origin of species was written with a view towards undermining slavery's creationist ideologues"


It's why I've farkied some as The Bevets of Racism.
 
2013-06-20 12:46:35 PM  

Ruiizu: Industry in the south was kept booming by slave workers and the north was frankly very nervous about the amount of power and influence commanded by the south's product.


Yeah, no.

The north was very industrialized. The south was not. The south clinged to an agrarian economy as the north's transformed into an industrial once. "Industry in the south" was insignificant. The north had ten times the industrial might of the south at the start of the war. Slaves by and large worked in agriculture, not industry. The south produced boatloads of cotton, and not much else. While the north benefited greatly from the south's cotton trade, the south was very dependent on the north for manufactured goods. The north was not in any way "nervous about the amount of power and influence commanded by the south's product". The wealth created by the cotton trade did not make the north nervous, it made the north thrilled because the south was a primary market for northern manufactured goods. Even when it comes to textile production, something which you'd think the south would have an edge given that they grew 2/3 of the world's cotton, the northern states produced 17 times the amount of textiles than the south.

Nobody was nervous about the south's industrial might, because the south was utterly lacking in anything resembling industrial might.
 
2013-06-20 12:53:45 PM  

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

I'd actually be interesting in reading that if you had it handy.


me too!
 
2013-06-20 12:54:05 PM  

manimal2878: So your argument is basically that Southerners are too stupid to recognize bullshiat and ever come to the conclusion on their own that owning another human being is wrong?

Sorry, I don't buy that.


No, the argument is that the question of slavery is not one that can be decided by logic alone. We look at it today and realize that of course it's wrong to own another human being, but our intelligence and reasoning are not what get us to that point. In a time when the methods of logic and science are far less advanced, that becomes even more true.
 
2013-06-20 12:54:22 PM  

manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: Why not? We accept that buying products we want from nations that treat humans with less than basic humans right as an okay practice and we have tons of information about it.  Do we?  No, Plenty of people are against this right now and trying to change it so that those poeple do have basic human rights.


what percent of the population is fighting against this, 50% 75%. Are you?

Again you are viewing this with information and facts that you know today vs what was known back in the 1700 and 1800's. As an example as of today we feel it is okay to own dogs and cats as pets and we believe based on the information we have at this point in time that we are in the right to do so and that the cats and dogs appreciate us owning them. There are a those out there that don't feel any human should own dogs or cats but we blow them off as crazies.  First, cats and dogs are not humans despite what Peta may argue their legal status should be.  Secondly , only psychopaths would try and justify the raping and beating of cats and dogs just because we own them.

I never said beating or raping a cat/dog is okay and it i didn't say cats/dogs are human did I?

but what if in 200-300 years we learn that dogs and cats are as cognizant as humans, does that make us as guilty as those in the 1700 and 1800's who were taught that slavery was okay.  Dogs and cats are not human.  So that is a rhetorical dead end.  Where as anyone, from any time period, with any level of knowledge, should recognize the wrongness inherent in owning another human as a slave.  The fact that system was held intact only by force and violance should hint to any rational being that it is wrong and an affront to that persons dignity as a human.

I said what if we learn they are AS cognizant as humans not that they are human. but remember there were those who did not believe that africans were fully human and that they were closer to being gorillas/apes then humans.  Why do you assume that anyone from any time period should recognize anything based off what the information you easily at your disposal today?

I agree that it is hard to understand how one group of people could own another group of people and we should do our best to never allow this type of mindset to ever take place again. But to point to those who came before us as if they were somehow more evil then us based on information and hindsight is unfair.  It's completely fair.  Many people at the time thought slave owners were evil, viewing them that way is not new.  The Jews sur ...

Where it is completely fair to look at our past history and judge the acts and institutions of these periods as unfair it is not fair to judge the people as evil or stupid for what they believed to be acceptable when everything around them said it was legal and just.  The american born in southern Virginia in 1800 be in into the planter class or poor farm boy or girl had little to tell him/her that slavery was wrong.  Even if his/her gut was screaming that owning another person was morally wrong everything including parents and the President of the US was saying it is right.

how would you expect a person to know slavery is wrong when the person who wrote the declaration of independence the writing that helped form the country in which you live and who's author is or was the president also owns slaves.


You tend to discredit just how powerful and convincing are those in power to keep work on the minds of those who they profit from and who they need to justify their actions 

do you not think the same thing is going on today with the welfare state and the push to keep people buying crap they don't need.  those who are in debt are slaves to those they owe.
 
2013-06-20 12:55:46 PM  

bigwave: The South was great until the North found out about it[www.freewebs.com image 400x305]


And now all those black people have forgotten their place, huh? It must be rough living like that.
 
Displayed 50 of 387 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