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  
•       •       •

19633 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 12:59:00 PM

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

Yeah, no.

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

Nobody was nervous about the south's industrial might, because the south was utterly lacking in anything resembling industrial might.


but the south was involved in politics and controlled a lot of what happened 
They felt a keen sense of obligation to serve the public; it was no accident that Virginia and the other southern states produced a higher proportion of front-rank statesmen before 1860 than the "dollar-grubbing" North (not my words)
 
2013-06-20 01:03:24 PM

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


Certainly the North derived some benefit, by way of being able to import cheaper cotton/wheat/tobacco/whatever (different regions had different cash crops). In a similar manner, one could say that the South benefited from the North's industrialization, by way of being able to import cheaper finished products. In that way, even for most Southerners, the benefits of slavery were only indirect.

But there is a crucial difference, because in the South, slavery basically provided the underpinnings of the entire economy. A price spike in raw materials would certainly have hurt Northern businesses, but most could ride it out by passing the cost onto the consumer in the form of higher prices on finished goods.

But some businesses would indeed fail, depressing the demand for these raw materials. And at that point, the South would be hit with a double-whammy: you have less money coming in because fewer businesses are buying, but you're paying more for finished goods because these businesses have to cover the higher cost of raw materials. And that's something that hits everyone, not just the slaveowners.

This is the pragmatic reason not to base your economy on slave labor. When it fails, it fails catastrophically. And that's exactly what happened in the South; some would argue that it's still recovering from that blow, even 150 years later. Most would say nowadays that this needed to happen -that it served a far greater good- and I'd agree with that assessment. But it did happen, and whether or not we accept it from a moral standpoint doesn't change the fact that it occurred.
 
2013-06-20 01:07:31 PM

Millennium: are not what get us to that point.


Then what does?
 
2013-06-20 01:08:14 PM
manimal2878: Phinn: That is how we live under the U.S. government today -- "Do as you are told, pay what you are instructed to pay, don't try to keep any more than what we allow because we will decide the point that you've made enough money, support every subsidy and crony-bailout we want, and go buy products you don't want from government-approved vendors. Do these things and you'll have a reasonably good life, so quit biatching about your 'freedoms.' We'll tell you what your freedoms are."

Yeah, having to pay your taxes is the same as being a slave.  TeaParty logic at work here.


A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others.  At what percentage does it cease to be slavery?  90%?  80%?

You may not know this (Who are we kidding?  Of course you don't know this!  You're ignorant in general!), but there was a form of slavery that was found in Southern cities like New Orleans and Atlanta, whereby slaves would be "hired out" to work for other people.  Some of those slaves were literate, so they could do forms of work other than agricultural, like bookkeeping, for which they were compensated in money.

The slave-owner was the legal owner of 100% of the slave's earnings, but as a matter of practicality, the slave was ALLOWED to keep a portion of his earnings, to support himself, by paying for room and board and other necessities.

That hired-out slavery arrangement is the functional equivalent of the relationship that exists today between the US government and the 55% of people who pay income taxes.  The US government has, it claims, the superior claim to ALL of your earnings, but out of necessity, ALLOWS some people to keep some arbitrary percentage of their productivity for themselves.

Slavery didn't go away.  It merely evolved from the taking of a person's labor to the taking of a person's money.
 
2013-06-20 01:10:58 PM

manimal2878: I agree that it is hard to understand how one group of people could own another group of people and we should do our best to never allow this type of mindset to ever take place again. But to point to those who came before us as if they were somehow more evil then us based on information and hindsight is unfair. It's completely fair. Many people at the time thought slave owners were evil, viewing them that way is not new. The Jews sure didn't like that Pharaoh treated them as slaves, again, the concept of slavery as an evil institution is as old as time.


When arguing historical points.  It's best to not throw out things as metaphorical examples of situations that have no evidence.
 
2013-06-20 01:11:25 PM

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

Certainly the North derived some benefit, by way of being able to import cheaper cotton/wheat/tobacco/whatever (different regions had different cash crops). In a similar manner, one could say that the South benefited from the North's industrialization, by way of being able to import cheaper finished products. In that way, even for most Southerners, the benefits of slavery were only indirect.

But there is a crucial difference, because in the South, slavery basically provided the underpinnings of the entire economy. A price spike in raw materials would certainly have hurt Northern businesses, but most could ride it out by passing the cost onto the consumer in the form of higher prices on finished goods.

But some businesses would indeed fail, depressing the demand for these raw materials. And at that point, the South would be hit with a double-whammy: you have less money coming in because fewer businesses are buying, but you're paying more for finished goods because these businesses have to cover the higher cost of raw materials. And that's something that hits everyone, not just the slaveowners.

This is the pragmatic reason not to base your economy on slave labor. When it fails, it fails catastrophically. And that's exactly what happened in the South; some would argue that it's still recovering from that blow, even 150 years later. Most would say nowadays that this needed to happen -that it served a far greater good- and I'd agree with that assessment. But it did happen, and whether or not we accept it from a moral standpoint doesn't change the fact that it occurred.


I asked earlier but never say a response. Was there any plans before the civil war on how to end slavery in the US that was fair to everyone or has anyone ever came up with a solution?

It seems to me that it would have been a social and logistical nightmare trying to figure out how not to kill the southern business (and those in the north who relied on southern crops), how to compensate the loss of assest (slaves) to those who legally owned them as property and how to handle 4-5 million newly free american who own nothing and have never lived with rights.
 
2013-06-20 01:14:48 PM

Phinn: manimal2878: Phinn: That is how we live under the U.S. government today -- "Do as you are told, pay what you are instructed to pay, don't try to keep any more than what we allow because we will decide the point that you've made enough money, support every subsidy and crony-bailout we want, and go buy products you don't want from government-approved vendors. Do these things and you'll have a reasonably good life, so quit biatching about your 'freedoms.' We'll tell you what your freedoms are."

Yeah, having to pay your taxes is the same as being a slave.  TeaParty logic at work here.

A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others.  At what percentage does it cease to be slavery?  90%?  80%?

You may not know this (Who are we kidding?  Of course you don't know this!  You're ignorant in general!), but there was a form of slavery that was found in Southern cities like New Orleans and Atlanta, whereby slaves would be "hired out" to work for other people.  Some of those slaves were literate, so they could do forms of work other than agricultural, like bookkeeping, for which they were compensated in money.

The slave-owner was the legal owner of 100% of the slave's earnings, but as a matter of practicality, the slave was ALLOWED to keep a portion of his earnings, to support himself, by paying for room and board and other necessities.

That hired-out slavery arrangement is the functional equivalent of the relationship that exists today between the US government and the 55% of people who pay income taxes.  The US government has, it claims, the superior claim to ALL of your earnings, but out of necessity, ALLOWS some people to keep some arbitrary percentage of their productivity for themselves.

Slavery didn't go away.  It merely evolved from the taking of a person's labor to the taking of a person's money.


well said. We only have the rights that the government allows us to have. how did we grow as a nation before the income tax
 
2013-06-20 01:15:16 PM

Phinn: manimal2878: Phinn: That is how we live under the U.S. government today -- "Do as you are told, pay what you are instructed to pay, don't try to keep any more than what we allow because we will decide the point that you've made enough money, support every subsidy and crony-bailout we want, and go buy products you don't want from government-approved vendors. Do these things and you'll have a reasonably good life, so quit biatching about your 'freedoms.' We'll tell you what your freedoms are."

Yeah, having to pay your taxes is the same as being a slave.  TeaParty logic at work here.

A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others.  At what percentage does it cease to be slavery?  90%?  80%?

You may not know this (Who are we kidding?  Of course you don't know this!  You're ignorant in general!), but there was a form of slavery that was found in Southern cities like New Orleans and Atlanta, whereby slaves would be "hired out" to work for other people.  Some of those slaves were literate, so they could do forms of work other than agricultural, like bookkeeping, for which they were compensated in money.

The slave-owner was the legal owner of 100% of the slave's earnings, but as a matter of practicality, the slave was ALLOWED to keep a portion of his earnings, to support himself, by paying for room and board and other necessities.

That hired-out slavery arrangement is the functional equivalent of the relationship that exists today between the US government and the 55% of people who pay income taxes.  The US government has, it claims, the superior claim to ALL of your earnings, but out of necessity, ALLOWS some people to keep some arbitrary percentage of their productivity for themselves.

Slavery didn't go away.  It merely evolved from the taking of a person's labor to the taking of a person's money.


Are you the property of your employer because you pay taxes?  Can they sell you to another employer?  No?

Then nothing you said was relevant.
 
2013-06-20 01:17:48 PM

BafflerMeal: manimal2878: I agree that it is hard to understand how one group of people could own another group of people and we should do our best to never allow this type of mindset to ever take place again. But to point to those who came before us as if they were somehow more evil then us based on information and hindsight is unfair. It's completely fair. Many people at the time thought slave owners were evil, viewing them that way is not new. The Jews sure didn't like that Pharaoh treated them as slaves, again, the concept of slavery as an evil institution is as old as time.

When arguing historical points.  It's best to not throw out things as metaphorical examples of situations that have no evidence.


HURRR DURRRRRRR

  Whether the bible story of the jews being slaves in Egypt is historical fact or not, is not in the least bit relevant to the fact that the story of it in the bible establishes a moral precedent against slavery that most in Western Society no matter the era should be familiar with.
 
2013-06-20 01:18:27 PM

manimal2878: Phinn: manimal2878: Phinn: That is how we live under the U.S. government today -- "Do as you are told, pay what you are instructed to pay, don't try to keep any more than what we allow because we will decide the point that you've made enough money, support every subsidy and crony-bailout we want, and go buy products you don't want from government-approved vendors. Do these things and you'll have a reasonably good life, so quit biatching about your 'freedoms.' We'll tell you what your freedoms are."

Yeah, having to pay your taxes is the same as being a slave.  TeaParty logic at work here.

A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others.  At what percentage does it cease to be slavery?  90%?  80%?

You may not know this (Who are we kidding?  Of course you don't know this!  You're ignorant in general!), but there was a form of slavery that was found in Southern cities like New Orleans and Atlanta, whereby slaves would be "hired out" to work for other people.  Some of those slaves were literate, so they could do forms of work other than agricultural, like bookkeeping, for which they were compensated in money.

The slave-owner was the legal owner of 100% of the slave's earnings, but as a matter of practicality, the slave was ALLOWED to keep a portion of his earnings, to support himself, by paying for room and board and other necessities.

That hired-out slavery arrangement is the functional equivalent of the relationship that exists today between the US government and the 55% of people who pay income taxes.  The US government has, it claims, the superior claim to ALL of your earnings, but out of necessity, ALLOWS some people to keep some arbitrary percentage of their productivity for themselves.

Slavery didn't go away.  It merely evolved from the taking of a person's labor to the taking of a person's money.

Are you the property of your employer because you pay taxes?  Can they sell you to another employer?  No?

Then nothing you said was rel ...


I believe he is saying you are the property of the United States not his employer. The fact that the government can track every phone call, email and internet activity you create sort of helps his argument
 
2013-06-20 01:22:00 PM

Waldo Pepper: I believe he is saying you are the property of the United States not his employer. He is wrong if that is what he is saying.  Name one person the United States can sell as property to another entity no matter how much in taxes they pay.  The fact that the government can track every phone call, email and internet activity you create sort of helps his argument

They can track 100% of everything I do, but unless they can sell me to another person then that  is irrelevant as well.
 
2013-06-20 01:31:42 PM

manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: I believe he is saying you are the property of the United States not his employer. He is wrong if that is what he is saying.  Name one person the United States can sell as property to another entity no matter how much in taxes they pay.  The fact that the government can track every phone call, email and internet activity you create sort of helps his argument.  They can track 100% of everything I do, but unless they can sell me to another person then that  is irrelevant as well.


has the United States every traded prisoner of war or any other type prisoner for another from another country. Sure you can say they were saving that americans life by getting them back in the country but when you strip everything else away they were using that person to deal. 

Has America ever extradited anyone in order to maintain relations with a country when the evidence against that person is bogus. I don't have the answer but I'm sure at some point in our current history it has occurred
 
2013-06-20 01:34:14 PM

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

Certainly the North derived some benefit, by way of being able to import cheaper cotton/wheat/tobacco/whatever (different regions had different cash crops). In a similar manner, one could say that the South benefited from the North's industrialization, by way of being able to import cheaper finished products. In that way, even for most Southerners, the benefits of slavery were only indirect.

But there is a crucial difference, because in the South, slavery basically provided the underpinnings of the entire economy. A price spike in raw materials would certainly have hurt Northern businesses, but most could ride it out by passing the cost onto the consumer in the form of higher prices on finished goods.

But some businesses would indeed fail, depressing the demand for these raw materials. And at that point, the South would be hit with a double-whammy: you have less money coming in because fewer businesses are buying, but you're paying more for finished goods because these businesses have to cover the higher cost of raw materials. And that's something that hits everyone, not just the slaveowners.

This is the pragmatic reason not to base your economy on slave labor. When it fails, it fails catastrophically. And that's exactly what happened in the South; some would argue that it's still recovering from that blow, even 150 years later. Most would say nowadays that this needed to happen -that it served a far greater good- and I'd agree with that assessment. But it did happen, and whether or not we accept it from a moral standpoint doesn't change the fact that it occurred.


The Civil War as it happened was anything but the only or best course.   Did the North require a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" to correct the near slavery conditions existing then?   Would you say that Apple only derives "some" benefit from having FoxConn use Chinese labor to produce their merchandise?
 
2013-06-20 01:34:54 PM

manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: I believe he is saying you are the property of the United States not his employer. He is wrong if that is what he is saying.  Name one person the United States can sell as property to another entity no matter how much in taxes they pay.  The fact that the government can track every phone call, email and internet activity you create sort of helps his argument.  They can track 100% of everything I do, but unless they can sell me to another person then that  is irrelevant as well.


http://www.freedomcenter.org/slavery-today
 
2013-06-20 01:36:02 PM
The only reason I would consider the war a failure is that the north did not kill enough southerners. I'm not sure what the problem is down south but I am seriously farking tired of the hate of anyone they think is different and the crazy religious nuttery that fans the flame of hate.
 
2013-06-20 01:37:52 PM

hitlersbrain: The only reason I would consider the war a failure is that the north did not kill enough southerners. I'm not sure what the problem is down south but I am seriously farking tired of the hate of anyone they think is different and the crazy religious nuttery that fans the flame of hate.


Here comes the trolls
 
2013-06-20 01:38:00 PM

Phinn: A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others. At what percentage does it cease to be slavery? 90%? 80%

At some point before the person is no longer property, need no longer fear arbitrary physical punishment for insubordination to the boss, enjoys full political franchise including the right to run for public office, may own his own property, may travel at will, including beyond his own national borders, may find new employment better suited to his own satisfaction, may even obtain substantial assistance from the government which purportedly "enslaves" him to educate himself in order to improve his lot, enjoys the legal right to benefit on equal terms with those similarly situated to himself from the government's expenditure of his tax dollars paid...


You are not a slave. You are one of the most free, privileged persons ever to walk the planet. A lawfully imposed income tax pursuant to a power expressly granted to the federal government has nothing substantial in common with slavery whatsoever.


This is not a question of opinion. It is a question of IQ. Either you understand the difference between slavery and taxes imposed pursuant to law in a democratic society, or you don't. And if you don't, your failure to understand derives from a deficit in your cognition relating to your ability to process abstract concepts. That deficit in turn may arise from damage to your cerebral cortex sustained in the course of repeatedly beating your head against a hard object such as a brick wall.


My prescription: a medical safety helmet, to be worn at all times. Even around the house.


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-20 01:41:13 PM

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

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


So you can provide us with examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted for mistreatment of slaves?
 
2013-06-20 01:44:38 PM

bugontherug: Phinn: A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others. At what percentage does it cease to be slavery? 90%? 80%
At some point before the person is no longer property, need no longer fear arbitrary physical punishment for insubordination to the boss, enjoys full political franchise including the right to run for public office, may own his own property, may travel at will, including beyond his own national borders, may find new employment better suited to his own satisfaction, may even obtain substantial assistance from the government which purportedly "enslaves" him to educate himself in order to improve his lot, enjoys the legal right to benefit on equal terms with those similarly situated to himself from the government's expenditure of his tax dollars paid...
You are not a slave. You are one of the most free, privileged persons ever to walk the planet. A lawfully imposed income tax pursuant to a power expressly granted to the federal government has nothing substantial in common with slavery whatsoever.
This is not a question of opinion. It is a question of IQ. Either you understand the difference between slavery and taxes imposed pursuant to law in a democratic society, or you don't. And if you don't, your failure to understand derives from a deficit in your cognition relating to your ability to process abstract concepts. That deficit in turn may arise from damage to your cerebral cortex sustained in the course of repeatedly beating your head against a hard object such as a brick wall.
My prescription: a medical safety helmet, to be worn at all times. Even around the house.
[img.fark.net image 850x849]



Slavery DefinedWhile definitions differ of what constitutes slavery in contemporary society, these factors are typically present:

The victim is induced into slave-like exploitation through fraud, force or coercion;The enslaved are subject to physical abuse and/or psychological intimidation;Victims are not readily able to free themselves from their situation.
Most your definition doesn't jive with what the freedom center defines as a slave. just paying income tax may not make one a slave but I would argue that the welfare state the government has created has in sense created slaves out of many who are trapped in it.
 
2013-06-20 01:50:03 PM

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

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

So you can provide us with examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted for mistreatment of slaves?


Historian
Lawrence M. Friedman
 wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave. ... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."

I can't find any links for it but I would imagine there were some trials before the courts concerning slave mistreatment.

also this is intereting
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners
 
2013-06-20 01:50:40 PM

Waldo Pepper: Here comes the trolls


Said the person who thinks living in a democracy is like being a slave (and abused a quote from Darwin in the process).

For those extenuating slavery, let me leave you with this (recently posted by another Farker):

There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example," said Oats.
"And what do they think? Against it, are they?" said Granny Weatherwax.
"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
"Nope."
"Pardon?"
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is.
"It's a lot more complicated than that -"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes -"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things ..."

-Carpe Jugulum (Pratchett)
 
2013-06-20 01:51:30 PM

Phinn: That hired-out slavery arrangement is the functional equivalent of the relationship that exists today between the US government and the 55% of people who pay income taxes. The US government has, it claims, the superior claim to ALL of your earnings, but out of necessity, ALLOWS some people to keep some arbitrary percentage of their productivity for themselves.


The way you phrased that is important.  And correct.  The government does not view you as being the owner of your own labor - it considers all productivity to be the property of the government and, in its beneficence, it allows you to keep a portion.  Withholding taxes are a clear indication that the government must be apprised of your income and take the first cut.  There is nothing wrong with paying taxes - it is the duty of citizens living under the protection of the state to do so.  But the State, in demanding that employers report everything they pay to their employees and then divvy that up amongst the various levels of government before the employer receives his wages, is telling both the employer and employee that they are not to be trusted, that they must report against each other, and that the government gets first cut at the fruits of the employee's labor.

Similarly, slave owners may have owned the slave but that made them responsible for their care and keeping.  By confiscating the fruits of the slaves' labor, the slave owner made himself responsible for seeing to it that they had food, clothing, and shelter. The alternative was to watch them  become unproductive and die.  So, while the slave had no freedom, he also had no worries about where he would live, what he would wear, and where his next meal was coming from.  He also had no choice over where he would live, what he would wear, or what he would eat.  Rights and responsibilities go together.  If the slave owner usurped the right to the labor of the slave, he had the responsibility to provide the basics of existence.

Compare that to the U.S. government today.  If we cannot afford food, clothing, or shelter, there are government programs to provide them.  We collectively pay taxes for that.  But, when the government is paying the bill, it assumes the right to determine the kind of housing for which it will pay, the kind of food SNAP may pay for, etc.  We are on the cusp of the ACA going into effect.  In it, the government plays an ever-increasing role in dictating what kind of health care and health care payment plan everyone must have.  It is demanding that employers provide particular kinds of coverage for its employees or pay fines.  In other words, the government is assuming the responsibility of seeing to it that all citizens have access to health care and payment for said health care.  We have already seen that, concurrent with the assumption of that responsibility, it has usurped the right to specify who and how the people will pay for it.  To believe that the assumption, by the government, of the right to determine the nature of health care and who will qualify for any particular health-related services is far behind is naivety in the extreme.  We are becoming once again enslaved (for many, voluntarily) in the hope that the awful responsibility of responsibility will be lifted from us.
 
2013-06-20 01:55:56 PM

Ilmarinen: Waldo Pepper: Here comes the trolls

Said the person who thinks living in a democracy is like being a slave (and abused a quote from Darwin in the process).

For those extenuating slavery, let me leave you with this (recently posted by another Farker):

There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example," said Oats.
"And what do they think? Against it, are they?" said Granny Weatherwax.
"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
"Nope."
"Pardon?"
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is.
"It's a lot more complicated than that -"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes -"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things ..."

-Carpe Jugulum (Pratchett)


how is simply posting a quote abusing the quote.  

it is very possible to be a slave in a democracy as slavery is more complicated than the simple yet horrific chattel slavery that the african were subjected to in American and other countries.  

Who here has family members who's parents were slaves raise their hands

raises his hand.
 
2013-06-20 01:57:32 PM

Waldo Pepper: manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: I believe he is saying you are the property of the United States not his employer. He is wrong if that is what he is saying.  Name one person the United States can sell as property to another entity no matter how much in taxes they pay.  The fact that the government can track every phone call, email and internet activity you create sort of helps his argument.  They can track 100% of everything I do, but unless they can sell me to another person then that  is irrelevant as well.

has the United States every traded prisoner of war or any other type prisoner for another from another country. Sure you can say they were saving that americans life by getting them back in the country but when you strip everything else away they were using that person to deal. 

Has America ever extradited anyone in order to maintain relations with a country when the evidence against that person is bogus. I don't have the answer but I'm sure at some point in our current history it has occurred


Neither of those things are saying the person is the property of the government.
 
2013-06-20 01:58:40 PM
Largely it's the prevailing philosophy. Worth noting is that while the antebellum South typically tried to justify slavery by stating that the slaves were subhuman, this was actually somewhat unusual among slaveholding cultures. They were fully cognizant of their slaves' humanity, yet had no qualms about owning them.

Consider, for example, the ancient Roman code of law. The whole thing was underpinned by the idea of people as property: children were the property of their fathers and wives were property of their husbands, and these were themselves the property of the heads of their families, and these were the property of the state, and it was held to be on this basis alone that the state had any power at all. In a system where everybody is somebody's property, why would anyone think it wrong for one person to own another? Roman slaves sometimes even had slaves of their own.

I bring up the Roman code of law specifically for its continued relevance. Even today, some 1500-plus years later, most nations base their law codes upon it very strongly. They've (at least nominally) given up the notion of the state deriving its power from people-as-property, but a code that is even now considered advanced and enlightened enough to base a modern nation's laws on nevertheless arose from a civilization that held that notion dear.
 
2013-06-20 01:59:45 PM

hitlersbrain: The only reason I would consider the war a failure is that the north did not kill enough southerners. I'm not sure what the problem is down south but I am seriously farking tired of the hate of anyone they think is different and the crazy religious nuttery that fans the flame of hate.


I consider myself a southerner.  Not everyone here is the strawman southerner you believe is all southerners.
 
2013-06-20 02:02:59 PM

manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: manimal2878: Waldo Pepper: I believe he is saying you are the property of the United States not his employer. He is wrong if that is what he is saying.  Name one person the United States can sell as property to another entity no matter how much in taxes they pay.  The fact that the government can track every phone call, email and internet activity you create sort of helps his argument.  They can track 100% of everything I do, but unless they can sell me to another person then that  is irrelevant as well.

has the United States every traded prisoner of war or any other type prisoner for another from another country. Sure you can say they were saving that americans life by getting them back in the country but when you strip everything else away they were using that person to deal. 

Has America ever extradited anyone in order to maintain relations with a country when the evidence against that person is bogus. I don't have the answer but I'm sure at some point in our current history it has occurred

Neither of those things are saying the person is the property of the government.


When the government can determines the outcome of your personhood when you have commit no crime in the US or quite possibly the only reason you are being held by another country is because you are an American and the only reason the US bargins for your release is to advance their own cause you are being treated as property.
 
2013-06-20 02:05:49 PM
Waldo Pepper:
it is very possible to be a slave in a democracy as slavery is more complicated than the simple yet horrific chattel slavery that the african were subjected to in American and other countries.  

Who here has family members who's parents were slaves raise their hands

raises his hand.


After a point, it ceases being a philosophical argument on the imbalance of power and it turns into people using a loaded term to garner sympathy for their position.  We need to be careful where we draw the line when defining our most detested concepts, so as to recognize a problem when it appears and avoid the "Cry Wolf" complication.
 
2013-06-20 02:06:19 PM

manimal2878: hitlersbrain: The only reason I would consider the war a failure is that the north did not kill enough southerners. I'm not sure what the problem is down south but I am seriously farking tired of the hate of anyone they think is different and the crazy religious nuttery that fans the flame of hate.

I consider myself a southerner.  Not everyone here is the strawman southerner you believe is all southerners.


just ignore him, he gets his idea about southerners from his obsession with the Dukes of Hazzard reruns
 
2013-06-20 02:08:28 PM
Waldo Pepper:

When the government can determines the outcome of your personhood when you have commit no crime in the US or quite possibly the only reason you are being held by another country is because you are an American and the only reason the US bargins for your release is to advance their own cause you are being treated as property.

Clarify, please.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your meaning, the sentence structure is throwing me off.
 
2013-06-20 02:08:35 PM
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  But so are those who study history, as this thread proves.
 
2013-06-20 02:13:34 PM

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

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

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


Heh. You make it sound like the Northerners didn't keep slaves for profit. Explain then, why was one of the biggest slave ports (if not THE biggest) in the U.S. located in Boston, Massachusetts? And why did the much lauded "Emancipation proclamation" only free slaves in Secessionist states, leaving the ones owned by northerners secure? And why did fugitive slave laws extend all the way to the northern border, allowing any careless person with darker skin to be snagged and sold at the nearest slave market?

Face the facts. Slavery was a minor issue to the north at best. The main concern that took center stage was what a secession would mean if it was pulled off. For the north it meant that the south could impose tariffs on all goods produced for export AND keep those funds for themselves. It also meant that the north would no longer be paid any taxes by the states that split. The last (and most concerning) issue was that the south produced a massive amount of the industrialized north's food. The loss of that supply or an increase in cost was the deepest seated fear among the north, should a secession occur.
 
2013-06-20 02:14:19 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  But so are those who study history, as this thread proves.


This is a valid discussion, we are going to face a similar situation in the near future.  The creation of an artificial intelligence is going to be the most significant event in human history, but it won't happen with a bang.  There's going to be gradients of marginally improved programs until we'll reach a threshold of true sentience.  How we treat these personalities will either vindicate or condemn our entire race.  The civil war is the most recent event with the most relevant study material.
 
2013-06-20 02:17:35 PM

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

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

So you can provide us with examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted for mistreatment of slaves?

Historian
Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave. ... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."

I can't find any links for it but I would imagine there were some trials before the courts concerning slave mistreatment.

also this is intereting
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners


I asked for examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted, which you didn't provide.  Black slave owners don't count as the laws back then, and today in many of those places, would have been applied differently. Nor does claiming that you imagine some whites were prosecuted count.
 
2013-06-20 02:18:50 PM
I've participated in a bunch of Civil War reenactments, so I can handle this one. I was on the Union side in the reenactments I was in, and I heard the Confederate soldiers use the N-word. This, to me, makes it clear that the South was full of racists. So, the Civil War was very clearly only about slavery.
 
2013-06-20 02:22:35 PM

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

Yeah, no.

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

Nobody was nervous about the south's industrial might, because the south was utterly lacking in anything resembling industrial might.


The best I can really cede you is my poor choice of the word "industry." I don't mean to say there were factories dotting the south, but cotton and tobacco were huge money making crops. The loss of the south would have cost the north a fortune in tax revenue, but there was also still a real concern of plotting with a foreign power against the north.

Your points about industrialization are correct, but it would be doing a disservice to history to not also account for how valuable the south's production of raw materials was and how much their ties to slavery made law making unnaturally difficult. I'm not pro south by a long shot, but the north definitely did not have very noble intentions by and large.
 
2013-06-20 02:30:58 PM

Uncontrolled_Jibe: The Civil War as it happened was anything but the only or best course.


I'll agree that it wasn't the only course. But whether or not it was the "best" course depends on what the goal was. Nowadays, we say that the war was fought to free the slaves from the evil rebellion. There are two goals implicit in that statement, and war was most certainly the best way to accomplish them both, at once, that quickly.

Did the North require a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" to correct the near slavery conditions existing then?

Marx himself thought that the US might be able to avoid the bloody revolutions and such that he otherwise considered inevitable, because it had never experienced feudalism.

Would you say that Apple only derives "some" benefit from having FoxConn use Chinese labor to produce their merchandise?

Not as much as FoxConn itself does.
 
2013-06-20 02:31:30 PM

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

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

So you can provide us with examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted for mistreatment of slaves?

Historian
Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave. ... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."

I can't find any links for it but I would imagine there were some trials before the courts concerning slave mistreatment.

also this is intereting
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners

I asked for examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted, which you didn't provide.  Black slave owners don't count as the laws back then, and today in many of those places, would have been applied differently. Nor does claiming that you imagine some whites were prosecuted count.


I said the black slave owners was interesting I didn't say it had anything to do with your point. 

there were laws/codes on the books about owners mistreating slaves. Sorry if I am unable to find any cases using a google search I can only assume that with as backed up as the courts are they just haven't had time to upload the information. 

My assumption about some whites being prosecuted is based on why put the laws/codes on the books if you don't plan on using them.  

On November 23, 1739, in williamsburg, va, two white men (Charles Quin and David White) were hanged for the murder of another white man's slave. On April 21, 1775, thevirginia gazette in fredricksburg reported that a white man (William Pitman) was hanged for the murder of his own slave.
 
2013-06-20 02:32:53 PM
scumshine:
/yes, I went there
//wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments
///guess which group's monuments did more to convey a sense of regret and loss

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


Go to Charleston and take the ferry to Fort Sumter sometime.  There is a large monument in front of Battery Huger listing every single Union officer and soldier, including musicians, who withstood about 2 days of bombardment before surrendering the fort, and leaving on Union vessels.  There are absolutely no monuments whatsoever for the Confederates who successfully held the fort from 1863 until the end of the war, despite the fort being reduced to a mound of rubble.
 
2013-06-20 02:33:15 PM

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

[img.fark.net image 500x375]

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

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

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

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


Many slaves fled to Union lines during the war.  Some slave owners felt slighted as they felt they treated their slaves well and couldn't believe well treated slaves would choose to run away.  Almost like people don't like being enslaved!
 
2013-06-20 02:43:43 PM

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

[img.fark.net image 500x375]

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

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

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

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

Many slaves fled to U ...


I read the book "The fall of the house of dixie" and the author writes about and quotes those from that period about how the slaves will be happy to fight for the southern cause. It is quite amazing to think just how different a world plantation life was in the south.

I don't blame the south for wanting to fight for their lifestyle but I do blame those who created the Jim Crow laws and or took advantage of those in the south during the decades after the civil war.  The United States had a chance to correct a major wrong a birth defect if you will and raped the a great positive that came out of a family fight. 

I realize this is a bad comparison but I'd imagine this is how the hollywood community is like. the honesty think people are happy to serve them and everyone should have time to pursue charitable causes and cook organic and so on.
 
2013-06-20 03:03:47 PM
Any civil war represents a failure. But this one was necessary. We didn't have to kill over 600,000 Americans to end slavery. But the South made it necessary to do so.

Obviously, the post-war period wasn't going to make everything all better (again, largely because of the South).

I have never thought of the Civil War as glorious or noble. WTF would anyone think that?  It was like lancing a giant, ugly boil. Slavery here had to end (and should have ended long before it did). But of course slaveowners and the politicians they owned weren't going to make that easy.

And then they continued virtual slavery for a hundred years afterwards. Assholes. All those dead people from the war are their fault.

Certainly, the North had plenty of racists. But racism and slavery are different. Slavery doesn't make racism OK by comparison, but it sure as hell added the profit motive, made white supremacy very lucrative for a lot of people.
 
2013-06-20 03:31:03 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Any civil war represents a failure. But this one was necessary. We didn't have to kill over 600,000 Americans to end slavery. But the South made it necessary to do so.

Obviously, the post-war period wasn't going to make everything all better (again, largely because of the South).

I have never thought of the Civil War as glorious or noble. WTF would anyone think that?  It was like lancing a giant, ugly boil. Slavery here had to end (and should have ended long before it did). But of course slaveowners and the politicians they owned weren't going to make that easy.

And then they continued virtual slavery for a hundred years afterwards. Assholes. All those dead people from the war are their fault.

Certainly, the North had plenty of racists. But racism and slavery are different. Slavery doesn't make racism OK by comparison, but it sure as hell added the profit motive, made white supremacy very lucrative for a lot of people.


well had the North put forth a better effort at the beginning it might have been over in less than a year for a whole lot less dead. 

Hard to blame just the south for this debacle.  Slavery should have been made unconstitutional upon the founding of the Nation but it wasn't and it has been called the great silence. To our founding fathers credit or dismay I believe there was a true belief that slavery would be gone in 20 years after the constitution was written. 

Maybe Slavery, the civil war and aftermath is what has enabled the US to become such a powerful Nation and a Nation that others look to (at least until recently) for inspiration.  How many other nations have been able to have such an war between themselves and still continue with such issues and yet maintain as One.
 
2013-06-20 03:51:45 PM

Waldo Pepper: I read the book "The fall of the house of dixie" and the author writes about and quotes those from that period about how the slaves will be happy to fight for the southern cause. It is quite amazing to think just how different a world plantation life was in the south.

I don't blame the south for wanting to fight for their lifestyle but I do blame those who created the Jim Crow laws and or took advantage of those in the south during the decades after the civil war. The United States had a chance to correct a major wrong a birth defect if you will and raped the a great positive that came out of a family fight.

I realize this is a bad comparison but I'd imagine this is how the hollywood community is like. the honesty think people are happy to serve them and everyone should have time to pursue charitable causes and cook organic and so on.


You are either amazingly ignorant or a maestro troll.
 
2013-06-20 03:52:26 PM
It put the South in their rightful place.  For that alone it is the GREATEST WAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY!
 
2013-06-20 03:53:38 PM

StaleCoffee: Waldo Pepper: I read the book "The fall of the house of dixie" and the author writes about and quotes those from that period about how the slaves will be happy to fight for the southern cause. It is quite amazing to think just how different a world plantation life was in the south.

I don't blame the south for wanting to fight for their lifestyle but I do blame those who created the Jim Crow laws and or took advantage of those in the south during the decades after the civil war. The United States had a chance to correct a major wrong a birth defect if you will and raped the a great positive that came out of a family fight.

I realize this is a bad comparison but I'd imagine this is how the hollywood community is like. the honesty think people are happy to serve them and everyone should have time to pursue charitable causes and cook organic and so on.

You are either amazingly ignorant or a maestro troll.


why?
 
2013-06-20 03:54:33 PM
Even without the war, slavery would have ended one way or another well before the end of the century. Cheap and reliable repeating rifles were starting to come onto the market. Plenty of the abolitionist groups had deep pockets and would have started buying them and smuggling them to slaves. The south would have gotten tired of putting down uprisings and either would have just freed them or shipped them out of the country.
 
2013-06-20 03:57:00 PM

Mock26: It put the South in their rightful place.  For that alone it is the GREATEST WAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY!


what place is that?
 
2013-06-20 03:57:32 PM
 
2013-06-20 04:05:15 PM

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

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

So you can provide us with examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted for mistreatment of slaves?

Historian
Lawrence M. Friedman wrote: "Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave. ... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master."

I can't find any links for it but I would imagine there were some trials before the courts concerning slave mistreatment.

also this is intereting
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners

I asked for examples of white slave owners getting prosecuted, which you didn't provide.  Black slave owners don't count as the laws back then, and today in many of those places, would have been applied differently. Nor does claiming that you imagine some whites were prosecuted count.

I said the black slave owners was interesting I didn't say it had anything to do with your point. 

there were laws/codes on the books about owners mistreating slaves. Sorry if I am unable to find any cases using a google search I can only assume that with as backed up as the courts are they just haven't had time to upload the information. 

My assumption about some whites being prosecuted is based on why put the laws/codes on the books if you don't plan on using them.


Yes because there have never been any laws that weren't enforced, guess what, if you do a good search you'll find plenty of them.

On November 23, 1739, in williamsburg, va, two white men (Charles Quin and David White) were hanged for the murder of another white man's slave. On April 21, 1775, thevirginia gazette in fredricksburg reported that a white man (William Pitman) was hanged for the murder of his own slave.

Interesting that your only examples were before the birth of this nation.
 
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