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

19678 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jun 2013 at 6:27 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-06-20 07:16:46 AM  
7 votes:
..and there was no real mention of the reason it started

Did the King of America die without leaving an heir?
Now that really IS news to me.
2013-06-20 12:07:17 AM  
6 votes:
He goes on to impeach politicians, extremists, and the influence of evangelical Christianity for polarizing the nation to the point where compromise or reasoned debate became impossible.

Good thing that would never happen today!
2013-06-20 01:44:23 AM  
5 votes:

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

img.fark.netView Full Size
2013-06-20 12:30:59 AM  
5 votes:
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.
2013-06-19 11:45:14 PM  
5 votes:
It was bad because we didn't simply let the retards go and form their own dystopia.

2013-06-20 07:50:02 AM  
3 votes:
I was born in the south, but grew up in Maryland (yes, yes, technically still the south). It was an amusing contrast in cognitive dissonance.

At this time in my life though, I'm not sure I could say I know anyone who doesn't understand the point of the war. Regardless of how textbooks and teachers portray it, Obama used his time machine to go into the past, assassinate Lincoln, dress himself up in a Lincoln costume, declare civil war, and then later on pay Lee Harvey Oswald millions of dollars to go back in time as well, dress up as John Wilkes Booth, and shoot the Lincoln costume in the head while Obama snuck back into the future to sleep with more white women.

/Don't even get me started on how Obama assassinated a young, business-minded, deregulation-focused Stalin and played him off as the power-mad communist we know today.
//Obama also killed Jesus
///And Jerry Falwell
2013-06-20 07:46:28 AM  
3 votes:

UNC_Samurai: Sandwyrm: UNC_Samurai:

Interesting, I never truly thought on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the subject of successfully prevented wars.  It's slightly strange to think how much things would have changed with a tiny difference.  That is true, but I would hasten to add that as long as the war stayed conventional, the Soviets would have been in a very poor tactical situation in Cuba.  Unless they were willing to open a European front, they would have lost Cuba with a quickness.  Not taking into account a protracted guerilla war which would have seriously sapped American power for a long time, of course.

Definitely an interesting scenario, I'm going to think more on it.

When Kennedy was in a briefing session with XCom, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Maxwell Taylor (the man who commanded the 101st Airborne for much of the war in Northwest Europe) advocated a military response and an invasion of Cuba.

/yet, Taylor was incredibly unhappy with the assassination of Diem a year later
//hawks aren't necessarily snakes

"Hello Commander. In response to the Alien threat, this council of Nations has chosen to activate the XCOM project."
2013-06-20 07:08:40 AM  
3 votes:

BarkingUnicorn: "The Civil War was the last good time this country ever had."

 Richard Brautigan in  "A Confederate General From  Big Sur"

The Robot Wars were the last good time this country ever had."

Zapp Branigan in "A Democratic Order of Planets General from New New York"
2013-06-20 07:08:07 AM  
3 votes:
150 Years of Misunderstanding the Civil War War of Northern Aggression

fixed that for you, subby
2013-06-20 02:08:35 PM  
2 votes:
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  But so are those who study history, as this thread proves.
2013-06-20 01:38:00 PM  
2 votes:

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.netView Full Size
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-06-20 07:34:38 AM  
2 votes:
FTFA:"In early July, on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, pilgrims..."

Everyone knows the Pilgrims fought the East Koreans at the Alamo.
2013-06-20 06:56:23 AM  
2 votes:
The "civil" war was a power push between the Rothschilds and the Illuminati to control the economic productivity of the new world.

Oddly enough, we're not sure what the sides were.
2013-06-20 06:44:09 AM  
2 votes:
"Just say slavery"
"Slavery it is, sir!"
2013-06-21 12:18:22 AM  
1 vote:
Who gives a shiat? The South lost, they're still butthurt, fark them.
2013-06-20 10:10:34 PM  
1 vote:
Waldo Pepper:
The only winning move...
2013-06-20 04:05:24 PM  
1 vote:

manimal2878: Neither of those things are saying the person is the property of the government.

If there were ever a word today that's being misused in an Orwellian sense, it's the work property.

Idea's are property.
Patents are property.
Your Gene's are someones property.
People are property.
Freedom is property.

The conservative obsession with property reminds me of Aborigine society.  The rule that women need to be married.  So infants, and widows have to be married off, no exceptions.  Conservatives are like, everything is property, and every bit of property needs ownership, by someone. Suggest that something should be owned in common and they go batshi'it.  Suggest somethings should be free and they go ape.
2013-06-20 03:57:32 PM  
1 vote:
2013-06-20 01:08:14 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:14:43 PM  
1 vote:
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 10:08:48 AM  
1 vote:

Waldo Pepper: please how is my statement dumb. I feel it is unfair to judge someone from 150 years ago based on today's standards and not the standards and laws that were in place during their life. To equate gays with african americans slaves is so demeaning to the life slaves lived compared to the lush FREE life that all gays in this country live.

I am judging them on the standards of 150 years ago.  Have you never heard of the abolitionists?

Ah yes, the lush life of being able to marry who I choose, live openly without fear of reprisal or random beatings, full and  equal rights under the law. 

Are you even trying not to say things that are retarded?
2013-06-20 10:06:25 AM  
1 vote:
The South was great until the North found out about it
freewebs.comView Full Size

2013-06-20 09:31:46 AM  
1 vote:

Repo Man: Who was the ultimate founding father?

Button "Motherf*cker" Gwinnett.
2013-06-20 09:27:31 AM  
1 vote:

Kyro: IdBeCrazyIf: Kyro: Don't you just love it when historical figures we admire turn out to be douchebags?

To be fair, almost everyone has been a douche bag or asshole at some point in their life

I think my favorite has been Washington.  Jesus Christ was that man a world class prick.

- Joined the American revolution cause because the British wouldn't promote him as high as he wanted.
- Underclothed, underfed his troops.  Shot deserters.
- Nearly lost the entire Revolutionary War at the onset because he wanted to beat the British in a knock-down drag-out open fight.
- Owned about 150 slaves at the time of his death.

Not that the man wasn't without his virtues.  But there's something hilarious and dismaying about finding out the penultimate founding father was an utter douche bag.

Who was the ultimate founding father?
2013-06-20 09:09:15 AM  
1 vote:

Waldo Pepper: Mr. Right: ChaosStar: Last time I made that argument in a Fark thread I was labeled a troll and a liar, but got a TF sponsorship. Fark is weird.

Facts are tricky things.  Read the writings of the northerners on the subject and you'll find that, for purposes of representation, they didn't want slaves counted at all.  It was the slave states that wanted them counted as full people.  Not that it would have improved their lot in life any under slavery, they just would have counted when it came to power in the government.  3/5s could be counted as a victory for slave states - it's more than half.  For government purposes in those days, slaves didn't really exist.  There was no welfare to dole out to them so they didn't matter to the government from that perspective, they weren't allowed to vote, nor did they pay taxes.  There were no federal funds for education but it wouldn't have mattered since children of slaves weren't permitted to be educated.  Other than counting toward representation, slaves really were non-entities insofar as government interaction was concerned.

That is funny/sad how nobody ever points out the North not wanting slaves to count at all.  It would be a fun point to make when some blow hard is pointing out the 3/5th fact to someone from the south.  "well your ancestor didn't want them counted as a person at all"

I don't get it, you're replying to a post that completely nullifies yours.
2013-06-20 08:59:39 AM  
1 vote:

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

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.

I agree it is abhorrent. I'm not defending slavery.
2013-06-20 08:39:50 AM  
1 vote:
It was the Civil War that freed Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben.  And don't forget about Mrs.  Butterworth.  Pancake houses would never have existed if it weren't for her.
2013-06-20 08:38:34 AM  
1 vote:

Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

The power to decide all male children are named Fred is not assigned to the federal government by the constitution either, that doesn't mean a state has the power to do so jut because it is not explicitly forbidden in that same constitution.

The naming of children by the government whether federal or state is not a power that even exists, so does not need to be prohibited or delegated.  Same with secession.
2013-06-20 08:32:27 AM  
1 vote:
A Virginian friend of mine once said "You know, if not for the north's advantage in manpower and manufacturing the south would have won!"

I asked him if he thought wars were conducted like Golden Gloves tournaments.
2013-06-20 08:28:16 AM  
1 vote:
You mean the War of Northern Aggression.
2013-06-20 08:14:02 AM  
1 vote:
img.fark.netView Full Size

Totally not worth it.
2013-06-20 08:04:23 AM  
1 vote:
It was ultimately fought over the right of a state to volunteraly leave the Union. Unfortunately the issue that caused states to want to leave was slavery wich is like the most dick thing you could be hell bent to save.
2013-06-20 08:01:08 AM  
1 vote:

hb0mb: Neither side cared about black people.

I disagree, the south cared quiet a bit about black people. They cared about continuing to own them.
2013-06-20 07:43:35 AM  
1 vote:

Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.

As with any war, the "noble cause" and the day-to-day horrors were abstracted from each other.

In the case of the Civil War, you have long rifles firing lead bullets that in some cases were close to an inch in diameter. Such projectiles will make a mess of most humans (even at comparatively low velocity) regardless of motivation. Remember too that battlefield medical treatment could be just as brutal and bloody: there is a reason the doctor's nickname was "sawbones".

I'm pretty sure that surgeons and doctors were still differentiated at that point but yes, I'm aware. When I was back in high school in the early 90's I remember one of the things our history teacher at the time described was an account of a cannonball just rolling lazily across a field and an "idiot soldier" putting out a foot to stop it like it was a ball, and subsequently losing a leg.
2013-06-20 06:56:36 AM  
1 vote:

thamike: For those of you braindead enough to find the the story of the Civil War an "uplifting" one, this article's for you.

There's nothing uplifting about war.  It's a dirty business, anyone can and does recognize that.

It doesn't remove the fact that some men shine through as heroes in a war.  It doesn't negate whatever noble causes were championed by either side.  Recognizing the gritty reality does not demean the sincere idealism of the volunteers of the army or the honor of the men who were drafted, but carried out their obligation despite any chances they might have had to escape.

War is a tool of statecraft, as valid as any negotiation or trade deal.  War happens when a diplomat fails, but the interests of the nation needs to be carried out regardless.

I detest these hippies* who flop around on the ground bemoaning war as if it's the ultimate damnation of man.  Evil comes in many forms, and definitely is more noticeable during periods of intense emotions such as prolonged warfare can inspire, but is not isolated to this one activity.

You are attacking a ghost, insulting a naive strawman who doesn't truly exist.

*By hippies, I mean the word in it's original definition, not the broadly vague term used by people mocking the conservative stereotype.
2013-06-20 04:13:32 AM  
1 vote:
"The Civil War was the last good time this country ever had."

 Richard Brautigan in  "A Confederate General From  Big Sur"
2013-06-20 01:56:28 AM  
1 vote:
WHAT was teh point of the article?
The headline made an assertion, but the article was tl;dr.
What are the highlights?
That it was a blood war? We got that. No misunderstanding there.
That some people are still butthurt over the war? No misunderstanding there.

That the losing side of the war doesnt like how the winning side of the war presented history?
No misunderstanding there.

I hate that article so much.
2013-06-20 12:44:01 AM  
1 vote:

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.

Slavery was the 800 lb gor- hey, stop that.
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.