Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The American Civil War

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 11:38:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Assuming that you were of fighting age, male, of similar politics to what you are now... on which side would you fight in the American Civil War... North, South or indeed neither.

And why?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:02:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:43:45 PM, Grape wrote:
Neither because I prefer to live.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:07:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't see whats so great about the south thats worth dying for.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:14:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:38:38 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Assuming that you were of fighting age, male, of similar politics to what you are now... on which side would you fight in the American Civil War... North, South or indeed neither.

And why?

South.

Do what I could to stop the Federal government from imposing things like taxes.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:15:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:14:17 AM, jharry wrote:
Do what I could to stop the Federal government from imposing things like taxes.

Do you also fight on behalf of slave owners? Or do you find that part despicable. And that's not just me being a smartass, it's a serious question.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:21:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:15:32 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:14:17 AM, jharry wrote:
Do what I could to stop the Federal government from imposing things like taxes.

Do you also fight on behalf of slave owners? Or do you find that part despicable. And that's not just me being a smartass, it's a serious question.

My family once owned slaves. A lot of em. Despicable? Yes it is, today. Then, I doubt it. Humans arent the best all the time, but we generally get better. Slavery would have ended without the federal govermemt. Now we have that to pay for.

Most of the men that fought for the south didn't own slaves. It was something much bigger then, something we as a people have lost site of today.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:22:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:21:02 AM, jharry wrote:
My family once owned slaves. A lot of em. Despicable? Yes it is, today. Then, I doubt it. Humans arent the best all the time, but we generally get better. Slavery would have ended without the federal govermemt. Now we have that to pay for.

Most of the men that fought for the south didn't own slaves. It was something much bigger then, something we as a people have lost site of today.

Yeah, you didn't answer my question, and the entire point of the thread is what would you do then in the context of what you know today. But if you don't want to answer then that's OK, I'll just assume.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:28:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:43:45 PM, Grape wrote:
Neither because I prefer to live.

This. I also disagree with both of them on principle.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:31:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:22:57 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:21:02 AM, jharry wrote:
My family once owned slaves. A lot of em. Despicable? Yes it is, today. Then, I doubt it. Humans arent the best all the time, but we generally get better. Slavery would have ended without the federal govermemt. Now we have that to pay for.

Most of the men that fought for the south didn't own slaves. It was something much bigger then, something we as a people have lost site of today.

Yeah, you didn't answer my question, and the entire point of the thread is what would you do then in the context of what you know today. But if you don't want to answer then that's OK, I'll just assume.

If you go back and read the OP it does state if you were the fighting age then but with the same politics which side would you be on. Nothing about morals or beliefs.

My politics are the same in either age. Less govermemt.

Unless you equate slavery with politics then we would have a different coversation all together.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:34:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:31:52 AM, jharry wrote:
If you go back and read the OP it does state if you were the fighting age then but with the same politics which side would you be on. Nothing about morals or beliefs.

My politics are the same in either age. Less govermemt.

Unless you equate slavery with politics then we would have a different coversation all together.

Any issue is politics, jharry.

Just answer the question. Do you or do you not find fighting on behalf of slave owners interests a bad thing, even if its not what you are directly fighting for?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:44:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:34:32 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:31:52 AM, jharry wrote:
If you go back and read the OP it does state if you were the fighting age then but with the same politics which side would you be on. Nothing about morals or beliefs.

My politics are the same in either age. Less govermemt.

Unless you equate slavery with politics then we would have a different coversation all together.

Any issue is politics, jharry.

Just answer the question. Do you or do you not find fighting on behalf of slave owners interests a bad thing, even if its not what you are directly fighting for?

As I said, then I'm sure I would have fought for slave owners. Like I said, I would have owned slaves if I had lived in those days. Right or wrong that was the way it was back then. Men learn slowly, some never learn at all.

And yes slavery can be about politics. Or twisted to help one side or the other. Just like Lincoln postponing emancipation in fear of losing the war. Great political move but not a direct attack on the dirty slave owners.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:47:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:44:06 AM, jharry wrote:
As I said, then I'm sure I would have fought for slave owners. Like I said, I would have owned slaves if I had lived in those days. Right or wrong that was the way it was back then. Men learn slowly, some never learn at all.

Still not what I asked, but then I'll just assume you're saying you'd right despite who was bankrolling the effort, even if you personally disagree.

Here's something I don't get: why is the slavery of Africans something you can ignore in order to fight against another group for your own reasons, but those reasons are pretty much akin to fighting against slavery that's being put on you, in the form of taxation or whatever it is you people crow about.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:55:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:47:54 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:44:06 AM, jharry wrote:
As I said, then I'm sure I would have fought for slave owners. Like I said, I would have owned slaves if I had lived in those days. Right or wrong that was the way it was back then. Men learn slowly, some never learn at all.

Still not what I asked, but then I'll just assume you're saying you'd right despite who was bankrolling the effort, even if you personally disagree.

Here's something I don't get: why is the slavery of Africans something you can ignore in order to fight against another group for your own reasons, but those reasons are pretty much akin to fighting against slavery that's being put on you, in the form of taxation or whatever it is you people crow about.

They are, but your moving that thinking from the present to then. Darwin clearly shows the thinking of the time. Slaves weren't considered equal to white men in those days. Right or wrong that was just the way it was.

Were you have strayed is imposing slavery to be the only reason for fighting.

Hind sight is often 20/20, I hope you can understand that.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:00:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
And you are correct. The slavery imposed on us all, black, white, young and old, even the unborn has slowly but surely grew since that time. Our ignorance has fooled us into believing the govermemt can make everthing right in the world. It can't and hasn't.

That is what those rebel boys were fighting against, not the right to own slaves.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:01:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:55:01 AM, jharry wrote:
They are, but your moving that thinking from the present to then. Darwin clearly shows the thinking of the time. Slaves weren't considered equal to white men in those days. Right or wrong that was just the way it was.

Were you have strayed is imposing slavery to be the only reason for fighting.

Hind sight is often 20/20, I hope you can understand that.

I haven't strayed anywhere, jharry. The entire question, before and the one now, has been asked in context of the fact that you HAVE hindsight. Nor have I construed slavery to be the only reason for the fighting, as was clearly stated in the question before, if with some flair. I mean, do you even read what I put, or is it all talking points?

My question is, why is there a disconnect between fighting on behalf of slave owners (even indirectly) for the cause of fighting against the federal government's intrusion on state and local rights, which is essentially the same idea as slavery to states righters? Because there is an obvious disconnect - you're fighting against slavery upon you, even though the majority of people bankrolling and supporting the war are supporting slavery upon other people. That doesn't really make sense.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:07:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At the time of the civil war:
The majority of the South approved of slavery.
The majority of the North approved of slavery.

Minority rule started the civil war.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:08:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 1:07:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At the time of the civil war:
The majority of the South approved of slavery.
The majority of the North approved of slavery.

Minority rule started the civil war.

You got polls or proof to back that up?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:11:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 1:01:10 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:55:01 AM, jharry wrote:
They are, but your moving that thinking from the present to then. Darwin clearly shows the thinking of the time. Slaves weren't considered equal to white men in those days. Right or wrong that was just the way it was.

Were you have strayed is imposing slavery to be the only reason for fighting.

Hind sight is often 20/20, I hope you can understand that.

I haven't strayed anywhere, jharry. The entire question, before and the one now, has been asked in context of the fact that you HAVE hindsight. Nor have I construed slavery to be the only reason for the fighting, as was clearly stated in the question before, if with some flair. I mean, do you even read what I put, or is it all talking points?

My question is, why is there a disconnect between fighting on behalf of slave owners (even indirectly) for the cause of fighting against the federal government's intrusion on state and local rights, which is essentially the same idea as slavery to states righters? Because there is an obvious disconnect - you're fighting against slavery upon you, even though the majority of people bankrolling and supporting the war are supporting slavery upon other people. That doesn't really make sense.

I can only repeat myself at this point.

At that time there was no disconnect, slaves weren't considered people.

And that wasn't a southern belief either. Not even an American only.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:12:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 1:11:53 AM, jharry wrote:
I can only repeat myself at this point.

It seems so.

At that time there was no disconnect, slaves weren't considered people.

And that wasn't a southern belief either. Not even an American only.

I don't care what it was "at the time" - it's a question asked in hindsight. Why do you justify it?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:18:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Jharry...

You are attempting to justify going into the American Civil War -- with all the knowledge you possess now -- to fight on the South's side even though your moral code is against slavery. And how do you justify this? By saying, "I'm fighting for smaller government". Does that truly rationalize giving up your principles and ethics -- something that you have said you consciously live by? If so, then your commitment to such an ethical standard was less-than apt.

If anything, I think it's your dedication to being "southern" which makes you choose to hypothetically fight for the South. You are a proud Southern boy.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:20:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 1:07:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At the time of the civil war:
The majority of the South approved of slavery.
The majority of the North approved of slavery.

Minority rule started the civil war.

You betchya.

Slavery only ended because it was economical advantageous for the ruling elite in the North. The South did not secede because of slavery, they seceded because they were being forced not to industrialize by the North who wanted to retain their oligarchy. The North were able to get rid of their slavery much sooner than the South because there was no longer such an economic incentive to keep it due to industrialization. If the South was allowed to industrialize they would have ended slavery on their own as well.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
~ Abraham Lincolhn

He only "freed the slaves"(He didn't actually. I address that in my slavery thread) because it made it 1000 times easier to win the war with slaves on their side.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:25:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 1:12:57 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/7/2011 1:11:53 AM, jharry wrote:
I can only repeat myself at this point.

It seems so.

At that time there was no disconnect, slaves weren't considered people.

And that wasn't a southern belief either. Not even an American only.

I don't care what it was "at the time" - it's a question asked in hindsight. Why do you justify it?

That is not a fair question. If we could see in hind sight a lot of things would be different. We could change things today if we could see the future. The best we can do is learn from our mistakes so not to repeat them.

In hind sight I would still pick up my rifle. I would do what I could to end slavery but in the end the cause would be the same as it is today. To be honest it wouldn't matter who bankrolled it or why. The reason I would be fighting would be the same. Especially if I had the advantage of hind sight. I'd have the knowledge to introduce the modern tractor and end slavery quickly. But that is just how silly your question really is, we don't have the ability to see the future only learn from the past. Sure it is easy to say I would have ended slavery and keep the federal goverment in check if I were alive back then. But in the end the whole thing is pointless and futile.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:30:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 1:25:48 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Freedo knows history. GJ

There are so many books in my room that there isn't a clear walking space.

I think there is a good reason historians tend to be much further left than the general public and even the general academic world.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:31:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 1:25:09 AM, jharry wrote:
In hind sight I would still pick up my rifle. I would do what I could to end slavery but in the end the cause would be the same as it is today.

That is all you had to say, not the rest of the TL;DR crap.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 1:34:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 1:30:50 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2011 1:25:48 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Freedo knows history. GJ

There are so many books in my room that there isn't a clear walking space.

I think there is a good reason historians tend to be much further left than the general public and even the general academic world.

Conventional wisdom is for the lazy and the sheep.