metzelaars_lives Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I asked you what WW2 was about. You made a comment that likened the "obviousness" of the Civil War to WW2. So I asked you to distill WW2 in the same vein that you distilled the Civil War. Because I wanted to see if you were also off the mark about WW2. How could I be more clear? I asked a direct question. So the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery in the face of its inevitable abolishment was not one of the Confederacy's primary points of contention with the Union? You'll have to forgive me- I haven't really read up on this stuff since graduating with a degree in American History. How did I do on World War II? Was I wrong about the Germans desire to conquer Europe being the primary catalyst in that war (at least the European theatre)? Maybe it had something to do with Norway or something.
FireChan Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 So the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery in the face of its inevitable abolishment was not one of the Confederacy's primary points of contention with the Union? You'll have to forgive me- I haven't really read up on this stuff since graduating with a degree in American History. How did I do on World War II? Was I wrong about the Germans desire to conquer Europe being the primary catalyst in that war (at least the European theatre)? Maybe it had something to do with Norway or something. Honestly, I thought you were gonna say we went war to stop the Holocaust or something. I'm glad you didn't. Did the South go to war to preserve slavery or did they secede? Were they invaded by another country? A country that believed its federal government had the power and right to subjugate states that no longer wanted to be a part of the Union? Unless you believe the US had no choice but to invade (which is not the case), the War was directly due to the aggression of the Union.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 So the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery in the face of its inevitable abolishment was not one of the Confederacy's primary points of contention with the Union? You'll have to forgive me- I haven't really read up on this stuff since graduating with a degree in American History. How did I do on World War II? Was I wrong about the Germans desire to conquer Europe being the primary catalyst in that war (at least the European theatre)? Maybe it had something to do with Norway or something. I'm with you on your general premise, but abolition wasn't inevitable in the mid 1800s. It was the outlier.
metzelaars_lives Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I'm with you on your general premise, but abolition wasn't inevitable in the mid 1800s. It was the outlier.So the issue of slavery and the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery amidst, we'll call it rumors that slavery might be abolished, played absolutely zero role in the formation of the Confederacy?
metzelaars_lives Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Honestly, I thought you were gonna say we went war to stop the Holocaust or something. I'm glad you didn't. Did the South go to war to preserve slavery or did they secede? Were they invaded by another country? A country that believed its federal government had the power and right to subjugate states that no longer wanted to be a part of the Union? Unless you believe the US had no choice but to invade (which is not the case), the War was directly due to the aggression of the Union. I didn't say anything about why the US entered the War. Washington was fully aware of the Holocaust and would've had to get involved eventually but was goaded into action probably about a year ahead of when they wanted to because of Pearl Harbor. It's actually a bit shameful that the US didn't get involved in Europe sooner than they did. As far as the Civil War, so if this fall the Dakotas decided that they no longer wanted to be a part of the US because they objected to gay marriage, I can assume you would support the President if he were to say, "OK fine, North and South Dakota, you win, we now recognize you as an autonomous country and you may govern however you want, even though your states are within the boundaries of the US. Oh you're electing your own leaders and printing your own money now? That's cool, we totally recognize that too. Oh what's that, you want us to move our military bases and military personnel that we've had stationed in the Dakotas for decades? No problem, we'll be out of there in no time." Edited July 9, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
Kemp Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Nothing wrong with the American flag,greatest in the world.The confederate flag is part of this nations history though like it or not.I would like the people of South carolina to decide if it flies in front of the state house though not a small group of special interest folks with an agenda practicing revisionist history. Should German citizens have the right to vote on whether their government offices fly the swastika? Wow, you covered all the negatives for sure viewed from your perspective of course.Here is a homework assignment for you.Do some real research and see how many positive events happened during those times that created the exceptionalism that America enjoys today.By the way That N word that you speak of is commonly used in a very open and frequent manner by African-Americans today.Also ,rapes,kidnapping,murdering (10 murdered in Chicago 4th of July weekend)and people working 18 hours a day just trying to make ends meet still goes on today, yes, in all horror of horrors 10 year olds working on the family farms 18 hours a day like they have for generations. You are a feeble whiner, obviously brainwashed by the typical American revisionist "educator".You better start a movement to ban the American flag because the problems you support your argument with are still in existence today. Slavery was a net positive? Your name makes sense to me, now.
BUFFALOKIE Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I did. You know a lot of OU Sooner fans. I do not think that reflects too poorly on you despite this. Well, I do live in Oklahoma, so yeah I know some OU fans. My point was that the "Sooners" illegally jumped the gun before the land-run to get first dibs on parcels of land that were originally allotted for the displaced Indian refugees. Many of the skins that I know, cheer for the team with an outlaw mascot that helped push the Indians off their land, again. And yes, they often refer to one another as skins when speaking in the third person. For the record though, I am an OK State fan second, Bills fan first!
Rob's House Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Should German citizens have the right to vote on whether their government offices fly the swastika? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Godwin%27s+Law
FireChan Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) I didn't say anything about why the US entered the War. Washington was fully aware of the Holocaust and would've had to get involved eventually but was goaded into action probably about a year ahead of when they wanted to because of Pearl Harbor. It's actually a bit shameful that the US didn't get involved in Europe sooner than they did. As far as the Civil War, so if this fall the Dakotas decided that they no longer wanted to be a part of the US because they objected to gay marriage, I can assume you would support the President if he were to say, "OK fine, North and South Dakota, you win, we now recognize you as an autonomous country and you may govern however you want, even though your states are within the boundaries of the US. Oh you're electing your own leaders and printing your own money now? That's cool, we totally recognize that too. Oh what's that, you want us to move our military bases and military personnel that we've had stationed in the Dakotas for decades? No problem, we'll be out of there in no time." Yes. I'd rather do that than invade and kill them. Folks have a right to self-govern. They have a right to choose their government. That's what America was founded on. Subjugation of a population who doesn't want to be governed by someone is actually the exact reason we fought the Revolutionary War. 200 years later, that's somehow a bad thing and warrants invasion. Edited July 9, 2015 by FireChan
K-9 Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Honestly, I thought you were gonna say we went war to stop the Holocaust or something. I'm glad you didn't. Did the South go to war to preserve slavery or did they secede? Were they invaded by another country? A country that believed its federal government had the power and right to subjugate states that no longer wanted to be a part of the Union? Unless you believe the US had no choice but to invade (which is not the case), the War was directly due to the aggression of the Union. Leave the question of slavery aside for a moment. Between the time S Carolina seceded and Ft Sumter, there were over 50 seizures of US government military installations, arms and other weaponry, ammunition, etc., and other US property, by the Confederacy. Not to mention the defection of thousands of armed US soldiers. Did Buchanan initially, and Lincoln later on, have a Constitutional mandate to respond? The right for a state to secede was debatable then as it is now. It's worth noting that James Madison himself, in a letter concerning the Nullification Crisis in 1832 and S Carolina's grumblings about seceding over it, did not seem think states had that permission.
FireChan Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 It's been a long time since I read up on the history of such things, but I believe the only state in the Union that may have that right is The State of Texas and their entry into the Union was after the Civil War. As part of their Annexation agreement,I believe, there was a provision that allowed for their succession. I doubt such a provision would have been needed if anyone thought succession was an inherent State's right; especially, after the Civil War . Well, of course after the Civil War, the victors changed the rules to make their invasion and subjugation legal.
KD in CA Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 It's been a long time since I read up on the history of such things, but I believe the only state in the Union that may have that right is The State of Texas and their entry into the Union was after the Civil War. As part of their Annexation agreement,I believe, there was a provision that allowed for their succession. I doubt such a provision would have been needed if anyone thought succession was an inherent State's right; especially, after the Civil War . But was it ever clear when the union was formed? I always thought the southern states had a legitimate beef -- they agreed to enter a union but did they agree to it in perpetuity? Certainly after the Civil War everyone knew no one would be allowed to leave.
FireChan Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Leave the question of slavery aside for a moment. Between the time S Carolina seceded and Ft Sumter, there were over 50 seizures of US government military installations, arms and other weaponry, ammunition, etc., and other US property, by the Confederacy. Not to mention the defection of thousands of armed US soldiers. Did Buchanan initially, and Lincoln later on, have a Constitutional mandate to respond? The right for a state to secede was debatable then as it is now. It's worth noting that James Madison himself, in a letter concerning the Nullification Crisis in 1832 and S Carolina's grumblings about seceding over it, did not seem think states had that permission. Sure. They could respond. They could attack the Confederacy and reclaim their installations. Does an act of aggression warrant subjugation? Did the US have just cause to subjugate Japan after Pearl Harbor, and force them to join the Union?
A Dog Named Kelso Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Sure. They could respond. They could attack the Confederacy and reclaim their installations. Does an act of aggression warrant subjugation? Did the US have just cause to subjugate Japan after Pearl Harbor, and force them to join the Union? Most wars come with land won claimed by the victor. I am not sure when it became vogue to pretend this is not that case. Yes, most of the wars the US has been part of ceded lands back to countries they fought, but through out history conquered lands have be enveloped by the victor, in this case the Union, no? But was it ever clear when the union was formed? I always thought the southern states had a legitimate beef -- they agreed to enter a union but did they agree to it in perpetuity? Certainly after the Civil War everyone knew no one would be allowed to leave. Lincoln believe the "Persevere" portion of the his oath was pretty clear. Those states that seceded were committing treason, in his eyes. Through out the formation of the Union, as I recall, SC was always weary of the federal power I would think, if there was a legitimate way to handle succession they would be the state to know how to do it. However; I am not sure if there was anyway to secede formally. It would most likely require a congressional vote to go their way at the least, which they never received. Edited July 9, 2015 by A Dog Named Kelso
FireChan Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Most wars come with land won claimed by the victor. I am not sure when it became vogue to pretend this is not that case. Yes, most of the wars the US has been part of ceded lands back to countries they fought, but through out history conquered lands have be enveloped by the victor, in this case the Union, no? So the Civil War was a war of conquest?
A Dog Named Kelso Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) So the Civil War was a war of conquest? No it was one of preservation, for the North. Regardless, the outcome is the same in this instance. Edited July 9, 2015 by A Dog Named Kelso
A Dog Named Kelso Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Sure. They could respond. They could attack the Confederacy and reclaim their installations. Does an act of aggression warrant subjugation? Did the US have just cause to subjugate Japan after Pearl Harbor, and force them to join the Union? Also, isn't a little hypocritical to claim subjugation is wrong for the Confederate States while also claiming is acceptable for them to want to secede, without consequence, in part to continue subjugation of Blacks? I ask that of a Confederate State not you personally. Edited July 9, 2015 by A Dog Named Kelso
metzelaars_lives Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Yes. I'd rather do that than invade and kill them. Folks have a right to self-govern. They have a right to choose their government. That's what America was founded on. Subjugation of a population who doesn't want to be governed by someone is actually the exact reason we fought the Revolutionary War. 200 years later, that's somehow a bad thing and warrants invasion.OK fair enough. So if part of what the Dakotas wanted to do in their new country was bring back slavery, are we OK with that as well?
Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 So the issue of slavery and the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery amidst, we'll call it rumors that slavery might be abolished, played absolutely zero role in the formation of the Confederacy? No. All I was saying was that the assumption slavery was on its way out is historically inaccurate. Slavery in the Americas was a booming industry through the middle of the century, it was by no means inevitable that it would be abolished. The abolitionist movement was new and untested, it was a philosophy that could easily have been snuffed out had the Confederacy won or been allowed to leave the Union. Slavery has existed since time immemorial (it still exists today), the idea of true freedom was entirely new, and by no means inevitable. It only appears as if it was inevitable when we look back today through our modern lens. In the 1850s, chattel slavery in the Americas was showing no signs of slowing down.
metzelaars_lives Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 No. All I was saying was that the assumption slavery was on its way out is historically inaccurate. Slavery in the Americas was a booming industry through the middle of the century, it was by no means inevitable that it would be abolished. The abolitionist movement was new and untested, it was a philosophy that could easily have been snuffed out had the Confederacy won or been allowed to leave the Union. Slavery has existed since time immemorial (it still exists today), the idea of true freedom was entirely new, and by no means inevitable. It only appears as if it was inevitable when we look back today through our modern lens. In the 1850s, chattel slavery in the Americas was showing no signs of slowing down. Dude, Lincoln took office in 1861 and the Confederacy was formed that same year as an immediate, direct reaction to his election. They saw the writing on the wall that he was going to abolish slavery- which he did, just four years later, and he would've done it sooner if not for the War. The growing anti-slavery sentiment in the North had reached a majority and now that the Republicans had the White House and control of the new Congress, it was only a matter of time. After reading more about this last night, it's pretty clear that the issue of slavery was THE PRIMARY reason for the formation of the Confederacy and their subsequent secession. So yeah.
Recommended Posts