Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 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. We are talking past one another. I am not arguing slavery was not the primary cause of the war. It was. All I am saying is the assumption that slavey's demise in the Americas (not just the U.S.) was "inevitable" in 1850, or even 1860, is not accurate. Nor is it accurate that abolitionists were the majority in the north. The abolitionist movement, even in England, were the outliers in terms of history up until that point. Their goal wasn't a sure thing. That's the dangers of looking backwards at history without looking at the full context. Slavery wasn't in danger of going out of business. It took war to end slavery and shutter active slave ports in Cuba and Brazil.
FireChan Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 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? Are we the police of the world?
metzelaars_lives Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Are we the police of the world?No I am more of an isolationist than most. However if a state smack dab in the middle of our country- let's say Kansas- decided to secede and bring back slavery, you are on record as saying we should say, "hey go at it Kansas, who are we to tell you what to do?" We are talking past one another. I am not arguing slavery was not the primary cause of the war. It was. All I am saying is the assumption that slavey's demise in the Americas (not just the U.S.) was "inevitable" in 1850, or even 1860, is not accurate. Nor is it accurate that abolitionists were the majority in the north. The abolitionist movement, even in England, were the outliers in terms of history up until that point. Their goal wasn't a sure thing. That's the dangers of looking backwards at history without looking at the full context. Slavery wasn't in danger of going out of business. It took war to end slavery and shutter active slave ports in Cuba and Brazil. I think the only place we're off is that I am contending that it became inevitable by 1860/61 with Lincoln's election. I never said anything about the 1850's. And as you even alluded to, if peacefully ending slavery wasn't inevitable then war was- and that's what it ultimately took to end it. Edited July 9, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I feel like this thread's already happened
Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I think the only place we're off is that I am contending that it became inevitable by 1860/61 with Lincoln's election. I never said anything about the 1850's. And as you even alluded to, if peacefully ending slavery wasn't inevitable then war was- and that's what it ultimately took to end it. Yeah, as I said when I started, I'm with on far more than I'm not. And really, I'm just quibbling over the point of slavery's demise being "inevitable" because it's such an easy assumption to make as we look back at the events from our modern perspective and it bears keeping in mind how new and fragile the abolitionist movement was at the time. Many historians tried to make the point that because slavery was on the decline (even though it was not on the decline), the Confederacy would have eventually ended slavery without war had they been allowed to leave the Union peacefully. This has never been successfully argued from an academic and historical perspective, despite lots of attempts to do so by state's-rights advocates. That's not to say that everyone fighting for the Confederate cause was fighting to preserve slavery, they were not just as not every northern soldier or leader was fighting to end slavery. War was the only way to end slavery in the Americas, it was not going to happen without it -- at least not in the 19th century. Had the Civil War (which was really just the finale of the American Revolution with a nearly 100 year lull between battles) not been fought when it had, there's no question chattel slavery would have expanded to the new territories in the US as well as taken an even deeper foothold in South and Central America. The trans-Atlantic slave trade from Africa would have continued (as it had been, despite being "banned" in 1808) and we can only guess as to what would have been the ultimate fall out from another half century of the practice.
Very wide right Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Should German citizens have the right to vote on whether their government offices fly the swastika? Slavery was a net positive? Your name makes sense to me, now. Very good Kemp,way too fly off the handle and make ridiculous comments and then add the cherry on top by slamming my name as some kind of racist symbolism.
K-9 Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 No I am more of an isolationist than most. However if a state smack dab in the middle of our country- let's say Kansas- decided to secede and bring back slavery, you are on record as saying we should say, "hey go at it Kansas, who are we to tell you what to do?"I think the only place we're off is that I am contending that it became inevitable by 1860/61 with Lincoln's election. I never said anything about the 1850's. And as you even alluded to, if peacefully ending slavery wasn't inevitable then war was- and that's what it ultimately took to end it. I suggest you read the Confederate constitution as well as speeches and letters by their leadership. Their manifest destiny was to establish slave states in the Caribbean, Central and South America, and in new American territories. They indeed saw the threat posed to that kind of expansion. War with the US was inevitable over the issue of expansion.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Very good Kemp,way too fly off the handle and make ridiculous comments and then add the cherry on top by slamming my name as some kind of racist symbolism. The blue ribbon winner in this thread for ridiculous comments was made by you, not Kemp, when you compared the horrors of chattel slavery to contemporary violence in urban America. So stand up and take a bow, you already won the competition for the most uniformed person on this topic. 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.
metzelaars_lives Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I suggest you read the Confederate constitution as well as speeches and letters by their leadership. Their manifest destiny was to establish slave states in the Caribbean, Central and South America, and in new American territories. They indeed saw the threat posed to that kind of expansion. War with the US was inevitable over the issue of expansion.OK that too. That doesn't go against anything I said.
K-9 Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 OK that too. That doesn't go against anything I said. If I'm picking nits, I apologize, but I think it goes against your assertion that the demise of slavery was inevitable with the election Lincoln. He would have been glad to leave it alone in the established states if not for events that unfolded.
FireChan Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 No I am more of an isolationist than most. However if a state smack dab in the middle of our country- let's say Kansas- decided to secede and bring back slavery, you are on record as saying we should say, "hey go at it Kansas, who are we to tell you what to do?" You are on record with a boots on the ground invasion? An occupation of hostile territory loaded with armed "civilians,' half of whom would engage with US forces using hit and run and hide in plain sight tactics? An occupation of a place where the US has little internal support? What wars were you wailing about in the box today?
JohnC Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Don't forget that "small group" are South Carolina citizens who were elected by the people. A response from a descendent of Jefferson Davis and an elected representative from South Carolina: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/us/south-carolina-jenny-horne-speech/index.html
Saxum Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 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." Not for me but if it was Texas I'd be happy.
dubs Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 A state with one of the worst rank educational system in the country. You definitely should trust their judgment. Back to the Washington Slurs, I don't understand the folks who try so hard to defend a team name that does bother people. I have not met one Irish person who doesn't love the name Fightin' Irish. But keep up the fight to keep slurs. You're doing the Lord's work. Washington Americans. Simple and they can take over Dallas as America's team. I'm Irish and it offends me. There's is a picture of a little Irish man in a fighting stance. I'm Irish and don't fight so that doesn't represent all Irish. Irish goodbyes are also offensive. They insinuate that all Irish people get drunk and leave parties without saying goodbye. It's a negative stereotype and I'm very offended.
KD in CA Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 They insinuate that all Irish people get drunk and leave parties without saying goodbye. That's actually pretty accurate.
dubs Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 That's actually pretty accurate. That's offensive and insensitive. I demand you apologize for your ignorant and uninformed comment
metzelaars_lives Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) You are on record with a boots on the ground invasion? An occupation of hostile territory loaded with armed "civilians,' half of whom would engage with US forces using hit and run and hide in plain sight tactics? An occupation of a place where the US has little internal support? What wars were you wailing about in the box today? What if Kansas fired the first shots as the Confederacy did (you had inaccurately stated that they did not)? And what if Kansas was insistent on spreading slavery throughout other regions of the US and even parts of the Caribbean as well? Ya know you have been extremely confrontational and condescending in this thread yet your original argument was that the issue of slavery was not at the root of the Civil War. I was certain it was and after reading up more on it today, slavery was more directly responsible for the War than I even remembered. In fact, it was almost the sole reason for the War- certainly the biggest reason. If you want to argue that Lincoln should have said, "fine, secede from the Union, do whatever you want with your slaves, feel free to spread slavery to the western states as well and oh yeah, that attack on Fort Sumter- we'll just let that slide, retreat and be on our way. Good luck with your new country" and you want to call the Union the aggressors in the War then that's totally up to you. But if you are going to sit here and tell me that the South's desire to preserve and further spread the institution of slavery was not the primary factor in their formation of the Confederacy in the first place, you are simply wrong. Edited July 10, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
Rob's House Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Jonah Goldberg on northern anti-South bigotry. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420204/charleston-shooting-response-south-left-condescension There are few subjects that ignite more casual, uninformed bigotry and condescension from elites in this nation than Dixie. ... A November poll of South Carolinians found that 61 percent of blacks wanted it down. That means nearly four in ten blacks felt differently. Are they deluded? Are they the moral equivalent of self-loathing Jews, happy to live under a swastika? ... White Northern liberals explain how the South is an irredeemable cesspool of hate, while ignoring the fact that blacks are abandoning the Northern blue states in huge numbers to move to the south. ... No, the South isnt perfect; name a region that is. But it does have good manners, which is why it routinely acts with more dignity and in Charleston, with more grace than its critics to the north.
KingRex Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 Are we the police of the world? Yep, sometimes. When it suits American interests we are and should be the police of the world. Are you against American interests?
Kemp Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Godwin%27s+Law Very clever. So, should citizenry make all decisions by popular vote? If so, segregation could still be the law of the land. Very good Kemp,way too fly off the handle and make ridiculous comments and then add the cherry on top by slamming my name as some kind of racist symbolism. You're the one who referred to the time of slavery as a positive. One doesn't have to fly off any handles once idiocy has been stated.
Recommended Posts