Happy Confederate Heroes Day

[SicEmBaylor]

Happy Confederate Heroes Day (if you're in Texas) and happy birthday to the great Robert E. Lee!

[OklahomaTuba]

And let us not forget the car he was named after either. ;) http://www.faniq.com/images/blog/9e1296bb9f011e1a2362ec14080efe5c.jpg

[StoopTroup]

Lots of folks loved the car more I think.

Me? I liked Daisy.

[SteelClip49]

I saw an OSU fan with a mullet whose 2 kids had mullets and his thick wallet I guess proudly displayed the confederate flag at the Southside Hooters.

Confederates and Mullets....never gets old :)

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

When I live in northern VA as a kid, my dad had a guy bring his tractor over and plow our garden every spring. Nice old guy. His last name was Lee as well. He was a descendant of slaves owned by REL. Don't think he celebrated RELs birthday.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Do they have days for other people who lost wars too? :P

[OklahomaTuba]

Ask a Liberal that.

;)

[Crucifax Autumn]

I wonder if Mexico has "We got rid of texass" day...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Robert_E_Lee%27s_Amnesty_Oath_1865.gif


http://www.theinnerwebs.com/images/smilies/fu.gif

[XingTheRubicon]

heh

[StoopTroup]

Ask a Liberal that.

;)

Donald Rumsfeld is a liberal?

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/090610/GAL-09Jun10-2159/media/PHO-09Jun10-165255.jpg

[FaninAma]

Sic semper tyrranis.

[Sooner04]

Thanks for seceeding and all that. Sorry you lost.

Regards,
Abe

[SicEmBaylor]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Robert_E_Lee%27s_Amnesty_Oath_1865.gif

"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand."
-Robert E. Lee

[Crucifax Autumn]

That's easy to say AFTER the fact! lol

[SicEmBaylor]

"The consolidation of the States into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it."
-Robert E. Lee

"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
-Jefferson Davis

"Depend upon it, there is no difference between Consolidation and Empire; no difference between Centralism and Imperialism. The consummation of either must necessarily end in the overthrow of Liberty and the establishment of Despotism."
-Alexander Stephens

"Whatever errors in policy they may have committed, either in inception of the difficulties or in their subsequent management, the real object of those who resorted to Secession, as well as those who sustained it, was not to overthrow the Government of the united States; but to perpetuate the principles upon which it was founded. The object in quitting the Union was not to destroy, but to save the principles of the Constitution. The form of Government therein embodied, I did think, and do still think, the best the world ever saw, and I fear the world will never see its like again."
-Alexander Stephens

[Half a Hundred]

Ain't nothin' brave or noble about either side in the war. Just a stupid conflict caused by obstinate men who didn't realize the change was inevitable, and prolonged by men so blinded by greed that they cared not for the hundreds of thousands of lives it cost.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ain't nothin' brave or noble about either side in the war. Just a stupid conflict caused by obstinate men who didn't realize the change was inevitable, and prolonged by men so blinded by greed that they cared not for the hundreds of thousands of lives it cost.

Well, you're absolutely wrong.

[Half a Hundred]

Well, you're absolutely wrong.

No, I'm not.

Nothing that led to the Civil War demanded that 650,000 die over it. Not a single thing. Mind you, I'm not diminishing the impact of slavery either. I'm saying that most other countries got rid of it without nearly ripping themselves apart.

The South didn't want to face the reality of industrialization and the end of the plantation system. The North didn't want to negotiate so that this process wouldn't hurt the South as much as it did. If either side acted like rational adults, none of that would have ever come about. However, the Northern side got charged with the self-righteousness of the abolitionists, not to mention the hopes of the industrialists to entirely remove the pro-Southern elements of economic policy and replace them with pro-industrial policy. Meanwhile, the Southern aristocrats recoiled at the thought of ever giving up their privileged positions in society, which industrializing most certainly would have done, not to mention the complete dismantling of the Southern social hierarchy, along with the immediate loss of capital engendered by the end of chattel slavery (though ultimately less costly in the long run).

Big issues, to be sure. However, nothing here is non-negotiable, but the North was encumbered by its abolitionist radicals, and the South the same by its social codes which took any sort of compromise or hard negotiation as an assault to personal honor (Sumner got his beatdown for personal insults, not insulting slavery as an institution). Both were equally weighed down by the greed of its policymakers. Thus, we have the biggest, most profound mistake in American history, one that nearly destroyed us.

[FaninAma]

Who is the main architect of the notion that
the Federal Government reigns supreme over
all local governments and that the Constitutional
principle that all powers not specifically given
to the Federal Government were reserved for
the States?

[C&CDean]

Homer Simpson?

[Sooner04]

Nice try. Sorry about Atlanta and all those crops.

All the best,
Bill T. Sherman

[OklahomaTuba]

The biggest mistake the south ever made was making a flag in the color of orange.

[swardboy]

Well, I certainly give R.E. Lee this, his actions and demeanor after the conflict were very helpful in the healing process. In 1870 he and his daughter Agnes took a tour through the south, mainly so he could visit another daughter's grave, and his father's, which he had never before seen. Word got out and his train was met in town after town by crowds...Lee did not so much as open the curtains at many of the stops, and only gave some passing remarks at one location. It's as though he was telling southerners "It's over...let it go."

In Richmond, immediately after the war, a lone black man went forward at communion time in a large downtown church. The congregation gasped because blacks had never taken communion there in the church's history. Finally another figure went forward and knelt beside the gentleman. It was Lee....

[Okla-homey]

IMHO, R.E. Lee was a fine officer, perhaps one of the finest ever produced in this hemisphere. He lost his way a while when he took up his sword against the Nation which bore him and to which he swore a sacred oath to defend on the Plains of West Point, but he made up for it in April 1865 when he mentored his troops to return home in peace and to be good, loyal citizens of the United States.

In fact, his Farewell Address to the Army of Northern Virginia should be required reading for Neo-Confederates and other non-sheet wearing Klan-types who wrap themselves in Confederate flags and images in an effort to divert attention from their hate and inspire undeserved respect because they "only wish celebrate their Confederate ancestors' battlefield valor."

[Half a Hundred]

Absolutely. Only thing Gen. Lee ever did wrong was excel at the wrong point in history, when the controls of destiny were wielded by foolish men. For remaining true to what he believed and who he was loyal to, he saw defeat, humiliation in the signing of the loyalty oath, the loss of his estate, and kept the nightmares of that deplorable conflict within him for the rest of his life. He might be America's greatest tragic figure; the Brutus to the Cassius that was the rest of the South.

[StoopTroup]

In fact, his Farewell Address to the Army of Northern Virginia should be required reading for Neo-Confederates and other non-sheet wearing Klan-types who wrap themselves in Confederate flags and images in an effort to divert attention from their hate and inspire undeserved respect because they "only wish celebrate their Confederate ancestors' battlefield valor."

SicEm nip?

[Okla-homey]

Absolutely. Only thing Gen. Lee ever did wrong was excel at the wrong point in history, when the controls of destiny were wielded by foolish men. For remaining true to what he believed and who he was loyal to, he saw defeat, humiliation in the signing of the loyalty oath, the loss of his estate, and kept the nightmares of that deplorable conflict within him for the rest of his life. He might be America's greatest tragic figure; the Brutus to the Cassius that was the rest of the South.

That's beautiful man. Srsly. Spek!

[sooneron]

That's easy to say AFTER the fact! lol

NO ****!:D

[LosAngelesSooner]

I don't celebrate traitors to the U.S.

[SunnySooner]

To call REL a traitor, is to call George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and any other Revolutionary War hero you can think of a traitor as well. These were men who did what they felt they truly had no choice to do, even if it meant warring against the nation to which they belonged. Lee's decision to fight against the North was a horrible one for him to have to make...but in his heart, he was first a Virginian, and to all of us today, that seems an anomaly. We consider ourselves Americans first, Okies (or whatever) second. In 1861, however, states' rights were of upmost importance, as people feared a central, federal government would become a de facto monarchy, the thing they had just fought, less than a hundred years earlier, to defeat. If a state could not decide for itself what was best for its' people, and instead had to bow to whatever law a distant governing body might impose, what was the difference?

REL's own words tell us best of his decision...to call him a traitor is to completely misunderstand the man, the times, and the politics.

We are now in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole south is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for this state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native state. With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the army, and, save in defense of my native state--with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed--I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword."

Robert E. Lee April, 1861

[Sooner04]

All THAT over slavery? Man, you seersucker-wearing galoots are nuts.

With warmest regards,
U. S. Grant

[Frozen Sooner]

To call REL a traitor, is to call George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and any other Revolutionary War hero you can think of a traitor as well.

To the British, they are.

Last I checked, I'm not British.

[FaninAma]

Yes, let's all celebrate the massive, oppressive
and intrusive federal government that will
never be challenged again thanks to Lincoln
who enforced this notion at the cost of millions
of lives of this country's citizenry.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Where the white women at?

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

... In 1861, however, states' rights were of upmost importance, ...

I've never really bought this "states rights" argument. Using the states rights argument, if a county, city, neighborhood, etc. doesnt agree with a law, they should get to secede from that "union" as well. You wind up with the various wingnuts that claim they dont have to pay taxes because they disagree with some facet of some level of government.

The civil war was about one and only one "states right". The right to own slaves. The south picked a fight they didnt win. Suck it losers.

[SoonerBorn68]

Really? Looks as if many people in this thread either just skimmed over their history books or didn't pay attention at all. That's OK though. Keep believing it, it's easier that way.

[soonerscuba]

Really? Looks as if many people in this thread either just skimmed over their history books or didn't pay attention at all. That's OK though. Keep believing it, it's easier that way.http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

Clearly scuba, that doc is not one to which we should be paying attention. I mean it only mentions slavery 19 times.

South Carolina. Too small for a country. Too large for an insane asylum.

[SoonerNate]

MY FAVORITE HOLIDAY!!!

[LosAngelesSooner]

To call REL a traitor, is to call George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and any other Revolutionary War hero you can think of a traitor as well. These were men who did what they felt they truly had no choice to do, even if it meant warring against the nation to which they belonged. Lee's decision to fight against the North was a horrible one for him to have to make...but in his heart, he was first a Virginian, and to all of us today, that seems an anomaly. We consider ourselves Americans first, Okies (or whatever) second. In 1861, however, states' rights were of upmost importance, as people feared a central, federal government would become a de facto monarchy, the thing they had just fought, less than a hundred years earlier, to defeat. If a state could not decide for itself what was best for its' people, and instead had to bow to whatever law a distant governing body might impose, what was the difference?

REL's own words tell us best of his decision...to call him a traitor is to completely misunderstand the man, the times, and the politics.

We are now in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole south is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for this state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native state. With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the army, and, save in defense of my native state--with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed--I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword."

Robert E. Lee April, 1861By your logic and definition Timothy McVeigh was a patriot fighting for his beliefs.

Careful...

[LosAngelesSooner]

I have yet to meet a person who pines for the loss of the Confederacy and honors the fallen from the losing side as heroes who is not also either mentally unbalanced in some way or hiding some deep seeded racism towards Blacks.

Period.

They were traitors to our country. They killed millions of their brothers in an act of rebellion. They got the deaths and losses that they deserved.

[SicEmBaylor]

I haven't read this thread yet; because, I didn't want to ruin the day by rolling around in the mud with a debate that will likely **** me off.

However, I do intend to address each and every point at soon as I am motivated enough.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Don't do it, Sic 'em. I called you either "mentally unstable" or " a closet racist."

:D

[TMcGee86]

I've never really bought this "states rights" argument. Using the states rights argument, if a county, city, neighborhood, etc. doesnt agree with a law, they should get to secede from that "union" as well.

It aint the United Counties of America. Nor cities, nor municipalities, etc.

The name has meaning. At least it once did.

[SoonerBorn68]

Clearly scuba, that doc is not one to which we should be paying attention. I mean it only mentions slavery 19 times.


:rolleyes: Using the Ctrl F key to search the document is definately the way to find context.

Slaves, at the time were property. The civil war was about property rights. If those in the North were told they had to give up their land or other assets to somebody else or just lose their right to own it, they would have been pretty pissed off. The South was going to have to give up assets without any compensation. There's a ton more to it, but that's the main cause.

[Frozen Sooner]

But that property right was in other human beings, right?

So they were defending their property right in other human beings?

That sounds an awful lot like fighting a war over the right to keep slaves to me.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the cause if they were defending their right to their homes or even their cheez-whiz. Not so much their right to keep other human beings as chattel. I mean, there's a pretty good argument to be made that any putative property right in another human being is facially invalid and deserves no compensation-that's like saying you deserve compensation when the police take away the stolen car you bought.

[SoonerBorn68]

The stolen car argument doesn't work. The slaves weren't stolen. It was a legal industry in the US.

If the government needs your land for a highway they compensate you.

[NormanPride]

The government wasn't taking anything. It was making possession of a person illegal. Huge difference.

[soonerscuba]

The stolen car argument doesn't work. The slaves weren't stolen. It was a legal industry in the US.

If the government needs your land for a highway they compensate you.If don't define uprooting them from a homeland, stripping them of culture, and bonding them into payless work while denying them education, indeed, they weren't stolen. The South might have had a legal leg to stand on, it certainly didn't have a moral one, and got what it asked for, and in my opinion, deserved.

[yermom]

while i agree that slavery is reprehensible, their lives and economy were built on it, and it's not like that was going to be some easy transition

[Boarder]

while i agree that slavery is reprehensible, their lives and economy were built on it, and it's not like that was going to be some easy transition
Don't build your house on sand.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I haven't read this thread yet; because, I didn't want to ruin the day by rolling around in the mud with a debate that will likely **** me off.



Which is why you started a thread titled "Happy Confederate Heroes Day".

[SicEmBaylor]

Which is why you started a thread titled "Happy Confederate Heroes Day".

No, I started the thread because it was Confederate Heroes Day.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

No, I started the thread because it was Confederate Heroes Day.

Not because you wanted to start a ****storm over the virtues of the Confederacy or didn't know it would turn into that:rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

The government wasn't taking anything. It was making possession of a person illegal. Huge difference.

So if it was legal to beat the **** out of Chinese people whenever you got angry. And then they made it illegal to do so, do you feel people should be allowed to sue for the loss of that service? Many would see it as therapeutic. Shoot, maybe someone would open a "Therapy Center" where you could go in and pay to beat the crap out of Chinese people. Should they be compensated for the loss of their business? Seriously...it was SLAVERY. Slavery is WRONG. They wanted to keep owning SLAVES. Eff 'em. I'm glad they burned Atlanta, freakin' traitors.

[LosAngelesSooner]

"Confederate Heroes" is the same as saying "Al Qaeda Freedom Fighters" Both are on the wrong side of history no matter HOW much they try to justify the evil that they did/do.

[SoonerBorn68]

If don't define uprooting them from a homeland, stripping them of culture, and bonding them into payless work while denying them education, indeed, they weren't stolen. The South might have had a legal leg to stand on, it certainly didn't have a moral one, and got what it asked for, and in my opinion, deserved.

Ask Froze, Phil, Homey, Oldnslo, or any other lawyer or wannabe, the difference between legal & moral.

[Frozen Sooner]

How interesting for a purported conservative to claim that a person doesn't have a property right in themselves. Locke wept.

So if the government makes ownership of a narcotic illegal, they need to compensate everyone who had it?

The government didn't condemn the slaves for a public purpose, they officially recognized that the ownership of other human beings is morally repugnant.

[Frozen Sooner]

while i agree that slavery is reprehensible, their lives and economy were built on it, and it's not like that was going to be some easy transition

I cry for the poor ecstasy dealers who lost their means of support when the government finally got around to scheduling it as a controlled substance.

[SoonerBorn68]

That's weak.

[SoonerBorn68]

So if the government makes ownership of a narcotic illegal, they need to compensate everyone who had it?


If it were procured in a legal manner, yes--or it would be grandfathered until used.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

When I first moved to Georiga, Robert E. Lee was a state and school holiday. It didn't last long after we got there, displaced with MLK day.

[yermom]

I cry for the poor ecstasy dealers who lost their means of support when the government finally got around to scheduling it as a controlled substance.

drug dealing and running agriculture for a lot of the country are different things. this is the way of life they inherited from their grandfathers. it's not surprising they fought for it. it's not just about the human rights side of it. it's a lot more complicated than that.

still, celebrating it is a little out there Frosty ;)

[soonerscuba]

drug dealing and running agriculture for a lot of the country are different things. this is the way of life they inherited from their grandfathers. it's not surprising they fought for it. it's not just about the human rights side of it. it's a lot more complicated than that.

still, celebrating it is a little out there Frosty ;)I think most of the Confederate army were pretty much poor dirt farmers dying to proctect the rights of an elevated class to own people. I think they were probably just looking for adventure more than a sense of duty. FWIW, the North ran a conscripted army of immigrants and people that couldn't buy their way out, so it's not like the average soldier was lead by abolistionist sentiment to join.

[Frozen Sooner]

If it were procured in a legal manner, yes--or it would be grandfathered until used.

Weird. Because that's not how that works.

[Frozen Sooner]

drug dealing and running agriculture for a lot of the country are different things. this is the way of life they inherited from their grandfathers. it's not surprising they fought for it. it's not just about the human rights side of it. it's a lot more complicated than that.

still, celebrating it is a little out there Frosty ;)

I'm not saying it's surprising they fought for it. I'm just saying that, at root, it was fighting for the right to own slaves. No matter what face you try to put on it, the right to own slaves was at the root.

Whether you argue that they were fighting for the right to be compensated for taking away their ability to treat human beings as property, or whether you argue that they were fighting for the right for individual states to determine whether they would keep the practice of owning other human beings legal in their state, or whether you argue whether they were fighting for the right to use human livestock in farming, they were fighting to preserve their right to own another human being.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Color me unsurprised that SB68 weeps for the loss of the Confederacy. :rolleyes:

[TAFBSooner]

SicEm, we are waiting for your promised analysis of this thread.

Do you think you have any defense for the supposed "right" of the Southern Aristocracy to own slaves?

"States' Rights" as a legal concept is all well and good - the United States *were* originally all considered to be sovereign states who formed a compact for the common defense. We can argue all day about whether or not the fact that the United States *is* no longer such a compact is a good thing. States, groups of states, or faction within states have contemplated or threatened secession pretty much from the founding up to the present day (see Vermont, and Texas).

Legal concepts are usually fronts (justifications) for whatever material interests (reasons) someone is supporting or attacking.

The "secession = states' rights" argument is demolished by the fact that the only time people took up arms for "States' Rights" was over the "right" to own people.

[Half a Hundred]

But that property right was in other human beings, right?

So they were defending their property right in other human beings?

That sounds an awful lot like fighting a war over the right to keep slaves to me.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the cause if they were defending their right to their homes or even their cheez-whiz. Not so much their right to keep other human beings as chattel. I mean, there's a pretty good argument to be made that any putative property right in another human being is facially invalid and deserves no compensation-that's like saying you deserve compensation when the police take away the stolen car you bought.

The Civil War was about slavery... but it wasn't at the same time. The only ones who had a conceptualization of chattel slaves as humans were the abolitionists, who were the contemporary political equivalents of Jim DeMint (that's why Sumner got his *** beat). To everyone else, slaves were simply not seen as human in the sense that they actually were. However, they were an exceptional way to make concrete the very abstract conflicts of the day.

You see, the Civil War was actually a civil war, as commonly defined, contrary to what many Southerners will tell you. The South (by that, I mean the Southern planter and politician class) did not secede because they cared about "state's rights", tariffs or even slavery per se, they seceded because they had lost their control over the federal government, and its policy making power. As I see it, this is why the Election of 1860 was the catalyst for the entire process.

A little background history and commentary: after the development of the colonies and the formation of the Union, increasingly the United States were made up of two distinctly different general cultures, each concentrated in the two main sections, North and South. This is commonly taught to us in economic terms: the North based on manufacturing and resource extraction, the South based on mass agriculture. This is very true, but belies the more profound distinction.

The North at the time was a fairly democratic culture, with high rates of civil participation within local spheres. In the cities, there was much higher class stratification, with WASP Brahmans on the top and immigrants on the bottom, but even then, the rise of machine politics allowed for the latter to command significant political power. Looking toward Europe, particularly with the Revolutions of 1848 in recent memory, the idea of democratic governance was sacrosanct. The religious forms, such as Congregationalism, Methodism and Presbyterianism, that dominated the region promoted lay interaction within church governance as well, which extended to the public sphere.

The South, on the other hand, was a hierarchical feudal society. The aristocrats, that is, the planters, controlled all the wealth and land, and guarded these jealously. There was a hard caste structure, with the planters on top, the overseers (including local politicians) underneath them, the merchants underneath them, poor white tenant farmers beneath all of them, except for slaves, who were the outcastes. You weren't to get out of line of your class ("uppity"), lest you face the harsh reality of justice in those days. A white tenant farmer generally faced just as hard of a life as slaves, with no franchise (the first poll taxes and grandfather clauses were aimed at them), lifetime debts to the banks and landlords, and no hope for social mobility. Their churches were fatalistic Calvinistic churches, which preached that everyone's position in society was preordained, and acting otherwise upset God's own order.

You can see where the two might conflict. Meanwhile, after 1812's war cleared out the more authoritarian Northerners (Federalists) from the political landscape, the cultural differences between the two regions began to define the nature of American politics, culminating in the election of Andrew Jackson, a Southerner, the closest to a military dictator the country ever had. His smashing of the Nullification Crisis led the rest of the South into a deep paranoia about what would ever happen if the North decided to impose its views on the South, which led to its coalescence into a single economic bloc, vilified in the North as the "Slave Power".

You see, the institution of slavery (which had become increasingly distasteful in the North, concurrent with Western Europe) was a profound symbol of the sociocultural differences the South had with the North. It was a brilliant stroke of rhetoric (let's remember, these figures were all politicians) that both pulled at the heartstrings and inflamed passions. It also allowed them to put aside the reality of the struggles, which was that the North and South were going in very different directions, and no one seemingly knew how to get them back together.

The biggest factor that made the war inevitable was the Industrial Revolution. The secondary factor which catalyzed the event was the opening of the West. With industrialization, the North wanted policy to aid this, particularly in tariffs and trade restrictions. The South hated this, because it imported most of its agricultural equipment, and as such, used its Senate power to block many of these pro-industrial policies. This significantly raised tensions between the sectional interests in Congress.

(will continue my analysis in a little bit)

[NormanPride]

So if it was legal to beat the **** out of Chinese people whenever you got angry. And then they made it illegal to do so, do you feel people should be allowed to sue for the loss of that service? Many would see it as therapeutic. Shoot, maybe someone would open a "Therapy Center" where you could go in and pay to beat the crap out of Chinese people. Should they be compensated for the loss of their business? Seriously...it was SLAVERY. Slavery is WRONG. They wanted to keep owning SLAVES. Eff 'em. I'm glad they burned Atlanta, freakin' traitors.

I'm confused. Are you arguing with me or agreeing? Because I'm on your side.

[SoonerBorn68]

Color me unsurprised that SB68 weeps for the loss of the Confederacy. :rolleyes:

Color me unsurprised LAS has a limited knowledge on this period of American history. :)

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'm confused. Are you arguing with me or agreeing? Because I'm on your side.

It's LAS...He's doing both!

[NormanPride]

<insert LAS is bisexual joke here>

;)

[Half a Hundred]

(cont.)

Meanwhile, the West is opening up, thanks to that world-changing technological innovation, the steam engine and railroad. We all know about Bleeding Kansas and the like, but we often forget WHY it was an issue (and no, it wasn't just because mean slaveowners wanted to spread human suffering geographically (though they certainly didn't care)). Instead, it had to do with Southern control of the Senate. The plantation system didn't work out West, and the planters knew this... and they also knew that if a Northern-style economy sprang up out there, that they'd have no shot defending their preferred policies in Congress. They also knew that the growing Northern industrialists (such as Vanderbilt) would attempt to impose heavy protectionism to keep cheap Southern raw materials in Northern factories, instead of letting them out to the open market.

With that bit of unpleasantness making it clear that violence would arise from the sectional issues, and economic reality dictating that the plantation system would eventually die (labor in the North was much cheaper than the South), the choice was either to adapt to reality, or fight. Given the Southern cultural factors, adaptation was seen as a sign of weakness.

Thus, we get to the Election of 1860, which was really two elections - Lincoln v. Douglas in the North, Breckinridge v. Bell in the South. Lincoln's victory wasn't a catalyst because of his policies, or even those of the Republican Party. They weren't an abolitionist party, but rather a free soil party, meaning slavery was tolerated if it did not expand. However, as mentioned, it was about slavery, but wasn't at the same time - it was about political control of the Union. As such, the Slave Power realized that if new free soil states, such as California and Oregon, continued to join the Union, their political control of the country was forever extirpated. Not to mention, with the railroads, it was the industrialists who were getting out West first.

Lincoln is elected entirely absent of any Southern support. You can see how they developed a bunker mentality at this point - some of them were old enough to remember Jackson breaking the Nullification Crisis, and now, they had a Northern president who was a free soiler, not to mention an end to their Senatorial majority. As far as they were concerned, it was a given that Lincoln and Congress would enact legislation that would completely outweigh the Tariff of Abominations and if not outright end the plantation system, choke it to death, leaving them all at the mercy of the Northern power brokers. Instead of heading to the negotiating table, they called up their inner Walter Scott and geared up for fighting the good fight, hoping that if they couldn't hold power in the federal government, that they could within their own state, and later Confederate, governments.

The North, fearing the European powers' saber-rattling regarding Mexico and their Caribbean colonies, not to mention annoyed with the lack of access to cheap Southern goods, wasn't about to let this happen.

And then the war happened.

As you can see, it was about slavery, but it wasn't about slavery at the same time. The economic, social and cultural attributes of the South that maintained slavery, and the obstinacy of the Southern ruling class in the face of inevitable social and economic change, were the primary causes of the war, but in my estimation, slavery wasn't the factor that tied all these things together; rather, it was the end product of the above. Saying it's about slavery is like saying World War I (which in my opinion, is the European version of the American Civil War) was about nationalism - true, to one extent, but misses out on the whole other mass of factors that nationalism was the end product of.

Thanks for reading that wall of text, I know it's just an interpretation, but I hope you think it's well-thought out.

[royalfan5]

I need to start more threads glorifying the Prussians in the German Wars of Unification. At least it would be a nice change of pace.

[Crucifax Autumn]

The Prussians should secede.

[Half a Hundred]

I need to start more threads glorifying the Prussians in the German Wars of Unification. At least it would be a nice change of pace.

You should, I could do my historical parallel of unified Germany and the United States, which gets especially fun when I get to my "Hitler was Germany's Andrew Jackson" theory :D .

[LosAngelesSooner]

Color me unsurprised LAS has a limited knowledge on this period of American history. :)I think everyone around here knows who has the better education between the two of us, Jebediah. :texan:

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'm confused. Are you arguing with me or agreeing? Because I'm on your side.
Agreeing and just adding on to your point. :)

[SicEmBaylor]

Just wait. At some point I'm going to get involved in this discussion -- I just don't want to shoot my load too soon.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Just wait. At some point I'm going to get involved in this discussion -- I just don't want to shoot my load too soon.

Is this a persistent and regular problem? I think they make some numbing creams and so on for that.

[olevetonahill]

Ok heres My take on this carp .

From what I studied about the CW , It was States Rights versus a central Gov.

Yes Peeps Slavery was AN issue , it was NOT the main issue .
Slavery was an established institution For Centuries before Columbus Ever sailed . The EVIL White man Enslaved the Blacks ? Dont think so , Bubba , Who Ran the Blacks down in Africa and sold em to Slavers ?If you said Other Blacks in Africa then you would be right.

Slavery had been around for Centuries, Was it the Blacks always in servitude ?
Be honest. No . It was anyone who could be conquered.

It was fazing out at the time and would have been GONE entirely in just a few years
The CW was Not ALL about slavery . Spin it any way ya want . I WONT buy it .

[olevetonahill]

As an after thought. Our current Bankruptcy laws are based on the Biblical standard of Every 7 years release yer Indentured servants .:pop:

[Crucifax Autumn]

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

Offers some basic insight into the many causes of the war including, but not limited to, slavery, tariffs, state's rights, sectionalism, and western expansion.

[MR2-Sooner86]

This is what really pisses me off about the Civil War!

I had family back in Virginia with huge plantations that were living the good life with many slaves and servants. Thanks to the "righteous" from the North I'm now living a so so life when I could have had it big. NOW, I have to pay, yes pay, illegal Mexicans hard earned pennies to get the same type of work. What kind of bull**** is that!?