If the US civil war was fought today...

[SlowwHand]

Thanks, Whaleboy.
Run a Google search on "Slavery in Northern United States".
SOME would have you believe the yield would be nil.
They would be wrong, yet again.

Of course, I knew all this before the advent of such easy research.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Nice speech, honey, but how about instead of just whining about one thing or another, you come up with a viable alternative policy, that would fit with the majority view of the Yankees in their Federal and state governments?

The only "hypocrisy" you've ever cited regarding the south and State's Rights has been the Fugitive Slave Act, but that was a constitutionally mandated obligation of the Federal government to enforce the Full Faith and Credit clause, which was in the original body of the Constitution and has never been amended. The southern states took their sovereignty seriously.

He called me "honey" . . . . . . .

To be more objective about the history of the Civil War, you need to stop glorifying and heroifying the South to the point of myhologizing -- just as others need to stop glorifying and heroifying the Union to the point of mythologizing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Don't worry, for you, "honey" is a term of condescension, not endearment.



Mythologizing what?

You think I don't have contempt for the vast majority of southern politicians and the plantation owning class? Or the loud-mouth fat-asses that ran most of the southern press?

Or those hotheads from further south that got the whole thing started before we were ready?

The whole thing comes down to sovereignty and whether the southern states were willing to let foreign states invade them and forcibly terminate their individual sovereignty and subordinate them to a central government - the very thing we all rebelled against 85 year previously.

My answer to that would be to give the bayonet to any such invader.

[MrFun]

My Civil War seminar professor argued that there are two different interpretations of the Civil War -- popular culture that glorifies the "Lost Cause" and professional, scholarly work that avoids glorifying the Union or the Confederacy.

Guess which one your interpretation belongs in, MTG??

[SlowwHand]

Need some paint to touch up that pot, MF?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Those who argue that complex events are subject to two interpretations, and those who don't give a fair damn for simplistic categorizations of the War of Yankee Aggression.

Guess which group I'm in?

[chequita guevara]

Don't you mean The War of Southern Treason?

[SpencerH]

Given the high numbers of pacifists that appear to live in the north, I think the south would kick butt.

[chequita guevara]

We outnumber you and would out produce you, again. Plus, with all the Yankees living in the South, and the fact that you're still occupied by the U.S. military, I don't see much hope for another War of Southern Treason.

Only this time, we'll make sure we finish with Reconstruction before lettin' y'all back into the Union.

[SlowwHand]

A commie, calling someone else treasonous.

I needed that.

[SpencerH]

I think a higher percentage of the military is from the south than the north. Anyone know for sure, and wasnt that true originally?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Don't you mean The War of Southern Treason?

One can only be a traitor if one owes a higher allegience to a specific state or nation.

[chequita guevara]

Maybe so, but they're highly trained and loyal and I doubt they'd rebell.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Those who argue that complex events are subject to two interpretations, and those who don't give a fair damn for simplistic categorizations of the War of Yankee Aggression.

Guess which group I'm in?

Serious, scholarly study on the War of Southern Stupidity requires historians to avoid glorifying the Union OR glorifying the Confederacy.

I know that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation for instance, was part of a military strategy that did not apply to all the slaves (especially those in the slave states that remained in the Union). Or how Union troops have committed crimes against black refugees.

I am not naive enough to think that states' rights by itself was the issue that caused secession -- instead, I know that states' rights was and continues to be, a means to an end towards whatever issue is important for a particular group of people.

[Patroklos]

It also requires you not to get lost in your own rhetoric, or what you call the "Lost Cause."

I took more than one class ont he Civil War myself, bieng from an area where it is all around me, and the "Lost Cause" theory of yours is a VERY minority view amongst scholars and not supported by anyone of renown, though a less strict variation of it has been incorporated by many.

[MrFun]

Patty -- that's true. The "Lost Cause" mythology is part of popular culture.

There is a growing consensus among Northern and Southern historians that the Civil War erupted over the issue of slavery.

[chequita guevara]

"The Lost Cause" may be a minority view among scholars, but it is a majoruity view among the growing numbers of neo-Confederates (including AG Ashcrot).

[Patroklos]

You just apply it too them to explain them away. It is like me creating a "Lost Cause" theory for the communists becasue they lost the Cold War to invalidate their continueing argument, that I must grudgingly agree at times, has its points.

I agree totally that slavery was the cause, in the greater context of states rights. I bet if the Federal Government had initiated a withering cotton tariff or tax you would have had a war too. ANY issue that seriously effected Southern economic factors, which they believed were the states rights too, would have seen the beginning of hostilities.

And I am sure their were some hard core racists/abolishonists in the South/North alike that were fighting for that reason alone, but they were hardly the majority. Not even a significant majority.

[PLATO]

First of all...GO MTG GO!!!

Second of all...It was the north that committed treason. They were the ones that were unfaithful to the Constitution.

Third of all...MrFun, Where is this "professor" degreed from? The "Lost Cause" mythology that you continually refer to is nothing more than Yankee propoganda (as I continually remind you).

[chequita guevara]

No it isn't PLATO. It's part and parcel of the Neo-Confederate movement.

[Patroklos]

It also comes from the current civil rights mantra that EVERYTHING has to do with racism or some vestage of slavery. They attempt to apply it to every historical event in some revisionist binge to bring attention to their cause. Just like communists/capitalists apply economics to all historical events as well.

"Lost Cause" is popular history to the causists out there because it tells them what they want to hear. That their problems are not their own, and their problem is central to everything historical or otherwise and should be addressed. True to some degree, but not the extent they want, ie it is a component in a large plot.

Oh yeah and their is a big evil WHITE man of Southern decent responisble for everything, and I can continue to blame him.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Don't worry, for you, "honey" is a term of condescension, not endearment.



Mythologizing what?

You think I don't have contempt for the vast majority of southern politicians and the plantation owning class? Or the loud-mouth fat-asses that ran most of the southern press?

Or those hotheads from further south that got the whole thing started before we were ready?

The whole thing comes down to sovereignty and whether the southern states were willing to let foreign states invade them and forcibly terminate their individual sovereignty and subordinate them to a central government - the very thing we all rebelled against 85 year previously.

My answer to that would be to give the bayonet to any such invader.

MtG, as a whole, you are a rational man.

But, I find it irrational to state that the South seceeded because of a Yankee invasion.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No it isn't PLATO. It's part and parcel of the Neo-Confederate movement.

Tsk...tsk chegitz.


You have now been labeled a victim.


The idea of State's rights may be part of the "Lost Cause" mythology, but the idea that it is a Southern way of justifying or sweeping under the rug the slavery issue is plain fiction. Southernors usually don't have a problem admitting that slavery was an impetus and that they are unhappy with that part of our heitage. The difference is that we support the principle of State's rights. No matter how you characterize the war, it came down to that issue in the end.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


MtG, as a whole, you are a rational man.

But, I find it irrational to state that the South seceeded because of a Yankee invasion.

I did not quite state that. Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri all took their positions after Lincoln's call for the states to produce specified numbers of "volunteers" to forcibly put down the so-called rebellion. Prior to that, even going back to the compromise of 1850 and before, a number of prominent Yankees in and out of elected office made clear that their goals were to achieve political and economic dominance of the entire continent (if not the entire hemisphere, a la Stanton) in order to further their commercial interests. A bunch of little sovereign states with their own agendas and viewpoints were an impediment to those goals.

In their changing views of the function of Federal and state governments and with a keen eye forthe money to be made via control of government favorable to their economic and foreign policy goals, the north simply stopped giving a damn about sovereignty, except when convenient to protect their political interests (a la Dorr's rebellion).

From the southern point of view, these were increasingly hostile states, bound only by confederation, and the desire of Yankee mill owning and commercial interest to force the south into a state of economic dependence was a hostile policy - and one which could only be fully achieved by the destruction of the complete sovereignty of the individual southern states. Ultimately, that sovereignty could only be extinguished by submission or forcible subjugation, and the south saw that clearly.

Firing on Fort Sumter was merely a preemptive act of self-defence in the face of an ever-increasing threat. After all, if you find a rattlesnake in your back yard, do you feel obligated to let it bite you before you kill it?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

You need to redraw the map to include ALL of Oklahoma because we'll be fighting with you from the get go. And you need us to help offset the Hispanic majority.

But the food! Mexican, Tex-Mex, and white southern gravy over fried anything. Mmmmmmmmmm

True... but no good pizza.

[MichaeltheGreat]

We get all the BBQ though, so who needs pizza?

[Arrian]

Sure, the war was about "States Rights." The right to own slaves.

There were other issues, yes (like trade policy). But slavery was the big one. Not necessarily for the "average" Southerner, but for those who put together the secession(s) of the southern states and helped trigger the war.

-Arrian

p.s. Oh, yeah, sign me up for the Union.

[Patroklos]

But what about BBQ pizza?

See, if everyone had just sat down for dinner at CiCi's and compromised

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I did not quite state that. Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri all took their positions after Lincoln's call for the states to produce specified numbers of "volunteers" to forcibly put down the so-called rebellion. Prior to that, even going back to the compromise of 1850 and before, a number of prominent Yankees in and out of elected office made clear that their goals were to achieve political and economic dominance of the entire continent (if not the entire hemisphere, a la Stanton) in order to further their commercial interests. A bunch of little sovereign states with their own agendas and viewpoints were an impediment to those goals.

In their changing views of the function of Federal and state governments and with a keen eye forthe money to be made via control of government favorable to their economic and foreign policy goals, the north simply stopped giving a damn about sovereignty, except when convenient to protect their political interests (a la Dorr's rebellion).

From the southern point of view, these were increasingly hostile states, bound only by confederation, and the desire of Yankee mill owning and commercial interest to force the south into a state of economic dependence was a hostile policy - and one which could only be fully achieved by the destruction of the complete sovereignty of the individual southern states. Ultimately, that sovereignty could only be extinguished by submission or forcible subjugation, and the south saw that clearly.

Firing on Fort Sumter was merely a preemptive act of self-defence in the face of an ever-increasing threat. After all, if you find a rattlesnake in your back yard, do you feel obligated to let it bite you before you kill it?

Well spoken.

[Al B. Sure!]

again... anyone siding with the south is a racist, as GP said... no getting around that fact.