If the US civil war was fought today...

[Patroklos]

And anyone making such a statment is a steriotyping racist dimwit..... no getting around that fact.

[Al B. Sure!]

blah?

if the South won the war, millions of people would still be enslaved.

how did the South fight a just war?

[Capt Dizle]

I would debate the subject with you but I am not used to being limited to very short, simple words.

[Al B. Sure!]

theres no need to debate. it's a pretty obvious issue. the south was wrong

[Verto]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
blah?

if the South won the war, millions of people would still be enslaved.

You have nothing to back that up. You think that in nearly 150 years, the South wouldn't have abandoned slavery?

[Capt Dizle]

I agree completely. The South was wrong. Of course the North was wrong also.

You cannot possibly fault Southerners for rejecting Lincoln's call to arms, whether you are judging states or individuals.

In the end it was a war of agression by the North. You will find people here who will argue that Lincoln was right in his war, but Bush is wrong in his. A little goofy if you ask me.

[Patroklos]

Speer would be one of those causists I mentioned earlier who prefer a verison of the Civil War rather than the reality of it.

That is becasue he doesn't care about historical accuracy, but rather his racist opinions displayed in other threads.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Verto


You have nothing to back that up. You think that in nearly 150 years, the South wouldn't have abandoned slavery?

Good comment. But people are stupid.

Slavery was not a unique sin practiced only Southerners. Slavery was the default for most nations in the years (hundreds or even thousands) leading up to 1850. Slavery was an institution more or less inherited by the South, nutured by Northern interests who profited in slave trading.

Many nations gave up slavery without bloody wars and it became objectionable in the North as its economic importance to Northern interests waned. No blood needed to be spilled over the issue. Slavery is an economic institution that became obsolete due to industrialization. It was only a matter of time until it passed away.

Rasicism was no more prevalent in the South than the North in that time. All whites were prejudiced with some rare exceptions.

The real issue was whether we were going to have a strongly centralized government largely influenced by monied interests or a less centralized government more accessible to the people.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And anyone making such a statment is a steriotyping racist dimwit..... no getting around that fact.

Your ability to engage in verbal reparté is simply amazing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
It was only a matter of time until it passed away.

Slavery lasted until the 1890s in Brazil. It lasted until the 1960s in Kuwait. It is still illegaly practiced in many parts of the world, including the US. Furthermore, the South founds ways around the 13th Amendment, notably, the chain gang. Sheriffs would be given quotas of Blacks and poor whites to arrest to provide labor to corrupt men at state expense. This practice ended in the 50s.

The real issue was whether we were going to have a strongly centralized government largely influenced by monied interests or a less centralized government more accessible to the people.

Right, cuz the "states rights" states are sooooooo democratic. One party states for 80 years, and even after that, pulled all kinds of dirty tricks to keep Black people from voting, even as recently as 2002. Hell, my state has had two amendments passed by the citizens of Florida that the government just flat out refuses to obey. Yeah, Southern governments are accessible. Just not to the average citizen.

[Sprayber]

I think some of you get too caught up in your indignation. It's easy to do. I'm very proud to be a southerner but all the people I know that live here suffer no such longing for the lost cause as some of you talk about. The teenagers that run up and down the street with confederate flags and license plates don't do it for a return to the old days of the Confederacy. It's a sign of immaturity on their part. Now you can sit there in traffic and get all indignant thinking that the south is awash in racism or you can chalk it up to what it is, a sign of them not knowing what they are talking about. The only thing more pathetic than a southerner displaying the cofederate flag is a yankee getting all hissy about it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

Many nations gave up slavery without bloody wars and it became objectionable in the North as its economic importance to Northern interests waned. No blood needed to be spilled over the issue. Slavery is an economic institution that became obsolete due to industrialization. It was only a matter of time until it passed away.

It has unfortunately not become obsolete- not in Mauritania, not in the Sudan, not in the Gulf States, not in Europe, and neither in Asia nor the United States.

It simply goes by another guise- employing illegals to do the clearing of hazardous industrial waste, or spraying orchards with insecticide. They do it for little pay, in dangerous working conditions, without safety equipment and without insurance.

Bonded child labour in Pakistan and India, in camel and horse racing in Arab Gulf States.

The enslavement of black animist or Christian Sudanese in the Sudan, and the enslavement of black Africans in Mauritania.

The use of Bengalis or Filipions as domestic servants in Singapore and the Gulf, in many instances tied to their place of work by the confiscation of their passports by their 'employers'. This also happens in Europe, too. The servants are ins some cases physically and sexually abused, and rarely allowed time off or time away from their place of employment.

The sex slave industry in Western and Eastern Europe.

They don't have visible chains any more, and there may not be public whipping posts, or public slave auctions, but wherever people think they can exploit dirt cheap or free labour, there will be people who will do so.

I think it was an American senator who said that when profit and morality contend, it is seldom morality that wins.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by PLATO


Neithier slavery nor sexual exploitation in any form fits me at all.

OK, I should have said "sits well with you". I apologize.

The rights of the states were guaranteed by the constitution and the federal government broke faith with that. Slavery was the issue of the moment. Let me say unequivocally that I do not support slavery in any way shape or form. I do, however fully support the State's right to determine issues. The real question is at what level of government do you let the people decide their own fate. Currently we set that at a national level. My belief is simply that it should be closer to the voice of the people and be at the state level.

If slaves are people, then slavery violates their constitutional rights and the federal government has a right to enforce the Constitution, does it not?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
OK, I should have said "sits well with you". I apologize.

If slaves are people, then slavery violates their constitutional rights and the federal government has a right to enforce the Constitution, does it not?

Then talk about how the North refused to enforce those rights until the outbreak of the civil war. Why did they all of a sudden decide that slavery was worth going to war over. Could it be that they were more interested in keeping the Union intact than protecting the rights of blacks. If the war wasn't all about slavery in the north, could the same be said of the souths position? Not necessarly directed at you Doc, but perhaps some others could explain it.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Slavery lasted until the 1890s in Brazil. It lasted until the 1960s in Kuwait. It is still illegaly practiced in many parts of the world, including the US. Furthermore, the South founds ways around the 13th Amendment, notably, the chain gang. Sheriffs would be given quotas of Blacks and poor whites to arrest to provide labor to corrupt men at state expense. This practice ended in the 50s.

Che, I would like to compliment you for making a valid point. Problem is you haven't. I said that slavery was an economic institution that would pass away without bloodshed and you try to counter that by pointing to Brazil? I decided to research that and this is the first thing I found:

“The idea that the abolitionist movement is alone responsible for the demise of the African slave trade fails to account for economic and political realities. Financial and political interests responding to public demand had initiated and maintained the African slave trade for more than three centuries. New economic factors related to development of an alternate sugar source, technological advancements, and political interests had as much to do with ending to slavery as moral outrage.”
And then this:
“Historians of the time note that by the end of the 19th century, slavery in Brazil was declining under pressure from immigrant laborers whose wages cost less than the upkeep of slaves. Nevertheless, the "Golden Law" set off a reaction among slave owners that rapidly eroded the political foundations of the monarchy. After a few months of parliamentary crises, the Emperor was deposed on November 15, 1889, by a military movement that proclaimed the abrogation of the monarchy and the establishment of the Republic.
This institutional transformation, albeit profound, was surprisingly carried out without bloodshed. Although treated with all possible respect, the Emperor and his family had to be asked to leave the country. Accompanied by some close associates, they went into exile in France. Most of the leading figures of the country lent their support and collaboration to the new regime; among them was one of Brazil's most outstanding statesmen, the Baron of Rio Branco. It was his wisdom and skilful diplomacy that enabled Brazil to end, by treaty or arbitration, nearly all its outstanding frontier disputes.”
I guess yeah in Brazil they had to have a million people killed to stamp out slavery. Yeah, good point Che. Ole Abe sure nipped it in the bud, bud. I started to research the Kuwaiti issue, but heck, we all remember the Kuwaiti civil war of 1960 when their late president Ali Abe invaded Southern Kuwait to free the slaves there. Sure.
For your information they import girls from Thailand to serve as sex slaves. Now. Today. Now, think hard Che. Will it be okay for George to invade Kuwait and free those girls? Its pretty simple. If Abe was right to trigger a war that killed one million Americans to free slaves (your theory) then it must be okay. And it would logically follow that George was right to invade Iraq too, since Saddam and his faction essentially had enslaved the whole county. Right? Che?
Now, in regard to the chain gang comment. You got that one wrong too. I know. I personally served time on the chain gang in the early 80s. So your statement there was inaccurate as well. It’s not that your heart is bad Che. It’s just that you don’t have a clue.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Right, cuz the "states rights" states are sooooooo democratic. One party states for 80 years, and even after that, pulled all kinds of dirty tricks to keep Black people from voting, even as recently as 2002. Hell, my state has had two amendments passed by the citizens of Florida that the government just flat out refuses to obey. Yeah, Southern governments are accessible. Just not to the average citizen.

Finally, here you choose to use the example of a government in an enslaved state in a heavily Federalized republic that is failing to enforce it’s own law as an example to disprove my contention that special interests have a disproportionate share of influence in that same republic. Can’t you even take a stab at a logical argument?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
blah?

if the South won the war, millions of people would still be enslaved.

Such a brilliantly formed and inevitable conclusion from the facts at hand.

Yep, they'd still be out in the fields pickinb' cotton by hand, and we'd all be ridin' our horses, bullwhips in hand.

As ol' Bugs Bunny said: "what a maroon"

[TCO]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
blah?

if the South won the war, millions of people would still be enslaved.

how did the South fight a just war?

I don't know if they'd still be enslaved. But it's possible. And likely they would have been enslaved for several more decades. John Brown was right. Death to slavers. Just like that colonol in that book by heinlein.

[TCO]

I can actually buy the legalistic argument that states have the right to seced or that slavery was (obliquely and even in 1790 obliquley for a reason of it being an issue) mentioned in the consitutuoin (3/5 thingie).

But slavery is wrong chums. Realio trulio. And firing on Ft Sumter was all about slavery. And slavery ended immediatlely after the war. It sure wouldn't have without the war or if the south had won.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove If slaves are people, then slavery violates their constitutional rights and the federal government has a right to enforce the Constitution, does it not?

Sure, that right was ratified by cold steel and rifled muskets.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
OK, I should have said "sits well with you". I apologize.

If slaves are people, then slavery violates their constitutional rights and the federal government has a right to enforce the Constitution, does it not?

The Constitution clearly recognized dual and distinct sets of rights of various classes of persons (citizens, non-citizens, citizens of the US, but of another state, slaves, felons, etc.) at the Federal and state levels.

The Constitution's grant of suffrage rights to white males over 21 only applied to elections for Federal office - initially, only the House or Representatives. No state was obligated to follow that standard, nor to require warrants for searches, nor was double jeopardy an issue in state criminal courts unless by the state's own charter or laws.

While an individual was within a particular state, his status was generally governed by the laws of his state of citizenship and his conduct by the laws of the state in which he was located, with the Federal government having virtually no role except in the process of interstate commerce or travel, or at sea or in the territories.

The institution of slavery was expressly recognized by the Constitution, like it or not, and it is clear that with limited exceptions that might be granted within a particular state's own legislative discretion, all that flowery prose about rights and such was reserved for the white male, and everyone else could just hope they had a benevolent white male in charge of them.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by TCO
I can actually buy the legalistic argument that states have the right to seced or that slavery was (obliquely and even in 1790 obliquley for a reason of it being an issue) mentioned in the consitutuoin (3/5 thingie).

But slavery is wrong chums. Realio trulio. And firing on Ft Sumter was all about slavery. And slavery ended immediatlely after the war. It sure wouldn't have without the war or if the south had won.

Well there is room for agreement here. I think. If the North had won the first battle of Manassas, and if the South had quickly crumbled and the war had ended then, the result would not have freed the slaves. Lincoln did not free the slaves (in the Confederacy) until much later and did not free the slaves in the North until after that. During the first year of the war he had no intent to free the slaves. So, I am sure you will agree with me that the war wasn't started over slavery, nor fought to end slavery, but merely that slavery ended as a result of the war.

Right?

[Ned]

So, Michael the Great, it seems to be your position now that a significant portion of the South seceded prior to Lincoln's call to arms, that the Yankee aggression had nothing to do with the call arms, but it that had everything to do with Yankee imperialism and subjugation of Southern economic interests.

Is this an accurate summary of your post?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by TCO


I don't know if they'd still be enslaved. But it's possible. And likely they would have been enslaved for several more decades. John Brown was right. Death to slavers. Just like that colonol in that book by heinlein.

Two thangs against the long-term continuation of slavery - no cotton country west of Texas (can you imagine slave cattle ranches - we're gonna give 'em all horses and guns and expect 'em not to kill our asses and ride away?) The other one was that the practice of single cropping huge plantation tracts was rapidly depleting southern soil, so plantation owners were just on their way out economically - they would not have been able to maintain the large slave population, and there was neither the liquidity nor the demand to sell off lots of those slaves to smaller landowners or town folk.

Sumter was more about ego, and the fact that ol' Abe played poker a lot better than the cracker politicians he outmaneuvered on that whole Sumter-Pickens affair.

Death to slavers is fine with me, as long as you include enough rope for the Yankee sailers, shipwrights and bankers who made their fortunes off the slave trade.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
So, Michael the Great, it seems to be your position now that a significant portion of the South seceded prior to Lincoln's call to arms, that the Yankee aggression had nothing to do with the call arms, but it that had everything to do with Yankee imperialism and subjugation of Southern economic interests.

Is this an accurate summary of your post?

Nope.

[Ned]

Nope?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Nope.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Two thangs against the long-term continuation of slavery - no cotton country west of Texas (can you imagine slave cattle ranches - we're gonna give 'em all horses and guns and expect 'em not to kill our asses and ride away?) The other one was that the practice of single cropping huge plantation tracts was rapidly depleting southern soil, so plantation owners were just on their way out economically - they would not have been able to maintain the large slave population, and there was neither the liquidity nor the demand to sell off lots of those slaves to smaller landowners or town folk.

Sumter was more about ego, and the fact that ol' Abe played poker a lot better than the cracker politicians he outmaneuvered on that whole Sumter-Pickens affair.

Death to slavers is fine with me, as long as you include enough rope for the Yankee sailers, shipwrights and bankers who made their fortunes off the slave trade.

If I were a slave, I'd feel a lot better about the de guerre created end to slavery than some claptrap about the soil. And if I were east of Texas, that whole west of Texas thing wouldn't do much for me.

Oh...and could you get Ming to start some sports thread, so I can troll his azz? I am drinking, need an outlet, and like you too much.

(All that said, I have revised my opinion on the civil war since I was a young Virginian who gloried in all our stud generals and the like.)

[TCO]

Nope?

[MichaeltheGreat]

The economic and rhetorical agression had been building up for a couple of decades. Secession was inevitable, since the south would certainly not just quietly submit to northern hegemony.

Secession was not viewed as a military response, rather it was viewed as simply announcing to the Yankee states that they had finally pushed too far, and that the Union formed in 1787 in the face of foreign threats no longer served the mutual interests of the sovereign states which agreed to form that Union.

It was the Yankee adamance in refusing to even negotiate the disposition of those foreign forts in Confederate harbors that led to things getting a bit hot and heavy.

[Ramo]

The problem with the peaceful end of slavery is Texas itself. With plenty of open land and the relative lack of people, landlords would have every reason to use slaves. So slavery in most of the South should die off pretty quickly naturally, but I'd give slavery in Texas another few decades.