If the US civil war was fought today...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by TCO
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.

If you or I were slaves, pretty much any means to end slavery that didn't kill us or cost us a limb or two would be fine.

I'm harder to troll nowadays, since I'm not online much after work hours, but I started your thread - let's see if it goes anywhere.

I'm having a hard time getting into the Patriots and Panthers, but I figured if all else failed, I'd go for a good ol' Cajun boy QB.

[Ned]

MtG, Cause and effect. The real question is who crossed the line first. That is easy to tell if the line is who fired the first shot. But if you move the line just a bit, well perhaps Lincoln started it.

But, as I take it, your main contention is the election of Lincoln was the last straw in a haystack of Northern abuse of Southern rights.

Is this closer?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, Cause and effect. The real question is who crossed the line first. That is easy to tell if the line is who fired the first shot. But if you move the line just a bit, well perhaps Lincoln started it.

But, as I take it, your main contention is the election of Lincoln was the last straw in a haystack of Northern abuse of Southern rights.

Is this closer?

I'll jump in with my two cents. Please pardon me. The Republican party had just about settled on a policy allowing for the perpetual right of slavery in limited areas but this was not good enough for the agitator Lincoln who declared in his speech at the Republican Party in 1858 that " a house divided cannot stand". Most Americans do not understand the context and think that it refers somehow to the issue of Union. It did not. It was Lincoln's declaration that the country would have to be either all slave or none at all. This created the crisis that led to sucession. It was all Abe's doing. If he had not taken that radical stance there probably would not have been this terrible conflict, but Abe would probably not have been elected. In other words, one million men died due to Abe's political aspirations. Not quite Stalin like numbers but a pretty impressive butcher's bill for this side of the Atlantic.

[Ned]

I agree that the South seceeded because of the speech and because Lincoln was elected.

I disagree that he gave the speech only because of his political ambition.

[Ned]

Also, if it is true that the Republican party was about to compromise on the issue of slavery and Lincoln prevented that, I am glad he did. It goes to show just how important one man's stand for the right can be.

[Capt Dizle]

Hey, Ned. I'll be willing to cede the point and accept that Abe was acting on his conscience as soon as the Yanks round here are willing to stipulate that Davis and other Southern leaders were doing likewise.

Maybe if the demonizations can end we can someday stop fighting this war.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, if it is true that the Republican party was about to compromise on the issue of slavery and Lincoln prevented that, I am glad he did. It goes to show just how important one man's stand for the right can be.

So basically you are willing to swap the blood of a million dead to speed up the end of a dying institution by a few years?

As I have said before, slavery is a moral wrong, almost as bad as abortion. I am not however, willing to see a million of my countymen die to force a stop to that barbaric institution.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by 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).

I'm not saying that white Southerners still adhere to the Lost Cause because they believe that slavery was a good thing today.

I'm saying that the Lost Cause allows white Southerners to DENY historical accuracy, and scholarly work that presents slavery as being the cause of the Civil War.

[TCO]

**** the south. I gotta deal with these people in Richmond. city is more still beleiveing it is a capital ofanbother mythical country than Charleston or Savannha. It is incase. Just go to Holoy mwood cemetary and you will see.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by MrFun




I'm not saying that white Southerners still adhere to the Lost Cause because they believe that slavery was a good thing today.

I'm saying that the Lost Cause allows white Southerners to DENY historical accuracy, and scholarly work that presents slavery as being the cause of the Civil War.

Well, then. The "Winner Gets To Write The History" thing allows Northerners to DENY historical accuracy, scholarly work and PLAIN FACT that slavery was not the cause of the War of Northern Agression.

[TCO]

jim,my,

you gaddamned racist. Frigging recneck.

[Capt Dizle]

This is what southerner Edwards is getting from his showing in that Yankee State.



How do you like it?

[Capt Dizle]

Edwards was born in South Carolina. One of his ancestors probably pissed on the walls of Ft. Sumter.

How do you like it?

Do you hear me now?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
So basically you are willing to swap the blood of a million dead to speed up the end of a dying institution by a few years?

As I have said before, slavery is a moral wrong, almost as bad as abortion. I am not however, willing to see a million of my countymen die to force a stop to that barbaric institution.

Did you support the war in Iraq? How about fighting Hitler?

If you believe war is always wrong, at least then you'll have been consistent. I suspect, however, that isn't the case. If so, then a refusal to fight to end slavery within one's own country is positively immoral.

[St Leo]

Didn't Hitler's Reich declare war on everyone it ended up fighting?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Well, then. The "Winner Gets To Write The History" thing allows Northerners to DENY historical accuracy, scholarly work and PLAIN FACT that slavery was not the cause of the War of Northern Agression.

Nope, that's not the case either.

In the late nineteenth century, white Northerners and white Southerners that included Civil War veterans reconciled with one another in the spirit of white supremacy.

As a result, the North lost the Civil War by reconciling with the South on their terms, in regards to race relations.

And because of this reconciliation through the fraternal spirit of white supremacy, the losers of the war have done a great job in mythologizing the causes of that war -- an exception to the historical norm of the victor always writing myths of a war.

Read David Blight's book -- Race and Reunion.

[Patroklos]

Not fighting Hitler would not have saved lives.

Not fighting Saddam would not have saved lives.

Not fighting the Civil War would have saved lives.

Speeding up the end of slavery by a decade or two at the cost of a million dead is not an advantage. And what did the freed slaves inherit from the war? How about a devastated economy that forced so many to become economic refugees, who then had to move to the nouth to be despised by poor whites there who now have to compete with them economically. How about an enraged and embittered Southern population who couldn't take out their rage on the Yankee's anymore, but there were alot of ex-slaves around who were, thanks to Lincoln, the ideological heart of their arch eneimes war aims and thus NOW viewed as the cause of their misery.

The Civil War created American racism. Does any of the European countries that participated heavily in the slave trade but ended it voluntarily have the same problems?

Sure Europe was ahead of us on the slave issue, but they were ahead of us at a lot of things. They did have a 1000 year head start. We caught up with them in every other field in 20 more years, slavery would be no different.

Does slavery exist in the world today. Yes. Where is it primarily located except for extrodinary minority exceptions? The undeveloped world. What did America do in from 1850-1880? We developed from an agriculture based economy (that might be able to use slaves profitably) to an industrial based one (that has no need of slaves, at least of that type. Communist rhetoric here). Would that development have been faster had we not had to stop for a decade to fight a war of liberation that in fact just transformed slavery instead of ending it. Yes.

There is no drawback to not fighting the Civil War. At the very least freed slaves suffered just as much for a good period after the war, even more so, than they were before it. Sure they had a taste of freedom. But I would imagine after bieng a slave for a lifetime you became a little more pragmatic about things like not living in burned out cities and ravaged farms, having your more powerful neighbors hating you as the embodiement of their victorious enemies, and having nothing but whatever you can pick from your former masters smoldering foundation of a plantation house to feed your children on in the new "free" world.

Again, applying the ideology of today to explain why people acted like they did 150 years ago is pure folly.

[MrFun]

sigh

[monkspider]

Originally posted by MrFun
sigh

Sighing is pure folly.

[Ned]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Hey, Ned. I'll be willing to cede the point and accept that Abe was acting on his conscience as soon as the Yanks round here are willing to stipulate that Davis and other Southern leaders were doing likewise.

Maybe if the demonizations can end we can someday stop fighting this war.

Well even though I was born in Chicago, it was while my Dad was at medical school. We then moved back to KC. This makes me somewhat of a Southerner myself.

Just a point about Lincoln, how can the South demonize him for causing the war and glorify him for wanting a quick and peaceful reunification?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Hey, Ned. I'll be willing to cede the point and accept that Abe was acting on his conscience as soon as the Yanks round here are willing to stipulate that Davis and other Southern leaders were doing likewise.

Maybe if the demonizations can end we can someday stop fighting this war.

I do not glorify Lincoln in the way that people like SlowwHand glorify Davis.

Nor do I demonize white Southerners -- I'm well versed on the experiences of white Southern Unionists, and I also know that the "Lost Cause" does not have any appeal today because white Southerners still believe slavery was a good thing (DUH!), but that they hold onto the "Lost Cause" out of ignorance, or delibrate distortion of our history.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun


I do not glorify Lincoln in the way that people like SlowwHand glorify Davis.

Nor do I demonize white Southerners -- I'm well versed on the experiences of white Southern Unionists, and I also know that the "Lost Cause" does not have any appeal today because white Southerners still believe slavery was a good thing (DUH!), but that they hold onto the "Lost Cause" out of ignorance, or delibrate distortion of our history.

I think therein lies the rub. The assumption is that "white southerners think slavery was a good thing" is a questionable statement at best and speaks volumes to the outrage voiced by folks like Zell Miller.

[MrFun]

No ****!!

How many times do I have to explain that I realize the VAST majority of white Southerners today do not believe that slavery was a good thing!?!?

[Ned]

I think the million figure is double the KIA. Here is a table summarizing America's casualties:

Code:

<------------Casualties------------> [-----Deaths---] <-----Percentages-----> Duration Conflict Enrolled Combat Other Wounded Total Ratio KIA Dead Casualty Months KIA/Month Revolutionary War 200.0 4,435 * 6,188 10,623 2.4 2.2% 2.2% 5.3% 80 55 War of 1812 286.0 2,260 * 4,505 6,765 3.0 0.8% 0.8% 2.4% 30 75 Mexican War 78.7 1,733 11,550 4,152 17,435 1.3 2.2% 16.9% 22.2% 20 87 Civil War: Union 2,803.3 110,070 249,458 275,175 634,703 1.8 3.9% 12.8% 22.6% 48 2,293 Confederate 1,064.2 74,524 124,000 137,000 + 335,524 1.7 7.0% 18.7% 31.5% 48 1,553 Combined 3,867.5 184,594 373,458 412,175 + 970,227 1.7 4.8% 14.4% 25.1% 48 3,846 Spanish-American War 306.8 385 2,061 1,662 4,108 1.7 0.1% 0.8% 1.3% 4 96 & World War I 4,743.8 53,513 63,195 204,002 320,710 2.7 1.1% 2.5% 6.8% 19 2,816 World War II 16,353.7 292,131 115,185 670,846 1,078,162 2.6 1.8% 2.5% 6.6% 44 6,639 Korean War 5,764.1 33,651 * 103,284 136,935 4.1 0.6% 0.6% 2.4% 37 909 Vietnam War 8,744.0 47,369 10,799 153,303 211,471 3.6 0.5% 0.7% 2.4% 90 526 Gulf War 2,750.0 148 145 467 ^ 760 2.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 148

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I understand. But the point of the matter is southern whites are especially sensitized to any perceived implication of their so-called racism even if it is a tiny minorityof the pop. And truth be told are getting tired of hearing it.

I believe the depth of this feeling of unfair victimization colors much of the current souths political landscape today. That and breaking the stereotypes of redneck ignoramuses.

[Ned]

You Southerners who lament the casualties seem to have a hard time understanding who started the war.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Hey don't look at me I'm a damn Yankee carpet bagger.

I simply am reading the mood of the neighbors.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


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

Precisely.

[Whaleboy]

So who did start it?

If you mean that the south started it by splitting from the North, then try again. Did the South invade the North first? Such is the nature of war that whoever started it was the first person to invade or declare war.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Ned
You Southerners who lament the casualties seem to have a hard time understanding who started the war.

The North started the war. Abe was behind it.