Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the American civil war really over??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I would have preferred the South not seceded, the war had not been fought, slavery ended and my part of this great country not been ravaged by a marauding, theiving, burn everything in sight army, but it happened. If nothing more, the war, whatever name you choose to call it, and loss by the South prevented further bloodshed on the North American continent that surely would have occured as both nations pushed Westward.

    Your statement above in bold shows your opinion not total fact. Facts show that the South was just as bad as the North in other ways. For instance who could ever forget places like Andersonville etc.;)

    Even know I have family in the South and have for a very long time they (as in Southerners) still regard me as "A damed Yankee" to which my reply is "But you dont mind taking this damed Yankee's money when he's spending it do you? So clam up".
    ;)

    And yes I do enjoy visiting when I can. Some real nice people.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Shek View Post
      Are you claiming that this was justified? If so, then would Cuba be justified in firing on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base? Would the East Germans have been justified in firing on American and German soldiers in West Berlin?
      So are the Palestinians justified in shelling Isrealis? Where Americans justified in the slaughter of and moving Native Americans onto reservations?
      Last edited by Blue; 03 Dec 09,, 22:52.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
        Boo hiss... The number of black slave owners was infinitesimal compared to whites and its usually brought up by people tryign to lessen the stain of racism behind African slavery.
        Actually, the people mainly behing African slavery was Africans. Different tribes and African businessmen would round up people from other tribes and then sell them to the American slavers. They in turn shipped them and sold them in the US at a profit. Slavery WAS NOT about racism. Slavery was an enterprise. The main reason Africans where the slaves where because they where still running around in loincloths tossing spears, an easy target for the slavers. There where Asian slaves as well and the Asian was taken even more advantage of IMO, during the turn of the last century as indentured servants.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
          Can you stop with the racist comments?
          I guessing comparisons to Hitler are next in line.

          man is always ready to profit from another mans misfortune but the scale of profiteerign weighs heavily on the Southern side. For a slave trader each slave was a 1x transaction valued at X. The Planter class was obviously not buying slaves to work at a loss so the real value realized in the fields or in service was Y. It was also not a 1x transaction but a period lasting from purchase to sale or death and included with it any offspring born. Finally an individual slave trader might make X number of trips during his career, but the planter class rolled over the course of generations.
          Interesting discourse. You're right, it does absolve the ships' owners and crew. How foolish of me to think otherwise.

          I didn't reply until you did.
          And I should have stopped when I said I would. That was my mistake.

          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          Two peoples decided to go their own way amicably recognizing they were not one people with two different views, but two peoples. That cannot be said about the North and South since both have the exact same creation story, the exact same founding fathers and from the exact same time and place. They were and are one people.
          The same might could be said for the Canadians post 1783

          Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
          Jefferson Davis was both a US Senator (United States) and twice a United States Congressmen until he withdrew from the Senate in 1861. The very same year Mississippi susseeded from the Union. Afterwhich he was named provisional president by the provisional Congress of the Confederation and an unlawful one at that. In other words Davis himself believed in the rule of government of the land by one entity. The very same United States government in which he took part in for 15 years.
          He also fought for the USA twice and was Secretary of War. Apparently he had convictions that those efforts were for naught.

          And Davis was inugurated into the Confederacy in Virgina
          I not sure what you mean here. He was innaugurated President of the CSA in Montgomery, AL.

          You cannot create a nation or country where one already existed in the first place wether you agree with it or not unless you go to war, and the Southern states lost that war. The End. And the end of the Confederacy.
          Thats your reply? And exactly what would that have to do with the US. Nothing they do politically in the former soviet union and satellites is inline with US doctrine and never has been. Wrong hemisphere. Not too mention the South lost.
          yes, that is my reply. You made the statement that a country cannot be created where one already existed in the first place. In reference to the other comments, you also did not specify where, or under what these countries could not be formed. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia seemed to me to be fine example of a nation amicably splitting.

          Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
          I would have preferred the South not seceded, the war had not been fought, slavery ended and my part of this great country not been ravaged by a marauding, theiving, burn everything in sight army, but it happened. If nothing more, the war, whatever name you choose to call it, and loss by the South prevented further bloodshed on the North American continent that surely would have occured as both nations pushed Westward.

          Your statement above in bold shows your opinion not total fact. Facts show that the South was just as bad as the North in other ways. For instance who could ever forget places like Andersonville etc.;)
          Fighting over the West would have surely occured, as it did occur during the actual war. I don't believe that hostile intent between the countries would have ended with the war, anymore than hostilities ended between the colonies and the crown with the cessation of the Revolutionary War.

          Andersonville was an absolute abomination, surely, as was Elmira. But the winners write the history and control the press.
          Even know I have family in the South and have for a very long time they (as in Southerners) still regard me as "A damed Yankee" to which my reply is "But you dont mind taking this damed Yankee's money when he's spending it do you? So clam up".
          ;)

          And yes I do enjoy visiting when I can. Some real nice people.
          Take it as a term of endearment.:)

          Come by and visit me, I'll let you spend some on me, maybe buy a beer or two...
          Last edited by Station 22; 04 Dec 09,, 00:38.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
            Actually, the people mainly behing African slavery was Africans. Different tribes and African businessmen would round up people from other tribes and then sell them to the American slavers. They in turn shipped them and sold them in the US at a profit. Slavery WAS NOT about racism. Slavery was an enterprise. The main reason Africans where the slaves where because they where still running around in loincloths tossing spears, an easy target for the slavers. There where Asian slaves as well and the Asian was taken even more advantage of IMO, during the turn of the last century as indentured servants.
            Then why was making a white person an indentured servant made illegal? Why laws based solely on race not on class (freev slave)? because American slavery was about racism.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
              Then why was making a white person an indentured servant made illegal? Why laws based solely on race not on class (freev slave)? because American slavery was about racism.
              Because the white people of time didn't think the Negro could be educated and therefore would only be useful as slaves. This was an opinion held by many whites, Northern and Southern. Thier opinion of the Asian wasn't much better.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                Because the white people of time didn't think the Negro could be educated and therefore would only be useful as slaves. This was an opinion held by many whites, Northern and Southern. Thier opinion of the Asian wasn't much better.

                That looks a fair bit like racism to me. Slavery is not necessarily about race, but in America it was.
                sigpic

                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                  Because the white people of time didn't think the Negro could be educated and therefore would only be useful as slaves. This was an opinion held by many whites, Northern and Southern. Thier opinion of the Asian wasn't much better.
                  We both know that was a myth since the South's planter class passed laws making it illegal to educate blacks, laws which they then flouted in order to train certain house slaves in things like accounting.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                    That looks a fair bit like racism to me. Slavery is not necessarily about race, but in America it was.
                    I don't think racism is an accurate term here though BF. Whites didn't think that much of the Native Americans but it wasn't anything to do with skin color. When a person shows up someplace wearing a shirt, pants, shoes and carrying a modern firearm(aka to the natives as a "boomstick") and having the ability to read and write, they may look at a not so advanced culture as barbaric or stupid. Being that they have the education and the gun, they decide they will do as they please with them.

                    One has to look at the culture even of what was considered civilized people 250 years ago. While not civilized or very educated by our standards, they ruled the day.

                    Some civilizations enslaved thier own people, some enslaved ones of other nationalities or races. What did the Egytians think of the Jews, was that racism or just a labor force?

                    I know you probably already know the history better than me on that subject, but I simply don't think that American Racism is the accurate term or at least not in the same context as used today.

                    Did that make sense?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      We both know that was a myth since the South's planter class passed laws making it illegal to educate blacks, laws which they then flouted in order to train certain house slaves in things like accounting.
                      And like I said, it was thier opinion, which usually serves the person who gave it.

                      Just to clarify here guys, I am not condoning or supporting slavery or racism. I am simply trying to explain the mindset of the people at the time to understand why things where the way they were. These opinions where of course not held by all Southerners or Northerners. There where pro-slave and anti-slave on both sides. No argument there where lots in the south. Thats where the agriculture was and the labor was needed.

                      I would bet money that with advent of more modern farm machinery, slavery would have went away quite readily. Only 6% of the population in the south owned slaves, I would hardly call that popular or the majority.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Station 22 View Post
                        No, I've claimed no justification for anything, only giving you the motivation at the time, for what occurred.

                        Before you all hang me for my comments, please reread the last lines of post 137.
                        I'm not trying to hang you, just trying to see where you stand. So based on what you've posted, you believe that the South wasn't justified?

                        Originally posted by Station 22
                        I would have preferred the South not seceded, the war had not been fought, slavery ended and my part of this great country not been ravaged by a marauding, theiving, burn everything in sight army, but it happened. If nothing more, the war, whatever name you choose to call it, and loss by the South prevented further bloodshed on the North American continent that surely would have occured as both nations pushed Westward.
                        As for the part I bolded, it is a great exaggeration and part of the mythology written by the South in the aftermath of the war (I can list countless other examples of how the losing side wrote the history following the war, much of which made it into the popular narrative of how people view the war). For South Carolina in the path of Sherman's march and the Shenandoah Valley in the path of Sheridan's operations, there's a large truth to what you say. However, as a general characterization, it's simply untrue as stated.
                        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                          So are the Palestinians justified in shelling Isrealis?
                          No, there are not justified in attacking civilians of another sovereign country recognized by the international community.

                          Originally posted by 7thsfsniper
                          Where Americans justified in the slaughter of and moving Native Americans onto reservations?
                          No. It's a moral stain on our history, but at the end of the day, it is what it is.
                          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                          Comment


                          • I would bet money that with advent of more modern farm machinery, slavery would have went away quite readily. Only 6% of the population in the south owned slaves, I would hardly call that popular or the majority.
                            Possibly, but the advent of the cotton gin says otherwise. That is at least one clear instance of improved farm machinery leading to a massive expansion of the practice of slavery.

                            That 6% figure says more about the expense of owning a slave than it does about the popularity of the institution. That other 94% were in no hurry to get rid of slavery, even if they couldnt buy their own .

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                              I would bet money that with advent of more modern farm machinery, slavery would have went away quite readily. Only 6% of the population in the south owned slaves, I would hardly call that popular or the majority.
                              I'd agree. This means slavery would have lasted for another century, as mechanized cotton picking didn't find itself in major use until the 1950s. WWI and WWII may have forced an earlier end or at least a production, but slavery would have extended its reach for another 3-4 generations, and we'd probably be fighting the Civil Rights battles of the 1960s right now.
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by guicho80 View Post
                                Possibly, but the advent of the cotton gin says otherwise. That is at least one clear instance of improved farm machinery leading to a massive expansion of the practice of slavery.

                                That 6% figure says more about the expense of owning a slave than it does about the popularity of the institution. That other 94% were in no hurry to get rid of slavery, even if they couldnt buy their own .
                                In your opinion and I'll bet that is far from accurate. Obviously there where many that supported anti-slavery. The underground didn't run itself and that wasn't the only way slaves escaped. I gaurantee the small farmer that couldn't afford slaves or didn't want slaves on a moral standing, wished those big plantations would lose the slaves to even the competition.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X