I'm from the south, and I hear this EVERY SINGLE DAY:
- Thread starter RKRigney
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wouldn't dare pretend that slavery wasn't a vile institution, but claiming that the South started the war (the North started it, incidentally) simply so that they could own humans is a distortion by omission. The South was being absolutely squeezed dry through tariffs that were expressly designed to benefit Northern industry at the expense of Southern economic interests. I realize you don't learn this in public high school, but is it too much to ask that you open a book before you go ranting and raving? The economy was carefully tailored to hold the South hostage to Northern imports, while keeping international import taxes too high to allow competition from Europe. A tax on imports is devastating to an export economy, and the South was exporting 75% of it's goods. At the time, tariffs accounted for something like 95% of all Federal income, and the South was bearing the brunt. It was a very small population that was paying all this, so much so that they had to rely on human slaves just to compete. You won't even acknowledge that there are two sides to the argument. Don't even get me started on Jefferson and the perceived injustice against the rights of States and individuals.
It is important to recognize the evil of the slave economy. But it is also important to view the facts with scholarly eyes, and not construe them however your anger would have you. You seem awfully angry. And my point stands, that it is you who is so furious over the war, more than any of us Southerners, so please don't blame Southerners for bringing it up. If you get to insult us, it's only fair that we get to retort.
It is important to recognize the evil of the slave economy. But it is also important to view the facts with scholarly eyes, and not construe them however your anger would have you. You seem awfully angry. And my point stands, that it is you who is so furious over the war, more than any of us Southerners, so please don't blame Southerners for bringing it up. If you get to insult us, it's only fair that we get to retort.
religion damn sure should influence your vote-your religion, if your a christian it states very clearly that killing is bad, so you should go with whoever you think is going to cause less killing(abortion/death penalty/war). stuff like that ok, but pushing your religion on everybody else is bad(and mildly against about half of what this country stands for, not looking too good with the other half), not voting someone because they are a different religion than you is bad, there are always plenty of other perfectly good reasons.
and no patriotism is loving your country, not SAYING you love your country and blindly obeying an idiot.
to be honest i dont think someones qualifications as president should be "how much are they like me" i mean, im a shitty leader. and john mccain is a nazi war criminal in disguise, he made a deal with the vietnamese and was switched out with the real john mccain. do you REALLY want a nazi president? there, something they can be JUST as scared of as muslims... or not.
and the second amendment... well if any of those gun fucking idiots had bothered to READ the damn thing (or more realistically, have it read to them) they would realize what its for, and that it has nothing to do with hunting or foreign invaders. in fact when we get X more years i think we will see all these morons NOT doing what theyre supposed to, perhaps even the opposite.
but what could i say about me if i didnt propose a solution?
ship em all off to alaska.
and no patriotism is loving your country, not SAYING you love your country and blindly obeying an idiot.
to be honest i dont think someones qualifications as president should be "how much are they like me" i mean, im a shitty leader. and john mccain is a nazi war criminal in disguise, he made a deal with the vietnamese and was switched out with the real john mccain. do you REALLY want a nazi president? there, something they can be JUST as scared of as muslims... or not.
and the second amendment... well if any of those gun fucking idiots had bothered to READ the damn thing (or more realistically, have it read to them) they would realize what its for, and that it has nothing to do with hunting or foreign invaders. in fact when we get X more years i think we will see all these morons NOT doing what theyre supposed to, perhaps even the opposite.
but what could i say about me if i didnt propose a solution?
ship em all off to alaska.
Whenever you hear anybody saying that Obama is a "closet muslim" you should just point out that McCain was marooned with the Communists for five years and ask if they've ever see The Manchurian Candidate. (I realize that this wouldn't work as well with the remake, but let's face it, if somebody walks around claiming that Obama is a "closet muslim" and somehow thinks that "muslim" is necessarily synonomous with "terrorist," they probably didn't see the remake since it starred one of those people.)
Please don't type like that and make fun of anyone's reading skills.742 post=18.74786.852961 said:
But, could you elaborate about the Second Amendment? I'm curious to know what you think it's intention was.
I know how to solve this. Move to Finland. When was the last time you heard of a redneck/pain in the ass talk about their holiday to Finland? Thank me in Finnish later 
no we cant agree that the holocaust was far worse, owning slaves and killing them is bad no matter who does it. furthermore the point you miss is that the Germans arent STILL bragging too all and sundry to THIS DAY how they were "this (<->) close to wining the war" and they certianly arent trying to make excuses for why owning people wasnt "so bad"John Galt post=18.74786.852573 said:
the whole other basis for your argument is just shit, the fact is the south LOST the war so all the excuses for why it was a good idea like the world needing your textiles doesnt wash, the world either didnt need them, found a way to make due with other things, or GOT them WITHOUT those in the south OWNING people.
i would also say that as far as Americn history goes owning slaves has had a far FAR bigger impact on OUR history than WWII did, we are STILL dealing with the left overs of slavery, like this very election, or the race riots, or jim crow laws. hell it was in the news yesterday about a black man being draged to death in Texas because , well as far as anyone can tell he was black.
now for some facts. a radom google search gave this link http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
of the top 5 causes listed there all of them are in one war or another related to slavery. you can do your own search i clicked more than that one link and found article after article that basicaly said those same 5 points
the most IMNPORTIANT point though is this link http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
it gives the text of "Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"
thats the title of the statment of withdraw from the Union given by south Carolina
if you read all the high winded noise in the begining where it talks about the right to take your ball and go home because you dont like being told what to do by a government, you get to the meat of the matter ....... i quote
"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."
argue all you want about how OWNING people wasnt that bad, and try to toss a bunch of shit into the debate that doesnt belong to cover for it, but a simple history text shows what really happened. written by the 'south' no less and bluntly stated that the reason for war was their 'right' too OWN people.
now we have gone way way off topic so while im more than willing to continue this chat id prefer it if we did it in a more relivent thread or using PM since Obamas election will take a large step in the direction of finaly healing those wounds that were inflicted by slavery.
This is slightly off the original topic, and it may have already been said, but, everybody here does realize that unless you are part of the electoral college, your vote doesn't count. And don't say that if the popular vote gets ignored long enough, people will start demanding change in the voting system. The real truth of the matter is no, it won't happen. With presidential elections being 4 years apart, most people will either forget it happened last time, or they won't care anymore. That is the main reason I will never vote. At least not until my vote really counts.
Alright, I'm willing to concede that slavery was the cause of the war, but still, those who talk about the South winning aren't necessarily saying that they wish to own slaves. I may be a National Socialist, but that doesn't mean I want to kill the Jews, I just want a Third Way economy in which all citizens are loyal to a state they can be proud of. From what I've seen in the "South will rise again!" groups, it's mainly a desire to be politically or at the very least, culturally independent from the outside world. Look at the Tibetans, they were an isolated, culturally secure group for centuries, but then they were forced into the modern world by Communist China, and they're still up in arms about it. Granted, it wasn't as long ago as the Civil War, but I can guarantee you that Tibetan independence will remain a hot-button issue for many of the region's inhabitants for decades to come.
Of course, this doesn't mean that all people in the South or even the small minority that still gripes about the war want to secede from the Union again, it just means that they're proud of their heritage. While this may seem like something that puzzles an outsider, there were some good qualities about the gentry of the Confederacy that seem romantic or worthy of praise.
Of course, this doesn't mean that all people in the South or even the small minority that still gripes about the war want to secede from the Union again, it just means that they're proud of their heritage. While this may seem like something that puzzles an outsider, there were some good qualities about the gentry of the Confederacy that seem romantic or worthy of praise.
Wyatt, as a lover of history, and a man doing this in his A levels in a few weeks time, I'm going to say this:
1. The war was precipitated due to an irrevorceable breakdown of relations between the North and the South, based around slavery in a much broader context.
Peasant-Speak translation: Slavery was a cause, but that does not in any way shape or form make it the South's fault the war was begun. Quite to the contrary. Given that slavery was the basis of the entirity of the South's economy and earnings, it was the North's restrictions, limitations and attempts at the curtailment of slavery that constitutes the unreasonable act.
It's fucking easy to understand: All those nice New-Englanders and Yankees demanding the aboliton of slavery were, in essence, insisting that the South completely alter it's way of life, economy and indeed the very foundation of it's existance on nothing more important than a moral point. Previous compromise, and indeed the very existance of the Union until 1860 shows that the coexistance of slavery and non-slave states was entirely possible so long as a balance of power between the two was maintained. But with Aboltion becoming the fashionable cause for the wealthy elite, there was so gross a breakdown in relations between the two sections of America that resulted in the civil war.
Indeed, the Abolitionists cannot claim any moral high ground, as the intelligent ones amongst them must have realised that their cause could never be realised without the war between North and South, thus making them guilty of either moral idiocy, grotesque hypocrisy or just being plain evil. And the stupid ones deserved death
Short Answer: It was the abolitionists fault more than the South. So fuck off my moral high ground, lest I bring out the big guns.
While I disagree that there was anything 'noble' about Dixie pre-1865, what I will argue is that abolition did not in any way improve the lives of the Freedmen. Put simply- as slaves, being property, it was in the owner's interests to keep them fed, clothed and safe from harm. Wheras a free men, they were simply made vulnerable to lynchings, torture and oppression.
1. The war was precipitated due to an irrevorceable breakdown of relations between the North and the South, based around slavery in a much broader context.
Peasant-Speak translation: Slavery was a cause, but that does not in any way shape or form make it the South's fault the war was begun. Quite to the contrary. Given that slavery was the basis of the entirity of the South's economy and earnings, it was the North's restrictions, limitations and attempts at the curtailment of slavery that constitutes the unreasonable act.
It's fucking easy to understand: All those nice New-Englanders and Yankees demanding the aboliton of slavery were, in essence, insisting that the South completely alter it's way of life, economy and indeed the very foundation of it's existance on nothing more important than a moral point. Previous compromise, and indeed the very existance of the Union until 1860 shows that the coexistance of slavery and non-slave states was entirely possible so long as a balance of power between the two was maintained. But with Aboltion becoming the fashionable cause for the wealthy elite, there was so gross a breakdown in relations between the two sections of America that resulted in the civil war.
Indeed, the Abolitionists cannot claim any moral high ground, as the intelligent ones amongst them must have realised that their cause could never be realised without the war between North and South, thus making them guilty of either moral idiocy, grotesque hypocrisy or just being plain evil. And the stupid ones deserved death
Short Answer: It was the abolitionists fault more than the South. So fuck off my moral high ground, lest I bring out the big guns.
While I disagree that there was anything 'noble' about Dixie pre-1865, what I will argue is that abolition did not in any way improve the lives of the Freedmen. Put simply- as slaves, being property, it was in the owner's interests to keep them fed, clothed and safe from harm. Wheras a free men, they were simply made vulnerable to lynchings, torture and oppression.
Fondant makes a good point. Yes, slavery was undoubtedly a cruel and immoral institution, but to ask a region whose entire economy was based around slavery to give it up immediately would be akin to, say, environmentalists asking our society to immediately acquiesce to all their demands within a year. Just the scale and speed of that change would be crippling.Fondant post=18.74786.853518 said:
I like the South. Sure, quite a majority aren't the sharpest knives int he drawer, and a few of 'em still have a rather questionable moral outlook... but they don't call it "Southern hospitality" for nothing.
I live in So. Illinois. Here, republicans don't care if he's a muslim or a christian. Around these parts, it's his chicago-ness that they have a problem with. When one considers his support of Daley, it's really hard to see him as an instrument of hope or change.
I think history has proven that the North, collectively, didn't give a shit about the slaves. They abandoned them to oppression by angry white Southerners. The war was the result of political incompetence in the North and failure to find a working solution to the problem of slavery, among other things, like economic oppression. All that continued in Reconstruction years. If they abandoned the slaves to a new, de facto slavery, it stands to reason that they didn't care about their plight. So slavery cannot be the sole cause of the war. Also, it was the North that opened hostilities against an independent nation with the desire for self government. So why invade? If they cared so much, why didn't they help the slaves?
And why can't Northerners let it go? Seems they can't shut up about it.
And why can't Northerners let it go? Seems they can't shut up about it.
A clip that sticks out in my mind is of John McCain interviewing his audience at a rally somewhere in the South, and he ends up defending Obama from some of the most outlandish accusations of his race, creed and policy. I figure that deep down, McCain is thinking to himself, "... and I'm representing THESE cunts?!"