Ron Paul turned his back on his extreme racist past? Think again.
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
It means you believe that a state has a right to enslave people so yea...
IHaveCandy
Banned
I don't see what is the problem with my analogy.
Somebody thinking women have the right to get an abortion doesn't mean they think they should get an abortion. It doesn't mean they think it is the right thing to do.
Somebody thinking people have the right to discriminate doesn't mean they think they should discriminate. It doesn't mean they think it is the right thing to do.
I don't see why you need to point out to any history for this analogy to work.
The Civil War and Civil Rights Acts are two entirely different incidents based on two entirely different disagreements in government policies.
Deified Data
Banned
You really can't be a libertarian in politics and not be a hypocrite on some level.
Elwood Blues
Member
Lord have mercy. Absolutely amazing, this is why I love Ron Paul. The amount of crazy that is brought out by merely mentioning his name is astounding.
Slavery isn't the only thing the Civil War was about...........................
It kinda was.
Let me put it this way - without slavery, there would not have been a civil war.
So very, very wrong.
Oh come on, can't you tell I'm just trying to be silly?
Absolutely 100% wrong.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
Slavery helped the south maintain control of congress. When that was threatened (when Kansas was going to be brought in as a free state, I believe, giving the non-slave northern states the majority rule in congress).
The south was bitchy and moany and bailed because not allowing more slavery meant they would lose their supreme influence in government. Whether there was slavery or not, the south would've still bitched and moaned over their power being weakened.
MorisUkunRasik
Member
That's how American public school try to frame mostly, but as others have posted it wasn't a very pressing issue nationally.
I really think that Civil War revisionism is one of the worst parts of the influence that Texas has over our educational system through text book manipulation. Did the Civil War have a lot of causes? Absolutely. But, it had one root cause, and that was the issue of slavery. Every single secession declaration released by the southern states was centered around the protection of slavery as an institution and how threatened the institution was from the north. All of the other causes were derived from this one root cause. To try to claim anything else really is the worst kind of historical revisionism.
For the people who claim that there would've been a Civil War without slavery, considering slavery's root cause in the conflict, what other issue would've forced the south to unify against the north in the manner in which it did?
For the people who claim that there would've been a Civil War without slavery, considering slavery's root cause in the conflict, what other issue would've forced the south to unify against the north in the manner in which it did?
Cameron122
Member
We Southerners aren't all backwater racists. Shocking I know.
I'll play along, what do you guys think were the reasons for the Civil War?
I think it was slavery, and I base it on the South Carolina secession declaration and similar declerations from other states.
I don't think they were even trying to hide it, it's all there in plain English -
The north didn't join the war because of slavery, it did it because the south seceded (and even then, not immediately).
But the south totally seceded because of slavery, I honestly can't see how anyone can argue otherwise.
IHaveCandy
Banned
All of this Civil War argument nonsense is pointless because what is being contested is the Civik Rights Act extending to private businesses. That is an entirely different issue from the Civil War.
I disagree, I think the Civil War is by far the most important event in this country's history, and I think misunderstanding of it drives (or at least fuel) a lot of the US's problems.
Also, I'm not sure how you can discuss the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seriously without a proper understanding of its historical background.
And this is not some theoretical point I'm making, people in this very thread claimed that the invisible hand of the market can fix this issue, which history doesn't exactly support.
oh come on. Next you'll be telling us Texas has undue influence on teaching materials.
And they didn't want their power weakened because the non-slave holding northern states would have the power to end slavery in the South. Slavery (more specifically the greed that allowed for it) was the root cause of the Successions and with them the Civil War. The entire infrastructure of the South was built on exploiting slave labor for massive financial gains. As has been mentioned in this thread some argue the economy in the South still hasn't fully recovered. Again, from the horses mouth: The Declarations of Causes of Succession.
That so many people have fallen for the Civil War wasn't about slavery myth is disheartening.
Second line from Georgia's sucession declaration:
Seconded line of Mississippi's:
In the second paragraph of Texas':
Slavery is also mentioned in the first line of South Carolina's declaration. It was the main point in every state that offered a formal declaration.
From the OP:
I'd say that makes the Civil War relevant to this thread.
The North would have been fucked agriculturally, the South would have been fucked without industrial power.
Reunification was needed for survival, or else we would have been picked off by another country by now.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Debating discrimination laws does not require one word about the Civil War.
As far as the civil war goes:
Examiner: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter...
Examiner: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
PhoenixDark
Banned
But he can't be racist, he opposes the War on Drugs!
I always suspected that this why I hear that from so many people these days.
Anyway, this is probably why most Civil War historians don't cite the Simpsons in their papers.
IHaveCandy
Banned
The truth is that slavery was a large factor in the Civil War, but there were other large factors as well.I always suspected that this why I hear that from so many people these days.
Anyway, this is probably why most Civil War historians don't cite the Simpsons in their papers.
Aaron Strife
Banned
He can't be racist, he opposes affirmative action!
he can't be racist - I am too young or too old to bother with complex issues and prefer ill considered simplistic philosophy.
Devolution
Member
The Civil War still isn't over, that's the depressing part.
Nothing is ever a pressing issue nationally unless it affects a lot of people, like poverty, or the Depression, or the dustbowl, or politicians make it an issue, like 'terror fears'(way more important that slavery btw).
But slavery was a pressing political issue. The abolitionists around the country helped, but really it was about the southern states and the balance of power within the United States. There had been previous issues that showed that southern states and their view on states rights lent to them often directly opposing any kind of strong federal power. Slavery made the south an economic powerhouse. That plus their indignation at federal anything meant that it was going to come to a head eventually. Sooner when they fought to keep their slaves and their ascendance paradigm intact, or later when they were rich enough and more powerful compared to their federalist rivals to defeat them in whatever theatre they chose. (Like an alternate history where the South attacks the North, and wins.) Their engagement in slavery and the massive international agriculture trade they did threatened to outstrip the northern states, and everyone (involved) knew this.
Yes the Civil War was about sovereign rights, but those specific rights in question centered around slavery and (decidedly unofficial)independence from the federal union.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I oppose affirmative action. Am I racist?
Maybe. But opposing affirmative action doesn't necessarily make you one.
Can you maybe name the other large factors?
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Do you accept that certain groups of people are in a poor predicament due to societal prejudices?
Dude Abides
Banned
Slavery was overwhelmingly the most important factor. To claim otherwise requires either historical ignorance or confederate sympathies.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Yeah, that's my point. It's like some people think only racists can oppose things like affirmative action or be in favor of business owners having the right to discriminate. Both have real arguments behind them that have nothing to do with personal views on race. You may disagree with them, and that's fine. But it's wrong to disregard the argument and say "lol racism".
"Hey! Fuck you black people."
depends. Why are you against it? If it's because you believe that equivalent treatment has been reached, and previous wrongs righted, then you might just be poorly informed
IHaveCandy
Banned
If you mean it was because the North was so morally opposed to slavery and was willing to go to war over it, then no. The biggest way slavery caused the Civil War was by giving the South the majority of power. America was going towards a more North-style economy and that was making the Southern economy obsolete. The Industrial Era brought many new things that made agricultural slavery obsolete. The South could not keep up with that, and needed slavery to keep things the way they were. That is more about economics than slavery. Slavery are involved, but it was about maintaining the economy, not morals of slavery.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Without slavery the issue of state rights wouldn't have been elevated to such a level of leading to a Civil War. So no, not very very wrong. The enslavement of blacks was the cornerstone behind the issue of states rights which itself led to the war.
Within literally every single declaration of secession from the southern states the stated reason is fear of the abolition of slavery.
See above.
IHaveCandy
Banned
Reread what I said.
Why they were afraid of slavery being abolished is a non-issue. The statement you were responding to was "Slavery was overwhelmingly the most important factor. To claim otherwise requires either historical ignorance or confederate sympathies." This statement is unequivocally true no matter what reason you want to use to justify slavery being the most important factor.
Dude Abides
Banned
No, the South seceded because they were afraid Lincoln would abolish slavery. "This is more about economics than slavery" makes no sense when, as you know, the South's economy was centered around slavery.
slavery has always been about economics. That is one of the reasons it is immoral. Jesus.
Angelus Errare
Banned
ITT: Some people had some pretty fucked up and utterly worthless US history classes ladies and gentlemen.
adamsappel
Member
I have the opposite problem. I'm always clicking on Rupaul threads and wondering when & why Ron Paul started dressing in drag.
Just curious, have you ever referred to the Civil War by any other name?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked