Support NeoGAF

[IHaveCandy]

The entire point I am making is that it was not about opposing morals. It was about opposing views on where America should move to economically. A lot of people have this view that the North fought the South for the sake of freeing slaves because it was the right thing to do. That wasn't really the motivating factor.

 

[RyanDG]

Just curious, have you ever referred to the Civil War by any other name?

LOL.

 

[Stinkles]

Just curious, have you ever referred to the Civil War by any other name?

The war of northern aggression against juleps and verandahs.

 

[FyreWulff]

Just curious, have you ever referred to the Civil War by any other name?

dot

War Between the States" became widespread afterward in the Southern United States. During and immediately after the war, Northern forces often used the term "War of the Rebellion", while the Southern equivalent was "War for Southern Independence". The latter regained some currency in the late 20th century, but has again fallen out of use. Other terms often reflect a more explicitly partisan view of events, such as "War of Northern Aggression", used by some Southerners, or the "Freedom War", used by their black counterparts to celebrate the effect the war had on ending slavery. In most foreign languages, the war is called "War of Secession".

The official name of the war according to US Government records is War of the Rebellion

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Goalposts being moved overtime ITT

 

[Angelus Errare]

Sad thing is the war only ended 148 years ago...that's two 74 year olds living and dying back to back. I mean to put it in perspective my great great grandmother is still alive (97)...her parents were "owned" by people yo...I can only imagine how the war will be revisioned in 500 years. On the flip side in 500 years, racists who constantly yell out "slavery ended 500 years ago!" will finally be right.

Just curious, have you ever referred to the Civil War by any other name?

lol

 

[Stinkles]

The entire point I am making is that it was not about opposing morals. It was about opposing views on where America should move to economically. A lot of people have this view that the North fought the South for the sake of freeing slaves because it was the right thing to do. That wasn't really the motivating factor.

slavery was at the heart of the southern economic engine. You are trying to separate them. Which is revisionist and cognitively dissonant.

 

[IHaveCandy]

slavery was at the heart of the southern economic engine. You are trying to separate them. Which is revisionist and cognitively dissonant.

Maybe I am falsely assuming what people meant here, but typically when I hear people say "Civil War was all about slavery" they believe it was about morality. They typically think the North fought to free slaves due to a moral sense of justice.

 

[DragonSworne]

If the south did secede from the union, which side would have they have fought for in WWII?

 

[Stinkles]

Maybe I am falsely assuming what people meant here, but typically when I hear people say "Civil War was all about slavery" they believe it was about morality. They typically think the North fought to free slaves due to a moral sense of justice.

yeah. Abolitionists were basically working for Big Steam.

what's wrong with simply admitting that the South had an evil premise built into its culture? Jim Crow existed until the 60s. Was that complex economics? Or was it institutional racism?

 

[Dude Abides]

Maybe I am falsely assuming what people meant here, but typically when I hear people say "Civil War was all about slavery" they believe it was about morality. They typically think the North fought to free slaves due to a moral sense of justice.

The Republicans were opposed to slavery for moral reasons. They had a free labor ideology. They didn't go to war because they thought the South should industrialize.

 

[RyanDG]

The entire point I am making is that it was not about opposing morals. It was about opposing views on where America should move to economically. A lot of people have this view that the North fought the South for the sake of freeing slaves because it was the right thing to do. That wasn't really the motivating factor.

You are absolutely right in saying that the North did not fight the war for the sake of freeing the slaves. There was a significant number of well established people in the North who viewed the institution of slavery as being important, and furthermore, went on to argue that African americans and White americans would not be able to co-exist peacefully in the United States, and would likely need to be separated.

The issue is, however, you were looking at the lens only from the perspective of why the North fought the war and not taking it the step further to analyze why the South fought the war. The south fought the war for the protection of the institution of slavery. You can pretty it up by any other words, but once again, it was cited in the reasons for secession as the primary cause for the states to secede from the union in all declarations that were released.

Furthermore, the Confederate States Constitution explicitly detailed slavery in several articles as being fundamental to the CSA. It was apparent from the constitution that the CSA was being set up as a slave-holding republic for a significant period of time to come.

 

[FyreWulff]

If the south did secede from the union, which side would have they have fought for in WWII?

Are we assuming the the South and North would be in their existing footprint and England/France/Spain have claimed the rest of North America?

 

[IHaveCandy]

yeah. Abolitionists were basically working for Big Steam.

what's wrong with simply admitting that the South had an evil premise built into its culture? Jim Crow existed until the 60s. Was that complex economics? Or was it institutional racism?

I'm not saying you can't say it was morally wrong. I'm saying the divide between the north and south wasn't the north saying the south are using bad ethics. Most of the north was extremely racist. Slavery stifled the industrial change in the south. That is what they largely dislikes.

 

[IHaveCandy]

You are absolutely right in saying that the North did not fight the war for the sake of freeing the slaves. There was a significant number of well established people in the North who viewed the institution of slavery as being important, and furthermore, went on to argue that African americans and White americans would not be able to co-exist peacefully in the United States, and would likely need to be separated.

The issue is, however, you were looking at the lens only from the perspective of why the North fought the war and not taking it the step further to analyze why the South fought the war. The south fought the war for the protection of the institution of slavery. You can pretty it up by any other words, but once again, it was cited in the reasons for secession as the primary cause for the states to secede from the union in all declarations that were released.

Furthermore, the Confederate States Constitution explicitly detailed slavery in several articles as being fundamental to the CSA. It was apparent from the constitution that the CSA was being set up as a slave-holding republic for a significant period of time to come.

Fair enough.

 

[RyanDG]

If the south did secede from the union, which side would have they have fought for in WWII?

Alternative history books have the northern states siding with the Axis powers and the southern states siding with the Allies.

 

[DragonSworne]

Are we assuming the the South and North would be in their existing footprint and England/France/Spain have claimed the rest of North America?

The other territories backed then in what is now present day USA belonged to the US. I'll make the assumptions that either territory would decided to join the North or South.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

Alternative history books have the northern states siding with the Axis powers and the southern states siding with the Allies.

Because reasons.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

yeah. Abolitionists were basically working for Big Steam.

lmao

 

[Devolution]

yeah. Abolitionists were basically working for Big Steam.

what's wrong with simply admitting that the South had an evil premise built into its culture? Jim Crow existed until the 60s. Was that complex economics? Or was it institutional racism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

This and the justice system pretty much keep parts of Jim Crow alive.

 

[Globox_82]

Milosevic was never proven guilty. He was no worse then the guys on the other side. It was just propaganda since his side was the enemy. old tactics.

 

[akira28]

Because reasons.

The Confederacy was thick as thieves with Britain during the Rebellion.

 

[ICKE]

I'm pretty certain at this point many libertarians in the United States just wan't to defund institutions so they could impose their own antiquated belief system.

Many of them think modern society should operate with a set of rules conjured up by a bunch of sheepherders hundreds of years ago.

Public education is bad, religious indoctrination during homeschooling is fine. Federal legislation against racism is bad, protection for work place equality can not be supported, global warming is a hoax and companies should be able to operate without annoying regulations.

At the same time they throw a few bones to young people like "look at this police state we are living in and all these pointless wars", mixing it with conspiracy elements.

Ron Paul and his supporters are essentially a bunch of fucking morons. And increasingly paranoid as well.

 

[RyanDG]

Because reasons.

I don't know. It makes a lot of sense to me. The relationship between the south and Britain during the Civil War created a bit of animosity between the north and Britain during the early couple of years. If British support allowed the south to win the Civil War, I can see where that animosity would increase significantly. Furthermore, historically speaking, the American Nazi party prior to World War 2 gained most of its prominence in the north east.

I can see where logically the arguments could be made.

 

[ICKE]

Milosevic was never proven guilty. He was no worse then the guys on the other side. It was just propaganda since his side was the enemy. old tactics.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because people like Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac were released, doesn't mean Milosevic and his lackeys were not responsible for horrible human atrocities.

 

[The Adder]

"Hey! Fuck you black people."

Let me elaborate on this statement.

Aside from the whole "well, slavery would still be going on in the south, and that would suck, but hey, the North would be better off," let me break down why this statement is basically "fuck you black people."

1. There were slave holding states still in the union. Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia. Sure, EVENTUALLY they'd be freed, probably, but how long would that be. Hell, they weren't even forced to free their slaves with the emancipation proclamation. That only freed the slaves in the south. So yeah, there's that.

2. Racism was still a big thing in the north regardless of having or not having slaves. Let me list you some names. Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Mary McLeod Bethune, Medgar Evers, Emmet Till. Recognize those names? Recognize what they all have in common? All of them are either major civil rights leaders or someone in the middle of a major turning point event in the Civil Rights movement. Know what else they have in common? They were all born in the south. So say goodbye to all of them too.

 

[CornBurrito]

When Dr. Paul was still practicing medicine, he'd occasionally treat black patients free of charge. That doesn't strike me as the actions of a racist.

Perhaps out of "Whites Man's burden."

 

[ICKE]

When Dr. Paul was still practicing medicine, he'd occasionally treat black patients free of charge. That doesn't strike me as the actions of a racist.

He might not be a racist but he's not exactly a friend of the ethnic minorities when you look at his positions regarding education, aid to less advantaged people, fair taxation, health care, housing, labor rights or anything really.

But that's not going to stop young people who listen to Alex Jones and a bunch other morons from following him like it was a cult.

 

[zero shift]

The latter part of your post is scary. Imagine a post civil war era 'United Southern States of America', a population that mostly supported slavery and whose economy would stumble and crash without it.

Frightening thinking about how much longer slavery might have gone on for given those circumstances.

Slavery was pretty much on its last legs in 1865. If the Civil War wouldn't have ended it trade, slave rebellion, or something else would have. There is a reason why slavery ended within much of the Western hemisphere within that 100 year period.

Is it wrong to think that maybe the country would be better off if the North had allowed the South to secede? I mean as easy as that we could have ridded ourselves of the South. Maybe we'd be more like Canada today. The situation in the South would have been horrendous for sure though.

The South would probably be much like much of South America. Poor, uneducated, and violent. Slavery would have ended sooner or later and just like South America it would have devastated the economy. Hell it took 100 years until the South and North had SIMILAR qualities of life. A split Americas would make East and West Germany blush.

The southern states that relied heavily on slave labor entered shitty economic times after slavery was abolished, its still cited as a reason some southern areas are still below average when it comes to income and poverty.

If that doesn't happen The South would probably have a smoother transition to modern industry at the cost of many enslaved people. Both sides might be better off today if we just cut ties with eachother back then. How much better off? Who can say. It would also change the timeline of WW1 and 2. Pearl Harbor gets bombed and does The South care at that point? It's interesting to ponder but I think the victims of continued slavery is far too high a cost.

Both side would be better? The South would be a complete shithole. It wouldn't be that much different than the what if question of if Puerto Rico wasn't practically annexed as a US state. At best there would be a Western Europe/Eastern Europe type of divide.

 

[markot]

I often find posts of mine here being incredibly racist. Someone else posts those though obv.

 

[Stinkles]

2. Racism was still a big thing in the north regardless of having or not having slaves. Let me list you some names. Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Mary McLeod Bethune, Medgar Evers, Emmet Till. Recognize those names? Recognize what they all have in common? All of them are either major civil rights leaders or someone in the middle of a major turning point event in the Civil Rights movement. Know what else they have in common? They were all born in the south. So say goodbye to all of them too.

Wait, are you saying that civil rights leaders are a southern gift to the nation? I genuinely can't tell. Thread is a bit crazy. Because you know WHY all those black civil rights leaders are from the south, right? same reason Nelson Mandela is from South Africa.

Again, I might have missed the point.

 

[Rapstah]

Forget about which sides a separated US would've fought in in World War 2, the first World War is where things happen. I can't see either side of a split US getting involved at all and that basically de-syncs western politics from 1917 forward.

 

[The Adder]

Wait, are you saying that civil rights leaders are a southern gift to the nation? I genuinely can't tell. Thread is a bit crazy. Because you know WHY all those black civil rights leaders are from the south, right? same reason Nelson Mandela is from South Africa.

Again, I might have missed the point.

I'm saying that if slavery were still going on in the south they would have never happened. So the south would still have slavery and advancement in the union would be even slower than it was.

 

[Ken Masters]

I am not sure Ron Paul is a racist, myself.

I am quite sure, though, that he felt it was politically advantageous to pander to racists and was fine with doing so.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Equally despicable

 

[Half and half]

Between the newsletters and comments on allowing businesses to discriminate it's clear he's racist. But hey, that's nothing new with this guy.

 

[Globox_82]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because people like Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac were released, doesn't mean Milosevic and his lackeys were not responsible for horrible human atrocities.

as were Gotovina and Markac, but they got released. Like I said above.

 

[ZealousD]

I don't really care if he is. I still want him as president.

Legalization of marijuana, no foreign aid to israel would be worth it alone.

Who knows what kind of other crazy laws he would try to push.

Ron Paul couldn't just snap his fingers and make marijuana legal or stop foreign aid to Israel, even as President.