If the US civil war was fought today...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Using this line of thinking I am surprised you are not out warring on the evil forces of abortion.

You don't know much about me do you? This statement is addressed to the wrong man. I fight this battle one pregnant patient at a time. I've even won a few rounds too.

While it might be debatable whether or not holding slaves would yield a ticket to hell, there isn't any doubt concerning any mother, nurse or doctor involved in the murder of innocent unborn children.

Interesting. On the one hand you ardently protest that you are not a supporter of slavery, on the other hand here you seem to be "debating" its morality. It was that way in 1861 too, and has been that way ever since. Apologists for the slave states' crude attempt to preserve their criminal way of life veil their true intentions under a smoke screen of "state's rights" and etc., etc., etc.

[Capt Dizle]

Ned, I was just rounding it off to the nearest million.

I have seen lots of sets of numbers and some of those look low. Seems to be limited to military also. Still, I should be more accurate. It isn't relevant to my arguement anyway.

[Patroklos]

DP

[Patroklos]

"sigh"

If you disagree with it then dispute it. "sigh" is just you having nothing to say., because it is all true.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Interesting. On the one hand you ardently protest that you are not a supporter of slavery, on the other hand here you seem to be "debating" its morality. It was that way in 1861 too, and has been that way ever since. Apologists for the slave states' crude attempt to preserve their criminal way of life veil their true intentions under a smoke screen of "state's rights" and etc., etc., etc.

Nice try doc. Color me rascist and make my position a moot point. You got me. I intend to overthrow the government and place all blacks in chains. Right.

It is easy to judge southerners criminals for the institution of slavery using the enlightented vision of hindsight. It would be another thing to experience the issue from the inside out. I grew up in the South. I grew up in this culture. You don't have to lecture me about the evils of racism. I have lived amid the hail and brimstone whose smoke you only sniff at a distance.

If you want to pursue, or rather, maintain the simplistic view of the history of this war that brands the South and its people evil bastards, each and every one, it is neither my job nor a good use of my time to try to set you right.

But I will not yield my position that it was a war like any other, a fuse lit by politicians to suit there own personal agendas. The only thing close to just warfare American has been in would possibly be the world war, mostly likely WW2.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by MrFun


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.

That's hilarious. Really priceless. What do you call that, a conclusion three times removed from the truth by multiple levels of mythology and six shovels of horse****?

I'll pass on the book. I have heard it all before.

[Patroklos]

He calls believing in a theory because it is what he wants to hear, and supports his already preconceived prejudice.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

We understand it clearly. Secession was intended to be a peaceful political resolution to an intractible dispute. As sovereign states, our respective states agreed to form a union with other states, with a weak central government limited in its authority and scope. The Yankees later found it inconvient to adhere to the intent and purposes of the original agreement, so they started to abrogate that agreement, and further announced their intent to do so, so our states responded by leaving peaceably.

We should have been the aggressors, and sucked it up for another year while every damned bale of cotton was traded for rifled artillery, rifled muskets, copper and tooling, until we were in a position to negotiate with you people from your new provisional capital in Bangor, Maine.

In the runup to Fort Sumter, Lincoln and his agents lied repeatedly, and the Sumter "resupply" expedition had 29 guns and over 1400 men who could take up arms as an invasion force - given ol' Abe's track record with good faith negotiation, anyone in his right mind would have concluded that force was a serious threat, and the good hotheads of Charleston were under no obligation to let that threat become an actual landing force.

If you have a burglar coming through your front door and you shoot at him, you're not the aggressor for shooting first, nor are you the one who "started it."

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

Civilian casualties, including those of refugees, runaways, due to starvation, epidemics, etc. were also very high.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


That's hilarious. Really priceless. What do you call that, a conclusion three times removed from the truth by multiple levels of mythology and six shovels of horse****?

I'll pass on the book. I have heard it all before.

If you do not have any interest in serious, scholarly work on how the the North and South reconciled with one another and how that has since affected race relations, that is your loss.


Don't blame me if you want to continue to be willfully ignorant by adhering to popular culture misconceptions of the Civil War, rather than professional, scholarly work done by Northern and Southern historians.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos
He calls believing in a theory because it is what he wants to hear, and supports his already preconceived prejudice.

That's strange, considering I have no prejudice against white Southerners.

You should read my last major paper I did in the previous semester, where in connection with my topic, I stressed that white Southerners cannot be treated as a simplistic, monolithic group of people with one ideology.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
It is easy to judge southerners criminals for the institution of slavery using the enlightented vision of hindsight. It would be another thing to experience the issue from the inside out. I grew up in the South. I grew up in this culture. You don't have to lecture me about the evils of racism. I have lived amid the hail and brimstone whose smoke you only sniff at a distance.

You want to compare tales of growing up in the South with Dr. Strangelove?

This ought to be hugely entertaining. You're going to lose, jimmy.

[chequita guevara]

It's funny how many Southerners think Northern conceptions of the South are based on that antebellum and Civil War period, rather than on 20th Century history.

The idea that slavery was going anywhere peacefully is laughable, gien yours states reactions to the Civil Rights movement. Sharecropping, debt peonage, tennant farming, night riders, lynching, Jim Crow, poll taxes, and chain gangs all served to continue the institution of slavery in another form up until the 1960s. I suggest that freedom delayed 100 years is no freedom at all.

If the South hadn't tried to defend the indefensible, no one would have died.

If you refuse to fight aganst evil in your own country, how can you justify fighting it abroad?

[MichaeltheGreat]

But of course, the north was a beacon of freedom and brotherhood in that century, as well.

And it's awfully nice to redefine the word slavery to incorporate any and every form of social and economic injustice or lack of power - I guess that fits in with the commie view, but what the hell, we can include Irish and Italians and Chinese and immigrants in general in that great extended notion of "slavery" - maybe we can all get into one big reparations suit against the estates of Jay Gould and Vanderbilt.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
But of course, the north was a beacon of freedom and brotherhood in that century, as well.

Despite the problems, Black people did sem to think so. Black newspapers kept writing articles telling Southern Blacks to move North, and during the Great Migration, almost half the Black population moved to the North in the three decades from 1930 through 1960. (In spite of some rather bad race riots in Chicago and Springfield, IL.)

And it's awfully nice to redefine the word slavery to incorporate any and every form of social and economic injustice or lack of power.

They were replacements which replicated slavery for all intents and purposes. In the case of the chain-gangs, it was slavery. Oh, need 50 workers to build a road, go round up 50 "vagrants" and the state will even provide housing and guards for your convict workers.