If the US civil war was fought today...

[Patroklos]

And anyone making such a statment is a steriotyping racist dimwit..... no getting around that fact.

[Al B. Sure!]

blah?

if the South won the war, millions of people would still be enslaved.

how did the South fight a just war?

[Capt Dizle]

I would debate the subject with you but I am not used to being limited to very short, simple words.

[Al B. Sure!]

theres no need to debate. it's a pretty obvious issue. the south was wrong

[Verto]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
blah?

if the South won the war, millions of people would still be enslaved.

You have nothing to back that up. You think that in nearly 150 years, the South wouldn't have abandoned slavery?

[Capt Dizle]

I agree completely. The South was wrong. Of course the North was wrong also.

You cannot possibly fault Southerners for rejecting Lincoln's call to arms, whether you are judging states or individuals.

In the end it was a war of agression by the North. You will find people here who will argue that Lincoln was right in his war, but Bush is wrong in his. A little goofy if you ask me.

[Patroklos]

Speer would be one of those causists I mentioned earlier who prefer a verison of the Civil War rather than the reality of it.

That is becasue he doesn't care about historical accuracy, but rather his racist opinions displayed in other threads.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Verto


You have nothing to back that up. You think that in nearly 150 years, the South wouldn't have abandoned slavery?

Good comment. But people are stupid.

Slavery was not a unique sin practiced only Southerners. Slavery was the default for most nations in the years (hundreds or even thousands) leading up to 1850. Slavery was an institution more or less inherited by the South, nutured by Northern interests who profited in slave trading.

Many nations gave up slavery without bloody wars and it became objectionable in the North as its economic importance to Northern interests waned. No blood needed to be spilled over the issue. Slavery is an economic institution that became obsolete due to industrialization. It was only a matter of time until it passed away.

Rasicism was no more prevalent in the South than the North in that time. All whites were prejudiced with some rare exceptions.

The real issue was whether we were going to have a strongly centralized government largely influenced by monied interests or a less centralized government more accessible to the people.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And anyone making such a statment is a steriotyping racist dimwit..... no getting around that fact.

Your ability to engage in verbal reparté is simply amazing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
It was only a matter of time until it passed away.

Slavery lasted until the 1890s in Brazil. It lasted until the 1960s in Kuwait. It is still illegaly practiced in many parts of the world, including the US. Furthermore, the South founds ways around the 13th Amendment, notably, the chain gang. Sheriffs would be given quotas of Blacks and poor whites to arrest to provide labor to corrupt men at state expense. This practice ended in the 50s.

The real issue was whether we were going to have a strongly centralized government largely influenced by monied interests or a less centralized government more accessible to the people.

Right, cuz the "states rights" states are sooooooo democratic. One party states for 80 years, and even after that, pulled all kinds of dirty tricks to keep Black people from voting, even as recently as 2002. Hell, my state has had two amendments passed by the citizens of Florida that the government just flat out refuses to obey. Yeah, Southern governments are accessible. Just not to the average citizen.

[Sprayber]

I think some of you get too caught up in your indignation. It's easy to do. I'm very proud to be a southerner but all the people I know that live here suffer no such longing for the lost cause as some of you talk about. The teenagers that run up and down the street with confederate flags and license plates don't do it for a return to the old days of the Confederacy. It's a sign of immaturity on their part. Now you can sit there in traffic and get all indignant thinking that the south is awash in racism or you can chalk it up to what it is, a sign of them not knowing what they are talking about. The only thing more pathetic than a southerner displaying the cofederate flag is a yankee getting all hissy about it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

Many nations gave up slavery without bloody wars and it became objectionable in the North as its economic importance to Northern interests waned. No blood needed to be spilled over the issue. Slavery is an economic institution that became obsolete due to industrialization. It was only a matter of time until it passed away.

It has unfortunately not become obsolete- not in Mauritania, not in the Sudan, not in the Gulf States, not in Europe, and neither in Asia nor the United States.

It simply goes by another guise- employing illegals to do the clearing of hazardous industrial waste, or spraying orchards with insecticide. They do it for little pay, in dangerous working conditions, without safety equipment and without insurance.

Bonded child labour in Pakistan and India, in camel and horse racing in Arab Gulf States.

The enslavement of black animist or Christian Sudanese in the Sudan, and the enslavement of black Africans in Mauritania.

The use of Bengalis or Filipions as domestic servants in Singapore and the Gulf, in many instances tied to their place of work by the confiscation of their passports by their 'employers'. This also happens in Europe, too. The servants are ins some cases physically and sexually abused, and rarely allowed time off or time away from their place of employment.

The sex slave industry in Western and Eastern Europe.

They don't have visible chains any more, and there may not be public whipping posts, or public slave auctions, but wherever people think they can exploit dirt cheap or free labour, there will be people who will do so.

I think it was an American senator who said that when profit and morality contend, it is seldom morality that wins.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by PLATO


Neithier slavery nor sexual exploitation in any form fits me at all.

OK, I should have said "sits well with you". I apologize.

The rights of the states were guaranteed by the constitution and the federal government broke faith with that. Slavery was the issue of the moment. Let me say unequivocally that I do not support slavery in any way shape or form. I do, however fully support the State's right to determine issues. The real question is at what level of government do you let the people decide their own fate. Currently we set that at a national level. My belief is simply that it should be closer to the voice of the people and be at the state level.

If slaves are people, then slavery violates their constitutional rights and the federal government has a right to enforce the Constitution, does it not?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
OK, I should have said "sits well with you". I apologize.

If slaves are people, then slavery violates their constitutional rights and the federal government has a right to enforce the Constitution, does it not?

Then talk about how the North refused to enforce those rights until the outbreak of the civil war. Why did they all of a sudden decide that slavery was worth going to war over. Could it be that they were more interested in keeping the Union intact than protecting the rights of blacks. If the war wasn't all about slavery in the north, could the same be said of the souths position? Not necessarly directed at you Doc, but perhaps some others could explain it.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Slavery lasted until the 1890s in Brazil. It lasted until the 1960s in Kuwait. It is still illegaly practiced in many parts of the world, including the US. Furthermore, the South founds ways around the 13th Amendment, notably, the chain gang. Sheriffs would be given quotas of Blacks and poor whites to arrest to provide labor to corrupt men at state expense. This practice ended in the 50s.

Che, I would like to compliment you for making a valid point. Problem is you haven't. I said that slavery was an economic institution that would pass away without bloodshed and you try to counter that by pointing to Brazil? I decided to research that and this is the first thing I found:

“The idea that the abolitionist movement is alone responsible for the demise of the African slave trade fails to account for economic and political realities. Financial and political interests responding to public demand had initiated and maintained the African slave trade for more than three centuries. New economic factors related to development of an alternate sugar source, technological advancements, and political interests had as much to do with ending to slavery as moral outrage.”
And then this:
“Historians of the time note that by the end of the 19th century, slavery in Brazil was declining under pressure from immigrant laborers whose wages cost less than the upkeep of slaves. Nevertheless, the "Golden Law" set off a reaction among slave owners that rapidly eroded the political foundations of the monarchy. After a few months of parliamentary crises, the Emperor was deposed on November 15, 1889, by a military movement that proclaimed the abrogation of the monarchy and the establishment of the Republic.
This institutional transformation, albeit profound, was surprisingly carried out without bloodshed. Although treated with all possible respect, the Emperor and his family had to be asked to leave the country. Accompanied by some close associates, they went into exile in France. Most of the leading figures of the country lent their support and collaboration to the new regime; among them was one of Brazil's most outstanding statesmen, the Baron of Rio Branco. It was his wisdom and skilful diplomacy that enabled Brazil to end, by treaty or arbitration, nearly all its outstanding frontier disputes.”
I guess yeah in Brazil they had to have a million people killed to stamp out slavery. Yeah, good point Che. Ole Abe sure nipped it in the bud, bud. I started to research the Kuwaiti issue, but heck, we all remember the Kuwaiti civil war of 1960 when their late president Ali Abe invaded Southern Kuwait to free the slaves there. Sure.
For your information they import girls from Thailand to serve as sex slaves. Now. Today. Now, think hard Che. Will it be okay for George to invade Kuwait and free those girls? Its pretty simple. If Abe was right to trigger a war that killed one million Americans to free slaves (your theory) then it must be okay. And it would logically follow that George was right to invade Iraq too, since Saddam and his faction essentially had enslaved the whole county. Right? Che?
Now, in regard to the chain gang comment. You got that one wrong too. I know. I personally served time on the chain gang in the early 80s. So your statement there was inaccurate as well. It’s not that your heart is bad Che. It’s just that you don’t have a clue.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Right, cuz the "states rights" states are sooooooo democratic. One party states for 80 years, and even after that, pulled all kinds of dirty tricks to keep Black people from voting, even as recently as 2002. Hell, my state has had two amendments passed by the citizens of Florida that the government just flat out refuses to obey. Yeah, Southern governments are accessible. Just not to the average citizen.

Finally, here you choose to use the example of a government in an enslaved state in a heavily Federalized republic that is failing to enforce it’s own law as an example to disprove my contention that special interests have a disproportionate share of influence in that same republic. Can’t you even take a stab at a logical argument?