Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ignoring the issue of slavery, who would you have wanted to win the civil war?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SpencerH


    Perhaps so, but then I didnt precede my serious comments with one about the naivete of yours.
    Since there was nothing naive in what I said you didn't have any call to. I have and had the evidence on my side.

    The only way you could claim to know the South seceeded over economic issues would be if you were a necromancer. What they themselves wrote was pretty clear that it was slavery so you would have to be able to read the minds of dead people to see that they were lying. I did not say you were naive. I was showing you could not possibly have any knowledge evidence that could support you.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Guynemer
      we're all Americans here.
      I'm not sure if that will always be true, though.

      Unless things in the US change, I think that New England will eventually just get tired of it, and Secede; we have done it before, after all.
      If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SlowwHand
        Just so I can get called a dumbass again by Boris, Ethelred, and MrFun:
        I never called you or anyone else here a dumbass. I did just wonder if you are delusional but I hadn't done that when you wrote this.

        The North wasn't all that keen on Lincoln The Ape, as he was called. The only President who talked to himself more was Richard Nixon.
        By the same token, the South wasn't fanatical about Jeff Davis.
        Lincoln won by plurality and wasn't even close to a majority so you got that one right anyway. I don't know about Davis but he seems to me to have been a bit of an elitest. That often doesn't go well with the general public.

        If Lincoln talked to himself more than Tricky Dicky it could be the nasty drugs he tried for his depression.

        Comment


        • Yeah, that Mercury that he took, probably just made it worse!
          If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

          Comment


          • You know that "Flame Warriors" website? The address eludes me, but more and more, Sloww is resembling "Stone Deaf".



            Flame warriors web site.



            I've never understood why this particular issue was so particularly touchy with some southerners. Yeah, we never like to admit past wrongs, but come on; we're all Americans here.
            Because they don't want to admit the war was over slavery. Somebody freaks out every time it comes up but the evidence is pretty darn clear.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ethelred
              Since there was nothing naive in what I said you didn't have any call to. I have and had the evidence on my side.
              I never claimed the South seceeded over economic issues

              Heres the comment that I originally made if you want the context you'll just have to go and read it yourself.

              "I would say that slavery became the issue, just as nazi mistreatment of the Jews and other people became an issue. Wars are fought over money and power not morality."

              I wasnt talking about the articles of secession at all.

              your next comment

              The Southern states were quite clear about in the Secession Documents. They didn't talk about money and the power was about the voting power they needed to maintain slavery.
              In order to point out the weakness in blindly accepting the cited reasons for the secession, I tried to use an analogy and point out the discrepancy between the cited reasons for war and the "real" reasons.

              Which led to this comment

              So your psychic. You even read dead minds.
              But this is not mud slinging, I'm overly sensitive

              Due to your confusion I gave these examples of what I was refering to:

              "The reason cited by the Nazis for the invasion of the Sudetenland was mistreatment of the german people living there by the Czechs.

              The "real" reason was that the nazis wanted to take over Europe.

              The reason cited for the cause of WWI was the murder of the Austrian Archduke.

              The "real" reason was Imperial designs by european monarchs.

              The reason cited for american involvement in the gulf war was to free the Kuwaitees.

              The "real" reason was to protect our oil supply (there are lots of others to pick as well)."

              And now we're back to the second part of your current post

              The only way you could claim to know the South seceeded over economic issues would be if you were a necromancer. What they themselves wrote was pretty clear that it was slavery so you would have to be able to read the minds of dead people to see that they were lying. I did not say you were naive. I was showing you could not possibly have any knowledge evidence that could support you.
              Obviously, no one can know what was in the minds of the leaders of the confederacy. All we can do is look at historical documents and use some judgement as to their value. You seem to believe the articles of secession at face value and dismiss the economic and political complexities of the issue despite that you're aware of them. My experience and prior training leads me to question everything. Personally I find it naive to believe everthing you read, especially documents written by politicians.
              We need seperate human-only games for MP/PBEM that dont include the over-simplifications required to have a good AI
              If any man be thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. Vampire 7:37
              Just one old soldiers opinion. E Tenebris Lux. Pax quaeritur bello.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SlowwHand
                Just so I can get called a dumbass again by Boris, Ethelred, and MrFun:

                The North wasn't all that keen on Lincoln The Ape, as he was called. The only President who talked to himself more was Richard Nixon.
                By the same token, the South wasn't fanatical about Jeff Davis.


                I like your choice of objective words, SlowwHand.


                So it doesn't matter that Lincoln was re-elected?? Everyone still hated him. I do not think so, SlowwHand.
                A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SpencerH
                  I never claimed the South seceeded over economic issues
                  Then why are you argueing with me?

                  Heres the comment that I originally made if you want the context you'll just have to go and read it yourself.

                  "I would say that slavery became the issue, just as nazi mistreatment of the Jews and other people became an issue. Wars are fought over money and power not morality."

                  I wasnt talking about the articles of secession at all.
                  I read the comment. Its just as dubious the second time around. Slavery did not become the issue. It was the issue from the start and right there you are contradicting your claim that you weren't saying the South seceeded over economic issues because that is exactly what you are saying there.

                  The money and power issue of the Civi War were almost entirely based on slavery. To pretend the issue was money and power is to try to avoid the very real cause which was slavery. Without slavery there would have been no issue that could not be dealt with.


                  In order to point out the weakness in blindly accepting the cited reasons for the secession, I tried to use an analogy and point out the discrepancy between the cited reasons for war and the "real" reasons.
                  A analogy that looked exactly like an attempt to evade slavery as the cause of the Civil War. So I pointed out what it looked like. There is no discrepency between the cited reason and the real ones. The cause was slavery. The Articles of Secession are not even remotely the only source of this available. I have looked. You seem to be swallowing the modern revisionism hook line and sinker. I took nothing blindly.

                  But this is not mud slinging, I'm overly sensitive
                  Well I glad that something is clear. Unless of course you are being sarcastic. Sometimes its hard to tell.

                  Due to your confusion I gave these examples of what I was refering to:
                  I wasn't confused. Unless of course you were when you posted. Its not my fault if it looked exactly like you were trying to evade the fact that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. You still apear to be doing exactly that.

                  "The reason cited by the Nazis for the invasion of the Sudetenland was mistreatment of the german people living there by the Czechs.
                  Thats nice. It was an obvious lie considering the things Hitler wrote and said elsewhere. Now can you show some evidence to support you regarding the South?

                  The reason cited for the cause of WWI was the murder of the Austrian Archduke.

                  The "real" reason was Imperial designs by european monarchs.
                  Thats nice. It was an obviuous lie considering the actions taken by those same Monarchs. Now can you show some evidence to support you regarding the South?

                  The reason cited for american involvement in the gulf war was to free the Kuwaitees.

                  The "real" reason was to protect our oil supply (there are lots of others to pick as well)."
                  Actualy that one is false. The US wasn't getting oil from Kuwait. Our European allies were and of course we were worried about Saudi Arabia where we do have oil interests and treaty obligations. Now can you show some evidence to support you regarding the South?

                  Maybe asking the same question three times will get through to you that you apear to be without supporting evidence of anykind.

                  Obviously, no one can know what was in the minds of the leaders of the confederacy. All we can do is look at historical documents and use some judgement as to their value.
                  There are a lot of such documents and a lot of day to day stuff like newspapers and letters. They mostly show that slavery was the issue.

                  You seem to believe the articles of secession at face value and dismiss the economic and political complexities of the issue despite that you're aware of them.
                  Have you read the Texan secession document? That one is pretty clear about it. You would have figure the authors of it were lying bastards to think they didn't mean what they said. No weasle words there.

                  My experience and prior training leads me to question everything. Personally I find it naive to believe everthing you read, especially documents written by politicians.
                  How about letters and newspapers? You haven't read any of them I take it? I find you naive in your belief that anything that doesn't lead to a conclusion that the Civil was not over slavery must be dismissed as mere propaganda. It looks very much like you intend to deny all evidnence and of course produce none to support your revisionist claims.

                  Heck you even say "I never claimed the South seceeded over economic issues" and then do litlle else but try to support that claim for the rest of your post. Just how confused on this are you?

                  Comment


                  • Too many freakin' analogies already.
                    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                    Comment


                    • Again, I'm not trying to support one side or the other. My only point was that wars are not fought over moral issues. You seem to be the one with some ideological agenda. You do seem to understand the concept that the cited reasons for wars are not what they're really fought over, but then continue to doggedly assert that slavery was the only cause of the civil war because thats the answer present in historical documents.

                      I dont care what the war was fought over, its simply a topic for discussion. With that in mind, maybe you can understand why I say "I never claimed the South seceeded over economic issues" and thats why I have not

                      and then do litlle else but try to support that claim for the rest of your post.
                      .

                      Its pretty simple, I'm merely supporting my general viewpoint with respect to the causes of war not the specifics of this one.
                      We need seperate human-only games for MP/PBEM that dont include the over-simplifications required to have a good AI
                      If any man be thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. Vampire 7:37
                      Just one old soldiers opinion. E Tenebris Lux. Pax quaeritur bello.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SpencerH
                        Again, I'm not trying to support one side or the other. My only point was that wars are not fought over moral issues.
                        Who ever said the Civil War was? I didn't.

                        I said it was over slavery which was not a moral issue for the South. It was a moral issue for the North but the North neither seceeded nor did it start the war. The causes of wars are those of the people that start it. Therefor since the South definitly seceeded over slavery and they definitily started the war its Southern reasons that are the cause of the Civil War.

                        You seem to be the one with some ideological agenda.
                        My agenda is to show that the modern revisionism has no factual basis.

                        You do seem to understand the concept that the cited reasons for wars are not what they're really fought over,
                        Only when we are using the reasons you cited. You are often using the reasons of the people that didn't start the wars. The US for instance did not start the Gulf War.

                        but then continue to doggedly assert that slavery was the only cause of the civil war because thats the answer present in historical documents.
                        Well if all the evidence is in my favor I would have to be really silly not to stick with it. Or brainwashed by modern revisionist thinking.

                        I never said it was the only cause. I said it was the only thing that couldn't be negotiated. The South didn't want a compromise that could lead to the end of slavery.

                        I dont care what the war was fought over, its simply a topic for discussion. With that in mind, maybe you can understand why I say "I never claimed the South seceeded over economic issues" and thats why I have not
                        I can't understand it since it isn't doesn't fit anything else you have said. If you admit they seceeded over slavery you would have nothing to disagree with me over so its really hard to see how you justify claiming you are not saying it was over economics.

                        Its pretty simple, I'm merely supporting my general viewpoint with respect to the causes of war not the specifics of this one.
                        And your general view is that wars are about economics and power. Which is generally true if you want to ignore all the different things that can lead to economic issues or power issues.

                        So are you admiting the Civil War was due to slavery or not? There is no reason to argue if you do and you sure have been argueing.

                        Comment


                        • It was a moral issue for the North but the North neither seceeded nor did it start the war.
                          It was an issue for some Northerner leaders. I doubt that the average people cared about it in their daily lives one way or another.

                          So are you admiting the Civil War was due to slavery or not? There is no reason to argue if you do and you sure have been argueing.
                          I dont care whether it was or not. Clearly, slavery was a factor, perhaps the major factor. I simply doubt that it was the only one, and I reject the assumption of fact based upon historical documents.

                          I spend my time de-bunking scientific myths about infectious disease. In some cases I run across "facts" that are based upon publication of the most tenuous comments by some "expert". If something that is patently false can be accepted as scientific "truth" despite its capability of being tested as such, what can be believed about matters such as history where it is not possible to rigorously test a hypothesis?
                          We need seperate human-only games for MP/PBEM that dont include the over-simplifications required to have a good AI
                          If any man be thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. Vampire 7:37
                          Just one old soldiers opinion. E Tenebris Lux. Pax quaeritur bello.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SpencerH
                            I dont care whether it was or not. Clearly, slavery was a factor, perhaps the major factor. I simply doubt that it was the only one, and I reject the assumption of fact based upon historical documents.
                            It was the by far the major factor. Whats this nonsense of your claiming I said it was the only factor? I said it was the only factor that couldn't be negotiated. Many times now, yet you again pretend I said it was the only factor and ignore my pointing out that you are wrong in that claim.

                            Aparently you reject all evidence. There is none to show that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. You sure haven't tried to show any.

                            I spend my time de-bunking scientific myths about infectious disease. In some cases I run across "facts" that are based upon publication of the most tenuous comments by some "expert".
                            Why? For what reason? I ask because a lot of cranks do that as well as rational people. For instance there are lot people trying to claim AIDs isn't caused by HIV. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

                            If something that is patently false can be accepted as scientific "truth" despite its capability of being tested as such, what can be believed about matters such as history where it is not possible to rigorously test a hypothesis?
                            I am waiting for you to do something except make unsupported statements. I haven't bothered posting links since its clear that most of the people on this thread saw those links the last time this came up. If anyone had shown any signs of actually wanting to discuss facts I would have. You have only been claiming we can't go on the actual evidence.

                            Now if you should actually want to discuss this how about you try supporting your self. I am fully capable of supporting what I have said but you have been very carefull not to actually deal with anything I have said in a detailed way. You have merely claimed without cause or evidence of any kind that we can't go on the actual statements of the people living at that time.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SpencerH

                              It was an issue for some Northerner leaders. I doubt that the average people cared about it in their daily lives one way or another.
                              That is where I believe you are seriously wrong.

                              Many white Northern settlers and farmers of the North expressed concern of what negative effects slavery will have on white society in the territories where slavery might be allowed to expand into.

                              White settlers knew that slavery was repugnant to the American ideal of liberty, and many others knew that many poor white Southerners experienced deprivation or a different kind of exploitation due to the slavery system of the Southern states.

                              White settlers and farmers of the Northern states and territories did not want to fall under the yoke of the slavery system.
                              A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrFun
                                So it doesn't matter that Lincoln was re-elected?? Everyone still hated him. I do not think so, SlowwHand.


                                In an event most often referred to as "the lesser of 2 evils".
                                Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                                "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                                He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X