Why isn't this murder?

[PLATO]

Still butt hurt over me telling some uncomfortable truths about the deep south sucking? That's just the facts even if you don't like them.

You are an idiot. Try coming to the "Deep South" and find out the truth.

[PLATO]

I get hard when I think about Sherman's March.

Sherman was a war criminal pure and simple. That seems to be your type. The scars of the Union's actions remain with the South even today. The county that I grew up in did not achieve its 1860 level of economic output again until 1980.

Where my family is from, I grew up hearing stories from the children of the victims. Horrible truths of gang rapes and pillaging that you don't read in the history books...willful destruction of innocent people's means of survival...murder of children to "punish" their parents.

Simply put...take your hard on and f#*k yourself.

[Dinner]

You are an idiot. Try coming to the "Deep South" and find out the truth.

Been there, done that. Not that it would change anything. Would it make the deep south less filled with poverty? Would it change the crime rate? Would it change the fact that the place has the lowest life expectancy in the nation? Or the highest poverty rate? What about the illiteracy rate? The highest in the nation premature death rate? I can go on at length but you won't accept the truth. The reason it's the worst at everything is because it's a ****hole with extremely bad governance at every level.

Sure, you can continue to claim the feces really smells like roses but you're not fooling anyone. The reason it's the worst at everything is because of the local culture and the local politics; that's why it's been the worst for most of the history of the country and until they change those two things they'll keep getting what they've always gotten. You call me an idiot but I say the idiot is the one who won't accept reality and who thinks he can keep doing the same thing but expect a different result. Those are just facts even if you don't like them.

[PLATO]

All those things you say about poverty and such are true. That's not the point. Look at the rates of change in these things even over the last 10 years. It took the South far longer than people realize to really recover from the Civil War. It is only in the last 30 years that the South has really been able to make progress...and it has, In a big way.

You talk about "local governance" being bad? Tennessee has a balanced budget and a "rainy day" fund. How is California's budget? Oh! That's right, Californias great local politicians have bankrupted the state. In California, I see aging infrastructure. In Tennessee I see new schools and Hospitals everywhere. Nashville was just voted the #1 place in the nation to start a new business. High School drop out rates are at all time lows and falling...can California say the same? In South Carolina we see a new Boeing plant. In Alabama a new Mercedes plant, In Tennessee a new Volkswagon plant. Nissan moved their North American headquarters to Tennessee.

Your thoughts are outdated and you don't have the sense to look at how things are changing in the South...that's why I call you an idiot. You look at static data and don't have a clue how to interpret it in the context of reality. Is the South where it needs to be yet? Nope. Do I have any doubt that it is a better place to live than California? Nope. Do I think these statistical relationships that you describe will be the same in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years? Nope...in fact, given your definitions, I'll bet you just about anything that you definition of "****hole" will apply much more to California in 30 years than it would to the deep South.

[kentonio]

Sherman was a war criminal pure and simple. That seems to be your type. The scars of the Union's actions remain with the South even today. The county that I grew up in did not achieve its 1860 level of economic output again until 1980.

Where my family is from, I grew up hearing stories from the children of the victims. Horrible truths of gang rapes and pillaging that you don't read in the history books...willful destruction of innocent people's means of survival...murder of children to "punish" their parents.

Simply put...take your hard on and f#*k yourself.

All those same things happened in another country a lot more recently. The country was Germany and the year 1945 and the crimes were carried on on a huge scale by US, UK, Russian and French troops. Yes they are war crimes, yes they are horrible, but when you start a war of aggression that leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and worse you do it for a downright evil reason, then expect the victors to be less than sympathetic.

You might also note that the Germans managed to suffer a worse fate by far than the South and yet became a modern world leading industrialized nation extremely quickly. The difference is they accepted their guilt and tried to change, they didn't spent a century trying to rewrite history.

[PLATO]

All those same things happened in another country a lot more recently. The country was Germany and the year 1945 and the crimes were carried on on a huge scale by US, UK, Russian and French troops. Yes they are war crimes, yes they are horrible, but when you start a war of aggression that leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and worse you do it for a downright evil reason, then expect the victors to be less than sympathetic.

You might also note that the Germans managed to suffer a worse fate by far than the South and yet became a modern world leading industrialized nation extremely quickly. The difference is they accepted their guilt and tried to change, they didn't spent a century trying to rewrite history.

I'm having a hard time finding anything at all intelligent in this post. But I will adress the fact that Germany had tremendous support in recovering and the South had just the opposite.

[kentonio]

I'm having a hard time finding anything at all intelligent in this post.

Because you're emotionally involved.

But I will adress the fact that Germany had tremendous support in recovering and the South had just the opposite.

Oh really? You do recall that the north could have literally crushed the south under its boot, but instead chose the path of reconstruction? I seem to remember it being the south who was so eager for that to end.

[PLATO]

The path of reconstruction? Really? You mean setting up military districts with military govenors and sending in troops to continue the "punishment" of the South...all this 2 years after the war was over and the State governments had been restored? Do you have any idea how those troops treated the people? I do...those people were my great grandparents.

Emotionally involved? Damn right. I can remember from the sixties places that the reconstruction troops burned because the people who owned them had assets and they stole them. The revisionist history goes both ways. The treatment of the South after the war is a human tragedy that the history books sweep under the rug.

So many people just cannot get the fact that Southerners almost universally hate the fact that the war was about the South's stupid love affair with slavery, but that they also overwhelmingly support the doctrine of States Rights.

Even today...even on these forums...you see the biggotry that exists against Southerners. Nowhere in this country is the subject of racial sensitivity more profoundly embraced than in the South. When I travel to other parts of the country I see example after example of overt racism that I simply do not see in the South.

But I digress...the issue I am really trying to address here is what you yourself display in your posts. 150 years later, idiots can only address the crimes against the South as "they had it coming."

No they didn't...Most people in the South never owned a slave. I am proud to say that includes my entire family tree...yet my family...MY family members had their assets stolen, their daughters raped, and their houses burned. They were simply farmers. Justify whatever the hell you want to, but the truth is that the North mistreated the South for 100 years or more after the war. It has only been in the last 30 years or so that the South is being allowed to really recover...and it is points of view like yours, Oerdins, and Alberts that keep that pace going slower, even today, than it should.

[Jon Miller]

Maybe if the south had stopped stringing up uppity persons of color during those 100 years, it would have started to recover earlier.

Please, give examples of the north mistreating the south in the first half of the 20th century.

JM

[kentonio]

I understand that when its your home and your family that its obviously a touchy subject, but the views you're putting forward are exactly WHY people still talk about the south the way they do. You talk about how most people didn't own slaves, yet manage to ignore that the huge prosperity of the south was build on the backs of those African Americans. People didn't need to personally own slaves to be have their economic futures bound up with that blood money. More importantly, those who didn't own slaves still went to war in defence of those who did. That extinguishes any sympathy that they might otherwise be due.

As for the cruel north keeping down the south, can you explain why 100 years after the war the south was STILL treating blacks like second class citizens? What about their rights?

Nowhere in this country is the subject of racial sensitivity more profoundly embraced than in the South. When I travel to other parts of the country I see example after example of overt racism that I simply do not see in the South.

Well you must have been an extraordinary case, because very, very few people share that experience.

So many people just cannot get the fact that Southerners almost universally hate the fact that the war was about the South's stupid love affair with slavery, but that they also overwhelmingly support the doctrine of States Rights.

The south fought a war over the states right to keep other human beings as animals to be worked to death, raped and emotionally and physically tortured or murdered at a whim. They didn't get to lose and then turn around and start making demands of anyone. If the south had accepted their loss and tried to change like countries like Germany did then the south wouldn't have suffered for as long as it did. It's the incredible hubris of claiming oppression when millions of blacks were kept in far, far worse conditions that rankles with so many people. Especially people in the north who's families lost a generation of young men who came home in boxes or with limbs blown off after fighting against the crimes of the south.

[PLATO]

Maybe if the south had stopped stringing up uppity persons of color during those 100 years, it would have started to recover earlier.

JM

Good Lord...you have got to be kidding me. Are you really that ignorant?

[PLATO]

I understand that when its your home and your family that its obviously a touchy subject, but the views you're putting forward are exactly WHY people still talk about the south the way they do. You talk about how most people didn't own slaves, yet manage to ignore that the huge prosperity of the south was build on the backs of those African Americans. People didn't need to personally own slaves to be have their economic futures bound up with that blood money. More importantly, those who didn't own slaves still went to war in defence of those who did. That extinguishes any sympathy that they might otherwise be due.

No kentonio...I don't ignore the fact that the South derived a lot of its economic prosperity from Slavery. Most people in the South that went to war went because their governments asked them to. I had family members on both sides of the fight. My ggreat=great Grandfather had three sons (one of them my great-grandfather obviously). The night before the Battle of Fort Donelson, the one who fought for the North and the two that fought for the South had dinner together at their home. My great great grandfather was torn that night between loyalty to his country and loyalty to his State. These were much deeper issues back then than they are today. He lost two sons the next day. He never chose a side, but his home was burned to the ground.

As for the cruel north keeping down the south, can you explain why 100 years after the war the south was STILL treating blacks like second class citizens? What about their rights?

No, there is no explanation or justification for this. One crime does not justify another however. You must also be aware that discrimination existed throughout the country and not just in the South, right?

Well you must have been an extraordinary case, because very, very few people share that experience.

This is simply not true and is very uninformed.

The south fought a war over the states right to keep other human beings as animals to be worked to death, raped and emotionally and physically tortured or murdered at a whim. They didn't get to lose and then turn around and start making demands of anyone. If the south had accepted their loss and tried to change like countries like Germany did then the south wouldn't have suffered for as long as it did. It's the incredible hubris of claiming oppression when millions of blacks were kept in far, far worse conditions that rankles with so many people. Especially people in the north who's families lost a generation of young men who came home in boxes or with limbs blown off after fighting against the crimes of the south.

I really don't know what to say to this. It is incredible that such thinking exists today in an intelligent society. Can you not see the many examples of bigotry that you set forth here?

There is no doubt that Northern losses are to be lamented, but they are nothing compared to the South's. People talk like there was no discrimination in the North and only the South opressed Blacks after the Civil War. That is simply the most myopic view I can think of. Yes, it was worse in the South...yet federal policy of opressing the South made it worse, not better.

[kentonio]

No kentonio...I don't ignore the fact that the South derived a lot of its economic prosperity from Slavery. Most people in the South that went to war went because their governments asked them to. I had family members on both sides of the fight. My ggreat=great Grandfather had three sons (one of them my great-grandfather obviously). The night before the Battle of Fort Donelson, the one who fought for the North and the two that fought for the South had dinner together at their home. My great great grandfather was torn that night between loyalty to his country and loyalty to his State. These were much deeper issues back then than they are today. He lost two sons the next day. He never chose a side, but his home was burned to the ground.

Did he pay taxes? You don't get to stay neutral in a civil war, you can be on the right side of history or the wrong side. It's very easy to feel swayed by the sad stories of people who were not directly involved but there are a LOT more sad stories of the slaves who the war was fought over. Your great grandfather lost a house and 2 sons, they lost entire generations.

No, there is no explanation or justification for this. One crime does not justify another however. You must also be aware that discrimination existed throughout the country and not just in the South, right?

Of course, yet I'm still waiting to hear what this long running 'crime' against the south was exactly? The horrors in the immediately aftermath of war sure, but considering the south started the war thats just the reality of warfare. Your claims about the south being oppressed for 100 years though seem more than a little tenuous considering the Democrats were back in power by 1884. The south was being oppressed by... the south?

This is simply not true and is very uninformed.

Actually its very true, and I'll believe the experiences of African Americans over yours when it comes to racism if thats ok. I'm also interested in when this miraculous south full of racial harmony is supposed to have come about, considering Bull Connor and segregation happened within living memory.

I really don't know what to say to this. It is incredible that such thinking exists today in an intelligent society. Can you not see the many examples of bigotry that you set forth here?

Nope, please feel free to point it out.

There is no doubt that Northern losses are to be lamented, but they are nothing compared to the South's.

You started the damn war for goodness sake!

People talk like there was no discrimination in the North and only the South opressed Blacks after the Civil War. That is simply the most myopic view I can think of. Yes, it was worse in the South...yet federal policy of opressing the South made it worse, not better.

Federal policy which was often led by the Democrats of the south, especially when it came to enacting racist legislation. The federal government does not = the north.

[Proteus_MST]

I have to say that PLATO has a point here.
No crime justifies another equal bad crime (after all we´re n0ot in biblical times with an eye for an eye anymore )

Germany went on after the war with reconstruction, that´s correct. But I assume that only the most leftist people here in Krautland would really think that, for example, the german women who were mass raped by red army soldiers (because of the crimes germany commited during the war) deserved their fate.

Well, the war is something of the past and isn´t much thematized anymore, aside from historical documentations and of coruse history lessons in school ... and, naturally, aside from people on the far right, noone here in germany would wish to have a return of the third reich.

But fact remains that war crimes should be thematized, no matter which side commits them (and should be punished with equal severity). (Wich they often weren´t with regards to WW2 [I cannot say anything about crimes commited by the north in the american civil war however, but if there were similar crimes, they should b, as well, thematized and not concealed])

[giblets]

Yes, in any war homes and property will get destroyed and women might even get raped, and some of the people who suffered are in no way responsible for the war. It's tragic, but letting the enslavement of four million people continue would have been even worse. And I don't buy the idea that it took over a hundred years for the southern economy to recover from the capital losses.