Confederacy & Civil War

Discussions on other historical eras.
User avatar
col. klink
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 05:46
Location: chicago,il. usa

Confederacy and civil war

Post by col. klink » 19 Jun 2003 03:45

He brought 56 in for hearings, including the notorious commie spy Aaron Copland, with 0 convictions for anything. If it was baseball a 0 for 56 record wouldn't get you out of the Bush leagues.
Slavery, evil or what?

Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 19 Jun 2003 05:14

I won't put forward any arguments or add anything pertinent to this discussion apart from voicing my full-fledged support for the cause of the Confederacy (yes, it is irrelevant in a modern context) and disdain for the Union reaction to the Declaration of Independence. I am not a racist or a supporter of slavery, but I do support the right of the Southern states to secceede from a voluntary Union if that is their wish.

Regards,
Sokol

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 19 Jun 2003 08:35

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
all of these crypto Hitler fans sound more and more to me like the Southern crypto racists that we have here in the U.S. of A.! For all of you Europeans who have never run into one of these unregenerate Confederates, these are the sort of lies they try to pass off:

Why do you even post such garbage? Do you just want to offend people and start an arguement?


I put up that post six days and forty-nine posts ago. Isn't that a little stale? Who exactly is trying to start an argument here?

ChristopherPerrien wrote: …the only thing you know about "unregenerate" (is this a word?) confederates is what you see in the movies. … The hardest racism is the covert kind that you obviously know nothing about because it if you did you would be concerned about what is going on up "north". Real racism is a much bigger problem where you live than where I live.


I am from Chicago, but I lived in the South for two years. The rural South. Don't lecture me about how things "really" are.

ChristopherPerrien wrote:How many topics do you have going on this same rant anyway?


Marcus broke up my "Crypto Nazi" post into several new threads (e.g. Crypto Nazi, Communism vs. Capitalism, Monorchism, Confederacy & Civil War, and maybe a few others) so you can't blame me for that.

I thought it was better before it got separated — that way everyone could see that the same racists who defend Hitler come out swinging for the Confederacy as well!

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 19 Jun 2003 08:38

Sokol wrote:I am not a racist or a supporter of slavery, but I do support the right of the Southern states to secceede from a voluntary Union if that is their wish.


Do you have a reson? Or are you just being arbitrary and legalistic?

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 19 Jun 2003 08:50

Psycho Mike wrote:Joe McCarthy brought 56 into hearings. The majority were reds already under FBI monitoring. However 56, most of whom were in fact agents for the Soviets, does not seem anything like what you are talking about. What are you talking about?


I'm talking about convictions before a court of law. Not just being called before a kangaroo court, having your reputation ruined on network television, loosing your career and livelihood, all on the bias of unsubstantiated rumour, innuendo, and being a little too anti-Fascist for Tail-Gunner Joe.

Psycho Mike wrote:Joe McCarthy had nothing to do with suppressing unions or socialised medicine. None of those issues ever came up for a vote when he served.


Of course they didn't. The Left was so stigmatised by McCarthy's witch-hunt that virtually no progressive legislation even came up for a vote during the repressed 1950's! After hysterical Republican accusations of treason because the Truman administration "lost" China the Square Deal was stopped dead in it's tracks, the Wagner Act was all but repealed, and Truman's Medicare plan was postponed for almost twenty years. During the 1950's unionisation increased and sensible single-payer HealthCare systems were started in every other country in the civilised world because they didn't have opportunistic reactionaries calling treason every time someone proposed anything slightly to the left of Warren G. Harding!

Sokol
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:23
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Sokol » 22 Jun 2003 06:34

I don't support the South's push for independence due to legalistic nuances, but due to moralistic ones. The Union was founded upon a spirit of free will and liberty. The South's intention to seperate itself from the Union isn't the issue here; the real issue should be "What gives the Union the right to stop the Southern states from becoming independent?"

Regards,
Sokol

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 22 Jun 2003 08:08

Sokol wrote:The South's intention to seperate itself from the Union isn't the issue here; the real issue should be "What gives the Union the right to stop the Southern states from becoming independent?"


It is morally disingenuous to ignore what the South wanted independence for.

There is also the fact that the South had freely entered the union, had participated in presidential elections where (due to the electoral system) it had wielded un-due influence, had benefited from the 3/5ths compromise, had sabotaged the Democratic Party by refusing to accept a Northern candidate thus insuring the election of a Republican, and then having failed to get its way had only then chosen to withdraw from the union. Democracy and self-government are not about participating only so long as things go your way. To change the rules (from national to state sovereignty) in the middle of the game is mere opportunism and has no moral standing.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7035
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 22 Jun 2003 18:48

It is morally disingenuous to ignore what the South wanted independence for.


The war was caused by the original compromise that created a Congress split into two houses. One, a senate which was based on the idea of the Government as a republic, the other a House of respensentatives based on the idea of the Government as a democracy.

This division reflected the compromise the founding father made to form the "United states", The compromises reflect the inherent" differences between the "populace staes of the North and the smaller states (ex.VA.)
of the South and the need for both side to have equal political power in our congress.

This was the CAUSE of the Civil war. You don't have to believe me but how about a person like Ben Franklin, here is his quote on the signing of the Constitution and the compromises made.

"This document settles our differences, but it will cause a great war among our grandchildren."

I will take his word for it since it proved to be what happened fifty or so years later.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 22 Jun 2003 22:31

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
The war was caused by the original compromise that created a Congress split into two houses.


Again, we are dealing here with legalisms and formalities. New York is a very large state, while Rhode Island is a small one, yet their interests are much the same. This was not a matter of big states lording it over small ones, it was about a desperate attempt to salvage the unsalvageable: chattel slavery, The compromise of the constitution worked to the South's benefit for some time, but as soon as the free states got the upper hand, then they were poor sports and bolted. Not over any tariff, not over state sovereignty, over slavery.

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

Post by Psycho Mike » 22 Jun 2003 22:52

In this writers humble opinion the instances of slavery had dramatically reduced in the north as industry came in. Eventually I think slavery would have withered away. As it was doing around the country. The ruling Jeff Davis made to reject without hearing a law that would have brought back importation of slaves was the death knell.

Anybody who checks my posts can see I am not a nazi supporter.

I do however believe that Abe Lincoln was the worse President this country ever had. His legacy of emergency federal powers has allowed Presidents to go around the constitution ever since. His eagerness for civil war instead of using our court system- barbaric.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7035
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 22 Jun 2003 23:00

Legalisms and formalities!!!!

Since you are more of a statesman and knowlegble than Franklin, I can't argue with you anymore. You only see what you want to see.

Good Day

User avatar
ckleisch
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 08:03
Location: Elizabeth City, NC USA

Post by ckleisch » 23 Jun 2003 02:17

ChristopherPerrien wrote:Legalisms and formalities!!!!

Since you are more of a statesman and knowlegble than Franklin, I can't argue with you anymore. You only see what you want to see.

Good Day


To quote a southern gentlemen- "Sir, I prefer not to get into a battle of wits with a unarmed person".
Woodrow Wilson to Cordull Hull

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 23 Jun 2003 03:10

Woodrow Wilson?

Wasn't he the racist who segregated the civil service?

User avatar
col. klink
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 05:46
Location: chicago,il. usa

confederacy and the civil war

Post by col. klink » 24 Jun 2003 17:14

Importation of slaves wasstopped in the 1820s. Slaves were still bought and sold but they were born in the USA not brought over hewre. Actually stopping the importation mildly improved the conditions of slaves in that it made owners consider maintaining "their property" in good condition as opposed to the old practice of working them until they dropped and buying this years model. Sort of like the Nazi's and their slave labor policies. But I still don't see evidence that the South was making any effort to end their peculiar institution.
And I'm still waiting for a southern apologist to say slavery was evil. You're willing to make a judgement about Lincoln being the "worse" president but apparently can't say anything bad about slavery. I want to see the rationalization for the freedom of some people to remove themselves from the Union while other poeple couldn't remove themselves from a social order that was imposed and enforced upon them by some of these same freedom lovers.

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

Post by Psycho Mike » 26 Jun 2003 07:04

Slavery still existed in some yankee states all through the war. So if it was evil for the south, I would presume it was also evil for the north.

Was slavery evil does not answer the question of if it was more evil for the south, why wasn't it also evil for the north?

I believe slavery is one of the few issues in the world we can actually address, while others strive fora world where there are no states, complete equality, full justice, no war ever, slavery is an issue we could actually deal with. However Blacks here do not see it as an issue, and liberals don't care.

I think slavery is evil. Why did you guys stop fighting it?

Return to “Other eras”