re: Civil War... States Rights or Slavery

quote:

---

Those who try to portray The Confederacy as purely a state's rights issue and completely ignoring slavery's part are just as bad as those who try to portray The Confederacy as an evil white supremacy empire and nothing more.

---

THs is true - however - the primary political baseline was slavery. To try denying that is idiotically futile. But there is an argument to be made without admitting idiocy. And anyone who denies those arguments are just as guilty as the other side which refuses to accept solid truths.

The United States was not founded to maintain slavery. The existence of this perennial evil made its way to our shores a long time before our independent status was established. To deny that is to be disregarded as a serious person.

THEREFORE - at the time of the break with Britain, we established a new nation - with a constitution that defined what immutable laws would govern that union. The facts were that at that time, it was not possible to accomplish the "new nation" concept IF the agreement required that many states would have to eliminate their financial basis. And the north acceded to that agreement. In fact it was the north that insisted on the now universally derided 3/5 delineation, which only applied to the apportionment of representatives in Congress = NOTHING ELSE.

Was actual racism rampant in that era?? You bet - just about the same proportion as is CURRENTLY RAMPANT IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!!! - the ONLY thing different is the definition of the PLANTATION. Today, the only blacks which the DEMs treat as human, are the ones who willingly abide in the DEM created welfare state. IF you find a black who wants to fend for himself, that black is no longer 'protected' - in fact he is attacked with rancor reserved for the proverbial Uncle Tom.

As for the topic of the OP

CIVIL war = States Rights issue.
details of states rights issue = slavery.

They are one and the same - any attempt to separate them (by either side) is merely a weak attempt to politicize the issue wrt to CURRENT problems - and NOT to intelligently discuss the culture of the times. Neither side was "evil" - both sides were "right."

Were there evil men who loved degrading black people??
== WARNING!! this is a TRICK QUESTION!!!!

the answer is YES!! - there WERE evil men like that.
- in the 1800s those were the slave holders in the south and the mouth breathers who needed someone to look down on.
- in the 2000s those are the leadership of the DEMOCRAT party and their cohorts in the media, Silicon Valley, hi finance, and education

In both eras there were good people who knew/know how blacks were/are treated was/is wrong but are too preoccupied with their personal situations to do much about it.

And in both eras - there were/are people who are just evil - and entertain a lot of evil thoughts on all matters.

THe greatest idiocy of modern times is to go back in history and try applying the CURRENT CULTURAL NORMs to "good vs evil" activity of people in some bygone era.

The most vicious slave owner of 1860 was still a better, more honorable person than Nancy Pelosi, et al.

quote:

---

This is nonsense for multiple reasons. The most obvious being that slavery still exists. The Civil War didn't end it.

Specifically as it relates to the United States, slavery would have ended during industrialization anyway. Once machines become cheaper than "free labor," slavery ends.

---

In the United States of America, the civil war ended the institution of slavery.

"Industrialization" occurs and labor is still required. "Machines" don't change that. Machines simply change the labor demands.

It wasn't about whether or not machines were "cheaper" than labor and we know this because of early 20th century labor riots and the advent of unions.

Labor still cost money and lots of it. Payroll, then and now is always a corporation's biggest expenditure.

When you have a breeding stock of slave labor, you get to avoid labor riots, higher wages and better working conditions.

Yes, slavery could've easily carried into the 20th century had it not been for the civil war. In fact, slavery may have expanded nationally so the rest of the country could keep up with southern agriculture and what would've been it's own moves toward industrialization.

At the time, there was simply no way to end slavery without war.

All other things being equal, an economic system simply cannot compete when it's primary competition can breed it's own labor. The rest of the country would not have been able to compete with the south economically had slavery been allowed to continue.

quote:

---

That literally didn't happen...

---

Which was my point. If it was only about slavery, the North would have abolished it first. It wasn't a big enough of an issue to them to force states to abolish. It was always about money.

quote:

---

Were there evil men who loved degrading black people??
== WARNING!! this is a TRICK QUESTION!!!!

the answer is YES!! - there WERE evil men like that.
- in the 1800s those were the slave holders in the south and the mouth breathers who needed someone to look down on.

---

Oh good grief, man. You need to read Lincoln's speeches and his letters, both before and during the war. You need to read the letters and articles printed in the northern newspapers both before and during the war. And, as another poster here mentioned, you need to read the letters of William T. Sherman's wife and Sherman's letters to her. Edited to add: Other than this, I mostly agree with your post.

Well, you left Hell and upgraded. Farewell, Toledo.

Eventually the Democrats in the south would've did away with slavery, like every other slave society across the world did.

State rights are more important.


It's like with abortion. We all know that those are human babies. But there are several states that allow the wholesale murder of those babies. Even those babies that are viable and can survive outside of the womb. It's barbaric. But, if the people of those states want that shite, then so be it. Anti-abortion states shouldn't invade those states and force them to give up killing babies.

A small percentage of population had slaves. We are to believe that a majority of Southerners, that were not very wealthy, were willing to die for a few wealthy plantation owners. BS! It was States Rights

we have 2-3 threads a year on this dumbass topic

quote:

---

You need to read Lincoln's speeches and his letters

---

I have read quite extensively on Lincoln's works, not so much on Sherman.

And there is zero debate that Lincoln was an abolitionist - he campaigned on that - his whole life was devoted to that cause.

He just would not have initiated a civil war to make it happen.

Now - once the war started, he was bound to finish it with ONE goal in mind - preserve the Union.

This is no knock on Lincoln at all.

I am forever sympathetic to the plight of the south - that doesn't mean that I harbor ANY support for slavery. Thinking back on it, I am glad I was not alive in that era.