re: How are you remembering Union Soldiers that died in the Civil War

quote:

---

It is racist to say that a black majority district would be a problem.

No, it isn't.

---

Actually it is you moron

quote:

---

Actually it is you moron

---

The only morons I see in the thread are you pussy-assed SJWs.

...and by pussy-assed I mean literally half of you SJWs use your asses like a pussy for other men to pleasure themselves. Now throw out your homophobe word too, dickhead.

Should we go for Islamophobe while we're on a roll?

The quote in question had 4 elements to it: (1) preservation of social stability; (2) aggression against a peaceful attempt at secession; (3) perceived support or sympathies for terrorist activities; and (4) fear of a future arbitrary decision to suddenly trigger a mass enfranchisement.

You're focusing entirely on (4) to support your claim of racism, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that my posts were in support of the idea of full enfranchisement phased in over a generation or two--something which I noted did not happen after the Civil War.

It is fear of an arbitrary federal decision made some day in the future that I claimed as one of the legitimate reasons for defense. More controversially, it's also an implicit indictment of the Reconstruction Era for lurching too far too fast, and then whipsawing back too far in the other direction. Gradual planning, prudent pressuring, and phased implementation wins the day, in my opinion.

Politically, of course, I know that's not always possible. Lincoln could not admit his real reasons for going to war, and even if he could, he could not have proposed a phased implementation plan for gradual emancipation and enfranchisement without becoming hated by both of the polarized political extremes of the day. So he did the best he could and mucked around under a "Preserve the Union" war justification, and then waited for enough blood to be spilled to declare that a higher cause of emancipation was then also required to hallow that blood.

I get that, and I get that it might have even been necessary, but the problem with doing things that way, is that your adversaries in the South can only take what you say at face value. And if they see a Northern war being waged with no valid public explanation of what the true motivation is, then they are morally justified to defend their home states in fear that some radical scheme from the outside might upend social stability too haphazardly and capriciously in the future--and done with no first-hand knowledge or concern about how difficult it is to incorporate a majority-slave voting district into a fully-functioning, emancipated self-government.

During Reconstruction, majority black electorates largely elected white Republicans to power, and additionally, after the 1870, 1872, & 1874 elections there were anywhere from 6-8 black members of Congress from the South. But after the 1878 elections there were almost never more than 2; after the 1900 elections there were 0. So how well did that experiment work, really?

And I'm not trying to pin the blame on unruly black legislatures to the extent of A Birth of the Nation, or making arguments about corrupt white Republicans bankrupting Southern state budgets as claimed by some of the William Dunning School of Southern history. I'm just making a more practical argument--what works, and what doesn't work? What can the political system accommodate, and what can't it accommodate? What good does it do the black citizens of South Carolina to give them a black-majority legislature suddenly through war, only to have their voting rights taken away soon after? Might not it have been better to have attempted a solution in gradual phases, rather than committing to an experimental and revolutionary all-out war that would ultimately seek to change all things at once?

In my mind, it's still an open question.

Anyway, to shift focus back on the foreign wars of the 20th and 21st centuries, it causes awe to think about the numbers of those who died ( LINK):

U.S. Foreign Wars
(War, U.S. Deaths, Approx. % of Population)
World War II, 405399, 0.3039%
World War I, 116516, 0.1127%
Vietnam, 58209, 0.0300%
Korea, 36516, 0.0241%
Iraq, 4497, 0.0015%
Afghanistan, 2356, 0.00083%
First Gulf War, 294, 0.00012%



Some of the deadliest battles...

Sangin (July 2010 – May 2014), 25 KIA for the 3/5 Marines during the Fall of 2010

2nd Battle of Fallujah (11.7.2004 - 12.23.2004), 95 KIA

Tet Offensive (1.30.1968 - 9.23.1968), 1,536 KIA
Siege of Khe Sanh (1.21.1968 – 7.9.1968), 402 KIA in siege

Chosin Reservoir (11.27.1950 - 12.13.1950), 1,029 killed + 4,894 missing + 7,338 non-battle casualties

Okinawa (4.1.1945 - 6.22.1945), 20,195 dead (12,520 KIA)
Battle of the Bulge (12.16.1944 - 1.25.1945), 19,000 killed
Invasion of Germany (3.22.1945 - 5.8.1945), 15,009 killed
Luzon (1.9.1945 - 8.15.1945), 10,380 killed
Guadalcanal (Aug 1942 - Feb 1943), 7,100 dead
Iwo Jima (2.19.1945 - 3.26.1945), 6,821 killed
Kasserine Pass (February 19–24, 1943), ?? (about 6,500 U.S. casualties)
D Day (June 6, 1944), 4,414 confirmed Allied dead

Argonne Forest (9.26.1918 – 11.11.1918), 26,277 killed
Belleau Wood (6.1.1918 - 6.26.1918), 1,811 killed

My argument is that having 'killing your spouse' as the only option to resolve irreconcilable differences, is stupid policy.

Are those population percentages based on the pops of the day, or current pop?

I tried to go with the U.S. population of the year of a war's start.

It's not always a good way to think about military deaths, of course, because it's an apples-to-oranges comparison when foreign campaigns are waged without the whole country on a war footing. As a point of comparison, U.S. traffic deaths reached a peak in 1972 at 54,589 or 0.0260% (and a % peak in 1937 at 0.0293%), but have since gone down to about 0.01% a year.

In my mind, the larger percentages reflect a greater sacrifice on the part of the civilian population which has to absorb the loss, whereas the sacrifice of actual military deaths are not about the percentages at all.



P.S. -- In comparison to ordinary crime and murder rates, the highest murder rate in U.S. history may have been New Orleans in 1994, where 424 people were murdered in a population of 484,653, for a murder rate of 0.0875% of the population. For 20yo black males in particular, close to 1% were murdered in New Orleans that year, at 0.951%.

quote:

---

Hey man, if you hate The United States, and the things we did, there's an exit door right over there. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya. --------->

---

You love everything the US has done?

quote:

---

Many of the German POWs spoke English. He and his buddies were shocked to learn these guys were not monsters. They were just like them. Mostly young, in their teens and twenties. Farm boys, factory workers, and college students. They didn't anymore want to be fighting a war than did our guys. They simply answered their nation's call.

I can say with 100% certainty. My old man and the guys he served with would have kissed one of those German soldiers asses before they would shake hands with the cowardly filth that ran to Canada or the liberal scum burning American flags on the streets of America today.

---

He sounds like a tard. Nothing cowardly about not fighting in some oligarchs war.

quote:

---

He sounds like a tard. Nothing cowardly about not fighting in some oligarchs rule.

---

You talk a big game. But I'd bet dollars to donuts if you lived in Germany in the 1930s, your arse would be behind a MG pointed down at the allies.

It's easy to say "oh they had a choice" when it wasn't you. Fact is, you served. Or you and your family would be sent off.

Sent off where? Well. To die.

The vast majority of German soldiers were the exact same as the Americans. The British. The Canucks. The ruskies. And everyone else. Just normal arse dudes taken from their homes to fight another man's war.

Educate yourself on the subject. You are showing your arse like none other.