NationStates Jolt Archive

The evil New York Times ran an old Obit......

Enjoy.


http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0119.html

What happens when a news agency wants to shit on their own paper?

What happens when a news agency wants to shit on their own paper?

I dunno, but the crossword is impossible to complete afterwards.

I dunno, but the crossword is impossible to complete afterwards.

:eek: Bastards!

I dunno, but the crossword is impossible to complete afterwards.

Crosswords are impossible anyway.

:(

Crosswords are impossible anyway.

:(

:rolleyes:
s'what makes 'em fun!
They always ask some shit you have to be 50 to remember though..

:rolleyes:
s'what makes 'em fun!
They always ask some shit you have to be 50 to remember though..

Ah, but all you have to do is ask a fifty year old.

Also, there's maybe a list of 60 odd-sounding words that are ALWAYS used in crossword puzzles, like "greek god of love" or "an opera solo song".

:rolleyes:
s'what makes 'em fun!
They always ask some shit you have to be 50 to remember though..
Yeah. I prefer coloring books. Much more my skill level.

Stop hijacking my thread you bastards or I am going to call homeland security!

Interesting read.

Dear god, this romanticism associated with the confederacy is sickening.

Accept it slack jawed southerns, YOU LOST - you and your whole black hating, homo hating, evangelical preaching junta lost the war.

Stop trying to resist the bloody obvious - liberalism has won (no, not Liberal with a capital L).

liberalism has one (no, not Liberal with a capital L).

I thought we had two.

Yeah. I prefer coloring books. Much more my skill level.
Ahh, but those fucking lines you have to keep in are hard.. They're too small. Damn it!

Stop hijacking my thread you bastards or I am going to call homeland security!
Shit, sorry. My mistake heh.

Was a good read though. Don't know too much about it.

Stop hijacking my thread you bastards or I am going to call homeland security!
Apparrently they already are.

Dear god, this romanticism associated with the confederacy is sickening.

Accept it slack jawed southerns, YOU LOST - you and your whole black hating, homo hating, evangelical preaching junta lost the war.

Stop trying to resist the bloody obvious - liberalism has won (no, not Liberal with a capital L).

And you wonder why they still don't entirely love us when people say such sweet things. And by the way, during the Civil War the North was black hating, homo hating, and evangelical preaching just as much as the South.

The romanticism for the South may be overdone, but so is the Lincoln worship and belief that the US did it for something as altruistic as freeing the slaves and not for base economic reasons.

Ah, but all you have to do is ask a fifty year old.

Also, there's maybe a list of 60 odd-sounding words that are ALWAYS used in crossword puzzles, like "greek god of love" or "an opera solo song".
They always use ebb and flow.

South got its fat slave-owning arse kicked... good riddance to bad rubbish!

http://www.friesian.com/history/no-reb.gif

And you wonder why they still don't entirely love us when people say such sweet things. And by the way, during the Civil War the North was black hating, homo hating, and evangelical preaching just as much as the South.

The romanticism for the South may be overdone, but so is the Lincoln worship and belief that the US did it for something as altruistic as freeing the slaves and not for base economic reasons.

Actually, of all the reasons for the US Civil War, and there were many, economics was way down the list. The North could have easily survived economically without the South; ironically, it was the South that needed the North's industrial base to avoid becoming a satellite state of Great Britain (not that they'd ever admit it).

I'm not saying it wasn't a reason, but it certainly wasn't a primary reason. The larger issues of the Civil War were cultural, political and philosophical.

South got its fat slave-owning arse kicked... good riddance to bad rubbish!

http://www.friesian.com/history/no-reb.gif

Huzzah!

Although, the war was pretty close in the beginning. What with the North's sucky generals and all. So, I wouldn't be so swift to say that the South got it's arse kicked, because the Union lost all the early battles..

Actually, of all the reasons for the US Civil War, and there were many, economics was way down the list. The North could have easily survived economically without the South; ironically, it was the South that needed the North's industrial base to avoid becoming a satellite state of Great Britain (not that they'd ever admit it).

I'm not saying it wasn't a reason, but it certainly wasn't a primary reason. The larger issues of the Civil War were cultural, political and philosophical.

true dat.

SNIP
I'm not saying it(economics) wasn't a reason, but it certainly wasn't a primary reason. The larger issues of the Civil War were cultural, political and philosophical.
cultural: Pity the fool who tries to keep different cultures in one land.
It always goes wrong in the end...


Political.... I guess that trying to preserve slavery in a country based on liberty maybe wasn't a bright idea, bound to get stuck in somebody's craw.

Philosophical... well, the Great Question was simply:
Is the Negro a human being? No matter wether you say yes or no, it takes no genius to see that the two camps cannot live in peace.

This is what confed veep Stevens had to say on the matter:


The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

http://hometown.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html

If you can read Stevens 'fine words' without getting furious, you are either a southerner sympathiser, or less... irascible... than I am. For I can't count the number of times I'd like to yell F!CK YOU at Veep Stevens...

All the talk of other reasons is just reb-obfuscation.

The evil New York Times ran an old Obit......

Enjoy.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0119.html
Largely accurate about the facts of Lee's career, but falls short when it comes to Grant.

South got its fat slave-owning arse kicked... good riddance to bad rubbish!
And here I was living with the delusion that it was only certain Redneck die-hard Southerners who were still refighting the Civl War. Silly me! :rolleyes:

Political.... I guess that trying to preserve slavery in a country based on liberty maybe wasn't a bright idea, bound to get stuck in somebody's craw.

It was much more than that, though. The biggest Southern political fear, driven, admittedly, in part by their desire to maintain the system of slavery, was that their political voice would become a minority and would not be heard.

They had no hope in the House of Representatives, even with the 3/5 compromise their population wasn't large enough to compete. The Senate was artificially kept even, but it was plain to see that arrangement wouldn't last. So the Presidency was their last bastion to check Northern political power. The election of Lincoln destroyed that hope as he was elected with ~60% of the electoral votes but only ~40% of the popular vote.

And here I was living with the delusion that it was only certain Redneck die-hard Southerners who were still refighting the Civl War. Silly me! :rolleyes:


I don't mind admitting to the mistake, if a mistake it is.
See.... as long as there is one American alive who doesn't think the seccessionists were the greatest scumballs between the pro-english Tories in the 18th century and defenders of the Fatherland of the 20th, the job aint done.

Actually, of all the reasons for the US Civil War, and there were many, economics was way down the list. The North could have easily survived economically without the South; ironically, it was the South that needed the North's industrial base to avoid becoming a satellite state of Great Britain (not that they'd ever admit it).

I'm not saying it wasn't a reason, but it certainly wasn't a primary reason. The larger issues of the Civil War were cultural, political and philosophical.

I'm not so sure that the North would have done so well without the ability to use the South as a market for its shoddy and expensive manufactured goods.

Also, if the South were to adopt an extremely low tariff, or even free trade, which would have been quite possible given the export economy of the South, that would likely have likely been disastrous for the North. Imagine trying to control smuggling of cheaper, better British goods over a border that long?

And I'll agree that secession was caused by cultural, poltical, and philosophical issues. However, Lincoln could very well have negotiated with the South, let them go and avoided a war. The actual war was caused by economic factors, much like just about every other war in history. If someone wouldn't have lost a lot of money without it I doubt the Civil War would have occured.

It was much more than that, though. The biggest Southern political fear, driven, admittedly, in part by their desire to maintain the system of slavery, was that their political voice would become a minority and would not be heard.

They had no hope in the House of Representatives, even with the 3/5 compromise their population wasn't large enough to compete. The Senate was artificially kept even, but it was plain to see that arrangement wouldn't last. So the Presidency was their last bastion to check Northern political power. The election of Lincoln destroyed that hope as he was elected with ~60% of the electoral votes but only ~40% of the popular vote.

Do you think that defenders of such a cursed institution have the right to be heard?
For my part, I agree fully with William Lloyd Garrisson:
Agreement with death and convenant with Hell.

Where I disagree with him is the 'how to achieve'. He would not have minded getting the slavestates out. And IMHO, the only recourse is to ferret the cursed institution out of poeple's minds, with the bayonet if need be.

Germany post-1945 was ruthlessly denazified.

I regret that the same logic was not applied below the gnatline.

.

Apparrently they already are.

Guess I should have used a ;)

It was much more than that, though. The biggest Southern political fear, driven, admittedly, in part by their desire to maintain the system of slavery, was that their political voice would become a minority and would not be heard.

They had no hope in the House of Representatives, even with the 3/5 compromise their population wasn't large enough to compete. The Senate was artificially kept even, but it was plain to see that arrangement wouldn't last. So the Presidency was their last bastion to check Northern political power. The election of Lincoln destroyed that hope as he was elected with ~60% of the electoral votes but only ~40% of the popular vote.

You know, I <3 THIS!
For it boils down to a southern admission it had no hope in hell of persuading any group worth noting by persuasion.
Only southerners, no one else, would see the southern way of life.

One wonders why...

Political.... I guess that trying to preserve slavery in a country based on liberty maybe wasn't a bright idea, bound to get stuck in somebody's craw.

While it may seem a little strange, at the time the ability to own slaves was a matter of liberty; the southerners where the "pro-choice" of the day. The abolitionist movement of in the North was an off-shoot of the Second Great Awakening... they were the religious right of the day.

While it may seem a little strange, at the time the ability to own slaves was a matter of liberty; the southerners where the "pro-choice" of the day. The abolitionist movement of in the North was an off-shoot of the Second Great Awakening... they were the religious right of the day.

Oddly enough, Lincoln would have begged to differ...
I'm adlibbing the quote here:
For some, freedom means that they can enjoy the fruits of their own labours.
For others, freedom means that they can enjoy the fruits of the labour of others.
Or something along those lines.

Oddly enough, Lincoln would have begged to differ...
I'm adlibbing the quote here:
For some, freedom means that they can enjoy the fruits of their own labours.
For others, freedom means that they can enjoy the fruits of the labour of others.
Or something along those lines.

Of course he begged to differ, that is why there was a bloody war! My point was that both sides viewed their position as that of "liberty."

The most fanatic abolitionists were preachers, trying to get all up in politics so that the government would put its foot down.

Without seeking to insult you, I think this is... sophistry.

The rootcause of the war was the existence of slavery.
Not a definition of slavery, or liberty.

The rootcause needed to be adressed, and was.

Interesting point of view from someone with this tagline:

You do not have the authority to surrender my rights, sell me into slavery, or have your armed agents attack me for peacefully disposing of my own person and property as I see fit.If you do that, then you are criminals; and I have an absolute right, before God and the Constitution, to defend myself against the wrongs and injustice of your criminal assaults and the tyranny of your politicians, judges, bureaucrats, and officers. Mind your own damn business, and leave me the hell alone!

Since slaves were considered property and the ability to own them considered a right your tagline does a fantastic job of pointing out exactly why it was that the South tried to leave the Union in the first place. As they said repeatedly "All we desire is to be left alone."

Interesting point of view from someone with this tagline:



Since slaves were considered property and the ability to own them considered a right your tagline does a fantastic job of pointing out exactly why it was that the South tried to leave the Union in the first place. As they said repeatedly "All we desire is to be left alone."


The little problem is that they included in their right to be alone the right to leave others un-alone...
Fugitive Slave Law, anyone?

The little problem is that they included in their right to be alone the right to leave others un-alone...
Fugitive Slave Law, anyone?

If slaves are considered animate property (and at the time they were, both legally and by many people philosophically) then the Fugitive Slave Law is nothing more than an attempt to return property to its lawful owner. As an analogy, you can't keep my cow that breaks through its fence and wanders onto your property. Even if it is on your land it's still my cow, I bought it legally, I paid a lot of money for it, I have a bill of sale for it, and if you keep it then you are a thief. The fact that you think cows shouldn't be owned by anyone doesn't enter into the equation at all.

If slaves are considered animate property (and at the time they were, both legally and by many people philosophically) then the Fugitive Slave Law is nothing more than an attempt to return property to its lawful owner. As an analogy, you can't keep my cow that breaks through its fence and wanders onto your property. Even if it is on your land it's still my cow, I bought it legally, I paid a lot of money for it, I have a bill of sale for it, and if you keep it then you are a thief. The fact that you think cows shouldn't be owned by anyone doesn't enter into the equation at all.


I see.

And would you consider owning a slave an example of a voluntary relationship with another?

I don't mind admitting to the mistake, if a mistake it is.
See.... as long as there is one American alive who doesn't think the seccessionists were the greatest scumballs between the pro-english Tories in the 18th century and defenders of the Fatherland of the 20th, the job aint done.
Then you can start with me. I don't think they were "scumbags" at all, not most of them anyway. They had some legitimate concerns about what was going to happen to the South. Turns out they were proven largely correct by "Reconstruction," which was really nothing more than the rape of the Southern US.

I see.

And would you consider owning a slave an example of a voluntary relationship with another?

Assuming you mean a voluntary relationship with the slave himself then of course not. But then again owning a cow isn't either.

Then you can start with me. I don't think they were "scumbags" at all, not most of them anyway. They had some legitimate concerns about what was going to happen to the South. Turns out they were proven largely correct by "Reconstruction," which was really nothing more than the rape of the Southern US.


I'm a bit... confounded... by the word legitimate here.
Are you suggesting that slave owners can have ANY concern that is legitimate?
As Marat pointed out in 1789 or so, human rights do NOT apply to the enemies of the human race.

I'm a bit... confounded... by the word legitimate here.
Are you suggesting that slave owners can have ANY concern that is legitimate?
As Marat pointed out in 1789 or so, human rights do NOT apply to the enemies of the human race.
Oh, thank you, President Bush!

Any questions??

Assuming you mean a voluntary relationship with the slave himself then of course not. But then again owning a cow isn't either.

And there we have it: Slavery... the utter immorality.

You are asking me to approach the matter from the POV from a slaveowner.

Something which I wont do.
For the simple reason that any person holding so perverted a POV should not be suffered to breathe the very air.

Oh, thank you, President Bush!

Any questions??

Oh, I think that I know what you mean.
Like.... Al Qaeda members stuck in Gitmo?

I could not agree more with the White House on that matter, I will go even further.

Not the slightest human decency should EVER be given to You-Know-Who's.
Not a tear to be shed.

I'm a bit... confounded... by the word legitimate here.
Are you suggesting that slave owners can have ANY concern that is legitimate?
As Marat pointed out in 1789 or so, human rights do NOT apply to the enemies of the human race.

You don't think that the very real possiblity of having your wealth taken away by government fiat is a legitimate concern? To give another analogy, suppose that the government decides one day that it is wrong for people to own shares in corporations and they are going to declare all stock ownership illegal. You have a large fortune but it is all invested in the stock market. If the government decides to go through with its plan then you will be ruined.

The plantation owners had most of their money invested in slaves. To lose them was to face financial ruin. I think their concerns were legitimate.

Oh, I think that I know what you mean.
Like.... Al Qaeda members stuck in Gitmo?

I could not agree more with the White House on that matter, I will go even further.

Not the slightest human decency should EVER be given to You-Know-Who's.
Not a tear to be shed.
You're a hard, cold man, dude. :(

You're a hard, cold man, dude. :(

Seriously, I know.
And am not ashamed to admit it.
And am proud of it.

And there we have it: Slavery... the utter immorality.

You are asking me to approach the matter from the POV from a slaveowner.

Something which I wont do.
For the simple reason that any person holding so perverted a POV should not be suffered to breathe the very air.

And here we have the very reason why the South tried to secceed in the first place, because this is the same point of view faced by those very southerners. Tell me, if someone told you that your beliefs (particularly beliefs that are supported by current law) mean that you deserve death for having them would you stick around and wait for them to kill you?

You don't think that the very real possiblity of having your wealth taken away by government fiat is a legitimate concern? To give another analogy, suppose that the government decides one day that it is wrong for people to own shares in corporations and they are going to declare all stock ownership illegal. You have a large fortune but it is all invested in the stock market. If the government decides to go through with its plan then you will be ruined.

The plantation owners had most of their money invested in slaves. To lose them was to face financial ruin. I think their concerns were legitimate.

That depends on their investments being legitimate.
Which they are not.

You are now taking the position of a man who defends the right of a criminal to hold on to his stolen goods.
Or for that matter, you uphold the idea that a fence should be allowed to hang on to the goods he bought.

That makes you a defender of crime.

I'm a bit... confounded... by the word legitimate here.
Are you suggesting that slave owners can have ANY concern that is legitimate?
As Marat pointed out in 1789 or so, human rights do NOT apply to the enemies of the human race.

And who is it that decides who is an enemy of the human race? I'm sure that there are those out there who think that people who aren't pro-life qualify. Also, I'll bet certain opinions on the death penalty, womens rights, and various religious beliefs would qualify someone in some people's eyes.

That depends on their investments being legitimate.
Which they are not.

You are now taking the position of a man who defends the right of a criminal to hold on to his stolen goods.
Or for that matter, you uphold the idea that a fence should be allowed to hang on to the goods he bought.

That makes you a defender of crime.

I am doing no such thing. The legal code at the time clearly made owning slaves legitimate. In fact it was those who opposed the Fugitive Slave Law who held the position you describe, not those who owned the slaves.

Apparently you think that legitimacy depends solely on your own personal beliefs. Once again that's the point of view that the Southerners tried so hard to get away from.

I don't mind admitting to the mistake, if a mistake it is.
See.... as long as there is one American alive who doesn't think the seccessionists were the greatest scumballs between the pro-english Tories in the 18th century and defenders of the Fatherland of the 20th, the job aint done.
Brave, noble and brilliant people fight in armies fielded by political regimes that have immoral, in some cases monsterous, goals. That is what warfare is, those with the least at stake, the weakest belief in the cause and little choice in the matter sent to fight by the wealthy and powerful. There are no armies of monsters or heros execpt in myths and fairy-tales. The soldiers who die in the service of terrible causes and leaders are no more or less worthy of rememberance and honor than those who oppose them.

This is in no way related, but I live in a town in Georgia that Sherman's Army marched through and at both ends of my property are historical markers marking the places that the Union and Confederate armies were supposed to have camped on the same date. I can hit a golfball from one to the other, downhill mind you, but would they have camped that close together, was it common or are the markers misplaced?

This is in no way related, but I live in a town in Georgia that Sherman's Army marched through and at both ends of my property are historical markers marking the places that the Union and Confederate armies were supposed to have camped on the same date. I can hit a golfball from one to the other, downhill mind you, but would they have camped that close together, was it common or are the markers misplaced?

It would have been common for the near edges of the encampments (the picket lines) to be that close or closer simply because the accurate range of the rifled muskets at the time is about that distance. The main encampments were probably a bit further apart though since artillery could fire quite a bit further than a few hundred yards.

Also keep in mind that if you are southeast of Atlanta, meaning the encampment was during the March to the Sea, then the Confederate force would have been nothing more than a small cavalry detachment falling back before Sherman's advance. So they would have to keep close to keep the enemy in range (no artillery) but still have the ability to mount up and ride away if attacked.

I am doing no such thing. The legal code at the time clearly made owning slaves legitimate. In fact it was those who opposed the Fugitive Slave Law who held the position you describe, not those who owned the slaves.

Apparently you think that legitimacy depends solely on your own personal beliefs. Once again that's the point of view that the Southerners tried so hard to get away from.


Flipflop and waffle.
EITHER slavery is OK.
Or Slavery is NOT OK.

I am doing no such thing. The legal code at the time clearly made owning slaves legitimate. In fact it was those who opposed the Fugitive Slave Law who held the position you describe, not those who owned the slaves.

Apparently you think that legitimacy depends solely on your own personal beliefs. Once again that's the point of view that the Southerners tried so hard to get away from.

So you maintain that as long as the law says it's okay, it's okay to own another human being?

So you maintain that as long as the law says it's okay, it's okay to own another human being?


Naw, it aint okay, but we really ought to be more compassionate for those poor maligned slave-owners.

Flipflopping and waffle.
EITHER slavery is OK.
Or Slavery is NOT OK.

Slavery is not OK, I doubt you will find much disagreement about that... certainly not from me. What I have been trying to do is point out to you why the South did what it did. You have already said that you refuse to see things from the slaveowner's point of view. That is not the path to wisdom.

Plato wrote his dialogues because in order to grow intellectually it is necessary to see a point from more than one side. There's an old saying about not judging a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins. Taking the position that someone cannot have ANY legitimate thoughts or concerns simply because they hold one belief that you disagree with is silly. The Greeks believed in slavery... should we then dismiss everything they thought and did? That would be idiotic.

As I tried to point out in my first post your tagline shows that you hold the same core beliefs that the southerners held (and acted upon.) The one difference is that you detest slavery. Had you been raised from birth in an area that was dominated by slaveholding, who's very social and economic structure depended on slavery's existence, there is a pretty good chance that you would fight back against anything that threatened the destruction of everything around you even if you did believe that slavery was wrong.

So you maintain that as long as the law says it's okay, it's okay to own another human being?

No, I do not. What I have been trying to do is get people to see things from the southerner's point of view AT THE TIME and why they did what they did. As they say the winner writes the history books... and the loser gets villified.

The Greeks believed in slavery... should we then dismiss everything they thought and did? That would be idiotic.



Not a good comparison. Over 2000 years ago vs over 140 years ago.

More waffle.

You either approve of whatever it takes to end slavery - or you defend it.
So what is it to be? Do you approve unconditionally of whatever it takes to extirpate slavery, or not?

Your beloved slaveowners considered humans property.
That puts 'em beyond the pale.

I don't give a hoot about Plato.
I go by straightforward moral clarity, and zero moral ambiguity.

So, one more attempt:
do you believe, with all of your soul, and all of your might, that slavery is WRONG and that the slightest form of consideration for a slaveowner is detestable and immoral, or not?
It's a simple question: just answer YES or NO.

Not a good comparison. Over 2000 years ago vs over 140 years ago.

And the difference is? Both were in the past, both held the same views on slavery.

But if it makes you feel better then change the civilization to 18th century England... or any other before the 19th century, they pretty much all believed in slavery.

More waffle.

You either approve of whatever it takes to end slavery - or you defend it.
So what is it to be? Do you approve unconditionally of whatever it takes to extirpate slavery, or not?

Your beloved slaveowners considered humans property.
That puts 'em beyond the pale.

I don't give a hoot about Plato.
I go by straightforward moral clarity, and zero moral ambiguity.

You are overlooking one major point. The mindset of people. There was nothing wrong with owning slaves at certain times. People like to disparage Jefferson for having some. In his time, it was expected.

Does it make it right? Of course not. However, it is not right to apply modern morality to the past. People were diffent. They thought different. What you should do is look at their failings and learn from them rather then basically labeling them as Hitler/Stalin/Khan/whatever.

And the difference is? Both were in the past, both held the same views on slavery.

But if it makes you feel better then change the civilization to 18th century England... or any other before the 19th century, they pretty much all believed in slavery.

Well the only thing they really share is the fact they are in the past.

In the time of the Greeks, can you name any large anti-slavery movement? It was expected.

Eighteenth century England makes sense as yes slavery was around but there were many that thought it wrong.

It's a nitpick I admit! ;)

More waffle.

You either approve of whatever it takes to end slavery - or you defend it.
So what is it to be? Do you approve unconditionally of whatever it takes to extirpate slavery, or not?

Your beloved slaveowners considered humans property.
That puts 'em beyond the pale.

I don't give a hoot about Plato.
I go by straightforward moral clarity, and zero moral ambiguity.

So, one more attempt:
do you believe, with all of your soul, and all of your might, that slavery is WRONG and that the slightest form of consideration for a slaveowner is detestable and immoral, or not?
It's a simple question: just answer YES or NO.

Do you approve unconditionally the same thing? Even if it took slaughtering everyone who ever believed in slavery down to the last man, woman and child? That would be a far worse evil.

And your 'simple question' is actually two. To which the answers are yes followed by no. If you have not the slightest form of consideration for the slaveowners then you should have no trouble at all putting my solution above into effect... which would put you right up there with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all those others who think that those who hold a differing point of view on a subject deserve to die.

You are overlooking one major point. The mindset of people. There was nothing wrong with owning slaves at certain times. People like to disparage Jefferson for having some. In his time, it was expected.

Does it make it right? Of course not. However, it is not right to apply modern morality to the past. People were diffent. They thought different. What you should do is look at their failings and learn from them rather then basically labeling them as Hitler/Stalin/Khan/whatever.

I can see where you're coming from... but it's a slippery slope.
Too slippery for my taste.
Excuse people on account of their viewpoint, and what standard have you left to judge people with?

By Jefferson's time, Jefferson himself was of the opinion that there was something rotten in the state of Virginia.
That being so... why excuse his descendants of 2 generations later?

Do you approve unconditionally the same thing? Even if it took slaughtering everyone who ever believed in slavery down to the last man, woman and child? That would be a far worse evil.

And your 'simple question' is actually two. To which the answers are yes followed by no. SNIP.

As God is my witness.... HELL YES!!!!

Better to fill the land with blood for a year than to let slavery continue for another generation.

It's once again, a straightforward choice.
John Brown or Bobby Lee...

You'd rather spare the guilty, than defend the rights of the oppressed.

The division of the question into 2 parts is detestable.
Morality is simply black and white, and any form of grey is a shade of black.

The South should have been allowed to secede; slavery was on the way out.

Personally, I believe a slow, peaceful breakdown of slavery (which was destined to happen) would have been preferrable to the hasty Reconstruction of the South.

I do not support slavery; it is detestable no matter how you look at it -- my belief, however, is that the South would have phased slavery out and slowly granted the freed slaves equal citizenship. Perhaps violent cases of racism, Jim Crow laws, etc. could have all been avoided through this slower approach.

To those of you who fully support the Union's decisons (forbidding secession; crushing resistance; Reconstruction), do you also support Bush's decision to invade Iraq (regardless of the reasons)? Would you also want the US to invade such countries as Sudan, etc. where genocide is taking place?

And who decides what is black and what is white? Some moral issues, such as abortion and the death penalty aren't exaclty universal values.

Nay on Iraq ( although it may turn out nicer than I'd dared hope in my post optimistic dreams),
and HELL YES on Sudan!

The South should have been allowed to secede; slavery was on the way out.

Personally, I believe a slow, peaceful breakdown of slavery (which was destined to happen) would have been preferrable to the hasty Reconstruction of the South.

I do not support slavery; it is detestable no matter how you look at it -- my belief, however, is that the South would have phased slavery out and slowly granted the freed slaves equal citizenship. Perhaps violent cases of racism, Jim Crow laws, etc. could have all been avoided through this slower approach.

To those of you who fully support the Union's decisons (forbidding secession; crushing resistance; Reconstruction), do you also support Bush's decision to invade Iraq (regardless of the reasons)? Would you also want the US to invade such countries as Sudan, etc. where genocide is taking place?
How is the war in Iraq at all comparable to the Civil War? And how is supporting the Civil War an indication of full support of the Union's decisions?

As God is my witness.... HELL YES!!!!

Better to fill the land with blood for a year than to let slavery continue for another generation.

It's once again, a straightforward choice.
John Brown or Bobby Lee...

You'd rather spare the guilty, than defend the rights of the oppressed.

The division of the question into 2 parts is detestable.
Morality is simply black and white, and any form of grey is a shade of black.

Morality is usually not black and white but is a matter of degrees. Adultery is considered immoral in most cultures. So is murder. So am I to take it that it would be totally in the realm of morality for me to go out and murder those who commit adultery? After all if morality is simply black and white then the two should be equivalent.

Here's another shade of grey for you. While the conditions of the slaves were
bad they were at least cared for... if for no other reason than the fact that a sick, starving slave can't do much work. But as the Union armies moved around the south and freed the slaves those same slaves suffered appalling conditions that led to tens of thousands of them dying of disease and starvation. Which condition was the evil one? Remember there is no grey area allowed, either keeping them fed but working under duress was evil or freeing them to starve to death was.

Hmmm... and while we're at it let me point out another problem that your absoluteness brings out. During the war many slaves escaped to territory held by the Union army and were put to work digging trenches and whatnot as 'contrabands.' They were forced to work for the armies by threat of force and were not compensated except for food and clothing. This made the Union armies and the federal government defacto slaveholders themselves. Lincoln let this slide because he was willing to use almost any tool to bring the seceeded states back into the union and because nobody could think of anything else to do with them. Since you have said already that you think that slaveholders can have no legitimate opinions... does this also apply to the opinions of a government that was using slaves at the same time it was trying to eliminate slavery? By your arguments this would include the opinion that the slaves should be freed in the first place.

See the danger in such blanket statements?

In other words, everything was better when Massa was taking care of the poor darkies?

PS: I'd so looooove to debate you on a radioshow or something like that.
Like clubbing babyseals!

Lincoln's main reason for going after the South was to preserve the union... such is made clear in his letters.

But when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he said he believed that ending slavery was right... so while it might not have been the #1 reason for going to war, it cannot be said that Lincoln was in favor of slavery... he was not zealously against it like so many Republicans of his day, but he did issue the Emancipation Proclamation and per Smithsonian magazine (Jan issue), he uttered words showing his anti-slavery beliefs.

In other words, everything was better when Massa was taking care of the poor darkies?

See you miss my point again... and in the process refuse to answer my question. It is you, not me, who has stated that morality is always a black and white issue with no wiggle room. Once again by your arguments there can be no 'better'... that would mean there is some shade of grey. There can only be moral or not moral. So I ask again, which was condition was the moral one?

That's your whole problem.
You try to make intellectual points.
Rather than pure gut-feeling stompers.
It's what makes you so utterly ineffective.

Now, to get back on topic:
We've established that your take on slavery idn't:
whatever it takes to wipe out the plague.

You'd talk... negotiate... flipflop... and waffle.
Yessir... things really get DONE that way.

That's your whole problem.
You try to make intellectual points.
Rather than pure gut-feeling stompers.
It's what makes you so utterly ineffective.

Umm... wow. Yeah, intellectual discussion is worthless, the only thing that counts is gut feeling, right?

Damn right!
Ask Dubya... or Kerry.

Oh.. yeah... while we're at it.... you might even add Saddam Hussayn.

Rational decisionmaking on the policy level has pretty much gone out of date with the German Imperial General Staff.

Check of proof.
Did anyone here vote in 2004 based on one of those lovely political tests of just which candidate fits your own profile?

That's your whole problem.
You try to make intellectual points.
Rather than pure gut-feeling stompers.
It's what makes you so utterly ineffective.

True I am making intellectual points, but why is that a problem? Surely you're not admitting that your arguments have no rationality behind them. I think therefore I make intellectual points. Since you refuse to make any intellectual points then I suppose you don't think either, which makes debating you about as pointless as debating my dog... who also doesn't think but goes only by his gut feelings.

True I am making intellectual points, but why is that a problem? Surely you're not admitting that your arguments have no rationality behind them. I think therefore I make intellectual points. Since you refuse to make any intellectual points then I suppose you don't think either, which makes debating you about as pointless as debating my dog... who also doesn't think but goes only by his gut feelings.


It is a problem because human decision making is not rational.

There are no intellectual points to be made.
You either follow John Brown.. or you dont.

That's on the discussion level.

On the practical level.... you either SOLVE issues like slavery... or you ARE indeed guilty of aiding it.

It is a problem because human decision making is not rational.

There are no intellectual points to be made.
You either follow John Brown.. or you dont.

That's on the discussion level.

On the practical level.... you either SOLVE issues like slavery... or you ARE indeed guilty of aiding it.

And you make the decision to follow John Brown how? Do you think about what he did and make your decision or do you follow him blindly because that is what your gut feeling is? Are your gut feelings never wrong? And how would you know if it was right or wrong if you didn't give the matter any thought?

On the practical level.... you either SOLVE issues like slavery... or you ARE indeed guilty of aiding it.

So you're guilty of aiding genocide in Rwanda? Unless, of course you're over there fighting it, by your logic you would be guilty of that.

But then, you've already stated you have no use for logic, reason, or rational thought so I don't know why I bother. Probably because I'm so amazed that someone exists who honestly thinks humanity should operate from gut feeling alone.

The South should have been allowed to secede; slavery was on the way out.

Arguable. My Cousin of the time wrote hearing her husband and friends talking about getting the trade going again.


Personally, I believe a slow, peaceful breakdown of slavery (which was destined to happen) would have been preferrable to the hasty Reconstruction of the South.

The problem was the fact that they were getting pissed about not getting anymore slave states added to the union.


I do not support slavery; it is detestable no matter how you look at it -- my belief, however, is that the South would have phased slavery out and slowly granted the freed slaves equal citizenship. Perhaps violent cases of racism, Jim Crow laws, etc. could have all been avoided through this slower approach.

Meh.....I kind of doubt it. Speaking from the same diary my cousin wrote about getting rather annoyed about "upity" slaves getting an attitude and acting like they were equal in the occupied territories(her town changed hands a few times).


To those of you who fully support the Union's decisons (forbidding secession; crushing resistance; Reconstruction),


Hmmmmmmm seceding? If you do then the Consitituion really doensn't apply to you anymore. Kind of makes you open for conquest just like the tribal lands. Crushing resistence? Hmmmm who fired first?


do you also support Bush's decision to invade Iraq (regardless of the reasons)?


Nope.

Would you also want the US to invade such countries as Sudan, etc. where genocide is taking place?

Yes.

Dear god, this romanticism associated with the confederacy is sickening.

Accept it slack jawed southerns, YOU LOST - you and your whole black hating, homo hating, evangelical preaching junta lost the war.

Stop trying to resist the bloody obvious - liberalism has won (no, not Liberal with a capital L).

They lost the battles, but they run the country now. :(

We'd have been better off letting them go.

So you're guilty of aiding genocide in Rwanda? Unless, of course you're over there fighting it, by your logic you would be guilty of that.

But then, you've already stated you have no use for logic, reason, or rational thought so I don't know why I bother. Probably because I'm so amazed that someone exists who honestly thinks humanity should operate from gut feeling alone.

Waffle.
Sorry Dude, not my country, and I ain't the deputized world police.
HOWEVER... the Mason Dixon line?
Right there in the good ole YOO ESS of A.

Waffle.

Maple syrup.

What's with this idea that if we just let slavery run it's course it would have eventually phased out? What are the positive aspects of setting back civil rights a generation or three?

Bugger if I know.
It's a darned shame that the proponents of letting nature run it's course were ever given childhood-vaccinations.

Bugger if I know.
It's a darned shame that the proponents of letting nature run it's course were ever given childhood-vaccinations.

Now now. Don't spoil your argument by going trollish.

What's with this idea that if we just let slavery run it's course it would have eventually phased out? What are the positive aspects of setting back civil rights a generation or three?

Because it would have phased out peacefully and through the actions of not just Northerners but also of Southerners? Thus, no Jim Crow Laws, KKK, etc.

Imagine welfare being eliminated instantly. Massive riots would insue; it would be chaos.

Imagine welfare being cut slowly over a longer period of time.

Tell me, of the two, which is preferrable?

Granted, both require government action; unlike slavery (which was industrially doomed to fail), welfare has no immediate need to fail; in fact, it breeds sponges.

Because it would have phased out peacefully and through the actions of not just Northerners but also of Southerners? Thus, no Jim Crow Laws, KKK, etc.


Then why were people upset that new states were getting added as non-slave states?

Why for example my cousin at the time wrote about discussions saying secession was good because they could get the slave trade going again?

Got any evidence to show it was getting phased out int he slave states?

*streaks through thread*

Because it would have phased out peacefully and through the actions of not just Northerners but also of Southerners? Thus, no Jim Crow Laws, KKK, etc.

Imagine welfare being eliminated instantly. Massive riots would insue; it would be chaos.

Imagine welfare being cut slowly over a longer period of time.

Tell me, of the two, which is preferrable?

Granted, both require government action; unlike slavery (which was industrially doomed to fail), welfare has no immediate need to fail; in fact, it breeds sponges.
I don't want to talk about welfare.

How long would this peaceful phase have taken? What laws would have been brought about to end slavery so that it never returned? If slavery was not doomed to fail but actually through some turn of events proved profitable in a certain industry, what would have kept that industry from acquiring slaves?

How long would this peaceful phase have taken? What laws would have been brought about to end slavery so that it never returned? If slavery was not doomed to fail but actually through some turn of events proved profitable in a certain industry, what would have kept that industry from acquiring slaves?

Well, industry would have been forced to purchase its slaves from the South, since importation was legally and Constitutionally outlawed since 1809. And culturally speaking, there was no way in hell that Northerners would support becoming dependent on the planter class. Plus, there were plenty of unemployed immigrants coming in to the North that could do the same thing as slaves but would cost less.

In addition, with nations like Britain patrolling the African coast to stop slave traders, it would have likely resulted in another trans-Atlantic war.

Well, industry would have been forced to purchase its slaves from the South, since importation was legally and Constitutionally outlawed since 1809. And culturally speaking, there was no way in hell that Northerners would support becoming dependent on the planter class. Plus, there were plenty of unemployed immigrants coming in to the North that could do the same thing as slaves but would cost less.

In addition, with nations like Britain patrolling the African coast to stop slave traders, it would have likely resulted in another trans-Atlantic war.
Maybe there would have just been less black slaves.

Section IX, Article 1. of the Confederate Constitution

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

And the difference is? Both were in the past, both held the same views on slavery.

Not actually true, Whyzardia. To the ancient Greeks (and the Persians, and the Iranians and Romans who followed them) slavery was a social position, and not even the lowest - a criminal was below a slave. There was no need for it to be for life, and it had no racial connotations at all.

Even more importantly, a slave was human. All of those civilizations had laws against the abuse of slaves, and many of them enshrined rights to own property and beget wealth for slaves, and even the right to buy one's own manumittance.

The modern slave trade, on the other hand, worked solely due to it's fundamental denial of the humanity of those it traded in. In many ways, it was a far less enlightened and inferior institution.

Originally Posted by CPT Jean-Luc Picard
The South should have been allowed to secede; slavery was on the way out.

Unfortunately, this wasn't the case. Slavery, as a general rule, had been uneconomical for over a thousand years by this point, due to the horse collar. It costs roughly the same to keep either a man or a horse; but with the invention of the Horse Collar, a horse could do more work.

So, why the modern slave trade? Because there's some things a horse can't do. The Trade began with the need for harvesters of Sugar Cane; it ended with the need for harvesters of Cotton.

Cotton was the lifeblood of the South; nothing else mattered a damn, economically. But the only way to pick Cotton is by hand, and that meant a strong need for cheap labour.

By the 1860s Cotton was no longer King, as it had been in the 1840s, since methods of producing light wools and Hemp clothing had been perfected, but that only made the Cotton growers more fearful of losing their ultra-cheap labour force.

Further, the issue of Slavery had grown to exist in and of itself, separate from the institution of Slavery. The South desperately wanted to see itself as the equal of the North, where it had once been it's Better, but the fact was, the North had the industry, the economy and the population the South lacked. The North looked down on the South due to Slavery; in response, the South made it's position that it had a superior culture and society, based on Slavery.

The South could not have ended Slavery without admitting it was wrong - an admission that would have been impossible under those political conditions.

Section IX, Article 1. of the Confederate Constitution

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Don't try to make it seem like the Confederacy planned to do away with slavery. BogMarsh has already quoted Stephen's Cornerstone speech where he said the conerstone principle upon which the Confederacy was founded was that blacks were naturally slaves.

As for the Confederate Constitution:

Article I, Section IX, Clause 4:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Article V, Section 2:

(I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Article V, Section 2:

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Article V, Section 3:

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=654

Don't try to make it seem like the Confederacy planned to do away with slavery.

That wasn't my intention at all. I never stated that they planned that. Someone previously implied that the South wanted to be able to begin the foreign slave trade again, and that clearly wasn't the case.

"...The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." the James Somesett Case 1772