OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 03:10:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Moby has his own weblog  (Read 21335 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #45 on: June 15, 2005, 12:55:42 AM »

Quote
A state does not have the Constitutional right to break from the Union in order to enslave human beings and sell them as product. This is why the South lost but militarily and morally

Geeez Mathew, how long has it been since you have taken a history class... Roll Eyes I hate to burst your bubble but it was the north who was doing all the trafficking in the slave trade. Also, slavery took place both north and south, even during the civil war the north had slavery going on in many of it's territories such as Maryland and Washington DC. If you are so offended by the Confederate flag, maybe you should be more offended by the American flag since slavery occurred mostly under it's banner.

I'm also proud of my ancestors who fought for the Missouri Confederate brigade and (gasp!) they even didn't own any slaves! Southerners did the right thing in protecting their homeland from the drunk immoral Yankees who came down and trashed the place for no reason. There is today still a huge divide between north and south. Just take a look at the morals and beliefs between these two regions and maybe most of your questions will be answered. I know when I get back to Missouri real soon it will feel good to fly the flag of which my brave ancestors fought under. 

Quote
You are mistaken. The South was right. The war was not over slavery, but over Constitutional state's rights. Someone call Joe Zollars!

Dam right it was!  By the way, what ever happened to Joe Zollars?

Quote
I would have to respectfully disagree with you. Most southerners, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed in gradual emancipation, and that it was inevitable. As I stated earlier, I believe that racisim (KKK, Lynchings and so forth) were the result of the north winning the war and the misery they put the south through during the "reconstruction" period.

The atrocities of the northern aggressors (ie..raping innocent women, killing innocent people, including kids, destroying innocent peoples homes and property ect....) voided the Yankees of any moral highground what so ever.

Yep, the whole tragedy of the war was the fact that slavery was winding down fast and would have ended in the 1880's naturally. When I read the history and accounts of what happened I am shocked by the brutality of the whole war. Something almost seems demonic about people killing each over just for the fact the north was powerhungry and that degenerate Abe Lincoln should have gone down in the history books as one of the biggest villians of our time. By the way, if he wasn't assassinated, he would have gone through with his plan to ship all the free slaves back to Africa or put them all in Florida......that's some humanitarian if I've ever seen one... Roll Eyes


Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #46 on: June 15, 2005, 01:27:04 AM »

even during the civil war the north had slavery going on in many of it's territories such as Maryland and Washington DC. If you are so offended by the Confederate flag, maybe you should be more offended by the American flag since slavery occurred mostly under it's banner.

Ummm, Nacho, Maryland and D.C. were never part of the North.  The US, yes but never 'northern.'

Quote
I'm also proud of my ancestors who fought for the Missouri Confederate brigade and (gasp!) they even didn't own any slaves! Southerners did the right thing in protecting their homeland from the drunk immoral Yankees who came down and trashed the place for no reason. There is today still a huge divide between north and south. Just take a look at the morals and beliefs between these two regions and maybe most of your questions will be answered. I know when I get back to Missouri real soon it will feel good to fly the flag of which my brave ancestors fought under. 

My ancestors fought for the south.  My parents grew up in the south during segregation.  Talk about morals and values to the black people who had to go to different schools and sit at the back of the bus.  The town my grandmother grew up in didn't allow any black people to spend the night.  Blacks couldn't stop and use the restroom while traveling across country.  According to my parents there was an underlying violence in the south of the 1940's and 1950's.  Black people knew that if they stepped out of line, they would be beaten and the police would do nothing.  My parents describe growing up in a culture that had a very ugly racism.  My mom's uncles would beat up black men because they could.  My grandmothers hired black women to do their laundry for next to nothing.  Every white people in the south knew that they had power over black people.  They would civil to the woman who came in the back door to do the laundry or the man who cut the grass but everyone knew the power structure. 

Things weren't much better in the north but it's a lie to suggest that they were better in the south.  The north had de facto segregation but the great migration proves that black people themselves much preferred the north, even with its de facto segregation. 

Logged
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #47 on: June 15, 2005, 01:50:34 AM »

Quote
Ummm, Nacho, Maryland and D.C. were never part of the North.  The US, yes but never 'northern.'

We'll have to disagree on this point. Every history book I have read has Maryland (well, most of the state) and DC on the side of the north. If you read the Emancipation Proclamation, it was only targeted at freeing slaves in northern territories during the war. Lincoln didn't do this because he loved black people, but instead to garner support among northerners against the south.

Quote
My ancestors fought for the south.  My parents grew up in the south during segregation.  Talk about morals and values to the black people who had to go to different schools and sit at the back of the bus.  The town my grandmother grew up in didn't allow any black people to spend the night.  Blacks couldn't stop and use the restroom while traveling across country.  According to my parents there was an underlying violence in the south of the 1940's and 1950's.  Black people knew that if they stepped out of line, they would be beaten and the police would do nothing.  My parents describe growing up in a culture that had a very ugly racism.  My mom's uncles would beat up black men because they could.  My grandmothers hired black women to do their laundry for next to nothing.  Every white people in the south knew that they had power over black people.  They would civil to the woman who came in the back door to do the laundry or the man who cut the grass but everyone knew the power structure.

Hmmm, I had no idea we were talking about the conditions in the south in the 1940's & 50's. I could have sworn we were discussing the merits of the war of northern aggression, but if you feel the need to by all means do so. I won't justify the way blacks were treated at all during that time. That was a horrible time in our history and I've wondered why blacks were treated so bad. The only thing that I can think of was that there was a huge over-reaction from the time of reconstruction where the south and it's people were treated in a very horrific manner. People to this day are still very bitter and the south in many ways has not recovered from the war.

Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2005, 02:00:58 AM »

Here's a nice website that shows the contribution of all the black confederates who fought for the south. There's also a big memorial at Arlington Cemetery dedicated to all the black confederates.  They have some pictures on the website of the memorial also. Believe it or not, many blacks have remained loyal to the confederacy also. A few years ago when Mississippi voted on wether they should keep the confederate flag on their state flag, 35% of the blacks voted to keep it. There are also many black members in confederate organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

http://www.rebelgray.com/blacksincombat.htm
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #49 on: June 15, 2005, 02:02:37 AM »

Bump!!!  Grin Yikes, post # 666!  Cheesy
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2005, 02:35:38 AM »

You know what... I bet that Moby would oppose both the Confederate flag and slavery. Smiley
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #51 on: June 15, 2005, 10:37:22 AM »

I think it's a misnomer to call it the "War of Northern Aggression" since the South started the conflict.ÂÂ  Regardless of who is right or wrong, it's like saying the U.S. started the war with Japan.

Jennifer,

Concerning current race relations, I have to go to where my parents grew up and where my wife's family lives, on the West and East coasts rrespectively to find widespread racist tendencies.ÂÂ  My cousins are Native Americans, my best friends in school were black, hispanic, native and white.ÂÂ  Especially between the black and white communities, there has always been a close relationship, whether there was discrimination or not.ÂÂ  

I'm reminded of a piece off NPR where a liberal African-American activist went to the South with her aging mother so her mom could see her home town again.ÂÂ  She didn't want to go to mix with the white racists.  When they first got to the town they went into a store where there was a white lady who recognized her mom.ÂÂ  It turns out that their families had been connected since time immemorial and that this white lady not only knew all of the activists aunts and uncles, but knew of her.ÂÂ  Her mom was very happy to see this lady.ÂÂ  Well, the activist just couldn't understand how her mother could be so happy to see her "oppressor."ÂÂ  As it turned out, she discovered that, while there was a lot of bigotry in the past, there was a lot of underground care and love in the South that has since been allowed to blossom.

When a black family moved into my aunt's neighborhood in Oregon I got to hear about how the neighborhood was going down.ÂÂ  Then I got a lecture on how we in the south mistreat blacks.ÂÂ  My folks live in a great neighborhood.ÂÂ  One of their closest friends is a Mexican lady.ÂÂ  Her husband is black.ÂÂ  There are no cross burnings.ÂÂ  They aren't excluded from anything.ÂÂ  Their son plays with my son.ÂÂ  

In PA and NJ I get to hear my in-laws talk one minute about civil rights and the next about how they don't want puerto ricans in the neighborhood.ÂÂ  My sister-in-law is puerto rican. 

After what happened in the 60s most people here are very conscious of these tendencies and have fought to acknowledge and overcome them.ÂÂ  Up North I find everyone has the attitude of, "that's down South, we don't have that problem here" all the while blacks in Boston can't go into certain neighborhoods to *look* for houses for sale.

We recognize the evils in our past and address them.ÂÂ  Yankees don't.ÂÂ  Yankees are destined to repeat their mistakes while we are correcting ours.ÂÂ

So see, the South is better.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Grin


As a PS, I just visited a Civil War battlefield in Oklahoma.ÂÂ  It was where Native Americans had fought in a bloody battle.ÂÂ  They were fighting for the South because the American army had practiced genocide for so many decades that they thought anything would be better than Washington.

I still think the South was wrong.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Grin
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 10:41:49 AM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2005, 10:51:10 AM »

Ummm, Nacho, Maryland and D.C. were never part of the North.ÂÂ  The US, yes but never 'northern.'

That despot's heal was upon my shore!

Some history --

In order to prevent Maryland from voting to secede from the Union -- which they had every right to do, in particular because Maryland was one of the voluntary parties to the very compact that created their servant, the federal government, in the first place -- "Honest" Abe Lincoln ordered Union soldiers to arrest several members of the Maryland state legislature and have them transported to Albany, New York where they were held for several years, incommunicado, without bail, in windowless cells, were refused all legal representation, had their right of habeus corpus suspended, and were denied all contact with their families who had no idea whether they were dead or alive. Lincoln went so far as to arrest many northern newspaper editors who were critical of his policies. He even attempted to arrest Roger Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of whose decisions he disapproved. To this day, the Maryland state song includes the stanza, "The despot's heel is upon thy shore, Maryland, Oh my Maryland," the despot being Abraham Lincoln.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8vzTgT4mjNkJ:www.instituteofhigherearning.com/thepip.html+despot%27s+heal&hl=en
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 10:58:24 AM by TomS » Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2005, 11:51:29 AM »

Hate to say it, but yeah.  Yeah it was.  The way the country was set up, each state could decide for themselves whether or not to hold slaves, as well as (and this was the more pressing issue) whether or not to even stay in the union or "go it alone" as their own entity (or, in the South's case, form a new union that favored states' rights over federal decree).

I understand that this is an emotional issue for lots of people.  Consequently, the South gets painted as being obsessed with slavery, the war gets painted as only being about slavery, and any means necessary become justified in order to get rid of slavery...even trashing the consitutional right of states to leave the union and do what they have sovreignly elected to do.

I agree.  The friction between both sides was there from the very beginning, and what brought things to a head in the mid-1800's was the expansion of US territory into the west.  New territories were being brought into the union and upsetting the existing balance of power, so to speak, and it was then possible for one side to impose its social worldview onto the other through the federal structures.  The Mexican-American War was essentially provoked by southerners for this very reason -- to gain more "southern" territory to counteract gains by the north.  Then there were the fugitive slave laws that forced northern police to round up runaway slaves for return to their Mas'ers.

There was plenty of meddling in each other's affairs by both sides, and neither could claim a clean conscience.  And I say that as an unadulterated proponent of states' rights and strict constitutional constructionism.  Lincoln should have allowed the split to occur.  In all the pro-Union polemics I've encountered, I've not read any argument offered as to why two separate countries would have been a bad thing.  We've seen peaceful splits in European and Soviet states over the last fifteen years (often at our behest!); we ought to walk the walk as well as we preach it to others.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 11:59:24 AM by Strelets » Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2005, 01:16:11 PM »

It seems to be an inevitable fate on on-line conservative fora to host a lot of posturing about how the South was in the right about the Civil War. Morally, you guys who say this don't have a leg to stand on. Slavery, both in theory and in practice, is so obviously unChristian that I refuse to even discuss it.

As for Maryland: as a native I'll presume to speak to the complication that was the attitude in this state. Some years ago I took a family friend from California out to Antiedam. As with Gettysburg, the area is sprinkled with markers, but most especially with memorials, and most of them commorate the units of particular states. We never did find the California memorial (it's tiny), but the Maryland memorial is only a hundred feet or so from the visitor's center. Well. When you go to the visitor's center, they ask you what state your from, and then they direct you to the memorial for your state's units. So when I tell the man at the desk that I'm from Maryland, he points out the memorial on the map (a big domed thing) and tells me that it commemorates eight units. And then, when I ask him how many on each side, he says, without batting an eye, "five union and three confederate".

Maryland was deeply conflicted. Central/western Maryland was typically pro-union; southeast and eastern shore (both heavy tobacco areas) were generally pro-slavery. Baltimore ran both ways. John Garratt, the president of the B&O Railroad at the time, was pro-union because (obviously) it would be better for the railroad. On the other hand, the "patriotic gore/that flecked the streets of Baltimore" occurred in the course of various riots which were put down forcibly in typical 19th century fashion.

As far as Lincoln's dealings with the state legislature: he had no real choice other than abandoning Washington DC entirely.

I really have to wonder at the romantic attachment to the failed Southern cause. It's over; the right side won; live with it.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2005, 03:04:11 PM »

Quote
Slavery, both in theory and in practice, is so obviously unChristian that I refuse to even discuss it.

As if anyone was justifying slavery. LOL. So go ahead, don't discuss it all you want, because you actually wouldn't have had anyone to discuss it with in the first place.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2005, 04:56:59 PM »

Justify southern secession, and you consent to slavery. Secession was the response to a national government in which it had become apparent that the opponents to slavery were well on their way to outlawing it.

I do not believe the claim that slavery would have died out naturally in the 1880s. People who are supposed to believe in the pervasiveness of sin ought not to believe in such a theory. Slavery was more than just a matter of economics; it was a matter of regional identity.If the war were an act of immoral aggression (and I'll be frank: I don't think it was), then why should I believe that all those slave-holding southerners were acting out of cool, well-reasoned moral and economic consideration? It's preposterous!

And as far as "northern aggression" is concerned: the firing on Sumter was a consent to war.
Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2005, 05:39:37 PM »

Quote
Justify southern secession, and you consent to slavery.

Package deal fallacy.

Quote
I do not believe the claim that slavery would have died out naturally in the 1880s.

Why not?  It naturally died out everywhere else in the world.  Do you know of another civil war that ended slavery?  Most of the world had already abandoned the practice.  It was only a matter of time until the industrial revolution caught up with the South.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #58 on: June 15, 2005, 08:52:33 PM »

Package deal fallacy.

Incorrect. Since the purpose of secession was defense of slavery, arguing for the former's legitimacy in this instance implies consent to the intended consequence. It's much the same as knowingly selling a gun to someone with the foreknowledge that they intend to use it in the commision of crimes.

Quote
Why not?  It naturally died out everywhere else in the world.

I do not think that that is true. From what I can see, it was largely put down through the efforts of the British Empire, and persisted (and still persists) in areas where British disapproval could not be adequately applied.

Quote
Do you know of another civil war that ended slavery?

The problem with the question is that the confederation that the South claimed the USA to be was not replicated elsewhere.

Quote
Most of the world had already abandoned the practice.  It was only a matter of time until the industrial revolution caught up with the South.

That is disputable. It is just as possible that the South would have become so wedded to cotton that it could have become an agricultural backwater.

I suppose this is the time to point out that, in the vent of successful scession, there would have almost certainly been war, eventually, over the wetern territories.
Logged
OrthodoxRobert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #59 on: June 15, 2005, 09:12:16 PM »

I used to buy in to the civil war propaganda until I realized that if the North was fighting to free the slaves because all men were equal, then why did Negroes have to ride in the back of the bus, could not drink from white water fountains, could not even sit on a white toilet if they were in fact equal?

 While they may have been freed by the North (Hogwash) they were not equal citizens in the eyes of the federal govt until a little over 40 years ago.

Robert
ICXC~NIKA
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 15, 2005, 09:45:26 PM »

It is hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would find the Confederacy to be more honorable than the Union and its succession to be justified. This insistence that the South won the war, in terms of being on the moral side, is one of the reasons why southerners are stereotyped as ignorant racists; whether or not this stereotype is justified.ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 09:46:21 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Jennifer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,154


« Reply #61 on: June 15, 2005, 10:21:44 PM »


That was a horrible time in our history and I've wondered why blacks were treated so bad. The only thing that I can think of was that there was a huge over-reaction from the time of reconstruction where the south and it's people were treated in a very horrific manner. People to this day are still very bitter and the south in many ways has not recovered from the war.


The idea that southern racism is a byproduct of the Reconstruction is a huge myth.  Have you ever read the slave codes?  Each southern state had a set of laws proscribing conduct for black (free or slave) people in the southern states.  Some states forbid free blacks to live there at all.  Every state forbid intermixing of the races. 

BTW, don't tell someone from Maryland that they're northerners. 

Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #62 on: June 15, 2005, 10:32:08 PM »

Incorrect. Since the purpose of secession was defense of slavery, arguing for the former's legitimacy in this instance implies consent to the intended consequence.

Says you.ÂÂ  Learned scholars on the matter disagree.ÂÂ  Your premise fails because it doesn't take into account other motives.ÂÂ  That's why your package deal fallacy is a fallacy.ÂÂ  Supporting one does not include the other, necessarily.ÂÂ  It could be that one believes in the state's right of succession (or more likely is against having his town and house torched by Yanks) and is against slavery, but is forced to make hard choices.

It's much the same as knowingly selling a gun to someone with the foreknowledge that they intend to use it in the commision of crimes.

Not quite.ÂÂ  The proper analogy would be: defending someone else's right to vote knowing full well they might vote for a Nazi or Ralph Nader.

I do not think that that is true. From what I can see, it was largely put down through the efforts of the British Empire, and persisted (and still persists) in areas where British disapproval could not be adequately applied.

British (or any) disapproval doesn't equate to war.ÂÂ  You've implicitly agreed that slavery can naturally die out without war.

The problem with the question is that the confederation that the South claimed the USA to be was not replicated elsewhere.

You didn't answer my question: Do you know of another civil war that ended slavery?

That is disputable. It is just as possible that the South would have become so wedded to cotton that it could have become an agricultural backwater.

Cotton isn't the problem, but the manner in which it's collected.ÂÂ  The use of human hands is an inefficient, labor-intensive means of collection.ÂÂ  Once the machinery of the industrial revolution took over the South, slavery would have lost its utility, as it did in the industrialized North and in Britain.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 10:33:41 PM by Strelets » Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 16, 2005, 02:03:25 AM »

It is hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would find the Confederacy to be more honorable than the Union and its succession to be justified. This insistence that the South won the war, in terms of being on the moral side, is one of the reasons why southerners are stereotyped as ignorant racists; whether or not this stereotype is justified.ÂÂ  

You should just be glad Joe Zollars doesn't post here anymore LOL.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #64 on: June 16, 2005, 02:52:28 AM »

Quote
Keble said: And as far as "northern aggression" is concerned: the firing on Sumter was a consent to war.

Wrong, wrong & wrong! It began before “Fort Sumter” was fired upon. Union soldiers fired upon the Virginian Capital in Richmond quite a while before that little incident. The Virginia Militia returned the volley by firing upon the President's Home (it was not named anything else at the time) in Washington. After several of these exchanges the President's home was black from all the gun powder so it was painted white to cover it up and from that point forward became known as the "White House". The war of northern aggression is called that for a reason. You just like to pull “Fort Sumter” out of the hat because you think it makes your case about who started what but some of us are a little bit more schooled in the “War Between the States”. First of all there was not a damn thing civil about it and second of all we had no desire to overthrow the union we just wanted to leave the marriage. While the south lost in the end it took almost 4 years and countless general commands for the Yankees to do what should have only taken 3 weeks. The south was footing the bill of the Federal Government and getting little in return from it. Kind of like paying for a hooker and not getting laid.  The Confederate flag has nothing to do with keeping anyone in there place and everything to do with the backbone of the spirit America has always had…Stop trying to play the card you are playing because it is one argument you will not win….

Quote
Keble said: Incorrect. Since the purpose of secession was defense of slavery, arguing for the former's legitimacy in this instance implies consent to the intended consequence. It's much the same as knowingly selling a gun to someone with the foreknowledge that they intend to use it in the commision of cricommissionte

Really? How do you know that slavery was the purpose of succession? Were you aware there was slavery in northern territories at the time of the war? Please explain to me why the union didn't free these slaves until the emancipation proclamation well into the war if their intentions from the start was to "just free the slaves." Were you aware that many politicans and military personal on the side of the north were slave owners themselves? The north was just as racist, if not more racist than the south at the time. The north didn't even allow blacks to live in many areas because of thier racism and the fact they thought blacks would take their jobs by providing much cheaper labor. Your average northerner would have laughed in your face if you told them they were going down there to free the slaves. You would also shudder at many of the comments Grant & Lincoln made about blacks. Again, you can't win the arguement by just making blanket statements that the sole purpose of succession was to defend slavery. That may have been AN issue, but by far it was not the MAIN issue. Less that 5% of the confederate soldiers were slave owners themselves. 

Robert E. Lee, who owned no slaves, and did not agree with the idea of slavery, spent many long days deciding whether or not to command the Union forces, as he was a West Pt graduate and a career Union officer, or to join his native state of Virginia in sucession. As a secessiond, Lee's father was Harry "Light Horse" Lee, a hero of the Revolutionary War, and one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence. Lee was married to one of George Washington's adopted grand daughters. Lee knew more about the true nature of and meaning of what the original Founding Fathers intended than anyone today does, he was that close to the beginning, and he decided that what the South was doing was morally and legally justified. That fact alone carries significant weight with me. Lincoln was a tool of Northern Industrialists who wanted to preserve their industry and profits by benefiting from the captive market of the South (prohibitive tarriffs on the South for importing foreign goods), and also was interested in maintaining the Union because the majority of tax revenues at the time came from said tarriffs on goods. The founding principle behind the War was, and will ever remain, greed on the part of the Union.


Quote
Mathew said: It is hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would find the Confederacy to be more honorable than the Union and its succession to be justified. This insistence that the South won the war, in terms of being on the moral side, is one of the reasons why southerners are stereotyped as ignorant racists; whether or not this stereotype is justified.

Me thinks you need to do a little more research. You speak of ignorance on the south's part as if you are some kind of authority on THIS issue, but your lack of knowledge is really showing though here. If you every go the south, you would be surprised to see many blacks wearing confederate flag shirts like many of their white counterparts and other paraphnelia. Hmm, maybe they are also proud of their rich confederate history? 1/3 of the blacks in Misissippi voted to keep the confederate flag on their state flag and you will find many blacks participate in confederate organizations like the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Go tell those people they are ignorant and the South was wrong. Below I have a picture of H.K. Edgerton, former president of the Asheville NAACP of North Caorlina & ardant supporter of the Confederate flag/Southern Heritage.

Quote
Jennifer said:BTW, don't tell someone from Maryland that they're northerners.

Yea, I have heard some people from Maryland express much more southern views. It was very split at the time.

Quote
You should just be glad Joe Zollars doesn't post here anymore LOL.

Hehe, what happened Mr. Zollars? Did he go off the deep end? He used to post here so much.. Smiley.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 03:07:13 AM by Nacho » Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #65 on: June 16, 2005, 05:57:55 AM »

I really have to wonder at the romantic attachment to the failed Southern cause. It's over; the right side won; live with it.

The Confederacy was the fulfillment of the American Experiment, the putting into practice for the first time since the founding of the republic the principle of Government by Consent of the Governed, and the right of the people to abolish a government that they do not believe to be acting in their best interest.

'That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'
--Declaration of Independence

Though as a Monarchist I have little sympathy for the American Ideal, what must be said of the Confederates is that they were consistant in their political beliefs. The union cause was inherently hypocritical, trying to deny the Confederacy that for which all the colonies had fought together 'four score and seven years' previous; their victory destroyed the theory of Government by consent of the Governed, and reasserted the far more ancient principle of Government by force of arms.

For these reasons the War between the States is not something that should be simply ignored, but should be heald up as an example, as obvious as the atrocities of the French Revolution and rize of the Nazis Germany, of the failure of Democratic and Republican systems and the theory of self governnment by the masses and evidence of the superiority of Monarchy as a means of securing both Security and Liberty over said Governments, for 'The Tyranny of a Majority is a Tyranny Multiplied.'

For those who honestly and without hypocracy support the theory of self-government, the Confederacy is the high water-mark of their Cause. For those of us who reject such theories of Government, the Confederacy is simply the natural and expected result of the 1776 rebellion against the Crown; and often, there is disgust at the hypocracy that the Union demonstrated in opposing, by force of arms, the secession of the southern states, while themselves openly flouting the Authority of the Crown.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 05:59:21 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #66 on: June 16, 2005, 07:37:22 AM »

Says you.  Learned scholars on the matter disagree.  Your premise fails because it doesn't take into account other motives.  That's why your package deal fallacy is a fallacy.  Supporting one does not include the other, necessarily.  It could be that one believes in the state's right of succession (or more likely is against having his town and house torched by Yanks) and is against slavery, but is forced to make hard choices.

Weenie words. The "hard choice" in this case is precisely the consent to use state's rights to continue slavery.

Quote
Not quite.  The proper analogy would be: defending someone else's right to vote knowing full well they might vote for a Nazi or Ralph Nader.

Your use of the word "might" invalidates this analogy. The reference to states' rights was entirely to justify the continuation of slavery. Also, to be more precise your analogy would have to be to a state sending senators to vote against bills to outlaw slavery. And conversely, the the personal example would be that someone would be able to declare his property free of any government and thus hold slaves in definace of the law.

Quote
British (or any) disapproval doesn't equate to war.  You've implicitly agreed that slavery can naturally die out without war.

"Die out" and "suppress" are not synonyms. It can be inferred that I do not have an example of another case where slavery was suppressed as a result of a civil war, but it's abundantly clear that in almost all cases it was suppressed by force of law and not abandoned simply because it was uneconomic. As far as "war" is conerned, one of the factors of in the suppression of the slave trade in S. America was the British use of military force to suppress it.

As for the claim that industrialization would have brought it to an end simply on economic grounds: I don't think so. Particularly in the 19th century, industrialization was supported by a lot of hard manual unskilled labor. Raw materials still must be mined or farmed or cut down.

But in any case, the claim that industrialization would have made slavery redundant is historically unproven. One might just as well argue from history that the legal suppression of the slave economy provided areas with the incentive to industrialize.

Slave labor was never important to the local economies of the North and of England, even before industrialization. The economic penalty to banning it locally was low. But it was, after all, the cotton gin that enabled the cotton economy. You are making very sweeping, vague assertions, but the detail of actual history suggests that slavery would have held on to its economic advantage even into the present. In fact, there are continuing allegations of slave labor in Chinese factories.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #67 on: June 16, 2005, 08:05:35 AM »

It began before “Fort Sumter” was fired upon. Union soldiers fired upon the Virginian Capital in Richmond quite a while before that little incident. The Virginia Militia returned the volley by firing upon the President's Home (it was not named anything else at the time) in Washington. After several of these exchanges the President's home was black from all the gun powder so it was painted white to cover it up and from that point forward became known as the "White House".

This is at least partly nonsense. It was being called the white house at least as far back as 1811; British orders concerning it in the war of 1812 refer to it by that name. (The orders were disobeyed and it was burned anyway.)

I can find no reference to any such pair of skirmishes, but given that your statement about the White House is totally off-base, I'm disinclined to accept your claim that it even happened without evidence of the highest possible standard. I fell no need to step up to the issue as to whether anyone considered such actions as causi belli.

No time for the rest right now-- I have to get to work.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #68 on: June 16, 2005, 08:45:01 AM »

Quote
their victory destroyed the theory of Government by consent of the Governed, and reasserted the far more ancient principle of Government by force of arms.

Now I'd be surprised if you had a problem with that, Connie.  Grin
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 09:14:17 AM by SonofAslan » Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #69 on: June 16, 2005, 09:19:17 AM »

Quote
but it's abundantly clear that in almost all cases it was suppressed by force of law and not abandoned simply because it was uneconomic.

Then look at how it was abolished after the Civil War in states like Maryland and Delawre. They WON the war, it wasn't suppressed by force of arms, and it wasn't til well after the war that states began to abolish slavery. Through no force of arms.

Quote
Weenie words. The "hard choice" in this case is precisely the consent to use state's rights to continue slavery.

This is silliness. The North was never, not at any moment, fighting to free slaves, so just how is it you think the South was fighting to “continue slavery”? And if this is the case, please tell me why a white southerner who didn’t own any slaves and never would was fighting? He had no vested interest in perpetuating slavery, so what was his interest? Pretty much the same as the Colonies during the Revolution. He just didn’t want some “foreigner” telling him what to do. And THAT’S what the war was about.

Southern slaves were never threatened. Lincoln had said repeatedly that it was not his purpose to free slaves, although he did want to keep slavery from spreading. When he finally issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it caused riots in New York because they didn’t want to fight to free black people. They were and are every bit as racist as any southerner. The only reason the North didn’t have Jim Crow laws is because they didn’t need them. When your black population is that low, you don’t need laws to “protect” whites. In the south blacks were a majority of the population and whites were denied the right to vote during Reconstruction.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #70 on: June 16, 2005, 09:20:53 AM »

Quote
Slavery, both in theory and in practice, is so obviously unChristian that I refuse to even discuss it.

Just wanted to make it obvious so some people, if they choose to respond  Grin, will see it.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #71 on: June 16, 2005, 09:28:12 AM »

The war of northern aggression is called that for a reason.

Yeah-- southernist propaganda.

Quote
You just like to pull “Fort Sumter” out of the hat because you think it makes your case about who started what but some of us are a little bit more schooled in the “War Between the States”.

You are raving. I don't believe your "fired on the President's House" story, which is really the only material comment you have to offer here. The rest, except for the divorce part, is a farrago of irrelevant posturing.

And as far as the divorce thing is concerned, it's about time you loudmouths took "until death do us part" more seriously.

Quote
Really? How do you know that slavery was the purpose of succession? Were you aware there was slavery in northern territories at the time of the war?

How do I know it? Because every single legitimate (and I emphasize "legitimate" in the vain hope of forestalling the next out burst of amateur southernist claptrap) historian I've ever read points to that as the starting point. Pointing to the exceptional northern slaves is not going to change the general tenor of the conflict.

As for Lincoln's tactics, I feel no compulsion to justify them. War, as you have already been instructed, is hell. It's hard enough to get through this without having to hack my way through the casuistry of wartime ethics.

Also, racial opinions are irrelevant and even anachronistic. The war was not about civil rights by race; it was about slavery.

I can respect Lee's sense of moral conflict. I think he made the wrong choice, but his decision was honorably made. Nonetheless, it does not legitimize the Southern cause.

Quote
The founding principle behind the War was, and will ever remain, greed on the part of the Union.

I see assertions to the effect that one of the issues in the territories was the fear by white settlers of competition from slave labor. I can believe this. Bt when push comes to shove, the looms of Massachusetts needed the cotton of Texas, for cotton does not grow in New England. If greed were that important a factor, the war would have been to conducted to seize the plantations of the south and operate them as before. You speak as if Uncle Tom's Cabin had never been published.

As far as personal authority is concerned: I have done basic internet research behind almost every point I've made here. I'm not posting links simply because I don't have the time to do that much more typing. You are as secondary a source as I am, and after the White House twaddle, I'm going to expect a solid source for your revisionist statements.

Quote
If you every go the south, you would be surprised to see many blacks wearing confederate flag shirts like many of their white counterparts and other paraphnelia.

Nacho, I went to Charlotte NC every single summer for some fifteen years up until the year you were born. You simply have no experience of how much the South has changed since I was a little child. The last time I was that far south was about fourteen years ago, and the contrast between my grandmother and younger people in the area was jarring. (I note particularly a dinner at her retirement palace featuring a very thrown off young black man who had to suffer through waiting upon us. It was so surreal that I cannot remember exactly what was said and done.) It's mostly safe for blacks in some areas to cling to a confederate heritage. Was it safe when I was a child? I don't believe so.
Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #72 on: June 16, 2005, 10:06:52 AM »

GreekisChristian,

Quote
For those who honestly and without hypocracy support the theory of self-government, the Confederacy is the high water-mark of their Cause. For those of us who reject such theories of Government, the Confederacy is simply the natural and expected result of the 1776 rebellion against the Crown; and often, there is disgust at the hypocracy that the Union demonstrated in opposing, by force of arms, the secession of the southern states, while themselves openly flouting the Authority of the Crown.

All this subject of the Crown has to say is...  Grin

Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #73 on: June 16, 2005, 10:33:31 AM »

Then look at how it was abolished after the Civil War in states like Maryland and Delaware. They WON the war, it wasn't suppressed by force of arms, and it wasn't til well after the war that states began to abolish slavery. Through no force of arms.

I would count enforcement of the law as force of arms.

Quote
This is silliness. The North was never, not at any moment, fighting to free slaves, so just how is it you think the South was fighting to “continue slavery”?

I've explained it once, and I'm not going to repeat it after this. The issues of federalism and slavery cannot be separated; the issue was not some abstract political principle, but the very real fear that the federal government would move to outlaw slavery entirely.

Quote
And if this is the case, please tell me why a white southerner who didn’t own any slaves and never would was fighting?

Because human beings are not simply creatures of some sort of economic Darwinism; they do things for lots of other reasons. Honestly, I would think that Christians, of all people, realize that people simply do not work this way. They are full of sinful desires and contradictory impulses. Cupidity isn't the only sinful desire out there.

And your statement that Lee (to whom I believe you refer)"[...] just didn’t want some “foreigner” telling him what to do" is just not accurate. Lee specifically decided based on his sense of duty to his home state. This is endlessly documented.

Jim Crow laws date from the 1890s. After 25 years, fears of a black postwar revolt were certainly unjustified.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #74 on: June 16, 2005, 11:51:54 AM »

Quote
I would count enforcement of the law as force of arms.

There was no law to be enforced by supposed force of arms until they passed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. It wasn't simply a law but an amendment to Maryland's state Constitution, and that's also how it happened with the other states as well. Unless you want to say the constitutional amendment was passed through force of arms, which I think is a bit extreme.

Quote
Because human beings are not simply creatures of some sort of economic Darwinism; they do things for lots of other reasons.

And yet you want to claim THE causes the South was fighting for was to continue slavery?

Quote
Jim Crow laws date from the 1890s. After 25 years, fears of a black postwar revolt were certainly unjustified.

Jim Crow laws weren't passed for fear of blacks revolting. They were passed to protect the rights of white folk. The fear wasn't rebellion. It was that too many black people would gain political office and white folk would be left out in the cold or worse, be treated the same way they had treated black folk.

why in the world did you think I was referring to Lee? "He" referred to white southerners in general, who were the people making up the state legislatures which voted to secede because, again, they didn't want some "foreigner" telling them what to do.

If you are so convinced that federalism and slavery can't be separated and that this is the the South went to war, i.e. to "protect their slaves", then why were 5 out of 20 Union States including Washington DC slave states? If the North was so eager to go free slaves in the South, why didn't they do it in their own states? And if they weren't eager to free slaves in the South, then your argument that the South was fighting to protect their slaves is false, because their slaves weren't threatened. Unless you just think that all the Southern States were stupid and just thought the North was going to take away their slaves. I think you need to go read the documents written by those who argued for secession, I doubt you will ever once find a "they're going to take away our slaves" position.

Now I'm not one who claims that the North was the great evil invader. I think there are issues to be considered on both sides. But your statements about the reasons the war was fought are simply wrong. The North wanted to preserve the Union and the South wanted the right to self-determination, and the North was never EVER going to take away the South's slaves. That is a ridiculous assertion. I would have taken at least 100 years before that would have ever been considered given the mindset of the country and whites in general.

What I do think is that it was hypocritical of the North to fight to preserve the Union when what the South was after was exactly the same thing the colonies were after when they revolted against Britain. But it is also hypocritical of the South to fight for self-determination when that is exactly what they were denying black people. So,....

But your historical understanding of the war is simply wrong.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 12:02:56 PM by SonofAslan » Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #75 on: June 16, 2005, 11:52:53 AM »

This is silliness.

Yep.  The comment about the British suppressing slavery in South America said it all.  I'm through with this one.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #76 on: June 16, 2005, 11:57:41 AM »

Quote
If you every go the south, you would be surprised to see many blacks wearing confederate flag shirts like many of their white counterparts and other paraphnelia.

Well, I live in the South and have all my life, and I've never seen that. That would simply be ignorance on the part of those black kids. For blacks, the confederacy is slavery. My argument with others is that wasn't the case for whites. They were fighting the war for other reasons. And the North was no more interested in black civil rights than the South was.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #77 on: June 16, 2005, 12:44:01 PM »

I've seen it, although more in the past than now, since it's been so politicized.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
ExOrienteLux
Waning: Spoilers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 183



« Reply #78 on: June 16, 2005, 12:49:52 PM »

The Confederacy was the fulfillment of the American Experiment, the putting into practice for the first time since the founding of the republic the principle of Government by Consent of the Governed, and the right of the people to abolish a government that they do not believe to be acting in their best interest.

[snip]

Though as a Monarchist I have little sympathy for the American Ideal, what must be said of the Confederates is that they were consistant in their political beliefs. The union cause was inherently hypocritical, trying to deny the Confederacy that for which all the colonies had fought together 'four score and seven years' previous; their victory destroyed the theory of Government by consent of the Governed, and reasserted the far more ancient principle of Government by force of arms.

For these reasons the War between the States is not something that should be simply ignored, but should be heald up as an example, as obvious as the atrocities of the French Revolution and rize of the Nazis Germany, of the failure of Democratic and Republican systems and the theory of self governnment by the masses and evidence of the superiority of Monarchy as a means of securing both Security and Liberty over said Governments, for 'The Tyranny of a Majority is a Tyranny Multiplied.'

For those who honestly and without hypocracy support the theory of self-government, the Confederacy is the high water-mark of their Cause. For those of us who reject such theories of Government, the Confederacy is simply the natural and expected result of the 1776 rebellion against the Crown; and often, there is disgust at the hypocracy that the Union demonstrated in opposing, by force of arms, the secession of the southern states, while themselves openly flouting the Authority of the Crown.

I have to agree with Augustine on this one.   Grin

Who's for establishing an American Monarchy?

-Philip.
Logged

Arise, O God! Judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations!
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #79 on: June 16, 2005, 12:51:15 PM »

Then look at how it was abolished after the Civil War in states like Maryland and Delaware.

Delaware, it is true, was one of the the last states to have emancipation. By that point there were only a couple of hudred slaves left in the state.

Maryland was emancipated in November 1864, over a year before federal emancipation took effect. The only state in which sizable numbers of slaves were emancipated by the 13th amendment was Kentucky, because it was the only other holdout, with Delaware.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #80 on: June 16, 2005, 12:56:12 PM »

Philip,

I'm all for it.ÂÂ  I've been looking for something more difficult to shoot at.   Grin

I'm all for constitutional monarch, as I've explained before on other threads.

You get a monarchy here in the U.S. and I'd expect my Serbian church to be burned down in about three weeks.

No thanks. 
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,372



« Reply #81 on: June 16, 2005, 12:57:01 PM »

Yep.ÂÂ  The comment about the British suppressing slavery in South America said it all.ÂÂ  I'm through with this one.

All I can tell you is that is what the sources I've found say.
Logged
SonofAslan
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #82 on: June 16, 2005, 01:04:02 PM »

All I can tell you is that is what the sources I've found say.


You can't take sources uncritically, though.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #83 on: June 16, 2005, 01:13:59 PM »

Concerning all this slavery nonsense,

Yeah, sure, it was a factor - for the North.  My YankeeMichigan family was abolitionist.  They joined the war specifically to end slavery.  My white Southern family joined up to fight against Lincoln's interference in their business.  My native Southern family joined because they wanted to fight the federal government.

Was slavery THE issue?  Sure, for my Yankee family.  It wasn't for my Southern family. ÂÂ

I'm not quoting here, but anyone who says that all credible Civil War historians say the issue was just slavery is full of crap.  I haven't heard the BS for ten years.  It was *a* factor, not *the* factor.  It was *the* excuse for the North.  That doesn't make it *the* factor.

What's really dang funny in my book is that my wife's family got here way after the Civil War was over, were put in a "company" house, had to buy everything from the company store, worked underground in a coal mine for hours and got paid diddly squat.  The rich Yankees built luxury lakes and let the dam burst open to kill the slug workers in the town. ÂÂ

I get so sick of hearing pontificating Yankees make themselves feel good about keeping blacks from living in their neighborhoods because they are yankees and the Yankees "freed" the slaves.  What help did the North give to the blacks who were then "share croppers?"  NONE.  Dude, they were STILL slaves.  Some of them were effectively slaves up until the 1960s, and the Yankees weren't addressing their OWN inequities in their OWN towns. ÂÂ

I'm sorry, ladies, but the racial problems in housing in Chicago, Boston, Long Island, etc. are well documented and continue today.ÂÂ  If that happened here in Houston there would be an army of New Yorkers on their bull horns screaming about inequities.ÂÂ  We have our pockets of stupidity and we know it.ÂÂ  Far Southeastern Texas is one of the worst places I've ever seen for this kind of crap, but man they prosecute.ÂÂ  A couple of teenagers burned a cross as a joke in our neighborhood about four years ago.ÂÂ  They finished high school in the prison in Huntsville.ÂÂ  Y'all talk about slavery like it was all racial while you perfect Yankees were preaching the love of Jesus.ÂÂ  Bull. ÂÂ You were killing your immigrant workers in SLAVE labor in dress factories and mines and letting them BURN to death after slavery was gone from the South.ÂÂ  Take the beam out.ÂÂ  When y'all achieve sainthood, come on down and tell us how to live.ÂÂ  In the mean time . . . . fill in the blank.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 01:17:26 PM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #84 on: June 16, 2005, 01:19:44 PM »

Dangit, maybe I'm more sympathetic to you dang Southern revisionist apologists after all.   Shocked Grin
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
ExOrienteLux
Waning: Spoilers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 183



« Reply #85 on: June 16, 2005, 01:25:06 PM »

Philip,

I'm all for it.  I've been looking for something more difficult to shoot at.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Grin

I'm all for constitutional monarch, as I've explained before on other threads.

You get a monarchy here in the U.S. and I'd expect my Serbian church to be burned down in about three weeks.

No thanks.ÂÂ  

Yeah, I should have clarified.  "Constitutional Monarchy" is general better, so long as the Monarch actually has some power, ie. head of state and head of government.

I think that one's religious views seriously colour one's political views.  I mean, look at the Founders.  Most were Deist, but those who were Christian were mainly Presbyterian, with only a few Anglicans and some Anabaptists thrown in, IIRC.  And look at the kind of government they devised...

Of course, I could always be totally off my rocker...  In fact, I probably am.

-Philip.
Logged

Arise, O God! Judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations!
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #86 on: June 16, 2005, 01:33:41 PM »

one more . . .

Quote
But in any case, the claim that industrialization would have made slavery redundant is historically unproven.

That's a load of crap (I mean that in the nicest possible way).  Blacks and minorities were still picking cotton for years after the Civil War.  My grandmother picked cotton and I got to hear about how it was the hardest, worst job on the planet.  Of course that was before the computer was invented. ÂÂ

So you're right that it wouldn't have replaced it . . . right away.  Do they still pick cotton by hand now?  Heck no, and they haven't for years.  Of course that's partly because it is less expensive than paying for labor. ÂÂ

I have to add that I don't think any of this would have happened if 1) the South HAD given up slavery long before on moral grounds that they were ignoring and had the power to change, 2) the North would have been as critical of its own humanitarian abuses and addressed them as aggresively as they pointed fingers at the South and 3) . . . you have to have three points for some reason and I'm puting this here so I have three.  If not for those three factors I think we could have had a stronger, more helpful role in the development of Mexican democracy and we wouldn't have so many illegal immigrants here because they'd have a stable and prosperous economy.

It caused terrorism too.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2005, 02:26:03 PM »

To clarify some of these arguments with REAL (yes, imagine that) Historical Facts:

First, the opening shots of the war were fired on 9 January 1861, when the 'Star of the West' invaded the Waters of the by then Independent State of South Carolina in an attempt to resupply Ft. Sumpter, A 24-pounder battery manned by Cadets of the Citadel. The first shot was fired over her bow, when she refused to heed the warning, the ship itself was fired upon and a few additional batteries from around the harbour joined in. After sustaining minor damage, the offending vessel ceased her intrusion into South Carolinian waters and withdrew back out to sea. The liberation of the Fort that occured on 12 April 1861 was on account of the Union attempting to send a new garrison and supplies to the fort, and at the time of the assult Union Ships were stationed within the Waters of the Independent State of South Carolina in violation of her Sovereignty; the War was brought on by Naval invasions on the part of the United States, with the State of South Carolina (before the Confederacy was Formed) responding to them with appropriate force.


Second, the war was not over slavery, which can be proven by one simple historical fact. On 2 March 1861 the 36th Congress under the Control of Lincoln (which Excluded the Seven Original Confederate States by this time) passed the proposed 13th Amdnement to the Constitution of the United States by a 2/3rds majority in both Houses, an amendment that was intended to entice the Confederate States back into the Union and avoid war. The text of this Amendment?

'No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.'

Not only does this amendment protect the Right of the States to Maintain Slave Labour, but undermines any attempt to pass any law, even a constitutional amdendment, that would violate this Right of the States. So why didn't the Confederacy take this protection of the particular institution? Had this amendment been made law, Slavery would be regarded as a States Rights issue even to this very day, and as long as the Republic endured. But the real issue was tariffs, the North wanted High tariffs to protect their fledgling industry, and the south wanted free trade to help their Agricultural Economy, which was one of the Most powerful export econonmies in the World at the Time; but the Majority of Northern States in Congress woudl still be able to pass heavy tariffs, even with slavery protected. Slavery was a secondary issue at best, the primary issue being tariffs (which was, incidentally, also at the centre of the nullification controversy of 1832 between South Carolina and the Federal Governemnt, and the biggest political issue of 19th Century America).


Finally, as I was challenged on this issue, if someone wishes to argue the Issue, I will defend the Particular Institution. Involuntary Servitude, while an unfortunate situation and less than ideal social institution, is not at all inherently immoral or unchristian. Nearly every Christian State from the time of the Empire, as well as Ancient Israel, maintained this instutution. It is an institution that neither Christ nor the Apostles Condemned, though it was all about them, and this lack of condemnation was not from lack of attention to the institution, for the relationship between masters and slaves was regulated by St. Paul. In this post-modern era of political correctness, it is easy for us to sit on our high moral horse and condemn those of past generations, even Saints of the Church via blanket statements, while ignoring the econmic and social necessities of the unfortunate but morally neutral institutions of Slavery; which our Emperor St. Justinian, beloved of God, defended in his Institutes as a merciful institution, allowing the State to spare the sword from Criminals and Enemies of the Empire who justly diserve death.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2005, 02:30:34 PM »

Hey, kids! Today, we are going to Bizarro World where the South won the war and slavery is a bag full of social justice and fun!
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
SiviSokol
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: SOC
Posts: 135


Tamburica u mom srcu


« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2005, 03:51:14 PM »

In this post-modern era of political correctness, it is easy for us to sit on our high moral horse and condemn those of past generations, even Saints of the Church via blanket statements, while ignoring the econmic and social necessities of the unfortunate but morally neutral institutions of Slavery; which our Emperor St. Justinian, beloved of God, defended in his Institutes as a merciful institution, allowing the State to spare the sword from Criminals and Enemies of the Empire who justly diserve death.

I think that you will find your description of slavery as "morally neutral" a tough sell.ÂÂ  While I can differentiate between slavery as practice in the Roman and Byzantine periods from that in the ante-bellum South, they were both repugnant- even if they differed in their practical application.ÂÂ  

Also, are you referring to Emperor Justinian I?ÂÂ  If so, he is certainly not a credible moral authority. He may have built one of the most magnificent churches ever, but he was also a coward who had his generals slaughter thousands of his own people during the Nike riots.ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 03:51:45 PM by SiviSokol » Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.164 seconds with 72 queries.