The CSA (Opinions)

[Ayn Rand]

Hey, I just thought it might intrest some of y'all to know that less than 1.5% of the Southern White population owned slaves.

That is interesting. 98.5% of them were not fighting for the right to own slaves. What else could have motivated them?

 

[PeteAtoms]

Though approx 1/3 of the population was slaves
As we move North the slave population decreses until we reach the Union states with slavery population of about 1%

You Betcha

Yeah but only 3/5 of that population were considered citizens (er... votes I should say)

Would it have been fiscally cheaper for the Union to just subsidize southern farmers, or straight up buy the slaves from them?

 

[Bugfatty300]

What else could have motivated them?

Their homes being invaded?

Forced conscription?

Threat of execution for desertion?

 

[_random_]

That and the fact that some of them may seriously may have supported slave-ownership. I have no interest in marrying a man, but I still support gay rights.

 

[Bugfatty300]

That and the fact that some of them may seriously may have supported slave-ownership.

Probably a lot actually. Willing to die for slavery? Probably a very tiny minority. Like the types who went into Kansas and Missouri to fight their abolitionist counterparts.

 

[Antilogic]

That is interesting. 98.5% of them were not fighting for the right to own slaves. What else could have motivated them?

No, 98.5% of them did not actively own slaves at the outbreak of the Civil War. They still may support the institution of slavery. Or, in more general, they support their particular organization of society.

For example, look at all the poorer conservative folk today who vote for Republican tax cut plans even though it benefits millionaires far more. Look at the millions of serfs and poor who have died in service of monarchs over the last couple millenia of human history. It is a false argument to claim that 98.5% were not fighting for the right to own slaves.

 

[Ajidica]

When you frame it as someone trying to take away your cultural idenity, you would be amazed at what some people will do. I can't give any source on this, but the south had consistantly been building up the idea of the north trying to wage cultural war on the south and all the south was doing was trying to preserve their way of life.

 

[mangxema]

The Confederates had slaves, but someone I know who thinks they should have won says while it was wrong it wouldn't have lasted long. I kind of see his point, however, again, it is wrong.

Yep. At the very least, it would have been a very difficult process given that slave-holding was explicitly protected in their constitution:

Sec. 9.4: No... law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

To their credit, Sec. 9.1 bans further importation of slaves from any other foreign country aside from the USA, and Sec. 9.2 allows the government to prevent even that. But still, it's pretty solidly in there.

 

[Bugfatty300]

It really is sad how some people have such contempt for anything that honors or recognizes the rebel soldiers. When they raised the C.S.S. Hunley there was a big stink about the memorial service that was done for it's dead crew. Ever since then it's hard for me to take any side on this issue very seriously. Some people are still fighting the civil war and it ain't just the "neo-confederates."

 

[Mr. Dictator]

It really is sad how some people have such contempt for anything that honors or recognizes the rebel soldiers. When they raised the C.S.S. Hunley there was a big stink about the memorial service that was done for it's dead crew. Ever since then it's hard for me to take any side on this issue very seriously. Some people are still fighting the civil war and it ain't just the "neo-confederates."

well if the losing side would just accept their loss...

the rebel soldiers were misled and died for something sick. no honor in that, and recognition should only come in the form of recognition of their leader's treason.

 

[kosiosko 1]

It really is sad how some people have such contempt for anything that honors or recognizes the rebel soldiers. When they raised the C.S.S. Hunley there was a big stink about the memorial service that was done for it's dead crew. Ever since then it's hard for me to take any side on this issue very seriously. Some people are still fighting the civil war and it ain't just the "neo-confederates."

that surprises me , from an overseas perspective their is little sympathy for the south's political views ... but soldiers and generals are always treated , fairly, with respect, even fondness, just like their northern counterparts , recently watch doco on the Hunley using old photos and re-enactments and its part in attempting to break the blockade, fascinating, especially the struggles to get it built

 

[Bugfatty300]

the rebel soldiers were misled and died for something sick. no honor in that, and recognition should only come in the form of recognition of their leader's treason.

So no honor, recognition or memorials for Vietnam war veterans. The only thing they get is the shame of Nixon's lies and American foreign policy.

that surprises me , from an overseas perspective their is little sympathy for the south's political views ... but soldiers and generals are always treated , fairly, with respect, even fondness, just like their northern counterparts , recently watch doco on the Hunley using old photos and re-enactments and its part in attempting to break the blockade, fascinating, especially the struggles to get it built

Unfortunately that is the case with a lot of folks here in the USA. Honoring or even recognizing them is seen is the equivalent of racism and and neo-secessionism with no exception.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

So no honor, recognition or memorials for Vietnam war veterans. The only thing they get is the shame of Nixon's lies and American foreign policy.

not for the ones who were gungho about going and killing commies, no. the ones who were there solely because of conscription, pity. never honor for being a pawn.

 

[Bugfatty300]

not for the ones who were gungho about going and killing commies, no. the ones who were there solely because of conscription, pity. never honor for being a pawn.

Honestly it's really sad to see that you view them in that light but at least you are consistent.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Honestly it's really sad to see that you view them in that light but at least you are consistent.

i mean, i see them as humans and view them as such, but i'm very picky with who i "honor". i think you should make a contribution to society to be honored, and destroying it's fabric doesn't really do that.

sorry if the train of thought there is a little loopy, allergies have kicked in hard this summer in tennessee and i've been doped up on medicines

 

[History_Buff]

When you sign a contract (what the Union is) you have the right to make it null and void if you find it conflicts with the original terms you agreed to. If your landlord doesn't repair your plumbing and he said he would in the lease, you can exit the lease. It works that way for states too. Also it was voted on by the people and they wanted out.

You sir, do not understand how Contract Law works. If one party fails to meet the terms of the contract, that does not void the contract. Nor is one party allowed to unilaterally withdraw from a contract, unless it was illegal in the first place (which is to say there was no contract).

Analogy fail.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yeah but only 3/5 of that population were considered citizens (er... votes I should say)

Would it have been fiscally cheaper for the Union to just subsidize southern farmers, or straight up buy the slaves from them?

LOL
You do know that by voters the 3/5 law was for the slave OWNERS whom casted the actual votes right ?

What ever happened to "millions for armed forces not one cent on ransom" ?
I guess appeasement and bowing dose work

 

[Miles Teg]

Hey, I just thought it might intrest some of y'all to know that less than 1.5% of the Southern White population owned slaves.

Great, wonderful. Now considering that this >1.5% were the ruling class, with most of the political and military pull, I fail to see how this is relevant. The slaves, free blacks, and poor white men weren't exactly represented in the Confederate Congress y'know.

Even if we give the foot soldiers honorable reasons like keeping the army away from their house, then at best they're dupes fighting in a tragic war, not grand heroes. I have no problem with honoring them pe se, it's just that when people do honor them (See Governor McDonnell), they seem to forget the importance of distinguishing between honoring the Confederacy (a blatantly racist exercise), and honoring the soldiers who fought and died wearing the gray.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I know it's off-topic but this is so cringeworthy I can't help myself

1. Secularism must be taken on faith, the assumption there is no God

So many things wrong with this statement.
- Needing faith doesn't make a religion. Me having faith my car is parked outside doesn't make it a car is parked outside religion.

I want you to: look for a definition of religion and figure this out for yourself.

- Secular means non-spiritual, not related to specific religions. It makes no statement on the existence of a god.

- The assumption there is no god is not a faith, it's the Null-Hypothesis. Without evidence in favour of a god, you do not need faith to not believe in a god.

2. Its taught in public school

Where?

3. Freedom of Religion

Secularism doesn't prevent anyone from having the religion of choice.

4. Well, I'm a Christian. This is tougher to prove, I just think it is wrong.

So you think it's wrong that there is no state religion influencing decision making in your government? Am I reading that correct?

 

[Cutlass]

Hey, I just thought it might intrest some of y'all to know that less than 1.5% of the Southern White population owned slaves.

And yet they controlled the politics there. After all, they were the rich people.