The CSA (Opinions)

[Lord of Elves]

I actually have no idea, but I don't think we do

Tory? How dare you sir! I'm a Green/Liberal Democrat - LibDem on Europe and other social issues, Green on health and environmental, which (as I've said before) makes me somewhat more left-wing than many British voters. And yes, we do still have our ghastly right-wing nut-jobs out there, the most polite of whom are UKIP.

LibDem, I see. We have that term in the US, but it generally is used oft to describe the more hardline Democrats than actual liberals by European terms.

I find British politics often makes more sense than American, although you have a left side of the table which seems to be over-dosing on steroids, and a right side that has fallen asleep. With my limited knowledge, I think the "Tides of Blood", speech may have spelled the beginning of the end for British conservatism, though at the time it may have appeared to be a revival.

Limited knowledge, however.

 

[cav scout]

I actually have no idea, but I don't think we do

Ummmm... you do know that you guys are the ones that have an official state religion right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Established_church

 

[Arakhor]

That does rather require you defining in which fields precisely the USA is #1? Highest amount of dishonest bankers per capita? Highest world debt? Greatest percentage of obesity per capita? Largest amount of religious fundamentalists in a modern, Western, secular state?

Of course we have a state religion - it's named after us! That doesn't mean we name-check God in every little thing we do. We're low-key like that - us Britons don't like making a fuss

 

[Lord of Elves]

Ummmm... you do know that you guys are the ones that have an official state religion right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Established_church

I think Britain's state religion is best summed up by Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death". They're the state religion, but they're terribly sorry about it, and hope you aren't too offended by their presumption.

 

[Cutlass]

That does rather require you defining in which fields precisely the USA is #1? Highest amount of dishonest bankers per capita? Highest world debt? Greatest percentage of obesity per capita? Largest amount of religious fundamentalists in a modern, Western, secular state?

Of course we have a state religion - it's named after us! That doesn't mean we name-check God in every little thing we do. We're low-key like that - us Britons don't like making a fuss

aircraft carriers.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Greatest percentage of obesity per capita?

Obviously God spoils us a little too much. He can't help it. We're just so awesome.

 

[cav scout]

aircraft carriers.

Obviously God spoils us a little too much. He can't help it. We're just so awesome

I love how Americans on both sides of the debate in this thread immediately band together to go after the Brit

 

[Arakhor]

I present the Old Oppressors, don't you know? The evils of imperialism and colonial arrogance and it's about the only thing you lot can agree upon - that we're from a little country called England and its one and only residential area is called London

 

[DroopyTofu]

I think that the CSA was legitimately a country. The USA is meant to be ruled by the people, and when that many people are displeased with the government it should be the government's place to do something about it. If the North had recognized the unhappiness in the South and done something about it, then there wouldn't have been an issue. They declared independence from a government that they didn't feel was doing what they wanted it to do. The only problem was that the old government failed to recognize it's failures and let its displeased citizens go and just try and do better in the future. The USA tried to hold onto post offices, governemnt land, and forts. If they had let all land in the new country go and stopped trying to occupy land that they no longer owned, then we could have just had two American nations. But of course they couldn't let that happen. They had to try and maintain a militaristic presence in a country they had the chance to reconcile with but refused to do so. I'm not saying that the Civil War was a war of Northern Aggresion, but they had plenty of chances to avoid it.

I'm not one of the "South will rise again against the vile Northern oppressors" type of people, but I do think that both sides are equally at fault and that states should have some rights, including the right to leave the federal government if they feel that it is not fufilling it's duty or if the majority of the population no longer wishes to be with the federal government, which was the case in the 1860's.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I love how Americans on both sides of the debate in this thread immediately band together to go after the Brit

That still doesn't mean we're friends.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I love how Americans on both sides of the debate in this thread immediately band together to go after the Brit

Its like when the Dems went nuts on Chavez for spouting off about Bush a few years ago.

 

[History_Buff]

I think that the CSA was legitimately a country. The USA is meant to be ruled by the people, and when that many people are displeased with the government it should be the government's place to do something about it. If the North had recognized the unhappiness in the South and done something about it, then there wouldn't have been an issue. They declared independence from a government that they didn't feel was doing what they wanted it to do. The only problem was that the old government failed to recognize it's failures and let its displeased citizens go and just try and do better in the future. The USA tried to hold onto post offices, governemnt land, and forts. If they had let all land in the new country go and stopped trying to occupy land that they no longer owned, then we could have just had two American nations. But of course they couldn't let that happen. They had to try and maintain a militaristic presence in a country they had the chance to reconcile with but refused to do so. I'm not saying that the Civil War was a war of Northern Aggresion, but they had plenty of chances to avoid it.

(Before I get going, let me say to any southerners out there, I know you're not all stereotypical hate-mongers, but it makes a surprisingly solid argument)

So if the South rose again, and insisted that they be allowed to discriminate against blacks, gays, and atheists, should they be allowed to do so? If their leaders tried to seize Federal Arms and lands in defense of these backwards ideas, should they not be stopped?

Slavery was a moral evil that had to be stamped out. That this fact made the Southern economy and way of life obsolete is a sad thing, but it does not create a need for self-determination. The South was plenty represented in the existing government despite how they seemed to feel about Mr. Lincoln.

 

[Patroklos]

(Before I get going, let me say to any southerners out there, I know you're not all stereotypical hate-mongers, but it makes a surprisingly solid argument)

Not really, as it was mercilessly destroyed in the South East United States thread.

So if the South rose again, and insisted that they be allowed to discriminate against blacks, gays, and atheists, should they be allowed to do so? If their leaders tried to seize Federal Arms and lands in defense of these backwards ideas, should they not be stopped?

Irrelevant, a resurgent south would not want to do any such thing as it has nothing to do with the issue of states rights in the modern age.

Slavery was a moral evil that had to be stamped out. That this fact made the Southern economy and way of life obsolete is a sad thing, but it does not create a need for self-determination. The South was plenty represented in the existing government despite how they seemed to feel about Mr. Lincoln.

Obsolete? It seems pretty obvious to me that our culture remains intact, while that of the North is unrecognizable from its pre 1870s form.

I will point out again that the only reason the Europeans abandoned slavery was that they lost their primary colonies that profited from it. In other words it had nothing to do with morality, had their pocketbook still been connected to the institution it would have been alive and well. In fact, in places like Indonesia where the pocketbook was connected, it was tolerated just fine.

 

[Arakhor]

Uh, throughout the British Empire, the taking of new slaves was outlawed in the early 19th Century and all slavery was officially abolished in the mid-19th Century.

 

[Masada]

In fact, in places like Indonesia where the pocketbook was connected, it was tolerated just fine.

There was slavery in Indonesia? That's news to me.

 

[Stapel]

There was slavery in Indonesia? That's news to me.

Not officially, but practically: yes. The real deal about Dutch East Indian colonial oppresion is somewhat hidden in history books .

 

[Stapel]

I will point out again that the only reason the Europeans abandoned slavery was that they lost their primary colonies that profited from it. In other words it had nothing to do with morality, had their pocketbook still been connected to the institution it would have been alive and well. In fact, in places like Indonesia where the pocketbook was connected, it was tolerated just fine.

Uh, throughout the British Empire, the taking of new slaves was outlawed in the early 19th Century and all slavery was officially abolished in the mid-19th Century.

The main reason was not the loss of colonies, but the discovery of sugar beets that could be harvested in Western Europe. There was no longer need (and profit) to grow cane sugar in the West Indies.

 

[Bast]

The Old South:


Link to video.

 

[Masada]

Not officially, but practically: yes. The real deal about Dutch East Indian colonial oppresion is somewhat hidden in history books .

Yes, right. So, serfdom/indentured labour is exactly the same as slavery. Well, in that case, I suppose I can morally equivocate away the significance of the south owning slaves because everyone was engaging it. But even allowing for that kind of apologist thought, the cultuurstelsel wasn't anything like slavery. The government forced you to grow crops for export but they didn't have claim to your life. It wasn't pleasant but it wasn't slavery. I'm also familiar with the literature of Elson, Cribb et. al. so I'm hardly ignorant of the specifics.

 

[luiz]

Yes, right. So, serfdom/indentured labour is exactly the same as slavery. Well, in that case, I suppose I can morally equivocate away the significance of the south owning slaves because everyone was engaging it. But even allowing for that kind of apologist thought, the cultuurstelsel wasn't anything like slavery. The government forced you to grow crops for export but they didn't have claim to your life. It wasn't pleasant but it wasn't slavery. I'm also familiar with the literature of Elson, Cribb et. al. so I'm hardly ignorant of the specifics.

The point that the European empires were still treating natives as serfs is a good one, though. It is also good to point out that by the time of the American Civil War slavery was still alive and well in other parts of the continent (Brazil, the largest slave owning country at the time, only abolished slavery in 1888).

So the argument for the demonization of the CSA is not as strong as it may seem. Another good point and perhaps more controversial is that it is very hard to see slavery lasting more than 20 years in the South even if the Confederates won the war. I mean, we did abolish it in Brazil without having to fight a bloody civil war, and our economy was more based on it than that of the CSA...