The Fifty First State

[Lord of Elves]

No, no there's not. What about the slave owners in the North for crying out loud?

Frankly, I think they're pretty well elevated over their southern counterparts considering slavery was ultimately made illegal throughout the United States without them seceding and taking up arms against the federal government. So, you know, there's that.

The reality is, you think secesssion is treason and you are trying to use the whole slave thing to defend your view when the North clearly had no desire to end slavery and so no moral superiority.

Secession is treason. I don't know how you can say it's anything else for you to, as a citizen of the United States, organize a movement to forcibly remove territory from the sovereign borders of the United States. Especially when you actively take up arms against the United States to defend the sovereign territory you just seized in rebellion. But that's besides the point that there wouldn't have been a treasonous secession in the first place if the south had acquiesced to the eventual abolition of slavery.

I'm sorry, I just don't see any moral ambiguity at all between the people who wanted to free another race of people versus the people who wanted to keep them enslaved. I don't understand at all how you can say the latter group is even justified by the former's "corruption".

But by all means, oversimplify and refuse to address anything I say.

I find myself saying "I don't understand" and "I don't get" a lot when these discussions go on, because fundamentally I believe I address again and again nearly all the points you make in a discussion, refuting them (to my belief) based on what ought to be shared moral and legal standards. But apparently not. It doesn't get much simpler than the fact that the men who organized the secession of the south were traitors who engaged in treason for no reason other than the fact that they were willing to kill their fellow countrymen to own another race of people.

That's not good. That's almost evil.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You had no point that was worth acknowledging. You butchered a post and its context, and you expect me to go "oh, yeah, even though he didn't say that, because you bolded a few words and ignored the fact that he said slavery is completely evil, you're totally right"?


If you think I'm whining and that you've moved on, why are you posting about it?

Butchered? I presented the original post in it's entirety.

I'll post on it until you either give up or apologize for the senseless name calling. At least you've given up on the font play, which is one small step in the direction of civility.

 

[Quackers]

Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.

Souths gonna rattle again.

 

[NickyJ]

Butchered? I presented the original post in it's entirety.

Which makes me question how you could get such incredibly incorrect understanding of a post.

I'll post on it until you either give up or apologize for the senseless name calling. At least you've given up on the font play, which is one small step in the direction of civility.

Knock yourself out, for I shall not apologize for stating the truth. Also, I see you had a lot of success moving on......

Spoiler :

Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.

Souths gonna rattle again.

Link to video.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Which makes me question how you could get such incredibly incorrect understanding of a post.

The parts I bolded largely negated everything you highlighted. It was functionally the same as saying 'yeah, but...'. Of course that's a bit more subtle than outright saying slavery was good, but it's convenient for you to ignore it altogether for the sake of apologizing for and justifying the actions of confederate 'patriots'.

 

[NickyJ]

The parts I bolded largely negated everything you highlighted. It was functionally the same as saying 'yeah, but...'. Of course that's a bit more subtle than outright saying slavery was good, but it's convenient for you to ignore it altogether for the sake of apologizing for and justifying the actions of confederate 'patriots'.

The part I highlighted largely negated everything you bolded. It was functionally the same as saying 'yeah, it's evil...'. Of course, that's a bit more obvious than subtle saying slaves weren't always abused, but it's convenient for you to ignore it altogether for the sake of bashing and whining about the actions of confederate 'traitors'.

Edit: Badly worded, easily misinterpreted. Scrapped, though I wish to point out that I most certainly consider slavery evil.

 

[Cutlass]

I'll stop "apologizing" for the average man when you stop grossly oversimplifying.

If you want your history neat and clean, and you need to be right right - by all means, continue on.

You keep missing the point. The reason people keep dragging the Civil War into these modern debates, and then misrepresenting the ACW to make it sound like the Feds or the North was in some way responsible for it, and that there was anything noble or righteous about the Southern actions, is because they want to use that as a precedent to screw up modern politics.

There is no excuse for painting the ACW as anything other than it was: A terrible tragedy brought on by terrible people for terrible reasons. And none of the blame belongs on Lincoln.

 

[Farm Boy]

The South started an ignoble war. Even if you stipulate that a necessary war can be fought, and I think the ACW is about as close to a necessary war as you can get - there is still no such thing as a just war. There is always blame on both sides when we surrender officially our human decency and institutionalize mass murder. There is always good on both sides. Assigning the brunt of evil for the big issues of the war to southern privates in a citizen's army, given the common level of education of those men is out of line. Some were noble, some were evil. Reducing this issue to a simplistic good v. evil is a little sophomoric.

The reason I see most people bring up states rights today is because they want to talk about one of the most important changes that resulted from the ACW, and it isn't slavery. It's the distinction between the "united states of america" and the "United States of America." That is a legitimate thing to discuss and the stars 'n bars are a convenient symbol of such conversation.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Assigning the brunt of evil for the big issues of the war to southern privates in a citizen's army, given the common level of education of those men is out of line. Some were noble, some were evil. Reducing this issue to a simplistic good v. evil is a little sophomoric.

Cannot speak for others, but I assign moral blame to the southern political elite and aristocracy who ultimately masterminded secession and the war, not to southern soldiers.

That is a legitimate thing to discuss and the stars 'n bars are a convenient symbol of such conversation.

I think maybe anyone arguing for state rights would be better off leaving the Stars and Bars and the legacy of Confederate treason-in-the-name-of-slavery out of the discussion.

 

[Cutlass]

And if that's the conversation they want to have, then most of them are on the wrong side of it. The claims they make for what they want are diametrically opposed to the polices they want to enact. There is a disconnect there. And misusing the example of the Civil War only makes it worse.

 

[Farm Boy]

As we are moving away from the use of confederate symbolism and into the motives of opponents of traditional liberal thought, I'm losing interest. Good show tho!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The part I highlighted largely negated everything you bolded. It was functionally the same as saying 'yeah, it's evil...'. Of course, that's a bit more obvious than subtle saying slaves weren't always abused, but it's convenient for you to ignore it altogether for the sake of bashing and whining about the actions of confederate 'traitors'.

^^^Copypasta with a side of denial.

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Thank you

 

[Abegweit]

You know, because slavery wasn't all a bad thing.

You say this like slavery is something in the past.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I find it funny that people are using the "they were not all beaten" to justify the consideration of people as "things" and "property." This especilly as the Confrederates" enforced a law which declared that escaping slaves were to be shot. Hence why a covert movement came about to sneak slaves out of the South.

Slavery is a evil. And its still around.

 

[Borachio]

As far as I understand it, slavery is abuse of the person per se. Since it is abuse of a person's autonomy. I can't see that the conditions of the slave are at all relevant.

Mind you, this brings up the larger issue of how far anyone is autonomous.

 

[NickyJ]

^^^Copypasta with a side of denial.

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Thank you

Hey, another form of distortion! That was a great assumption you made! Congratulations!

 

[Crezth]

Were they consulted in the North about the decision to invade the South either?

Was Lincoln's issue that they weren't consulted?

I'm sure the southern slaves just wanted their slaveholders to continue their aristocratic tyranny forever.

In a sense, you could argue Lincoln's issue was that they weren't consulted, because introduction into and expulsion from the Union are a matter the entire Union should decide upon. Because we pool everyone's resources and then deploy those resources in the interests of the common good, to stay and benefit for decades only to leave over the right to own people sort of demands a concordat between those who would see them stay and cooperate within the system and those who would say "I have my money. I'm going now."

So not only was 40% of the south not consulted on the issue of independence, but the north wasn't either. And hitherto it was a Union of equal, sovereign states, one which both sides had diligently worked to uphold. Insofar as the south benefited from being in the same country as the north - oh did they benefit - to leave without so much as an issuance of grievances is an insult, an act of petty theft. Secession was a policy driven forward by those who were beneficiaries of a rotten system. Their greatest crime was not treason, but convincing the rest of the south that this was for the south's own good.

The issue was that apparently seceding from a country is absolutely, totally wrong accorrding to the North. The South wanted independence and the North said no. End of thread.

No, that's not how it works you puerile agitator. Secession isn't inherently wrong. But when you're admitted into the Union only with the Union's permission, and then you proceed to benefit from being a part of that Union, you don't get to leave without consultation.

Yes, the South wanted to defend slavery but the North didn't want to end it so it didn't really mattter. The North was no better.

Uh, yeah it did. What are you talking about?

No, no there's not. What about the slave owners in the North for crying out loud?

What about them?

The reality is, you think secesssion is treason and you are trying to use the whole slave thing to defend your view when the North clearly had no desire to end slavery and so no moral superiority.

The North doesn't need moral superiority. Neither side does. They both have their causes and wants for going to war. Now, whether or not you think secession without so much as a "thank you" letter is justified, the ultimate fallout of the war was the end of slavery. This was the best possible outcome.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Hey, another form of distortion! That was a great assumption you made! Congratulations!

Does not cease the notion that your statement of "they were not all bashed" underminds the notion that slavery is the idea of making humans "property, things." To say slavery is not immoral is... unfounded in moral principles. Well it would be incorrect to presum the North as pure-on-heroes, it would be even wronger to presum the South as either victims or fighting for freedom (their slavery laws were forced on the members of the Confrederacy), nor should it be considered there was a possibility of victory from the south due to population, the industry of the North and the South's lack of navy.

The South also suffered by the fact we Brits (who outlawed slavery in 1833) found another source of growing cotton in Eygpt...

 

[peter grimes]

To say slavery is not immoral is... unfounded in moral principles.

Careful, some posters here claim to get their morals from the Bible.

 

[caketastydelish]

Careful, some posters here claim to get their morals from the Bible.

I've heard the left wing argument that the bible approves of slavery, but I am not convinced that that is true.