Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Helgoland]

-snip-

Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about the issue, and I certainly do not wish to defend the confederacy.

But... Freeing all slaves immediately may not have been the wisest course of action. Federal aquisition programs (god, it feels dirty to even type something like that), certain minimum standards for slaves' living and working conditions, and the children of slaves becoming free citizens instead of new slaves might have led to a slow and less disruptive hase-out of slavery, maybe even to the advantage of the African-American population. Not that it would have been possible politically...

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Is downplaying the unpleasantness of the Confederate cause a common thing in the US? I have a "massive_cock" and a "nun_rapist" disagreeing with me on whether or not "they fought for slavery" when I answered someone's question on why they were considered "bad". It reminds me of what is (or hopefully, was) going on in the Ukraine thread.

I'm also wondering why anyone would pick usernames like that, but that's not really relevant to the thread.

The Confederacy has been, from the beginning, a symbol of the romantic past, and the "leave us the fuck alone" aspect of the Cause is the primary thing that they're remembered for, particularly since the vast majority of Confederate troops didn't own slaves, never had owned slaves, and never would own slaves.

I've heard libertarians remark more frequently over the last few years about how the confederates weren't fighting for slavery as much as they were fighting to maintain state's rights against expansion of federal power, and/or how they were forced to fight by the economically disruptive nature of the push to abruptly abolish the establishment that their society was built on.  Not sympathizing with that perspective - just trying to round out the discussion.

The Confederate Constitution, I've heard (and could be wrong), was the same as the Union Constitution except that the presidential term was 8 years and slavery was established as legal. If they were really so interested in differentiating their new government from the old, you would think they would emphasize that other stuff.

[darkflagrance]

In theory though, if the Confederacy had survived, wouldn't states rights be implicitly preserved in the precedent of the Confederacy having broken from the Union? Any state that felt threatened would have the right to withdraw.

Or else, the irony of the Confederate Civil War...

[FearfulJesuit]

Is downplaying the unpleasantness of the Confederate cause a common thing in the US? I have a "massive_cock" and a "nun_rapist" disagreeing with me on whether or not "they fought for slavery" when I answered someone's question on why they were considered "bad". It reminds me of what is (or hopefully, was) going on in the Ukraine thread.

I'm also wondering why anyone would pick usernames like that, but that's not really relevant to the thread.

The Confederacy has been, from the beginning, a symbol of the romantic past, and the "leave us the fuck alone" aspect of the Cause is the primary thing that they're remembered for, particularly since the vast majority of Confederate troops didn't own slaves, never had owned slaves, and never would own slaves.

I've heard libertarians remark more frequently over the last few years about how the confederates weren't fighting for slavery as much as they were fighting to maintain state's rights against expansion of federal power, and/or how they were forced to fight by the economically disruptive nature of the push to abruptly abolish the establishment that their society was built on.  Not sympathizing with that perspective - just trying to round out the discussion.

The Confederate Constitution, I've heard (and could be wrong), was the same as the Union Constitution except that the presidential term was 8 years and slavery was established as legal. If they were really so interested in differentiating their new government from the old, you would think they would emphasize that other stuff.

Not quite...there were more specifically enumerated rights given to the governments of the states (including, IIRC, the right to secede) in the Confederate Constitution. Its federal government was not as strong, to nobody's surprise.

[lemon10]

-snip-

Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about the issue, and I certainly do not wish to defend the confederacy.

But... Freeing all slaves immediately may not have been the wisest course of action. Federal aquisition programs (god, it feels dirty to even type something like that), certain minimum standards for slaves' living and working conditions, and the children of slaves becoming free citizens instead of new slaves might have led to a slow and less disruptive hase-out of slavery, maybe even to the advantage of the African-American population. Not that it would have been possible politically...

There were programs in place just after the end of the civil war to improve the lives of newly freed slaves. It failed pretty miserably, because the south basically resorted to terrorism to stop all attempts at improving the lives of black.
They also managed to after a few years block such attempts politically, thereby insuring there was no progress.

Doing this type of thing slowly would have failed even more miserably. Not only would slavery have continued for far longer, but there would also have been the very real process of the banning of it being stopped, and would have probably failed all together. If it was done slowly it wouldn't have been any easier politically (probably harder since it would require consistent political control from when the phasing-out started to when it ended), and would haven't have helped the slaves more then a instant solution.
Slavery was slavery, and the only real way you can make it better is to ban it outright. No matter what federal laws on the ethical treatments of slaves existed they wouldn't have had any effect of slaves in the slightest.

[Sindain]

-snip-

*Snip*

*Snip*

Yep, a slow hazing out of slavery would have failed for all the same reasons Reconstruction failed. Frankly, the South just cared a lot more than the North.

[mainiac]

In theory though, if the Confederacy had survived, wouldn't states rights be implicitly preserved in the precedent of the Confederacy having broken from the Union? Any state that felt threatened would have the right to withdraw.

Or else, the irony of the Confederate Civil War...

Not really, the confederates were massive hypocrites about pretty much anything.  They hung southern Unionists as rebels, nuff said.

I've heard libertarians remark more frequently over the last few years about how the confederates weren't fighting for slavery as much as they were fighting to maintain state's rights against expansion of federal power, and/or how they were forced to fight by the economically disruptive nature of the push to abruptly abolish the establishment that their society was built on.  Not sympathizing with that perspective - just trying to round out the discussion.

The south never gave a rats ass about states right.  They led the charge of federal overreach with fugitive slave acts, the dred scott descision, and their constant undermining of the free-soil governments in the western territories.  They wanted to win and would avow whatever hypocritical principle of the day would get them that.

Lincoln in the Cooperstown address explained it quite adeptly:

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

Not quite...there were more specifically enumerated rights given to the governments of the states (including, IIRC, the right to secede) in the Confederate Constitution. Its federal government was not as strong, to nobody's surprise.

I am unaware of that provision.  I'm unaware of any significant changes in the powers enumerated to the federal government except for a change in the conditions under which tariffs can be levied and of course protections for slavery.  Interestingly enough they also specified that the federal government was required to prevent the importation of slaves from outside territories but this isn't too surprising, given that the British government had a long standing policy at this point that they would unilaterally interdict slave traffic.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In theory though, if the Confederacy had survived, wouldn't states rights be implicitly preserved in the precedent of the Confederacy having broken from the Union? Any state that felt threatened would have the right to withdraw.

Or else, the irony of the Confederate Civil War...

For the record, there are a ton of alternate histories that have the Confederacy suffer a socialist/communist revolution in the early 1900's because of its bleak economic future with a hostile Union surrounding it.

[SalmonGod]

Never said I agreed with that perspective.  Just that it's a culturally relevant one.  There are plenty of people who believe it.

[mainiac]

Never said I agreed with that perspective.  Just that it's a culturally relevant one.  There are plenty of people who believe it.

Yeah people are weird.

[smirk]

I've heard libertarians remark more frequently over the last few years about how the confederates weren't fighting for slavery as much as they were fighting to maintain state's rights against expansion of federal power, and/or how they were forced to fight by the economically disruptive nature of the push to abruptly abolish the establishment that their society was built on.  Not sympathizing with that perspective - just trying to round out the discussion.

The south never gave a rats ass about states right.  They led the charge of federal overreach with fugitive slave acts, the dred scott descision, and their constant undermining of the free-soil governments in the western territories.  They wanted to win and would avow whatever hypocritical principle of the day would get them that.

Probably true, but I will agree with SalmonGod that that line of reasoning has been getting more popular in the South lately, accuracy be damned. Historical revisionism is a popular and tasty* way to gain back a bit of cultural pride in the face of lingering resentment over old atrocities.


_{*do not ingest.}

[mainiac]

atrocities

I was totally with you up until here and then you threw me.

[Descan]

With 3.5 million slaves (plus an additional 130k free Blacks), I could see a South-Africa style reverse in a Confederacy that survived. That's a huge number of slaves, almost half the population (40~%) and who knows how the population would change afterward. In our world, a lot of freed blacks left the South, but that isn't necessarily always the case. It's not as cut-and-dry as the South African reversal, since South Africa has 80% black population, but I could see an revolution of the slaves against the Confederate government...


Edit: What, you don't think enslaving people based on their skin colour (or at all) is atrocious?

[smirk]

atrocities

I was totally with you up until here and then you threw me.

Oh, no. 'Atrocities' was in reference to slavery, not the Confederacy's defeat. So, resentment directed at the old South over slavery. Although 'resentment in the old South over their defeat' would have worked just as well for the point I was trying to make, I suppose.

[mainiac]

Okay then.