Print

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

[ECrownofFire]

This is NOT about their reasons for secession, it's about the reasons for the fucking Civil War.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

While I'm sure you love your popular culture history that says the Civil War happened because everyone in the South was an evil slavemaster who wanted to be able to oppress black people in peace, reality just isn't that simple.

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

I didn't say slavery wasn't an aspect. But it was not the only aspect by far, and not even the biggest one (See: Later in this post).

But please, continue to look down on me because the "reasonable" position always lies in the middle, ftw.

No one brought up the golden mean fallacy. At all. I don't even know where you're coming from here.


Anyway, the largest reason the Civil War happened is for a far larger reason than slavery. The Civil War happened principally because there was a critical disconnect in development, economy, social policy, culture, and view of the government's role between the North and the South. When a region of a country becomes so disconnected and ignored by another region that they feel unwanted and unbenefited, secession becomes an inevitability if these issues are not addressed. Things had gotten to the point where the Republicans were just plain ignoring the South because they didn't actually need their votes to win elections or get a majority in Congress as the states expanded. The southern states spent years seeing the federal government screw them over, and that feeling of helplessness is what caused the Confederacy, and then the Civil War.
 
I don't like Ron Paul. I think he's crazy, personally. But claiming that the CSA and the Civil War was first, foremost, and only because people wanted to keep slaves is simply ignoring a very important part of history and going with the endless tide of elementary history as truth that plagues our nation.

[mainiac]

While I'm sure you love your popular culture history that says the Civil War happened because everyone in the South was an evil slavemaster who wanted to be able to oppress black people in peace, reality just isn't that simple.

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

I didn't say slavery wasn't an aspect. But it was not the only aspect by far, and not even the biggest one (See: Later in this post).

But please, continue to look down on me because the "reasonable" position always lies in the middle, ftw.

No one brought up the golden mean fallacy. At all. I don't even know where you're coming from here.


Anyway, the largest reason the Civil War happened is for a far larger reason than slavery. The Civil War happened principally because there was a critical disconnect in development, economy, social policy, culture, and view of the government's role between the North and the South. When a region of a country becomes so disconnected and ignored by another region that they feel unwanted and unbenefited, secession becomes an inevitability if these issues are not addressed. Things had gotten to the point where the Republicans were just plain ignoring the South because they didn't actually need their votes to win elections or get a majority in Congress as the states expanded. The southern states spent years seeing the federal government screw them over, and that feeling of helplessness is what caused the Confederacy, and then the Civil War.
 
I don't like Ron Paul. I think he's crazy, personally. But claiming that the CSA and the Civil War was first, foremost, and only because people wanted to keep slaves is simply ignoring a very important part of history and going with the endless tide of elementary history as truth that plagues our nation.

The Republican party first took control of the country after the south seceded.  Kiinda hard to see how they neglected the south for years.

The president before Lincoln was pro-southern.  8 of the 15 presidents before Lincoln were from the south.  The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by southerners.  Yeah, the south was really shut out of political life there.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Republican party first took control of the country after the south seceded.  Kinda hard to see how they neglected the south for years.

....What?

The president before Lincoln was pro-southern.  8 of the 15 presidents before Lincoln were from the south.  The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by southerners.  Yeah, the south was really shut out of political life there.

Yes, in the entire history of the United States before the civil war, there was a period in which the South and the North had decently balanced representation in government and were similar enough to stay together. That didn't last forever. And that's when the civil war happened.

[mainiac]

The Republican party first took control of the country after the south seceded.  Kinda hard to see how they neglected the south for years.

....What?

The president before Lincoln was pro-southern.  8 of the 15 presidents before Lincoln were from the south.  The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by southerners.  Yeah, the south was really shut out of political life there.

Yes, in the entire history of the United States before the civil war, there was a period in which the South and the North had decently balanced representation in government and were similar enough to stay together. That didn't last forever. And that's when the civil war happened.

The south started seceding in December of 1860.  Lincoln took office in 1861, along with the first republican majority.  This is what we who like history call "research".

What you are doing on the other hand is called "idle speculation".

Read the cornerstone speech.  Read the declarations of independence.  Actually learn what the people at the time said.  They said it was about slavery.  "States rights" is largely a product of decades after the war.

[RedKing]

while detractors will just as fervently claim that they're a roadmap to his inner psyche

We will?

Which is going to resonate with a lot of people who wonder why we're sending billions in foreign aid overseas at a time when they can't find work

So it's going to resonate with people with people who don't know that it's less then %1 of the budget?

Which is a LOT of people. Most folks aren't concerned with actual numbers or pragmatic logic, it's the principle of the thing--to them, sending even one dollar to help a foreigner when there are people here that need it is just wrong (of course, many of them would also resist sending that dollar to help the poor here, but that's beside the point).

The Civil War is something that is quite open to interpretation, and states' rights was a large factor in it.

In the same way that global warming or evolution is.

Seriously? See, this is why I hate the way history is taught in public schools. Let me clue you in on something: most of history is open to interpretation. That's why there are so goddamned many history books. That's why people go to school for years to learn how to study history. Yes, the Civil War (like most complicated, multi-facted events in history) is open to interpretation.

While I'm sure you love your popular culture history that says the Civil War happened because everyone in the South was an evil slavemaster who wanted to be able to oppress black people in peace, reality just isn't that simple.

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

You ever read the various state declarations of independence?  Please do so, it's illuminating.

Have a link: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

Gee, how fascinating. I just looked up the North Carolina ordinance of secession. Guess what, Sparky? There's no mention of slavery. Not even a euphemistic mention.

In fact, only Alabama, Texas and Virginia even *mention* the word slave. Even South Carolina, the initial seceder and the one I'd expect to mention slavery, makes no mention whatsoever of it.

Perhaps you should read your own link before you see fit to pontificate. And we should take this to a seperate thread (or let it die in peace) before we invoke the frowny dog. 



EDIT: Sorry, can't let this go unchallenged.

The Republican party first took control of the country after the south seceded.  Kinda hard to see how they neglected the south for years.

....What?

The president before Lincoln was pro-southern.  8 of the 15 presidents before Lincoln were from the south.  The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by southerners.  Yeah, the south was really shut out of political life there.

Yes, in the entire history of the United States before the civil war, there was a period in which the South and the North had decently balanced representation in government and were similar enough to stay together. That didn't last forever. And that's when the civil war happened.

The south started seceding in December of 1860.  Lincoln took office in 1861, along with the first republican majority.  This is what we who like history call "research".

What you are doing on the other hand is called "idle speculation".

You do realize *when* we have elections, right? By December 1860, Lincoln had already WON the Presidency. It was in fact, his victory that started the ball rolling on secession. Or were you too busy doing "research" to connect those two things?

[mainiac]

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

But please, continue to judge.

This discussion is getting seriously derailed so let me just point out what started it.  Ron Paul stood in front of a confederate flag and said that the south wasn't to blame for the civil war and that it was all the fault of the evil northern federal government.  To which it was scoffed that the civil war wasn't about slavery.  Whether or not you think the civil war was about slavery, can't we all agree that blaming the north is a fringe position?

On that note, I gotta go on a road trip.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The south started seceding in December of 1860.  Lincoln took office in 1861, along with the first republican majority.  This is what we who like history call "research".

What you are doing on the other hand is called "idle speculation".

I considered apologizing for my error, but not if you're going to act like that. My point about the Republicans was incorrect, but the overall point is that the South was disconnected from the rest of the nation.

"States rights" is largely a product of decades after the war.

Nullification Crisis.

And RedKing is right, new thread if we want to continue this line of conversation.

[mainiac]

I considered apologizing for my error, but not if you're going to act like that.

I've been called idiot about three times in the past page.  Please excuse me if I have a low opinion of this debate.

[Leafsnail]

The more pertinent one is surely the racist news letter that went out in Ron Paul's name for about a decade.  The kind of thing that would trash a candidate to hell if anyone thought he was worth trashing.  Really I can't see the media ignoring him as anything other than a blessing for Paul.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not really. There's no way to win a presidential nomination these days if you don't have media coverage. That it is messed up that they basically decide who gets to be a candidate has been brought up many times before.

[Lysabild]

Well, how long ago were they? I've had many racist and worse opinions that have grown and disappeared throughout my life as I learned and experienced life and was subjected to different ideas and events. Today I'm the polar opposite in politics compared to what I was 2 years ago.

Edit: I don't believe a man should be hunted for an opinion he had 10-20 years ago when he is promising he believes the opposite today!

[GlyphGryph]

The fact is though... I also think pauls got some despicable views.

But we aren't voting for electing ideal candidates - we're voting for the lesser evil.

And if was a contest over which Republican was going to get the presidency, I would vote Paul every time. (I would have originally said Johnson, who's like Paul but not insane, but he's since dropped out). He is, as near I can tell, the only candidate who is not a psychopathic corporate crony. (Still insane, but in his own, special way)

That said... I'm honestly not sure how he'd do if they started launching attack ads against him. I'd assume his support would drop pretty quickly though, god knows he's tied himself to plenty of stuff that can sink him in a general election. I don't think he'd have any chance to beat Obama. (Which is, honestly, all the more reason to get him nominated. Change the dialogue, without the risk of him getting elected.)

[RedKing]

No, I like my history where I read the southern declarations of independence and every one of them that listed a reason said slavery.

But please, continue to judge.

Still incorrect. Missouri, Kentucky and Arkansas list a number of reasons such as (from their point of view) unlawful occupation by Federal troops, armed police actions by Federal troops on their soil, and Federal support of "partisans" (I'm assuming they mean pro-abolitionists here). None of them make so much as a whit about slavery, "property", or any other phrase that could be taken to indicate slavery.

I considered apologizing for my error, but not if you're going to act like that.

I've been called idiot about three times in the past page.

No, you haven't. Just once (ECrownOfFire). The rest of us have vehemently disagreed with you and used sarcasm in our responses, but we have not outright insulted you. And that's my last word on this.



As to Paul being "blessed" by the lack of media coverage, I have to agree with MSH. No press is worse than bad press. Hell, look at Gingrich. If you're slick enough, you can turn bad coverage into a 20-point surge in the polls if you know how to spin it right.

[Leafsnail]

Well, how long ago were they? I've had many racist and worse opinions that have grown and disappeared throughout my life as I learned and experienced life and was subjected to different ideas and events. Today I'm the polar opposite in politics compared to what I was 2 years ago.

Edit: I don't believe a man should be hunted for an opinion he had 10-20 years ago when he is promising he believes the opposite today!

Maybe I could accept this if Ron Paul had admitted to holding these views and said that he has moved on, and has realised the error of his ways.  He hasn't.  He's trying to deny he's ever held those views by claiming that he never checked the newsletters that were printed under his name (some of which he even signed).

As to Paul being "blessed" by the lack of media coverage, I have to agree with MSH. No press is worse than bad press. Hell, look at Gingrich. If you're slick enough, you can turn bad coverage into a 20-point surge in the polls if you know how to spin it right.

I'd have to say this is an overgeneralization.  All those allegations of sexual assault did not turn out to be "good press" for Herman Cain.  Similarly, I don't think the exposure of Ron Paul's racism/ willingness to sign anything for 10 years would be good press for him either.