Anybody watching the Civil War on PBS this week?

[Robo]

Quote:
Which totally ignores the fact that the Republican party of the era posed literally no threat to Southern slavery. The idea that Southerners were stupid enough to be convinced to fight a war for 7% of the population to own slaves is downright insulting, and the idea that they were actually concerned that Lincoln would abolish slavery is quite simply illogical, with nothing resembling a basis in reality. What drove the war was Lincoln's rabid desire to prevent Southern independence. If it weren't for him and his dishonest but very clever maneuvering, there would have been no war, and slavery would have ended peacefully, without 600,000 deaths.

do you honestly think any country is going to let any part of it leave just willy nilly? Seriously? No matter the reasoning, it was about power and control on ALL Sides not just the north. The rich southerners running the south wanted to do what they wanted to do, the rich northerners said no, so the south threw a tantrum and a war ensued. That's usually how wars result, someone wants power, resources, and mates,someone else wants the same, someone throws a tantrum, people die. (yes i know gross over simplification)

Well, the South didn't throw a tantrum. The North was placing tariffs on them and they had little voice in the government. I would secede if it was like that. The South didn't fight a war because of slavery... While it was an underlying issue that was not the whole thing. Are you saying that 90% of the South who didn't own slaves fought to keep them?? It would have been abolished soon after anyway. I'm glad the North didn't let them leave because you would have two weak nations, but if the South would have won and if it became one country then it might be better today... The South wasn't obsessed with slavery, it was state's rights. I get tired of people calling me racist cause I have a Confederate flag, I and most Southerners in the 1800's were by no means racist. The North treated them great once they migrated there in search of jobs didn't they? Everyone who disses the South makes me a little mad. You have to respect them for defending their beleifs and not being trampled over. Northern states were all it took to pass anyhting and the South wanted a voice so they fought for it.

 

[Robo]

Quote:
That isn't accusing said person of racism at all is it?

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
do you honestly think any country is going to let any part of it leave just willy nilly? Seriously? No matter the reasoning, it was about power and control on ALL Sides not just the north. The rich southerners running the south wanted to do what they wanted to do, the rich northerners said no, so the south threw a tantrum and a war ensued. That's usually how wars result, someone wants power, resources, and mates,someone else wants the same, someone throws a tantrum, people die. (yes i know gross over simplification)

Well, the South didn't throw a tantrum. The North was placing tariffs on them and they had little voice in the government. I would secede if it was like that. The South didn't fight a war because of slavery... While it was an underlying issue that was not the whole thing. Are you saying that 90% of the South who didn't own slaves fought to keep them?? It would have been abolished soon after anyway. I'm glad the North didn't let them leave because you would have two weak nations, but if the South would have won and if it became one country then it might be better today... The South wasn't obsessed with slavery, it was state's rights. I get tired of people calling me racist cause I have a Confederate flag, I and most Southerners in the 1800's were by no means racist. The North treated them great once they migrated there in search of jobs didn't they? Everyone who disses the South makes me a little mad. You have to respect them for defending their beleifs and not being trampled over. Northern states were all it took to pass anyhting and the South wanted a voice so they fought for it.

in previous posts I point out that there were many issues that lead to the war, that slavery was dieing out on its own, and that post you are responding to above was tongue in cheek.

I am basically saying that wars are normally started over people struggling over power and it isn't usually one side is all good and one side is all bad.

the north and the south were both run by rich men who wanted what they wanted and went to war over it, and I over simplified it for a reason, because some people on each side of the argument are going to such extremes to imply the other side was mostly in the wrong. it's amusing.

BTW I am born and raised in Alabama. and um yeah, racism is has been more predominate in some parts of the south than the north. Not all of the South mind you. And not throughout all of southern history either. And a majority of the 1800's people were racists.

It wasn't an out right "oh I hate this person because they are a different color" but to them, it was a way of life. People of different races didn't mix, they (they as in the majority of people, all races included) believed some races were superior to others, just as they believed men were superior to women. They did not share bathrooms, or marry. ( this is both in the north and south, and not just black and white people) Many non whites could not vote, own land, or businesses in the 1800's. It was simply how things were then.

Remember Raciscism isn't always " oh I hate you because your a different color" racism also includes treating another group drastically different in goods, services, and basic human rights because of their race. Racism is also stereotypes, and propaganda used to dehumanize a specific race. In fact racism is often very subtle.

Back to topic, How was the show? I still haven't gotten to see it.

 

[redhen]

TRust me.. the north was just as racist as the south was...they treated the blacks very badly. Northerns were just more sneaky about their racism, and how they looked..where as in the south it was more "out there", in your face...
And IMO the war wasnt fought over slavery anyways...
Like any war it was about control and money.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
agreed

 

[Q9]

Okay, Kristy, it appears that you and I both agree and disagree. In a way, yes, the South did want power - if only to counterbalance the overwhelming power of the North at the time, which was basically leeching money from the South. In addition, cultural differences between the two areas made them effectively different nations ANYWAY. Add into the mix radical abolitionists funding murder rampages (John Brown being particularly notorious), and I think you and I can agree that the South was most certainly the one in the right. Then, of course, the North started the war (if I need to, I'll give an explanation of the Sumter incident), and launched an invasion to prevent independence, which places them on roughly the same moral ground as the British in the first War for Independence.

And sure, nations don't just divide willy-nilly. That's why the South hadn't seceded long before, even though it would have been justified. It took a guy as militantly pro-tarriff, pro-big government as Lincoln to convince them to leave. And it took an invasion of the Confederacy to convince my home State to secede. Remember why it was that the original 13 colonies seceded from Great Britain? They wanted self-government. That is precisely the same reason that the Confederate States of America declared independence.

In terms of racism, I have already mentioned that diary entries from Union soldiers indicate their disgust at how friendly whites were with blacks - however, these entries are in most cases ludicrously offensive and would most certainly get me banned if I posted them. Was there racism? Most certainly. Ironically, however, race relations were better in the South than in the North at the time. Meanwhile, up North, numerous States passed resolutions criminalizing the immigration of blacks - including Illinois, and said resolution was supported by none other than the Great Emancipator.

On a somewhat related note, ever checked out the Confederate Constitution? It's got a LOT of improvements, especially the removal of the much-abused General Welfare clause. The best, IMO, is the limitation of the President to a single six-year term. I really like that idea, since the president wouldn't spend half his term throwing away cash to get re-election. The Confederates came up with term limits before the United States.

 

[lucky123]

Its really sad when people parrot propaganda they have heard all their lives as facts. The war was not about slavery. People should understand the victors always write history. Old Abe was a very racist person and didn't care one thing about blacks. He once said if i could keep this union together without freeing one slave i would do it. How many know that his plans was to deport every black, and did deport some? 80% of nothern food came from the south but all it got for the south was more tarrifs/taxes! If you beleive in the constitution you would know it states any state can succed if it feels the government does not represent their best interest. Abe didn't care much for the contents of the constitution that he swore to uphold!

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Ever read Thomas DiLorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln? I think you'd like it if you haven't read it. I was a fan of Lincoln until I heard one of DiLorenzo's podcasts, then the book made me such an enemy of Lincoln that it's a running joke amongst my friends.

 

[foweler]

Di Lorenzo fan! Cool

Public schooling has brainwashed the masses. They have no idea what real history is.
And of course govt sponsered (GSE) media plays it's part loyally.

Murray Rothbard's "Conceived In Liberty" Vols 1-4 is an unparaleled depiction of American history....pre-colonial through the Revolutionary War. That war wasn't the all rosey, all agreeing march to freedom that history teaches either. Seems human affairs are invariably more complicated than historians want to depict.
I'm sure it would take a post graduate study, done in defiance of likely university guidance, to get close to what Rothbard uncovers on one's own.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
Ever read Thomas DiLorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln? I think you'd like it if you haven't read it. I was a fan of Lincoln until I heard one of DiLorenzo's podcasts, then the book made me such an enemy of Lincoln that it's a running joke amongst my friends.

have you thought about finding a middle ground instead of going from fan to hate?
I mean Lincoln was a human being and a politician, like all other polititions. He had good and bad, he made deals and had agendas. He was likely no better or worse than most other polititions. We don't have to either love or hate something. We don't have to be one side or the other, us or them, yes or no, north or south. There is far more than just that and there is far more than just two sides to a human being like Lincoln