Historical Revisionism

[Walker]

More will be posted, but for now, I'd like to address a point.

I am not defending slavery nor exonerating it. I am not trying to justify it by claiming the North was in the wrong too, so two wrongs make a right. What I am saying i that the North did not have a moral high ground on which to criticize the South. I will not argue that there were certain people who made up a fraction of slave-owners that abused their slaves which is unquestionably evil and wrong, and from a moral standpoint deserved to be stopped.

@Sane Young Dog Man: Morality of 3/5 Compromise. I fail to see your point. Even with the weight, the South lost, so there is not an argument to be made. As for Southern rights? Well, America is a democracy. It should not be possible for the North to impose a president without some Southern consent. It really boils down to the principle of the matter which is the South felt they were kicked out of a so-called democracy. I do not believe there is justification required aside from that.

@blah the Prussian: Ah, Congress. The horribly bloated bureaucratic origination ... that also requires the majority. Incidentally, while I'm not opposed to slaves voting per se, I am opposed to voting in general. By which I mean the general populous voting. Not that I believe in the one percent, I think people who don't have a firm grasp of economics, and politics should not have a say in how the country is run, because quite frankly, those kinds of people don't have a clue as to what would actually be good for America, and care more about what would be good for them. This is getting seriously sidetracked though. Regarding your point on Vicksburg, I will concede, however.

Rebels from a lawful government, well, now we get into some deliciously gray areas. Yes, seceding is unlawful, however an invasion of a foreign country is also unlawful. Most importantly, how else does the South respond to a loss of all their power? The right of a democratic government to rule only comes about through the protection and consent of it's citizens, so when the citizens feel that they are not getting protection, or giving consent, then it could be argued they have a moral obligation to rebel. I will not argue that, however, I have enough on my plate.

@Hylian Air Force: In regards to your statement about the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression), your points are excellent. I will not disagree with your slavery points either. You had an intelligent comment, and you made it. Thank you. My response to that is at the beginning of my post.

And no one answered my question, by the way...

Edited March 3, 2016 by StWalker

[dondon151]

I think people who don't have a firm grasp of economics, and politics should not have a say in how the country is run, because quite frankly, those kinds of people don't have a clue as to what would actually be good for America, and care more about what would be good for them. This is getting seriously sidetracked though.

right

so you agree that secession was a mistake

[Walker]

right

so you agree that secession was a mistake

Now is when I go "What? I'm saying the exact opposite" and then you go "Ha, but by your own logic, you agreed that seceding is bad! QED!"

Did I?

I think people who don't have a firm grasp of economics, and politics should not have a say in how the country is run, because quite frankly, those kinds of people don't have a clue as to what would actually be good for America, and care more about what would be good for them.

No, I don't see it. Yes, people seceded to keep slaves which was definitely selfish and immoral but the principle reason is because Abraham Lincoln got elected without the Southern vote. The South was looking after the South! Unless you're a communist who believe that the more populous North should have full control over the South, you cannot deny the South was acting in the interests of the South. The thirteen colonies did the same, they just happened to get lucky.

If you see this, please read my earlier comment, because I've added several additional comments.

Edited March 3, 2016 by StWalker

[Phoenix Wright]

the principle reason was over slavery, with other reasons flowered over that. don't play yourself into thinking it was otherwise.

[Life]

the principle reason was over slavery, with other reasons flowered over that. don't play yourself into thinking it was otherwise.

Actually, the principle reason was because the Republicans won that election and Lincoln had promised to abolish slavery before the votes were counted. The South had threatened to secede when Lincoln made that promise. But it didn't help that the Democratic nominees were crap.

So technically, both are right because they're both correct.

[blah the Prussian]

American Conservatism, at its finest. I am neutral while considering all of these things, because the worst part about the Civil War was that it was inevitable. The immigrants did have to work dead end, low paying, strenuous, and often deadly jobs that not only they could be fired from, but also barred from getting other jobs in other businesses that robber barons were running. They also faced violence, racism, and predatory politicians that didn't actually help them in any way. Compare that to having to work in the 100+F degree heat (40+C if you're European) 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, with no air conditioning, and abusive GMs that could beat you if you complained, even if you were in tremendous pain. Couple that with no salary and fixed living conditions (poor living conditions at that), and there is no comparison between them. I'll play devil's advocate in that Fort Sumter should've shut down once South Carolina seceded, being that the siege was inevitable otherwise, but other than that, the war was pointless and costly (in context, World War II claimed less than half the American lives that the American Civil War did, and it took over 100 years to match the casualties of the ACW in other wars). I say that if they don't want you there, you bug out. I wish Obama would follow that advice and let the Middle East fight it out for the next century, because I know what the alternative is.

Oh, trust me, the treatment of immigrants, especially Chinese ones, was horrible. There is no equivalency between it and slavery, and plenty of immigrants, like Carnegie and Pullitzer, made it big.

More will be posted, but for now, I'd like to address a point.

I am not defending slavery nor exonerating it. I am not trying to justify it by claiming the North was in the wrong too, so two wrongs make a right. What I am saying i that the North did not have a moral high ground on which to criticize the South. I will not argue that there were certain people who made up a fraction of slave-owners that abused their slaves which is unquestionably evil and wrong, and from a moral standpoint deserved to be stopped.

@Sane Young Dog Man: Morality of 3/5 Compromise. I fail to see your point. Even with the weight, the South lost, so there is not an argument to be made. As for Southern rights? Well, America is a democracy. It should not be possible for the North to impose a president without some Southern consent. It really boils down to the principle of the matter which is the South felt they were kicked out of a so-called democracy. I do not believe there is justification required aside from that.

@blah the Prussian: Ah, Congress. The horribly bloated bureaucratic origination ... that also requires the majority. Incidentally, while I'm not opposed to slaves voting per se, I am opposed to voting in general. By which I mean the general populous voting. Not that I believe in the one percent, I think people who don't have a firm grasp of economics, and politics should not have a say in how the country is run, because quite frankly, those kinds of people don't have a clue as to what would actually be good for America, and care more about what would be good for them. This is getting seriously sidetracked though. Regarding your point on Vicksburg, I will concede, however.

Rebels from a lawful government, well, now we get into some deliciously gray areas. Yes, seceding is unlawful, however an invasion of a foreign country is also unlawful. Most importantly, how else does the South respond to a loss of all their power? The right of a democratic government to rule only comes about through the protection and consent of it's citizens, so when the citizens feel that they are not getting protection, or giving consent, then it could be argued they have a moral obligation to rebel. I will not argue that, however, I have enough on my plate.

@Hylian Air Force: In regards to your statement about the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression), your points are excellent. I will not disagree with your slavery points either. You had an intelligent comment, and you made it. Thank you. My response to that is at the beginning of my post.

And no one answered my question, by the way...

So let me get this strait: the South should have the right to secede, but the thousands of people you want to disenfranchise don't have the right to secede. These definitions you have of a firm grasp of politics and economics are dangerous, because they can easily be twisted to fit the needs of whoever is running gone government. Can you define what a firm grasp is in both of these cases? In my mind, every citizen of age should vote, or no one should and we should be an absolute monarchy, because being well educated does not mean that you will use your power for the good of your country. Look at Robespierre, or Lucius Sejanus, both of whom were very smart and very evil. Finally, give me any law, and precedent set for a President being illegitimate because certain states didn't vote for him. I do actually agree that the President cannot represent the minority who didn't vote for them, and thus the head of state shouldn't be elected, but that is no excuse for rebellion.

[Phoenix Wright]

Actually, the principle reason was because the Republicans won that election and Lincoln had promised to abolish slavery before the votes were counted. The South had threatened to secede when Lincoln made that promise. But it didn't help that the Democratic nominees were crap.

So technically, both are right because they're both correct.

being 'technically correct' in this case isn't noteworthy.

white people in the south wanted to keep owning black human beings and were willing to kill their fellow countrymen over their perceived right to do it. maybe because "so much time" has passed we're desensitized to this, but this fact alone makes the south's actions inexcusable. to go through the history of racism in the south (and the north!) and say that southerners were at all in the right is kind of crazy to me. first of all, no state members of a nation have the right to secede anyway (this was not "unlawful" before the civil war, but the civil war serves now as our precedent) because they feel like it. the republicans candidates today are all garbage--that doesn't mean states that want one of them instead of a democrat (or 3rd party) have the right to secede. that's dumb.

to be honest, it is truly bewildering that people still attempt to defend the south's actions.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Etrurian emperor]

The main cause of the war was definitely slavery. We have the vice president of the confederacy proudly proclaiming that the foundation of their new state was that the ''negro'' was not equal to the white man. The proclamation of secession of multiple states also have lines as ''We identify chiefly with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world''

I'l see of I can dig them up.

[blah the Prussian]

being 'technically correct' in this case isn't noteworthy.

white people in the south wanted to keep owning black human beings and were willing to kill their fellow countrymen over their perceived right to do it. maybe because "so much time" has passed we're desensitized to this, but this fact alone makes the south's actions inexcusable. to go through the history of racism in the south (and the north!) and say that southerners were at all in the right is kind of crazy to me. first of all, no state members of a nation have the right to secede anyway (this was not "unlawful" before the civil war, but the civil war serves now as our precedent) because they feel like it. the republicans candidates today are all garbage--that doesn't mean states that want one of them instead of a democrat (or 3rd party) have the right to secede. that's dumb.

to be honest, it is truly bewildering that people still attempt to defend the south's actions.

Saying it was about states rights doesn't necessarily absolve the South though. I definitely think it was partly about states rights, but even if it was entirely about that the CSA would still be in the wrong. Decentralization is a menace, and setting the precedent of letting states secede would be the destruction of the Union. PM isn't really supporting the CSA here.

[Phoenix Wright]

if by "pm" you mean life (the user), i agree. however, the principle reason he stated isn't a principle reason at all, more like cherries on top

[blah the Prussian]

if by "pm" you mean life (the user), i agree. however, the principle reason he stated isn't a principle reason at all, more like cherries on top

The principle reason he stated was such in the same way that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the principle reason for starting WWI. It was the reason the war started, but if it hadn't been something else would be.

[Walker]

the principle reason was over slavery, with other reasons flowered over that. don't play yourself into thinking it was otherwise.

Life is not that simple. Don't pretend it is.

@blah the Prussian: I feel like we aren't talking to each other. Obviously, the South did not have a legal right to secede. Guess what? Neither did America when they wrote the Constitution which overthrew the Article of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation ​explicitly required an unanimous vote, which the Constitution did not have. I am saying that the South had a moral right to secede, because (land-wise) they represented half of America, and were rendered powerless. Also, the slaves definitely would have a moral right to revolt against their masters. I never said anything against that.

In terms of my position on voting - sidetracked. But there's a clear difference between telling someone "No." and telling someone "We have free education. Pass economics, American History, and politics at high-school level and we'd love for you to vote."

[blah the Prussian]

Life is not that simple. Don't pretend it is.

@blah the Prussian: I feel like we aren't talking to each other. Obviously, the South did not have a legal right to secede. Guess what? Neither did America when they wrote the Constitution which overthrew the Article of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation ​explicitly required an unanimous vote, which the Constitution did not have. I am saying that the South had a moral right to secede, because (land-wise) they represented half of America, and were rendered powerless. Also, the slaves definitely would have a moral right to revolt against their masters. I never said anything against that.

In terms of my position on voting - sidetracked. But there's a clear difference between telling someone "No." and telling someone "We have free education. Pass economics, American History, and politics at high-school level and we'd love for you to vote."

Now, that is an interesting point, because let me engage in my own bit of revisionist history and say that you're absolutely right. The Americans did not have the right to declare Independance. They were acting like whiny assholes over some taxes. However, at the very least America was founded on tax evasion, while the CSA was founded (admittedly partly, but still significantly) to keep slavery. Regarding representation, as I said before, the South was still represented in Congress, so unless every other state ganged up on them (which wasn't going to happen for anything, sans maybe slavery) they would have been fine.

[Original Alear]

I am not defending slavery nor exonerating it. I am not trying to justify it by claiming the North was in the wrong too, so two wrongs make a right. What I am saying i that the North did not have a moral high ground on which to criticize the South. I will not argue that there were certain people who made up a fraction of slave-owners that abused their slaves which is unquestionably evil and wrong, and from a moral standpoint deserved to be stopped.

Umm. The bolded statement is what I most have a problem with. It seems to me that slave ownership in general is abuse. I could elaborate on cruelty of slavery, but I'd like to have some idea on what your view of the morality of slavery is if you are claiming that you are not defending slavery but, at the same time, claiming that "a fraction of slave-owners" abused their slaves. Granted, if one slave owner owned one slave and did not abuse that slave, that would be grounds for claiming that a fraction of slave owners abused their slaves, since 999/1000 is a fraction, not a whole. But I get the distinct feeling that you are claiming that a substantial fraction of southern slave owners were benign masters. I will point out a few things:

-In Richmond, slave yards were outfitted with whipping posts. People living in the city would send their slaves to slave yards when they wanted their slaves punished. If those working in the slave industry outfitted their facilities to punish slaves who were already bought and owned, doesn't that suggest a prevalence of abuse? What would the argument against this be? The masters themselves were not abusing the slaves because they were having the slave yards do it for them?

http://usslave.blogspot.com/2012/02/slave-whipping-as-business.html

-While it was mostly legal to teach slaves to read up until around 1830 in the south, laws began being passed to outlaw this after.

https://historymyths.wordpress.com/tag/slave-literacy/

-I remember in a college history course, we read that one of the freedoms slaves apparently most enjoyed after liberation was the ability to travel freely. Prior to that point, slaves needed a written pass to travel. I guess you wouldn't consider it abuse if you, an adult, had to ask your owner to write a pass for you if you wanted to travel out of town?

-Physical atrocities such as whippings weren't limited to slave owners alone. Slave patrols, which enforced slave codes for slave owners, included non-slave owners in their ranks. If the south had organized institutions for punishing slaves which went beyond slave owners themselves, doesn't that suggest that such punishments were widespread?

-In 1691, Virginia created a law which enforced a fine on white women who birthed children of black slaves, to say nothing of what happened to the black man should he be found. Is restricting freedom of sexual relations of adults not an abuse? This was the law.

In short, even if one is willing to agree that legal ownership of a person in and of itself is not abuse, and is willing to grant the possible existence of a good slavemaster, it remains clear that abuse was not only substantial among slave owners, but an institutional reality perpetuated by southerners in general.

IMO, the idea that but a fraction of slave owners abused their slaves is a good example of very faulty historical revionism.

@Sane Young Dog Man: Morality of 3/5 Compromise. I fail to see your point. Even with the weight, the South lost, so there is not an argument to be made. As for Southern rights? Well, America is a democracy. It should not be possible for the North to impose a president without some Southern consent. It really boils down to the principle of the matter which is the South felt they were kicked out of a so-called democracy. I do not believe there is justification required aside from that.

The point is that the South was using the slaves to gain additional weight in elections, but the slaves themselves had no representation. It's remarkably hypocritical for a state to complain "a majority of our population didn't vote for this president, so we're not being represented, so we're going to secede" and at the same time use the population of the state to increase their weight in the election while denying part of that population the right to vote (or be free of slavery). If they were really dedicated to the principle of self-representation in voting, then the slaves should have had the ability to vote in the election.

The point is that, regardless of whether the south won or lost the election despite the additional weight given to their electorate by the 3/5 compromise, they compromised the principle of representation

Additionally, it's facetious to say there was no southern consent. First off, I suspect black southerners would have consented to president lincoln in favor of president davis. Secondly, West Virginia broke off from Virginia to join the Union. Doesn't that indicate that there were southerners who didn't feel represented by the confederacy? Finally, there were slave states that never seceded from the union, despite not having voted for lincoln. Apparently, not everyone felt that not electing your candidate of choice justifies secession from the union.

I'm not ruling out the idea of secession, ever, but the justification for it has to extend beyond "my candidate of choice was not elected." You've mentioned southern rights being at threat. Aside from slavery, what other rights were threatened?

I am saying that the South had a moral right to secede, because (land-wise) they represented half of America, and were rendered powerless

Why does the land share determine the morality of secession? A third of Britain is still owned by the aristocracy, should they have the right to secede if they want?

Aside from slavery, what southern rights do you think were at threat? You've stated that there were some, but you haven't actually given them.

In an election, every person is not entitled to have the right to have one's candidate of choice elected. That would be ridiculous. Obviously if there is rampant election fraud (for example), those declared losers of an election should consider disputing or disregarding the results. But at least sometimes, when one participates in an election, one has to be willing to abide by an unfavorable result.

Now is when I go "What? I'm saying the exact opposite" and then you go "Ha, but by your own logic, you agreed that seceding is bad! QED!"

Did I?

Dondon's point isn't that your argument was a robust and logical one that contradicts secession. He is pointing out that secession was disastrous, and that you are arguing the south should have seceded anyway.

@blah the Prussian: Ah, Congress. The horribly bloated bureaucratic origination ... that also requires the majority. Incidentally, while I'm not opposed to slaves voting per se, I am opposed to voting in general. By which I mean the general populous voting.

If you're opposed to voting in general, why are you so outraged that the south lost the election in a general vote? Secession and the civil war were disastrous for both sides in numerous ways, but moreso for the south AFAICT. To paraphrase what you said, people who don't know what is in their own self interest shouldn't vote, and considering the result, secession was not in the interests of the south. Does this indicate that the southern political mindset was inferior to the north, considering the results of their mindset? I believe the general population should be entitled to the right to vote, but by your criteria, perhaps southerners should not have been allowed to vote, since their reaction to the results of the election proved so disastrous for them. Perhaps, according to your own perspective, you should not be allowed to vote.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Sane Young Dog Man

[Walker]

Perhaps, according to your own perspective, you should not be allowed to vote.

Yes. That is a fair statement to make.