US Politics: Confederacy vs Nazis vs USSR

[Galactus]

Having a fort in their territory usually is considered aggression as well isn't it? Whatever state the fort was in seceded so the fort and all those American troops in it that refused to leave would be very provoking wouldn't it?

In that case the very act of secession is an act of aggression. (which is usually the way these things are)

[azrur]

Azrur,

But without slavery there is no cause for secession and no war begins.

I am sure they could find other reasons That region did no longer wish to be part of the US and if the American soldiers left the territory then there would also be no war The Americans fought a war just the century before because they did not want to be part of the British Empire but they deny the choice of the Southern people

In that case the very act of secession is an act of aggression. (which is usually the way these things are)

It is a choice not to be part of that country The same choice the Americans made with the British isn't it?

Man, I would not bother. I'll bet you a pound of Lexington BBQ to a pound of that mustard drenched pork you call BBQ that this is a grumdin reincarnation.

Deal?

You would be wrong

[Galactus]

(as to "episodes of mass starvation," there's really only three in soviet history: early 20s, early 30s, and post-WWII)

That might be your "early 20's" thing, but there was also significant starvation episodes during the Civil War.

[Galactus]

It is a choice not to be part of that country The same choice the Americans made with the British isn't it?

Wait, you assume that the declaration of independence was not an act of aggression?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Azrur,

Sure it was a possiblity but what other issue was so divisive and passion inducing as slavery?

[all swedes are racist]

Man, I would not bother. I'll bet you a pound of Lexington BBQ to a pound of that mustard drenched pork you call BBQ that this is a grumdin reincarnation.

Deal?

I've got a quart of Boston Clam Chowder on mazigh

[azrur]

Wait, you assume that the declaration of independence was not an act of aggression?

I am no American historian or sympathizer but wouldn't it be a response to British agression?

Azrur,

Sure it was a possiblity but what other issue was so divisive and passion inducing as slavery?

Gun control big vs little government states rights communism vs capitalism religion race welfare and other things can be pretty divisive too And was the North composed of staunch abolitionists and the South of wealthy slave owners? If you have anything on % of slaves in the Confederacy and % of slaveholders there that would be very much appreciated

[BloodRider]

I've got a quart of Boston Clam Chowder on mazigh

I'm in. Now we wait to see if Jews are the Devil or Freemen on the Land talking points come up first.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Azrur,

Oh, compairatively few but those few held the political power in the South and were the most likely to be negatively affected by the loss of power restricting slavery to its existing States would have result in.

[azrur]

I'm in. Now we wait to see if Jews are the Devil or Freemen on the Land talking points come up first.

Has that ever been stated? And I have no idea what Freedmen on the Land means

Azrur,

Oh, compairatively few but those few held the political power in the South and were the most likely to be negatively affected by the loss of power restricting slavery to its existing States would have result in.

And what would seceding have done to help that?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Azrur,

It would have removed them from the larger State and sperated them from the people in the North who were challenging the morality of the source of their power, the ability to own slaves and the ability to carry their human property into the new Western Territories.

Republican politicians and abolitionists were challenging the ability of the planter class to continue expanding. Without the ability to send their members into new States slavery, the source of the planters political and economic power, was under heavy threat. Therefore, Lincoln's election and his threat to ban slavery in Federal territories was cause, for the Southern ruling class, to choose to leave. If they stayed their power would be on the wane, at best. If they left they had a chance to found their own State where their power was preserved.

The "Late Unpleasantness" was a war fought by the powerless to preserve the privilege of the powerful.

[Sparrowyn]

... And was the North composed of staunch abolitionists and the South of wealthy slave owners? If you have anything on % of slaves in the Confederacy and % of slaveholders there that would be very much appreciated

I live in the Deep South (Florida)... and this stuff comes up sometimes as some folks try to rewrite history. The Southern economy was driven by institutional slavery. Yes, the American Civil War could be said to be a war between two very different ways of life, as the North was already geared up for the Industrial Age and the South was still an Agrarian Society; but remove slavery from the picture and you never get the Civil War.

In fact the States that already had slavery could probably have continued the practice for decades. The war was for the western territories and whether the Federal Government could prohibit slavery in those future states.

[Lightysnake88]

I am no American historian or sympathizer but wouldn't it be a response to British agression?

Gun control big vs little government states rights communism vs capitalism religion race welfare and other things can be pretty divisive too And was the North composed of staunch abolitionists and the South of wealthy slave owners? If you have anything on % of slaves in the Confederacy and % of slaveholders there that would be very much appreciated

even the most cynical of views of the American secession from the British cannot begin to deny the Britishhad, in cases, denied Colonists their rights guaranteed under British law. The Southhad been all too happy to force states to obey its whims and celebrated things like forcing slavery on states that didn't want it, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Dred Scott decision...things that were against the principles of States' Rights as long as they were in charge.

The South seceded over the loss of a Democratic election. More than one Southern leader and state spoke proudly that the reason they were seceding was the defense of the institution of slavery. And Fort Sumter, just for the record, had been constructed long before the Civil War. The Confederacy wasn't about trying to preserve its liberty,or how we should just respect the choices of the South (when the Confederacy was NOT into allowing dissent or separation from its own members), but it was an attempt by the powerful to continue to hold human beings in bondage and expand that institution.

Furthermore, slavery was the single greatest economic concentration in the nation. More than all the factories and railroads put together

[azrur]

Azrur,

It would have removed them from the larger State and sperated them from the people in the North who were challenging the morality of the source of their power, the ability to own slaves and the ability to carry their human property into the new Western Territories.

Republican politicians and abolitionists were challenging the ability of the planter class to continue expanding. Without the ability to send their members into new States slavery, the source of the planters political and economic power, was under heavy threat. Therefore, Lincoln's election and his threat to ban slavery in Federal territories was cause, for the Southern ruling class, to choose to leave. If they stayed their power would be on the wane, at best. If they left they had a chance to found their own State where their power was preserved.

The "Late Unpleasantness" was a war fought by the powerless to preserve the privilege of the powerful.

Do you think those powerless (people not owning slaves) would not wanted to have seceded? From what I have seen the Americans treated the Confederates not so good during and after the war with the march to the sea and all that

[BloodRider]

And all the bells were ringing.

[SkynJay]

Catching up and I have realized this is the most misnamed thread title ever.

[Lightysnake88]

Do you think those powerless (people not owning slaves) would not wanted to have seceded? From what I have seen the Americans treated the Confederates not so good during and after the war with the march to the sea and all that

Look how the Confederacy treated hundreds of thousands of human beings whose one crime was being born black.

Or the Bee Creek Massacre. The raids of Champ Ferguson. The Shelton Laurel Massacre. The Centralia Massacre. The Fort Pillow Massacre. The Lawrence Massacre...or Camp Sumter.

Yeah, the Confederacy was utterly horrible and its war crimes (and the crime againt humanity its existence derives from) are whitewashed far too often

[Summah]

The South seceded over the loss of a Democratic election. More than one Southern leader and state spoke proudly that the reason they were seceding was the defense of the institution of slavery. And Fort Sumter, just for the record, had been constructed long before the Civil War. The Confederacy wasn't about trying to preserve its liberty,or how we should just respect the choices of the South (when the Confederacy was NOT into allowing dissent or separation from its own members), but it was an attempt by the powerful to continue to hold human beings in bondage and expand that institution.

The Declarations of Secession also make it quite explicit that the foremost and most important reason for secession was slavery despite whatever confederacy apologists may want to believe, if one actually reads the documents etc its really not a point that's up for contention. And for those who want to argue "state's rights", the "right" being fought for was the right to own slaves.

And all the bells were ringing.

Maybe you can figure it out by language usage analysis.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Azrur,

I think the non-planters followed the lead of the planters. There is a reason why areas where the planter class was weakest (the Appalachians for example) tended to have strong Union sympathies.

[Shryke]

This shit is boring, let's talk about how the modern day wealthy are fucking over everyone else, rather then the horrible people from 2 centuries ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/business/from-outside-or-inside-the-deck-looks-stacked.html?_r=4

“The game is rigged and the American people know that. They get it right down to their toes.”

That’s Elizabeth Warren talking, the former consumer advocate and law school professor and now a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. I interviewed her about her new memoir, “A Fighting Chance,” in which she discusses one of America’s biggest challenges: how to level the playing field so that Main Street doesn’t always come second to Wall Street.

it also examines in considerable detail the government’s deeply inequitable response to the financial crisis of 2008.

Ms. Warren was on the scene for the aftermath of that mess, when she became the chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which carried out one of the government’s major bailout deals. In her retelling, we watch as the banks that caused the crisis receive special treatment and costly rescues while troubled homeowners get little or nothing.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, she writes, “couldn’t change a system that seemed hellbent on protecting the big guys and leaving everyone else by the side of the road.” About President Obama, she writes, “The president chose his team, and when there was only so much time and so much money to go around, the president’s team chose Wall Street.”

A telling anecdote involves a dinner that Ms. Warren had with Lawrence H. Summers, then the director of the National Economic Council and a top economic adviser to President Obama. The dinner took place in the spring of 2009, after the oversight panel had produced its third report, concluding that American taxpayers were at far greater risk to losses in TARP than the Treasury had let on.

After dinner, “Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Ms. Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.

“I had been warned,” Ms. Warren concluded.