115
Imagine if the South had seceded and the Blue States were free of Grey-Red Conservatism : Swingers Discussion 97795101
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsImagine if the South had seceded and the Blue States were free of Grey-Red Conservatism
TOPIC: Imagine if the South had seceded and the Blue States were free of Grey-Red Conservatism
Created by: sappholovers
Original Starting post for this thread:
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 1 to 10 of 64   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Well Sapph I was trying to enjoy a spirited intellectual debate, and not "attack" you.

Some of these discussions like many tend to sour, unfortunately. When I was in college I sought an institution of higher learning where I could find like minded individuals who could speak passionately with regard to exchange of ideas, theories, and beliefs. (and somehow not take offense)

I learned quickly then that there is no such place.

The one thing I did pick up along the way is that the occidental perspective of our history is not the only view point in the world.

Grantham NH
 
 
Username hidden
(1470 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
PerfectMatch:

So what in your most recent hallucination to do you think you did to me? Please explain your chortling to yourself. It reminds me of Saddam warning the USA that the USA would face the Mother of all Battles. You have even less chance of winning any argument with me about the Civil War as Saddam had a chance of winning Gulf War I and II. Your posts are far less accurate than a Scud missile.

PerfectMatch: "The views of Lincoln on the negro was no different than the vast majority of the North. Lincoln was elected by about 1/3 of the vote. Many in the north also owned slaves."

OK, to support this point, let me see you sum up the views of Lincoln on the Negro in a coherent, logical paragraph.

Next please tell me how many people in Northern states owned slaves in 1860?

By the way, people citing the statistic that only 5% of Southerners owned slaves is wrong. About 25% of Southern families owned slaves according to Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia:

Of all 1,515,605 families in the 15 slave states, 393,967 held slaves (roughly one in four), amounting to 8% of all American families. Most households, however, had only a few slaves. The concentration of slaves were held by planters, defined by historians as those who held 20 or more slaves. The planters achieved wealth and social and political power. Ninety-five percent of black people lived in the South, comprising one-third of the population there, as opposed to 1% of the population of the North.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
PerfectMatch:

Another caution: You tend to equate the North with Lincoln and Northern politics with Lincoln. He was President but the political thinking of the North and their motivations in the Civil War can not be reduced to what Lincoln said in a speech and a latter between 1861-1862. The South knew that Northern power was not just the power and significance of Lincoln and that Lincoln was the embodiment of a Republican Party whose intention was to end slavery as a moral evil.

Lincoln is one of our 2 or 3 best presidents ever. I think GW Bush will go down as among our top 5-7 worse presidents.

Lincoln actually is credited with fulfilling his initial goal of president in fighting the Civil War: he held the Union together or brought it back together. He also ended up abolishing the WMD of the slave system, and he did do a regime change in the South and in the USA, ending the tyranny of slavery, however much such a regime change was opposed by the insurgency and terrorism of the KKK.

Bush has fought the Iraq War for longer than the Civil War, and he destroyed no WMD (as there were none in Iraq to destroy), and Iraq right now is more Humpty-Dumpty after the fall than a united, stable, secure Iraq. The Kurds are semi-autonomous, and they will be be reunited with a new Iraq. Iraq is still an occupied land, with a government propped up and supported by 130,000 American troops. I think the Northern armies left the South pretty soon after Lee's surrender.

Lincoln's war created a stronger and more just nation than if the South had been allowed to secede. We will have to wait and see if Bush's war has created a stable and secure Iraq. We know from Intelligence Reports that the Iraq War has fueled terrorism. It does not look like the Middle East is more stable. The Iraq War has been most beneficial to Iran. Iran is a much stronger player in the Middle East now, and that is not a good sign, unless moderate regain power in Iraq.

Saddam was a tyrant, and good riddance. I just wish Reagan and George W. Bush had not been such bosom buddies or allies with Saddam in the 1980s, when Saddam already had a record of being a brutal tyrant.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sappholovers: "Up until 1862, freeing the slaves in the slave states was not the purpose of the Civil War as it was being proclaimed by Lincoln and others."

PerfectMatch: "Then how can slaver be the major cause????"

You have a tin ear as well as a lead brain. You cannot understand a complex or nuanced sentence. Note: I said that freeing the slaves IN SLAVE STATES up until 1862 was not the purpose of the Civil War AS IT WAS BEING PROCLAIMED BY LINCOLN.

Lincoln's stated purpose, as President, up until 1862 was to hold the Union together, just as Bush's stated purpose for the War in Iraq was to eliminate the threat of WMDs. Bush never declared that his stated purpose was to engage in a regime change in Iraq. He justified the war as a pre-emptive war to eliminate the threat of WMDs. Of course, Saddam and Iraqi knew better, and so did anyone with half a brain. Bush's purpose was for a regime change, the deposition of Saddam and the creation of an Iraq that would be friendly to Israel and friendly to American big oil. But Bush could not sell the war to the public or to the U.N. as a war to make him look good politically and to advance a Neocon agenda.

The South feared that with the election of Lincoln a regime change would be next: Lincoln's regime would end the expansion of slavery in the new states and that would lead, with a change in power in favor of the free states, to the power to do a regime change in the South that would abolish slavery. Jefferson Davis was deeply suspcious of Lincoln's stated purpose, knowing that Lincoln in his heart was opposed to slavery as a moral wrong and a violation of the Declaration of Independence.

For the 69th time, I have to point out to you that just because Lincoln's stated purpose was not to free the slave in the South, this does not mean his stated and explicit agenda was to prevent the spread of slavery into the West or into new states, and it was this issue--the spread of slavery, as something of a WMD--into the West that Lincoln was pledged to stop, and that prompted the South to secede.

Just because Lincoln said that his original intention in fighting the war was not to free slaves in the South, this does not mean that the entire conflict and debate between North and South leading up to the war--and causing it--was not over the political economy of slavery. The focus of the slavery debate became the issue of expansion of slavery into the new states, and Lincoln was clear and convincing to the South that he intended to stop that expansion, which is why they seceded.

Stopping the expansion of slavery is different than freeing slaves in the South: Do you get that? Do you get that? You have a one track mind that can not appreciate complexity and nuance, which may be ok in Electrical Engineering but it is a fatal defect in a historian or anyone attempting to understand history, life and sexuality.

It's like you don't have the nuance to understand that a man is not either straight or gay, but can be bi: he can love sucking cock and he can love fucking pussy. Open up your mind to something other than the reductiveness of gay-straight thinking and open it up to the wonderful complexity of Lincoln's approach to the Civil War: his ideal was to abolish slavery and conform the USA to the Declaration's commitment to equality, but he was also pragmatic, and his statement about not freeing the slaves in the South was Lincoln speaking in his pragmatic voice and his voice as a President.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Perfect, Sapp will inform you to take a photo copy of the last supper and cut everyones eyes out (like in Con-Air) and run the photo down Davis's speech and it will say that what they were doing was only for slaves....

Spencer TN
 
 
Username hidden
(6438 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sweetbutt:

Up until 1862, freeing the slaves in the slave states was not the purpose of the Civil War as it was being proclaimed by Lincoln and others. For Lincoln, the North was fighting to hold the Union together. As Jeff Davis explains, the Confederates were fighting to defend the political economy of slavery, as he called slavery the issue of "transcendent magniture" in his 1861 speech to the Confederate Congress. What your Wikipedia entry does not say is that expansion of slavery into the new states was the key conflict that divided North and South. Lincoln was opposed to such expansion. Davis and the South was for it. I've argued all along that in 1860 the debate over slavery focused on its expansion into new states, as the Lincoln wanted to bring new states in as free states, which would bring the balance of power in the USA in favor of the anti-slave states, and that change in the balance of power is what worried the South and helped lead to the secession.

From 1848-1860, America was fixated on the issue of slavery, and most everything in politics and much in culture revolved around this issue, including the best-selling "Uncle Tom's Cabin," The Dred Scott case, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Harper's Ferry, and whether Texas and California would enter as free or slaver states back in the late 1840s/1850.

The debate and conflict over slavery between 1848-1860 absorbed even more attention than the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War from 2001-2008. Slavery was a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and the North wanted to stop its spread. It wanted to contain the WMD in the South, and then after 1862, Lincoln decided to eliminate it in the slave states in secession as well.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
So dismiss academic historans as, in general, a tribe of propagandists. I've said many times that all history is written from a point of view, a subjectivity. It's not an objective science. Historians love to check and balance each other, challenging each other for bias and for misreadings of the evidence, or they come up with new evidence to disprove an accepted argument.

I've been reporting to you the general consensus of profesional historians about the origins of the Civil War. 100 years from now this consensus may change. History is always been revised and reinterpreted, and it is always crucial to examine from whose point of view history is being told.

But there's been 100 years of extensive writing about the Civil War--the most written about event in American history--and there's a consensus now, among historians from the South as well as the North--about the major causes of the Civil War, and slavery is always at the top, even though slavery also involves moral, economic and political arguments and conflicts.

What's posters attacking me keep failing to note that Jefferson Davis himself called slavery the interest of "transcendent magnitude" in the conflict between the North and the South. Yes, Davis in his April 29, 1861 speech to Congress raises other issues, but he calls slavery the "transcendent" issue, and Lincoln says that everyone knew slavery was at the center of the conflict.

You guys attack me but you don't cite any reputable historian to refute what I've said, or any reputable source, and when you cite sources or plagiarize from them as Lucky did, you leave out stuff that refutes your points that I can find so easily by checking the source.

One had to be a blind fool to read Wikipedia's entry on "The Origins of the Civil War" and conclude that slavery was not at the center of the conflict, and the entry also includes a paragraph saying that historians now dismiss economic conflicts as at the center.

Wikipedia is not something authored by scholars. It is written by a consensus of well-informed people, checking and balancing each other.

If posters on this Forum tried posting their opinions about the Civil War that refute mine, you would not get your opinions into print on Wikipedia, or it would be quickly challenged and eliminated.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sweetbutt: What selective cherry-picking. Check out the Wikipedia entry on the "Origins of the American Civil War":

Here's the first sentence of the entry: "The origins of the American Civil War lay in the complex issues of slavery, competing understandings of federalism, party politics, expansionism, sectionalism, tariffs, economics and modernization in the Antebellum Period."

What issue comes first? What issue or interest did Jefferson Davis say was the interest of "transcendent magnitude" Slavery.

More from Wikipedia:

Militant defense of slavery

With the outcry over developments in Kansas strong in the North, defenders of slavery— increasingly committed to a way of life that abolitionists and their sympathizers considered obsolete or immoral— shifted to a militant pro-slavery ideology that would lay the groundwork for secession upon the emergence of Abraham Lincoln.

Southerners waged a vitriolic response to political change in the North. Slaveholding interests sought to uphold their constitutional rights in the territories and to maintain sufficient political strength to repulse "hostile" and "ruinous" legislation. Behind this shift was the growth of the cotton industry, which left slavery more important than ever to the Southern economy.

Economics

Historians generally agree that economic conflicts were not a major cause of the war. Economic historian Lee A. Craig reports, "In fact, numerous studies by economic historians over the past several decades reveal that economic conflict was not an inherent condition of North-South relations during the antebellum era and did not cause the Civil War."[40] When numerous groups tried at the last minute in 1860-61 to find a compromise to avert war, they did not turn to economic policies.[41] Aside from the economic institution of slavery, no other economic issues brought about the Civil War.

Sweetbutt: I'd love to hear your comment on the above paragraph.

Los Angeles CA
 
 
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Yes Perf it was Canada, and the depiction was in the Canadian military museum in the Citadel in Halifax, NS.

They had some very interesting paintings depicting American troops climbing down ladders to cross the "pit" to get to the inner wall. At the bottom, and on the ends of each pit was a portal from which grapeshot was to be fired point blank range into the invaders.

Grantham NH
 
 
Username hidden
(1470 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Since Sapp believes every word in Wiki here ya go...

But up to the fall of 1862, slavery was not an issue in the war. The Federal government had explicitly declared that it was fighting solely to save the Union.

Found under Britain in the American Civil War

Spencer TN
 
 
Username hidden
(6438 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 1 to 10 of 64   End
TOPIC: Imagine if the South had seceded and the Blue States were free of Grey-Red Conservatism