Statues of traitors proudly displayed in the US Capital Building.

[Scrofula]

You know who hasn't spent time on college campuses when they feel threatened by flavor-of-the-week campus "revolutionaries".

New year, new berets in style, since colleges started.

Those are harmless college snowflakes, guys.

You want leftist violence? Russan revolution, Chinese Revolution, Chilean revolution (losers), Spanish revolution (losers), Cuba, Viet Nam, the US in the 1930s when we still threw bombs, faced down Company Pinkertons wielding machine guns. LOTS of violence in the 50's and 60's here, both sides, when the police did NOT hold back.

And you want to tell me you're scared of some girl from PETA who throws blood on a celebrity wearing a fur coat, probably.

 

[Scrofula]

In before you say "they threw a brick though!"

 

[David Wooderson]

All those White Trash Yokels who were just fighting so they wouldn't be the lowest class around. It's not about slavery, it's about being better than somebody, anybody.

/s

You mean a class of a population that was beginning to become more globally competitive and supersede their nothern counterparts?

Your modern conception of white trash yokels of today and back than are two totally different things.

Your average modern day hedge fund manager or trust funder where the common slave owners back then, not your average southerner.

In fact slavery is more apparent today in that poor people can pay illegal immigrants pennies to clean their toilets (in modern day substandard, illegal conditions and terms) while they make just a few pennies more. That's 3rd world capitalism, that we adopted under Clinton, W and Obama.

Nah....
Lets just prop up a straw man in an old war uniform....and continue making carmen scrub some trucker's wive's toilet, while said trucker's wife talks shit and votes democrat because her meal ticket is blue collar.

 

[Scrofula]

"You mean a class of a population that was beginning to become more globally competitive and supersede their nothern counterparts?"

I've never said LOL in a post ever, so congrats. LOLOLOL. AHAHAHAHAh.

Look, I said up above, grunts are grunts. Can't use what they thought to defend the folks in charge.

 

[David Wooderson]

"You mean a class of a population that was beginning to become more globally competitive and supersede their nothern counterparts?"

If unfair, unamerican taxes were not imposed than within 10-20 years the south would have had both raw materials and manufacturing, but that never came to be, however they were a raw goods superhouse.

There are many many facets to this war.

Some say it was done to make sure global banking interests remained in control, other say because your average every man, woman and child southerner owned and whipped slaves....and we needed to send hundreds of thousands of young boys to slaughter in order to punish and kill said evil slave owners.

Literally shaking my head

 

[cduggles]

Apparently not so much better than their Northern counterparts at warfare though

 

[Scrofula]

^---Damn girl. That's a burn, fellas.

I'm literally shaking my head, at how you can deny that the war was fought between two economic systems, one of which was slavery.

That's undeniable, so stop. What are you defending, trying so hard, looking up facts and then distorting them to try to squeeze out some reason to support that system? We don't assume white Southerners are racists until they start defending the confederacy. Built with slavery. No denying it. It doesn't matter what else was going on in the world. Taxes or whatever the fuck.

All you have to do is say, "yup, built on slavery, it was bad. Sad about them grunts, too. We all agree it has nothing to do with people who live in the South today," and we all agree.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Also, history is written by the victors, which is why the only thing the Civil War was about was slavery

That isn't always the case. For the South, there's the myth of the lost cause - that slavery wasn't central to the civil war. It's BS - the primary sources are pretty damn clear on this, but it's a history that gained acceptance in the South as former Confederates published their own take on the war.

It's a history where the South were gentlemen, the North aggressors, and slavery a minor (and beneficial) part of the Southern way of life. It's a history where the superior southern military were overwhelmed with numbers while valiantly trying to defend their homes.

Sounds nice, and because it's nice, it became popular. Monuments to traitors were put up all over the South. Southerners could see their ancestors as noble people.

Too bad it's BS.

We don't need "history written by the victors" to show that slavery drove the civil war. We have documents written at the time. This is, and always will be, the Achilles heel of the Lost Cause. The Civil War took place in an era where printing was cheap, and there's a wealth of primary sources. Unfortunately for believers in the Lost Cause, the leaders of the Confederacy openly wrote about their beliefs in white supremacy and African slavery.

In short, the Lost Cause has been a very popular history, but one that isn't true.

 

[zephyr]

Slavery has been rampant since civilisation begun and prol before that.

It got a lot of shit done. Doubt America would have grown as fast as it did without it.

It wasnt as if trade unions were around in Egypt when the pyramids were built.

Humans enslave each other. It just depends on whos got power and money and who doesnt.


The reason to keep slaves was based more on economics than anything to do with race tbh. Why pay your workforce when you dont gave to ?

 

[David Wooderson]

^---Damn girl. That's a burn, fellas.

I'm literally shaking my head, at how you can deny that the war was fought between two economic systems, one of which was slavery.

Yes a war of economics, but not they way you see it.

If anything slavery is very anti-capitalist, there are black historians that believe the first trade unions in the USA were created in defense of cheap southern slave labor.

There was a world war on our economy at the same time as that war that 99% of current media leaves out.

If you honestly think that the players in that war were more concerned with freeing slaves than money, you're out of your freaking mind, lincoln himself declared many times that he had no intention on giving slaves any real status in society. It was a ploy, much like Hillary Clinton's hot sauce moment.

It's easy to look back with all the hindsight and think that freeing slaves was the most important thing, but at the time it wasn't, it was a ploy to get men to fight.
Do people today think the only reason we fought in WWII was to save jewish ppl?


Some of the first abolitionists in the USA were slave owners.

The duality that man can own a slave and then write and support legislation to end slavery, is something that is lost in modern times, like that it's a modern impossibility.

The fact that somebody can be wrong and attempt to write their wrongs.

IMO it seems current politics and schooling would have you weighing in on the political correctness of war vs war is evil and should only be used as an absolute last resort.

No instead it just boils down to "slavery...bad", "nazis...hitler...bad", "chemical weapons...ethnic cleansing...bad", instead of learning the true factual lessons of past wars we are left with buzzwords and current opinion and horrible daily show'esque stand up routines.

 

[Scrofula]

The problem with your last line, David, is that you don't seem to ever say "Southern antebellum slavery . . . was bad. It's preservation was central to the Civil War."

Everybody here has learned "the true factual lessons," even non-Americans. They have a cable show every other week somewhere going into deep detail, esp. about all those non-slave owning grunts. Lots of slow mournful background music and reading of letters. They have reenactments everywhere all the time, you can take tours of old battlefields.

Do you feel guilty about your ancestors or something? Don't. You don't need to defend rich plantation owners with people-livestock. They're all dead.

Californians enslaved Native Americans before murdering them all or ran them off as proto-Mexicans, poisoned the hills with mine tailings; the bear on our flag is extinct from being hunted, we invented freeways and the techbro, and I only feel guilty about how we elected Schwarzenegger. And Prius drivers.

 

[David Wooderson]

Southern slavery was abhorrent, along with all forms human slavery.

Unchecked and unbalanced immigration has given rise to a near slave class.

I'm glad we have a president that has put that problem forefront, and would actually like to end it so that we can get our house in order before it truly becomes a split in nations.

The only reason big cities grow and enact policies like immigration safe zones is to ensure never ending cheap labor and consumers, very much like how the south took advantage of slavery.

 

[Scrofula]

Can't argue with th . . . dammit!

Yes, immigrants in the US are treated like ROMAN slaves sometimes.

To threadjack, because Republicans create policies to encourage that (good for business, that cheap labor and no rights thing).

We lefties think they deserve rights to sue when they fall in the unsafe sausage mixer, which they don't have right now. So we're still anti-slavery, right wing in favor of slavery (by your own definition).

And Trump just knows yelling "there takin are jerbs!" gets cheers as he hires and underpays them to work at his buildings, even white ones (the Poles who built Trump Tower). The biggest hypocrite the world did see, and right in front of his supporters.


I think I'm avoiding finishing the cooking. It's fucking hot to turn on the broiler.

 

[cduggles]

We don't need "history written by the victors" to show that slavery drove the civil war.

In short, the Lost Cause has been a very popular history, but one that isn't true.

War is only simple in retrospect. © (Attribution to cduggles, please).

First, I agree with you and all your sources, and write with the firm and hard-earned opinion academically and anecdotally that Southerners are quite clear on the issue of slavery driving the Civil War and why they fought for it. And that they lost.

Prior to fleeing the site of my Southern youth, I lived amongst those who bore the proud names of the earliest and most blessed of the Southern settlers and the less gentrified Baptist Bible-toting, large truck driving, gun-wielding self-described rednecks.

The former don't hearken back to better days. Basically they call Northerners "Yankees", have debutante debuts, keep a social registry, and make very good pie. (It's really good.)

The latter say the "South will rise again" as nothing more than a saying to add "yeehaw" after and chug a domestic beer (because it's cheaper). They are also likely to have a sticker of the Confederate flag on the aforementioned pickup trucks and an American flag on their house in a fashion.

And, in all those creepy reenactments, the South doesn't win. They get it.

Even the Southern militias are just folk who believe in an apocalypse (the source of the doom varies, but it's never the North coming back) and they want to be left alone, not pay taxes and get themselves and their kids ready for a siege of some sort. Sometimes there's a living off the grid component, which is surprisingly creepier.

I think a bit of complexity lies in the North. To secede was to act. The North was composed of the states that remained. The moral high ground, which is the post-war narrative, does have the best view. But in the end we agree on most points, so it's not worth uncivil discourse.

But lest this point be lost, the Civil War was brutal and terribly bloody. Conservatively, there were over 615,000 Americans casualties. That kind of fighting is not even tenable, much less palatable to Americans today. The fact that a whole country has been created from that hideous seam almost defies the worst cynicism.

And Prius drivers.

You really can't hear them. They sneak up on you.

 

[David Wooderson]

We lefties think they deserve rights to sue when they fall in the unsafe sausage mixer, which they don't have right now. So we're still anti-slavery, right wing in favor of slavery (by your own definition).

Illegal immigrants can sue for personal injury, and other matters, the fact is the society they live is a counterculture to actual American society and things like misinformation and rumors become fact and as a result they do not seek the justice they are guaranteed.


Trump could do a 180* close the boarders put up a fence....then grant mass amnesty and truly help the ones who need it, versus the last three administrations whom granted sweeping amnesty without stopping the flow of new immigrants.

Imagine if he was truly able to win over the major majority of voting latinos in the next 5 years, the legal voting latinos of the country can outvote every major city and make or break a political party.

Thats what I would be trying to do if I worked for the GOP..

 

[Scrofula]

You think Tyson would respond to a suit without letting ICE know?

Actual American Society includes them, cause . . . they're here and always have been and were here before us (Latinos here before, "us"=white people). Oh, and let's all celebrate St. Patty's Day!

He could grant amnesty, indeed.

He could reduce immigration by changing Visa policy and making sure minimum wages are livable for US citizens. Another pro-illegal immigrant Republican position: abolishing minimum wages.


And Ms. Duggles, you're right, I think it's important to make clear that Northerners did NOT have (much) moral high ground. Guess I never thought about making the corollary clear: the North did NOT fight to end slavery. It fought to control the economy of the West, opposition happened to be slavery, and the North succeeded, thereby ending slavery. Lot of racists fighting for the North, to be sure.

Also, the Mountain West is full of the same end-times preppers, different sects though.

(Nearly murdered by a Prius too many times to count)

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Slavery has been rampant since civilisation begun and prol before that.

It got a lot of shit done. Doubt America would have grown as fast as it did without it.

It wasnt as if trade unions were around in Egypt when the pyramids were built.

Humans enslave each other. It just depends on whos got power and money and who doesnt.


The reason to keep slaves was based more on economics than anything to do with race tbh. Why pay your workforce when you dont gave to ?

Actually, I believe the evidence shows that the pyramid workers were paid, not slaves.

The economic value of slavery has been argued back and forth. It was profitable for those engaged in the slave trade. For the rest of society? Well, we can't run experiments, but it seems logical that slaves did not have the same incentives as free laborers to innovate. It is interesting to note that the antebellum South had little industry compared to the North.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

"Ninety-eight percent of Texas Confederate soldiers never owned a slave." So says Texas State Senate Resolution No. 526, designating April as Texas Confederate History and Heritage Month.

This is an extremely common argument among Confederate apologists, part of a larger effort to minimize or eliminate the institution of slavery as a factor in secession and the coming of the war, and thus make it possible to maintain the notion that Southern soldiers, like the Confederacy itself, were driven by the purest and noblest values to defend home and hearth. Slavery played no role it the coming of the war, they say; how could it, when less than two percent (four percent, five percent) actually owned slaves? In fact, they'd say, their ancestors had nothing at all to do with slavery.

Bullshit.

It's true that in an extremely narrow sense, only a very small proportion of Confederate soldiers owned slaves in their own right. That, of course, is to be expected; soldiering is a young man's game, and most young men, then and now, have little in the way of personal wealth. As a crude analogy, how many PFCs and corporals in Iraq and Afghanistan today own their own homes? Not many.

But even if it is narrowly true, it's a deeply, deeply dishonest statistic. It is, as TheRaven would say, a small truth used to paper over a big lie. A majority of those young men who marched off to war in the spring of 1861 were fully vested in the "peculiar institution." Joseph T. Glatthaar, in his magnificent study of the force that eventually became the Army of Northern Virginia, lays out the evidence.

- The Atlantic

 

[Scrofula]

(^--Nice link) Would you say it sort of comes down to how some Southerners resent stereotypes like this:

When they feel like:

Can't really blame them.
Can't leave out the resentment from the 1950's and 1960's when they were pretty embarrassed on the global stage, by a North again, that wasn't a whole lot better on the civil rights thing.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

(^--Nice link) Would you say it sort of comes down to how some Southerners resent stereotypes like this

Nah. Everyone wants to believe their ancestors were great, that their country is great (as much as the CSA was a country), and that their culture is great.

Some people really need that.