Headhunter wrote:By the way, zombie, it didn't occur to me earlier but there's an entire study dedicated to that history of the South sugarcoating/distorting its 19th century history. It's called Lost Cause of the Confederacy and it's pretty interesting.
so, it's a way to help the south cope after losing the civil war? and also about helping to re-unify the north and the south? it feels like there could have been a way to do that, while also acknowledging that you made mistakes and held to some fucked up beliefs.
Yeah but the South was CRUSHED economically. Lot of generations of poverty created in that era. Which means shame, and then denial.
the people who were crushed and suffered most, likely had nothing to do with owning slaves? it's my understanding that was a wealthy minority? how many who fought actually owned slaves too?
Yes, the people who owned slaves merely had to evolve their business. Those fields would be worked for another 80 years. That came in the form of convict leasing to the plantations. Homeless blacks with nowhere to go at the time were picked off the streets, hauled into jail for bogus crimes and sent to work on those plantations (see where the disconnect between the AA community and law enforcement comes from?). And the conditions were even worse because as a prisoner, you're not an asset as you would be a slave. Feeding you is no longer a priority, there will always be more in the pipeline.
You'd be right for the most part. It was a feudal society. The wealthy aristocrats, pretty poor white people, really poor white people, slaves. The Civil War was only fought for the benefit of the aristocrats.
so, then the "lost cause" thing was really only to benefit the southern aristocrats too? it gave them cover. it didn't do anything for the average southerner, other than keep them blind, to the wrongdoing of the upperclass.
how many of the soldiers who fought and died, even owned slaves?
It gave them cover and restored their credibility with northern manufacturers and other business elites. For the average southerner, it gave them pride when it otherwise would have been gone. Sometimes that manifested in terrifying ways (birth of the KKK). But yes, the aristocrats knew exactly what buttons to push. Remember, they're such a small minority that a united poor populace could have crushed them politically.
Foo wrote:If there is one thing the civil war taught us, it's that when someone doesn't agree with you, first you try to starve them to death, then you start killing them and their families. #TheMoreYouKnow *shooting stars and rainbows*
You've mentioned a couple times points of contention where compromise could have been made between the two sides. What are you referring to and what would have been an appropriate compromise?
There are obviously a million opinions on this, but there are so many reasons the Civil War became a war at all, and there are also a million shades of gray in between including smaller conflicts at different points. The conflict was many years in the brewing and slavery was not the only factor as many would have us believe. Laws up to that point, trade, land acquisition, etc.
Imagine if rather than such a sharp divide, there were compromises that brought more borderline states into the union? Flip a few states and the south may not fight for fear of slaughter.
If California or Texas wanted to secede today, would we start starving them or shooting them? Would we capture their ports?
Headhunter wrote:By the way, zombie, it didn't occur to me earlier but there's an entire study dedicated to that history of the South sugarcoating/distorting its 19th century history. It's called Lost Cause of the Confederacy and it's pretty interesting.
so, it's a way to help the south cope after losing the civil war? and also about helping to re-unify the north and the south? it feels like there could have been a way to do that, while also acknowledging that you made mistakes and held to some fucked up beliefs.
Yeah but the South was CRUSHED economically. Lot of generations of poverty created in that era. Which means shame, and then denial.
the people who were crushed and suffered most, likely had nothing to do with owning slaves? it's my understanding that was a wealthy minority? how many who fought actually owned slaves too?
Yes, the people who owned slaves merely had to evolve their business. Those fields would be worked for another 80 years. That came in the form of convict leasing to the plantations. Homeless blacks with nowhere to go at the time were picked off the streets, hauled into jail for bogus crimes and sent to work on those plantations (see where the disconnect between the AA community and law enforcement comes from?). And the conditions were even worse because as a prisoner, you're not an asset as you would be a slave. Feeding you is no longer a priority, there will always be more in the pipeline.
You'd be right for the most part. It was a feudal society. The wealthy aristocrats, pretty poor white people, really poor white people, slaves. The Civil War was only fought for the benefit of the aristocrats.
To follow up on this, remember how I referenced the political wedge the aristocrats drove between poor whites and poor blacks, which really represents the story of the South for centuries? Well, take a guess who poor whites were indoctrinated to take out their anger and frustrations on during Reconstruction.
seems like some of the same tactics are being used today, to drive a political wedge.
Foo wrote:If there is one thing the civil war taught us, it's that when someone doesn't agree with you, first you try to starve them to death, then you start killing them and their families. #TheMoreYouKnow *shooting stars and rainbows*
You've mentioned a couple times points of contention where compromise could have been made between the two sides. What are you referring to and what would have been an appropriate compromise?
There are obviously a million opinions on this, but there are so many reasons the Civil War became a war at all, and there are also a million shades of gray in between including smaller conflicts at different points. The conflict was many years in the brewing and slavery was not the only factor as many would have us believe. Laws up to that point, trade, land acquisition, etc.
Imagine if rather than such a sharp divide, there were compromises that brought more borderline states into the union? Flip a few states and the south may not fight for fear of slaughter.
If California or Texas wanted to secede today, would we start starving them or shooting them? Would we capture their ports?
Slavery was the issue that took the country to civil war. Americans have to stop pretending otherwise. You're perpetuating Lost Cause propaganda.
Headhunter wrote:By the way, zombie, it didn't occur to me earlier but there's an entire study dedicated to that history of the South sugarcoating/distorting its 19th century history. It's called Lost Cause of the Confederacy and it's pretty interesting.
so, it's a way to help the south cope after losing the civil war? and also about helping to re-unify the north and the south? it feels like there could have been a way to do that, while also acknowledging that you made mistakes and held to some fucked up beliefs.
Yeah but the South was CRUSHED economically. Lot of generations of poverty created in that era. Which means shame, and then denial.
the people who were crushed and suffered most, likely had nothing to do with owning slaves? it's my understanding that was a wealthy minority? how many who fought actually owned slaves too?
Yes, the people who owned slaves merely had to evolve their business. Those fields would be worked for another 80 years. That came in the form of convict leasing to the plantations. Homeless blacks with nowhere to go at the time were picked off the streets, hauled into jail for bogus crimes and sent to work on those plantations (see where the disconnect between the AA community and law enforcement comes from?). And the conditions were even worse because as a prisoner, you're not an asset as you would be a slave. Feeding you is no longer a priority, there will always be more in the pipeline.
You'd be right for the most part. It was a feudal society. The wealthy aristocrats, pretty poor white people, really poor white people, slaves. The Civil War was only fought for the benefit of the aristocrats.
To follow up on this, remember how I referenced the political wedge the aristocrats drove between poor whites and poor blacks, which really represents the story of the South for centuries? Well, take a guess who poor whites were indoctrinated to take out their anger and frustrations on during Reconstruction.
seems like some of the same tactics are being used today, to drive a political wedge.
Exactly. It is no longer exclusively the Southern playbook, it's the American one. Race is a tool.
Foo wrote:Meh, we capture animals and keep them for personal enjoyment and act like they love it. Selfishness has ways of making us see things.
At that moment, folks who had knowledge of Africa and the African slave trade may not have been wrong. Today we compare them to free men here, but that was not necessarily an option for Africans at various points. If my choices were eating Mac and cheese and being raped by Thomas Jefferson or starving to death and becoming lion food in sub-Saharan Africa, I am going with the former.
that could be argued as less oppressed (although a stretch even then), but happy? i don't see it. unless you didn't see them as people, you couldn't help but see something wrong with it. at least that's how it feels to me.
I basically paraphrased Thomas Jefferson's thoughts. Being a free man was not possible at that time, so at least he gave them something. He also liked to bang them, so maybe you take his thoughts with a grain of salt. I don't know...
Jason once tried to convince me the Civil War wasn't all about slavery because there was controversy over a law called, get this, the Fugitive Slave Act. Just an example of how impossible it is to remove slavery from the equation.
No matter how you slice it...all roads lead back to the issue of slavery. Now, slavery effected a lot of aspects of American life that could be seen as contributing factors in a vaccuum perhaps, but really, it's about slavery.
Foo wrote:If there is one thing the civil war taught us, it's that when someone doesn't agree with you, first you try to starve them to death, then you start killing them and their families. #TheMoreYouKnow *shooting stars and rainbows*
You've mentioned a couple times points of contention where compromise could have been made between the two sides. What are you referring to and what would have been an appropriate compromise?
There are obviously a million opinions on this, but there are so many reasons the Civil War became a war at all, and there are also a million shades of gray in between including smaller conflicts at different points. The conflict was many years in the brewing and slavery was not the only factor as many would have us believe. Laws up to that point, trade, land acquisition, etc.
Imagine if rather than such a sharp divide, there were compromises that brought more borderline states into the union? Flip a few states and the south may not fight for fear of slaughter.
If California or Texas wanted to secede today, would we start starving them or shooting them? Would we capture their ports?
Slavery was the issue that took the country to civil war. Americans have to stop pretending otherwise. You're perpetuating Lost Cause propaganda.
Let's say someone has been harassing you for years. You barely tolerate them and are always on edge because of their abuse. Then one day they flick a booger on you and a fight starts. Was it really the booger that started the fight?
Foo wrote:If there is one thing the civil war taught us, it's that when someone doesn't agree with you, first you try to starve them to death, then you start killing them and their families. #TheMoreYouKnow *shooting stars and rainbows*
You've mentioned a couple times points of contention where compromise could have been made between the two sides. What are you referring to and what would have been an appropriate compromise?
There are obviously a million opinions on this, but there are so many reasons the Civil War became a war at all, and there are also a million shades of gray in between including smaller conflicts at different points. The conflict was many years in the brewing and slavery was not the only factor as many would have us believe. Laws up to that point, trade, land acquisition, etc.
Imagine if rather than such a sharp divide, there were compromises that brought more borderline states into the union? Flip a few states and the south may not fight for fear of slaughter.
If California or Texas wanted to secede today, would we start starving them or shooting them? Would we capture their ports?
Slavery was the issue that took the country to civil war. Americans have to stop pretending otherwise. You're perpetuating Lost Cause propaganda.
Let's say someone has been harassing you for years. You barely tolerate them and are always on edge because of their abuse. Then one day they flick a booger on you and a fight starts. Was it really the booger that started the fight?
Headhunter wrote:By the way, zombie, it didn't occur to me earlier but there's an entire study dedicated to that history of the South sugarcoating/distorting its 19th century history. It's called Lost Cause of the Confederacy and it's pretty interesting.
so, it's a way to help the south cope after losing the civil war? and also about helping to re-unify the north and the south? it feels like there could have been a way to do that, while also acknowledging that you made mistakes and held to some fucked up beliefs.
Yeah but the South was CRUSHED economically. Lot of generations of poverty created in that era. Which means shame, and then denial.
the people who were crushed and suffered most, likely had nothing to do with owning slaves? it's my understanding that was a wealthy minority? how many who fought actually owned slaves too?
Yes, the people who owned slaves merely had to evolve their business. Those fields would be worked for another 80 years. That came in the form of convict leasing to the plantations. Homeless blacks with nowhere to go at the time were picked off the streets, hauled into jail for bogus crimes and sent to work on those plantations (see where the disconnect between the AA community and law enforcement comes from?). And the conditions were even worse because as a prisoner, you're not an asset as you would be a slave. Feeding you is no longer a priority, there will always be more in the pipeline.
You'd be right for the most part. It was a feudal society. The wealthy aristocrats, pretty poor white people, really poor white people, slaves. The Civil War was only fought for the benefit of the aristocrats.
so, then the "lost cause" thing was really only to benefit the southern aristocrats too? it gave them cover. it didn't do anything for the average southerner, other than keep them blind, to the wrongdoing of the upperclass.
how many of the soldiers who fought and died, even owned slaves?
It gave them cover and restored their credibility with northern manufacturers and other business elites. For the average southerner, it gave them pride when it otherwise would have been gone. Sometimes that manifested in terrifying ways (birth of the KKK). But yes, the aristocrats knew exactly what buttons to push. Remember, they're such a small minority that a united poor populace could have crushed them politically.
It's something like 10%.
could you concede that an individual or family that does not have links to aristocrats could hold some pride in the south and southern iconography (not all of it. ), while not being racist or hoodwinked into that position at all?
Headhunter wrote:Jason once tried to convince me the Civil War wasn't all about slavery because there was controversy over a law called, get this, the Fugitive Slave Act. Just an example of how impossible it is to remove slavery from the equation.
No matter how you slice it...all roads lead back to the issue of slavery. Now, slavery effected a lot of aspects of American life that could be seen as contributing factors in a vaccuum perhaps, but really, it's about slavery.
To be fair, we have laws called "The Affordable Care Act" which has nothing to do with affordability and little to do with care. Politicians deceptively naming laws goes way back.
Foo wrote:If there is one thing the civil war taught us, it's that when someone doesn't agree with you, first you try to starve them to death, then you start killing them and their families. #TheMoreYouKnow *shooting stars and rainbows*
You've mentioned a couple times points of contention where compromise could have been made between the two sides. What are you referring to and what would have been an appropriate compromise?
There are obviously a million opinions on this, but there are so many reasons the Civil War became a war at all, and there are also a million shades of gray in between including smaller conflicts at different points. The conflict was many years in the brewing and slavery was not the only factor as many would have us believe. Laws up to that point, trade, land acquisition, etc.
Imagine if rather than such a sharp divide, there were compromises that brought more borderline states into the union? Flip a few states and the south may not fight for fear of slaughter.
If California or Texas wanted to secede today, would we start starving them or shooting them? Would we capture their ports?
Slavery was the issue that took the country to civil war. Americans have to stop pretending otherwise. You're perpetuating Lost Cause propaganda.
Let's say someone has been harassing you for years. You barely tolerate them and are always on edge because of their abuse. Then one day they flick a booger on you and a fight starts. Was it really the booger that started the fight?
Headhunter wrote:By the way, zombie, it didn't occur to me earlier but there's an entire study dedicated to that history of the South sugarcoating/distorting its 19th century history. It's called Lost Cause of the Confederacy and it's pretty interesting.
so, it's a way to help the south cope after losing the civil war? and also about helping to re-unify the north and the south? it feels like there could have been a way to do that, while also acknowledging that you made mistakes and held to some fucked up beliefs.
Yeah but the South was CRUSHED economically. Lot of generations of poverty created in that era. Which means shame, and then denial.
the people who were crushed and suffered most, likely had nothing to do with owning slaves? it's my understanding that was a wealthy minority? how many who fought actually owned slaves too?
Yes, the people who owned slaves merely had to evolve their business. Those fields would be worked for another 80 years. That came in the form of convict leasing to the plantations. Homeless blacks with nowhere to go at the time were picked off the streets, hauled into jail for bogus crimes and sent to work on those plantations (see where the disconnect between the AA community and law enforcement comes from?). And the conditions were even worse because as a prisoner, you're not an asset as you would be a slave. Feeding you is no longer a priority, there will always be more in the pipeline.
You'd be right for the most part. It was a feudal society. The wealthy aristocrats, pretty poor white people, really poor white people, slaves. The Civil War was only fought for the benefit of the aristocrats.
so, then the "lost cause" thing was really only to benefit the southern aristocrats too? it gave them cover. it didn't do anything for the average southerner, other than keep them blind, to the wrongdoing of the upperclass.
how many of the soldiers who fought and died, even owned slaves?
It gave them cover and restored their credibility with northern manufacturers and other business elites. For the average southerner, it gave them pride when it otherwise would have been gone. Sometimes that manifested in terrifying ways (birth of the KKK). But yes, the aristocrats knew exactly what buttons to push. Remember, they're such a small minority that a united poor populace could have crushed them politically.
It's something like 10%.
could you concede that an individual or family that does not have links to aristocrats could hold some pride in the south and southern iconography (not all of it. ), while not being racist or hoodwinked into that position at all?
The South? Yes. Never suggested otherwise. The CSA? No. There really is no legitimate reason to.
Headhunter wrote:Jason once tried to convince me the Civil War wasn't all about slavery because there was controversy over a law called, get this, the Fugitive Slave Act. Just an example of how impossible it is to remove slavery from the equation.
No matter how you slice it...all roads lead back to the issue of slavery. Now, slavery effected a lot of aspects of American life that could be seen as contributing factors in a vaccuum perhaps, but really, it's about slavery.
To be fair, we have laws called "The Affordable Care Act" which has nothing to do with affordability and little to do with care. Politicians deceptively naming laws goes way back.
do you feel that that law was mislabeled, or are you just trying to be contrary for the sake of it?
Foo wrote:If there is one thing the civil war taught us, it's that when someone doesn't agree with you, first you try to starve them to death, then you start killing them and their families. #TheMoreYouKnow *shooting stars and rainbows*
You've mentioned a couple times points of contention where compromise could have been made between the two sides. What are you referring to and what would have been an appropriate compromise?
There are obviously a million opinions on this, but there are so many reasons the Civil War became a war at all, and there are also a million shades of gray in between including smaller conflicts at different points. The conflict was many years in the brewing and slavery was not the only factor as many would have us believe. Laws up to that point, trade, land acquisition, etc.
Imagine if rather than such a sharp divide, there were compromises that brought more borderline states into the union? Flip a few states and the south may not fight for fear of slaughter.
If California or Texas wanted to secede today, would we start starving them or shooting them? Would we capture their ports?
Slavery was the issue that took the country to civil war. Americans have to stop pretending otherwise. You're perpetuating Lost Cause propaganda.
Let's say someone has been harassing you for years. You barely tolerate them and are always on edge because of their abuse. Then one day they flick a booger on you and a fight starts. Was it really the booger that started the fight?
zombie wrote:
could you concede that an individual or family that does not have links to aristocrats could hold some pride in the south and southern iconography (not all of it. ), while not being racist or hoodwinked into that position at all?
The South? Yes. Never suggested otherwise. The CSA? No. There really is no legitimate reason to.
fair enough. i'll let you continue to struggle with foo now, for the night.
I'd love to hear about all these causes unrelated to slavery. Mostly I just want to be able to see how many were taken straight from the "Lost Cause" playbook and have been passed on in ensuing generations as the "REAL history" that THEY don't want you to know (shout out Lucian on death row).
Headhunter wrote:Jason once tried to convince me the Civil War wasn't all about slavery because there was controversy over a law called, get this, the Fugitive Slave Act. Just an example of how impossible it is to remove slavery from the equation.
No matter how you slice it...all roads lead back to the issue of slavery. Now, slavery effected a lot of aspects of American life that could be seen as contributing factors in a vaccuum perhaps, but really, it's about slavery.
To be fair, we have laws called "The Affordable Care Act" which has nothing to do with affordability and little to do with care. Politicians deceptively naming laws goes way back.
do you feel that that law was mislabeled, or are you just trying to be contrary for the sake of it?
Being contrary. It was about slaves. Returning slaves to their owners, etc.
Headhunter wrote:Jason once tried to convince me the Civil War wasn't all about slavery because there was controversy over a law called, get this, the Fugitive Slave Act. Just an example of how impossible it is to remove slavery from the equation.
No matter how you slice it...all roads lead back to the issue of slavery. Now, slavery effected a lot of aspects of American life that could be seen as contributing factors in a vaccuum perhaps, but really, it's about slavery.
To be fair, we have laws called "The Affordable Care Act" which has nothing to do with affordability and little to do with care. Politicians deceptively naming laws goes way back.
do you feel that that law was mislabeled, or are you just trying to be contrary for the sake of it?
Being contrary. It was about slaves. Returning slaves to their owners, etc.
This was where the South demanded that states' rights be infringed upon by the federal government, btw.
