|
(It wasn't about slavery) or maybe it was I honestly have never even read about that poo poo.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Obligatory Handle posted:I'm in Spain at the moment. They had a civil war here too, let's run the reasoning why into the ground and argue semantics. government only works when you work together bro, and... you know when the military doesn't decide to say 'gently caress it' and take over. so... no dishwasher detergent in spain?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Shadow posted:government only works when you work together bro, and... you know when the military doesn't decide to say 'gently caress it' and take over. It's pretty common to not have a dishwasher at all, I guess. Like I'm standing in the kitchen of my apartment looking at my washing machine, but no dishwasher. hosed up. Have to do that poo poo by hand here. Sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
too bad the north didn't win spain's civil war for them 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Shadow posted:too bad the north didn't win spain's civil war for them 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I don't think anyone is saying it wasn't. I just think this whole 'moral imperative the North felt to end slavery' thing is lol as gently caress. HI.can you please quote anyone actually saying this in the thread? Thanks in advance. The north didn't have to care about slavery at all for the war to be about it since they didn't start the war hth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:yankees just mad they don't have piccadilly's!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Knight posted:That piccadilly looks pretty rowdy mildly rowdy, not full-strength all-cylinders rowdy
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Obligatory Handle posted:It's pretty common to not have a dishwasher at all, I guess. Like I'm standing in the kitchen of my apartment looking at my washing machine, but no dishwasher. hosed up. Have to do that poo poo by hand here. Sucks. you can put dishes in your washing machine as well, guaranteed you won't have to wash them by hand if you do
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Stop making fun of the South and their lack of interior appliances. Very rude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
i wonder if tank crews from the south felt about strolling the countryside inside Sherman tanks in WW2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:you can put dishes in your washing machine as well, guaranteed you won't have to wash them by hand if you do Like I'd trust a Broken Machine, but thanks anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Stop making fun of the South and their lack of interior appliances. Very rude. I'm in the north.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Obligatory Handle posted:I'm in Spain at the moment. They had a civil war here too, let's run the reasoning why into the ground and argue semantics. Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain! I think my favorite thing about the civil war is that the csa traitors literally thought that if they waved their guns around the north would let them steal half land in the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Someone asked me to list a college course where "Slavery is the cause of Civil War" was a main point on the syllabus. Not really being familiar with every American History course offered in all the colleges in America, I can't really do that. But what I can do is say that the way I was educated growing up was in Southern Confederate apologia. I grew up in the South, my father had very pro Confederate leanings since he bought into all the states rights preserve heritage horseshit that this country has been swallowing for 150 years, and generally my elementary and high school history kind of accepted the "nuanced" version of the causes. But as I grew older, and began to see all the racism and hate this nation puts out towards minorities and how it uses the Confederate battle flag, I began to think there was something more in it. And the more I read the things that were actually written during the times, and what was actually said by people then, and not lovely interpretations by pro Confederate historians with an agenda it became clear what a load of poo poo I had been fed as a child. Google the Declaration of Causes of Secession. It'll give you the declarations of Georgia, Texas, Virginia, South Carolina, and Mississippi, where they quite clearly state at the very beginning that they're seceding because the North didn't respect their rights to "property" and economic freedoms that had been extended to them since the founding. They also name the general anti South political atmosphere fostered by anti-slavery movements. The loving Confederate states themselves named slavery and its continuation as their primary reason to join together and go to war. TNG fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
TNG posted:Someone asked me to list a college course where "Slavery is the cause of Civil War" was a main point on the syllabus. Not really being familiar with every American History course offered in all the colleges in America, I can't really do that. But what I can do is say that the way I was educated growing up was in Southern Confederate apologia. I grew up in the South, my father had very pro Confederate leanings since he bought into all the states rights preserve heritage horseshit that this country has been swallowing for 150 years, and generally my elementary and high school history kind of accepted the "nuanced" version of the causes. But as I grew older, and began to see all the racism and hate this nation puts out towards minorities and how it uses the Confederate battle flag, I began to think there was something more in it. And the more I read the things that were actually written during the times, and what was actually said by people then, and not lovely interpretations by pro Confederate historians with an agenda it became clear what a load of poo poo I had been fed as a child. The right to own slaves was in the CSA's constitution
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
the right to own slaves was in the usa's constitution too lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
etalian posted:The right to own slaves was in the CSA's constitution then you have Oregon, the embodiment of the shittiness of white people and nimby The vote on slavery was 2,645 to allow slavery and 7,727 to make it illegal, and the vote to make it illegal for Blacks to live in the state was 8,640 to ban them and 1,081 to allow them to live in the state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
"the reason for the civil war was slavery" <- actually correct; even when you delve into all the different economic/historic/cultural factors it all leads back to slavery "the reason for the civil war was to end slavery" <- partial credit at best even though slavery ending was ultimately the war's major consequence "the reason for the civil war wasn't actually slavery" <- dumb and wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:i don't understand the liberal obsession with stripping every bit of nuance from our grrat anerican history as a cool dude who likes history so much he got his undergraduate degree in it and now teaches it at university as part of his postgrad program: the war was over slavery. this isn't an alternative view. the contemporary evidence that the south was primarily motivated by a desire to protect slavery both as a practice and as an institution is overwhelming and undeniable. trying to argue a "nuance[d]" view of the war is like trying to deny the holocaust. hth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:the right to own slaves was in the usa's constitution too lmao not in the same way it wasn't. the confederacy was so protective of "state's rights" that their constitution made it impossible for any state in the confederacy to become a free state. obviously not true for the us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:moridin is exhibit a in "reconstruction did not go nearly far enough" need more carpetbaggers imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Good thread I'm learning a lot
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
TNG posted:Someone asked me to list a college course where "Slavery is the cause of Civil War" was a main point on the syllabus. Not really being familiar with every American History course offered in all the colleges in America, I can't really do that. Oh come on. You could look up the syllabus of the university you went to and whatever their current Civil War history 101 is. Or refer to the specific textbook that relies on the claim that the Civil War was only about slavery and post the ISBN number so I can see if I can find it in the stacks this weekend and pursue the argument, assuming I'm still interested in this discussion. I can understand not wanting to because it takes time. No harm, no foul though since your arguments TNG were good and you were not being a twat who displayed an utter lack of critical thinking. TNG posted:But what I can do is say that the way I was educated growing up was in Southern Confederate apologia. I grew up in the South, my father had very pro Confederate leanings since he bought into all the states rights preserve heritage horseshit that this country has been swallowing for 150 years, and generally my elementary and high school history kind of accepted the "nuanced" version of the causes. I understand your personal view of American culture, but that doesn't abrogate the existence of primary sources and data that suggests there were more pressures than simply and only slavery that caused the outbreak of the Civil War. And I know your statement does not suggest that you are ignoring those other sources, but other less critical and more emotional posters (ie "stupid retards" so that Anime Is Blood doesn't have to consult a dictionary) have. Part of why I think Moridin and I are arguing from the same page is I suspect Moridin went to high school in California as I did. He mentioned AP History, which I will assume that means he was enrolled in the class (Moridin is unable to post right now to verify, but lets go with it). AP History courses, at least in California, are taught from a standardized text. In addition the course is fairly standardized from school to school because in order to perform well on the AP test at the end of the year, students have to understand a certain number of arguments and primary sources. The point being that I agree with Moridin's arguments because we were likely products of the same educational course on the Civil War. Now the one thing I do remember very clearly about AP History is and I'll repeat it: Helical Nightmares posted:Precisely. Turning in a paper to AP history with the thesis "the Civil war was about slavery" was the fast track to getting failed out. You had to elucidate the reasons given of each state and economic pressures. For example one of the questions I barely remember was involving the timing of the outbreak of the Civil War, why it didn't happen twenty years earlier or such. You had to have a nuanced argument based on the primary sources in order to pass the test. quote:Google the Declaration of Causes of Secession. It'll give you the declarations of Georgia, Texas, Virginia, South Carolina, and Mississippi, where they quite clearly state at the very beginning that they're seceding because the North doesn't respect their rights to "property" and economic freedoms that had been extended to them since the founding. They also name the general anti South political atmosphere fostered by anti-slavery movements. The loving Confederate states themselves named slavery and its continuation as their primary reason to join together and go to war. And I recall having to contrast the 5 declarations of Georgia, Texas, Virginia, South Carolina, and Mississippi with the declarations of the other states. Don't remember them now, but that was a certain amount of time ago. Part of the timing argument required the detailing the stresses on the economy of the south by the introduction of the Cotton gin as some poster previously explained. Also there was Lincoln's first inaugural speech. And the North's industrialism factored in to the argument somewhere as well. Also the "states rights" argument by the South was added to the equation. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp quote:I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. And this suggested that Lincoln was offering an alternative to succession for the South and we had to address why didn't it work at this time when compromises like the 3/5 Compromise had worked as a band aid to keep the States together in the past. So during my instruction of the Civil War (admittedly a brief intense part of AP History) it was drilled in us that there were more factors than slavery that caused the outbreak of the Civil War at that time. Now, add to the argument that the focus of history changes over time. Did "Confederate Apologist" propaganda rule the textbooks of AP US History at the time Moridin or I took the course? I don't know. I vaguely heard this argument in University but at that time "the Civil War was more than just about slavery" was still in vogue for the breadth course I took for a year (in which we covered the Civil war pretty drat fast again). I certainly raise an eyebrow to the though of my distinctly African american history professor ever being a Confederate Apologist however. And there was none of this "believe ONLY IN SLAVERY" or else you are thrown out of the Church of the One True Way of those who don't analyze primary sources horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
That all sounds nice but I think like I and others have said, there is a lot of nuance but all nuance leads back to slavery. No slavery and chattel ownership of black folk, no reason to secede. And no existence of the South for that matter. Waving your hands about how there is more sounds a lot like window dressing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Helical no
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
 Sinking Ship posted:i hope the government really cracks down on this new terrorist gang, recognizable by the confederate flags they fly Confrontation With Black Partygoers Leads to Gang Charges for White Group http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/us/confederate-flag-supporters-georgia-indicted-clash-black-partygoers.html Mr. Sinking Ship, you win a loving prize. http://vp.nyt.com/video/2015/10/12/36004_1_douglasville_wg_360p.mp4 quote:DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. — In an unusual legal maneuver, the district attorney in this suburb of Atlanta said Monday that he had won indictments against 15 supporters of the Confederate battle flag, accusing them of violating the state’s anti-street-gang statute during a confrontation with black partygoers in July. Helical Nightmares fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
good
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
it amuses me that token strawman liberal gbs human being moridin920 is somehow also a proponent of the "STATES RITES!!!!11" school of thought on the civil war
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
"Well it wasn't about slavery because the North didn't fight the war expressly to end slavery you see." i'm trying to come up with some mix of words or sounds i can add to that to make it sound more retarded than it already is and i'm honestly failing, like my best idea is to just add "states rights" or "don't tread on me" to that over and over again no wait I got it i figured it out "Well it wasn't about slavery because the North didn't fight the war expressly to end slavery you see, and also, Aliens did 9/11."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
lol ok the civil war was over slavery. ww2 was over jews. the iraqi war was about human rights violations. the vietnam war was about communism. we can do this all day but it still sounds like some poo poo a child would say and not a thing a person who understands the war would say. if the argument was "the civil war was NOT about slavery" well that is also somewhat inaccurate but it had more to do with establishing federal authority and preserving the union. ww1 started because a dude got shot the war was not about the dude who got shot it was about a great and vast many things
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:lol ok the civil war was over slavery. ww2 was over jews. the iraqi war was about human rights violations. the vietnam war was about communism. we can do this all day but it still sounds like some poo poo a child would say and not a thing a person who understands the war would say. "federal authority" related to................................... (hint: it involves black people)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
i'm sorry when a group of people start a war while screaming about not wanting their slaves taken away maybe the war is about slavery?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
like if you say the war was not about states rights you're uh not educated i guess it's kind of a stupid thing to say. it could've been any issue, but it was slavery and the leadup to the war involved a lot of major disagreements between northern and southern legislators on a lot of different issues. it's just a glib way to put somebody in their place who isnt even here, a redneck with confederate flag on his pickup truck is way too busy getting wasted and chasing pussy to spend ten dollars to argue about the civil war on website. of what value is it to reduce a really complicated and bloody time period into a sarcastic sound bite that fits on an image macro is what im curious about
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
"the war was about a states rights to own slaves, not slavery two completely and entirely unrelated things" - an educated, cool dude
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
literally everything they themselves wrote about as the cause of their grievance with the country was slavery but maybe the war wasn't about slavery?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Seriously, though, if every person who ever played bullshit Devil's advocate about the cause of the Civil War were just quietly drowned in a bathtub, that would be good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:i'm sorry when a group of people start a war while screaming about not wanting their slaves taken away maybe the war is about slavery? if you wanted to explain it to a four year old yeah, that would be a good way to put it because their brains aren't developed enough to handle complex ideas and moral grey areas. that's how it was explained to me at the civil war museum when i was a wee toddler and i got a little minnie ball to take home and it got taken away from me at the airport.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
no actually that's exactly what happened sorry about your lovely brain
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Profondo Rosso posted:"the war was about a states rights to own slaves, not slavery im getting pretty freakin mad here because i didnt say they were unrelated your really burning my loving oysters here dude
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 00:06
|
|