Fuck the South

Aoxomoxoa said:
And broke!!
Click to expand...

hell no....i still have money!

the government..........well, what do you expect when hardcore liberals run it for years. there are people who believe the state should split in half, maybe not a bad idea. seems a state government is just not equipped to deal with 36+ million people.
 
Yurt said:
hell no....i still have money!

the government..........well, what do you expect when hardcore liberals run it for years. there are people who believe the state should split in half, maybe not a bad idea. seems a state government is just not equipped to deal with 36+ million people.
Click to expand...

It's the old story, lawyers, undertakers and accountants are never out of work especially in a recession.
 
Yurt said:
it was the era where 'america' believed in a coast to coast nation. and that belief was as solid as it is today, if not more so back then. it is hard to imagine an america with two halves. i don't know if anyone can truly say whether it was worth it, but, we did ultimately have peace and i'm not so sure that would have happened without the civil war.
Click to expand...

You know, after the Civil War, no one was tried for treason. But how on Earth could this not have been treason? We were remarkably light on the south.

If I had been in charge, we would've treated the south as conquered territory. All slave owners and confederate officials would be permanently disfranchised and barred from office for life. The land of plantation owners would be divided up into individual plots tended by those who worked it. Then, in 10 years or so, we may have allowed the south to reform their own states, if we feel like they've proven their worth.

What we chose to do instead was a betrayal. We didn't punish these confederates at all! And pretty soon, they used violence and intimidation to set themselves back up into government. Also, we let slave owners keep their land, after all they had done! And pretty soon, it essentially devolved into a system of slavery all over again. If someone owns all the land, how on Earth am I supposed to be free in a serious sense? My choices are to do whatever they say or starve. This is only freedom if you say that might makes right, I am to be blamed for my own lack of land. Which is a definition of freedom that makes freedom meaningless.

I suppose that we could say that Imperial China was a bastion of freedom, as well. The emperor simply owned everything, and if you didn't like it, you were always free to leave. Or he could always execute you for your trespassing. Total freedom.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
hell no....i still have money!

the government..........well, what do you expect when hardcore liberals run it for years. there are people who believe the state should split in half, maybe not a bad idea. seems a state government is just not equipped to deal with 36+ million people.
Click to expand...

I think that California should be set as a textbook example of why direct democracy doesn't work. Representative democracy gives the people someone to blame. The people can elect a politician to do something, and when that turns out badly, simply blame the politician. If the people directly make a decision, they never hold themselves accountable for it. Which leads to circlejerks and awful policy making.

This is one of the things that lead to the fall of Athens. Democracy worked itself up into a frenzy over a military mission to Syracuse, sent a ridiculous amount of resources over there, and pretty soon the entire expedition was wiped out. Because it was popular, no one was brave enough to stand up and point out that the cost/benefit ratio was bad. If a politician has to make the decision themselves, they know they will be blamed for its failure. And so they have to accurately asses the risks.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I still cannot understand why the South wasn't just allowed to go their own way, it certainly wasn't worth the lives of over 500,000 people.
Click to expand...
Because it would have established a horrible precedent. Any State would and could have left the Union at any time for any reason and instead of becoming a great power we would have ended up like Central America.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
You know, after the Civil War, no one was tried for treason. But how on Earth could this not have been treason? We were remarkably light on the south.

If I had been in charge, we would've treated the south as conquered territory. All slave owners and confederate officials would be permanently disfranchised and barred from office for life. The land of plantation owners would be divided up into individual plots tended by those who worked it. Then, in 10 years or so, we may have allowed the south to reform their own states, if we feel like they've proven their worth.

What we chose to do instead was a betrayal. We didn't punish these confederates at all! And pretty soon, they used violence and intimidation to set themselves back up into government. Also, we let slave owners keep their land, after all they had done! And pretty soon, it essentially devolved into a system of slavery all over again. If someone owns all the land, how on Earth am I supposed to be free in a serious sense? My choices are to do whatever they say or starve. This is only freedom if you say that might makes right, I am to be blamed for my own lack of land. Which is a definition of freedom that makes freedom meaningless.

I suppose that we could say that Imperial China was a bastion of freedom, as well. The emperor simply owned everything, and if you didn't like it, you were always free to leave. Or he could always execute you for your trespassing. Total freedom.
Click to expand...
This would show what a fool you are and you would have ended up loosing the Civil War. Yes, the leaders of the Confederacy committed high treason and there were good reasons to have hanged all of them. About 600,000 good reasons.

This is why it didn't happen. The Union new that all the confederacy had to do to win the war was resort to guerrilla warfare. Just like we did when we broke away from Great Britain. Then things would have gotten far uglier and bloodier then it had been (think of the modern Balkan conflict on a far grander scale), which is saying a lot.

Permanent resentments would have been created and peace would never have been possible. When Lincoln made it clear that he was planing on going easy on the confederacy upon surrender and when Lee knew that his army and confederacy's army's had been defeated he felt that surrender, acceptance of Unions fair and relatively forgiving terms and the changes it meant for the South should be peacably accepted by the south and that they should submit to government rule as good and productive citizens. Lee viewed this as a far superior alternative to the chaos, anarchy, brutality, further blood shed and a general degeneration of civil society for far into the future that a guerrilla war would have entailed and thus when he surrendered he encouraged his men to not fight on, but to surrender, go back home and become good citizens.

For these reasons he and the confederate leaders were not hanged. Yes they had committed treason but to have hanged them would have created far more problems then it would have solved, would have been self defeating, would have almost certainly have caused the continuation of the war and probably would have resuled in the destruction of our nation with far, far more blood shed and violence then had all ready occurred and thus would have been incredibly short sighted and down right stupid.

Lincoln, Davis and Lee were appalled by this possibility and thus the old notion of "To the victor goes the spoils" went straight out the window. It was good thinking on their part and the eventual reconstruction and re-uniting of our nation was based on their far sighted thinking.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
it was the era where 'america' believed in a coast to coast nation. and that belief was as solid as it is today, if not more so back then. it is hard to imagine an america with two halves. i don't know if anyone can truly say whether it was worth it, but, we did ultimately have peace and i'm not so sure that would have happened without the civil war.
Click to expand...

That's right. In this era, if Texas wants to succede or California falls into the ocean, most of us would be cheering.
 
Return of Dune said:
That's right. In this era, if Texas wants to succede or California falls into the ocean, most of us would be cheering.
Click to expand...

for a guy that likes to constantly bash others for spelling errors..............it is:

secede

and then you call the poster a retard........well........guess what.........
 
Emperor Trajan said:
If Texas did succeed, that would be funny, considering its a bunch of ignorant Southerners... :D
Click to expand...

Who appear to control a lot of natural resources; such as oil, lumber, salt, sulfur, gypsum, natural gas, solar power, biomass, water, coal, silver, gold, a vast number of animals who provide the rest of the country with food, and the food they grow.

Let's not forget that they have large shipping countries, both within the States and to other countries.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Who appear to control a lot of natural resources; such as oil, lumber, salt, sulfur, gypsum, natural gas, solar power, biomass, water, coal, silver, gold, a vast number of animals who provide the rest of the country with food, and the food they grow.

Let's not forget that they have large shipping countries, both within the States and to other countries.
Click to expand...
Isn't Wiki awesome?!? :clink:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
This would show what a fool you are and you would have ended up loosing the Civil War. Yes, the leaders of the Confederacy committed high treason and there were good reasons to have hanged all of them. About 600,000 good reasons.

This is why it didn't happen. The Union new that all the confederacy had to do to win the war was resort to guerrilla warfare. Just like we did when we broke away from Great Britain. Then things would have gotten far uglier and bloodier then it had been (think of the modern Balkan conflict on a far grander scale), which is saying a lot.

Permanent resentments would have been created and peace would never have been possible. When Lincoln made it clear that he was planing on going easy on the confederacy upon surrender and when Lee knew that his army and confederacy's army's had been defeated he felt that surrender, acceptance of Unions fair and relatively forgiving terms and the changes it meant for the South should be peacably accepted by the south and that they should submit to government rule as good and productive citizens. Lee viewed this as a far superior alternative to the chaos, anarchy, brutality, further blood shed and a general degeneration of civil society for far into the future that a guerrilla war would have entailed and thus when he surrendered he encouraged his men to not fight on, but to surrender, go back home and become good citizens.

For these reasons he and the confederate leaders were not hanged. Yes they had committed treason but to have hanged them would have created far more problems then it would have solved, would have been self defeating, would have almost certainly have caused the continuation of the war and probably would have resuled in the destruction of our nation with far, far more blood shed and violence then had all ready occurred and thus would have been incredibly short sighted and down right stupid.

Lincoln, Davis and Lee were appalled by this possibility and thus the old notion of "To the victor goes the spoils" went straight out the window. It was good thinking on their part and the eventual reconstruction and re-uniting of our nation was based on their far sighted thinking.
Click to expand...

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

I believe that had we punished the evil in the first place, it would have lead to much less resentment far down the line, and would've made it clear that what the south did was wrong. By not punishing them, we confused them, and allowed them to be proud of their heritage of hatred. This is the difference between modern Germany and modern Japan, where many Japanese fail to acknowledge that what they did was wrong because we didn't hang the Emperor, the fucker who started the war.

Besides, nowhere did I say that I wanted the confederate leaders necessarily hanged. Perhaps they should've been given long prison sentences. At the very least, again, they should've been kept out of government. If keeping the blacks down for a fucking century didn't lead to a hundred years of bloodshed and rebellion, I don't see why keeping the confederates in their place would have either. We certainly shouldn't have allowed them to do so, and we should've kept troops stationed in the south for as long as was necessary to allow the blacks to excercise their civil rights.

And I think that land reform in the form of taking the vast tracts owned by the plantations and giving it to the slaves and poor whites would've been an incredibly popular measure that, if anything, would've reduced civil discontent. The plantation owners deserved to be punished. A great side effect of this is that we had an opportunity and a window to establish a much more equal, egalitarian society in the south. We chose not to. And America has paid for our spinelessness and unwillingness to dispense justice for the last 150 years.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Who appear to control a lot of natural resources; such as oil, lumber, salt, sulfur, gypsum, natural gas, solar power, biomass, water, coal, silver, gold, a vast number of animals who provide the rest of the country with food, and the food they grow.

Let's not forget that they have large shipping countries, both within the States and to other countries.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the US has more of this stuff. Don't start a trade war you can't win, bitches. We will make you a backworld cesspool in a decade or two should you get uppity and think that you can do without us. We'll make you the new Cuba.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top