On banning the Confederate Flag and Renaming Military Bases

Mason? said:
View attachment 15712
Click to expand...

iu
 
WitoldPilecki said:
Yeah, well you left out that Northern & Western European bankers & mills profited off of those slaves too.
Click to expand...

In 1863, while southerners fought for the right to own slaves, where was chattel slavery as an economic system legal anywhere in Europe or North America outside of the Dixieland southern states?
 
Grajonca said:
Mott, stop being so condescending please. I am talking about if there hadn't been a war. Stop erecting strawmen, jetzt ist alles klar? Or would you prefer Thai; เข้าใจไหม? I am perfectly well aware of that, my Google subscription is up to date. I noticed that you neatly avoided the point made about Britain and Brazil, probably because you didn't know that.

I will reiterate that if the North hadn't pursued an all out war against the South then they would have had to turn to the British, seeing as the majority of cotton weaving was done there, Lancashire to be exact. I further contend that the huge damage done to the US, especially the South, was not worth the price of 700,000 military deaths and over a million non-military deaths, many ex-black slaves, who died from starvation, disease, violent rape, murder by Union soldiers carrying out revenge attacks and carpet baggers.
Click to expand...

Tom every peer reviewed source on Civil War casualties during the war and post war estimates Civilian casualties at conservatively between 50,000 and 100,000 and that includes the dislocations that occurred in the post war years. So I have no idea where you’re coming up with these grossly inflated numbers.

Not only that you’re making silly presupposition about had the United States not opposed the secession of the 11 Southern States, which is a woulda, coulda, shoulda logical fallacy as no one could possibly have known the outcome of something that didn’t happen. In addition as powerful as the British Empire was at that time there were limits to that power and to believe that British economic soft power Extended to the Confederacy would have caused the Confederacy to abandon chattel slavery, given the fact of the large number of substantial compromises the United States made, and were willing to make, to protect slavery in the States where it already existed, failed to stop secession. Your belief is in the area of lala land cause the British Empire was utterly lacking in power to affect such change. The Britts had absolutely no problem buying slave produced cotton before and during the war, so why would that have changed if there had been no war and the Confederacy had gained independence?

Keep in mind that the American Civil War did not start because the United States declared war on the Confederacy and invaded it in order to abolish slavery in the States where it existed. Rather it was the Confederate States seceded because the United States opposed expansion of slavery into the territories and then declared war on the United States because the United States refused to recognize their independence and maintained control of United States installations in those States which the Confederacy seized using military violence.

So given that the Confederacy went to the extremes of attacking the United States and starting a terrible and bloody war, that they lost, not to protect slavery but to expand the institution of slavery into the rest of the United States your belief that British economic might would some how change that when the United States was already the greatest economic power in the world and had tried and failed to reconcile the South with compromise after compromise and the use soft economic power. To suggest that the British could have is not based on reality.

So to tell us that had the North decided not to fight after the Confederacy declared war on the United States and gained independence, but would have given up slavery because the British said it wasn’t nice and they wouldn’t buy their cotton is delusional. It flys in the face of the facts. The most important one being that the Confederacy imposed an embargo on sale of their cotton to Great Britain (which turned out to be an incredibly dumb thing for the Confederacy to do.) because Great Britain did not recognize their independence.

Great Britain just found their Cotton elsewhere as they knew their ability to affect Confederate policy was zero.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
T.
So given that the Confederacy went to the extremes of attacking the United States and starting a terrible and bloody war, that they lost, not to protect slavery but to expand the institution of slavery into the rest of the United States ....
Click to expand...

and also the North's failure to enforce the fugitive slave act to return slave property well enough, in the estimation of the south.
 
Originally Posted by dukkha
yes multiculturalism by it's nature is fractious - assimilation with recognition of ethnicity is what unites people -
while respecting different cultures.
Think of soup floating various flavors and textures to combine a rich broth -not a salad bowl aimlessly tossed together


I see you just spelled "I'm a fucking moron" in your alphabet soup. :laugh: Soup metaphor? Really?
Who is going to eat the fucking assimilation soup, you fucking certifiable moron? :laugh:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Tom every peer reviewed source on Civil War casualties during the war and post war estimates Civilian casualties at conservatively between 50,000 and 100,000 and that includes the dislocations that occurred in the post war years. So I have no idea where you’re coming up with these grossly inflated numbers.

Not only that you’re making silly presupposition about had the United States not opposed the secession of the 11 Southern States, which is a woulda, coulda, shoulda logical fallacy as no one could possibly have known the outcome of something that didn’t happen. In addition as powerful as the British Empire was at that time there were limits to that power and to believe that British economic soft power Extended to the Confederacy would have caused the Confederacy to abandon chattel slavery, given the fact of the large number of substantial compromises the United States made, and were willing to make, to protect slavery in the States where it already existed, failed to stop secession. Your belief is in the area of lala land cause the British Empire was utterly lacking in power to affect such change. The Britts had absolutely no problem buying slave produced cotton before and during the war, so why would that have changed if there had been no war and and the Confederacy.

Keep in mind that the American Civil War did not start because the United States declared war on the Confederacy in order to abolish slavery in the States where it existed. Rather it was the Confederate States seceded because the United States opposed expansion of slavery into the territories and then declared war on the United States because the United States refused to recognize their independence and maintained control of United States installations in those States which the Confederacy seized using military violence.

So given that the Confederacy went to the extremes of attacking the United States and starting a terrible and bloody war, that they lost, not to protect slavery but to expand the institution of slavery into the rest of the United States your belief that British economic might would some how change that when the United States was already the greatest economic power in the world and had tried and failed to reconcile the South with compromise after compromise and the use soft economic power to suggest that the British could have us not based on reality.

So to tell us that had the North decided not to fight after the Confederacy declared war on the United States and gained independence, but would have given up slavery because the British said it wasn’t nice and they wouldn’t buy their cotton is delusional. It flys in the face of the facts. The most important one being that the Confederacy imposed an embargo on sale of their cotton to Great Britain (which turned out to be an incredibly dumb thing for the Confederacy to do.) because Great Britain did not recognize their independence.

Great Britain just found their Cotton elsewhere as they knew their ability to affect Confederate policy was zero.
Click to expand...

Great Britain used its power to stop the slavery in Brazil, so that's not a hypothetical, now is it? Historians indulge in whatifs all the time, just because you don't is neither here nor there. Oh and the source for a million or more dying after the war is a book, by historian Jim Downs entitled Sick From Freedom. No doubt you'll dismiss it out of hand because you've never heard of it.

Oh and why do keep telling me things that I've already posted about. I know full well that GB had alternative sources like India, Turkey and Egypt for raw cotton.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war

Here's a link to the book!

https://www.amazon.com/Sick-Freedom...dp/0190218266?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_marketplace
 
Last edited:
WitoldPilecki said:
Most anti-bigotry Whites are the truly ignorant ones.

Mostly suburban snot nosed kids, who've had almost no contact with Blacks.

My co worker was an anti-bigot type like you, and that didn't stop him from getting run down by Blacks in the Peekskill area, chasing him calling him a White piece of chit.

I've seen bigotry from Whites growing up & also equally deplorable behavior from Blacks too.

All my life I've been harassed by Blacks, last time was a few months ago in the town of Poughkeepsie, when a Black man stared me down.

A lot of them are really jerks.... My Polish American uncle was jumped & robbed by Blacks in Portchester, NY, and my Polish American Grandmother was afraid to sleep at night because Blacks shot off guns at night

My Irish side of the family in Yonkers, didn't fare any better.... Their once peaceful White neighborhood turned Black, and they got robbed numerous times, and even held up at knife point by a Black man.

Not to excuse, the Italian kids I grew up with who threw rocks at Blacks, or beat them up for being Black.

But, it just shows how people just don't like each other, very much in close quarters & different factions.
Click to expand...

anti bigots!:laugh: Is that a thing? I guess I'm one. I don't understand the hard truth of bigotry.

I think the issue here is the overuse of lethal force against black people and over incarceration. Many people do not lose
sight of the fact that most judges, cops and prosecutors are not black. Add to that they have the killings caught on camera,
and you have a righteous issue here. And that's whether or not lily soft white people in the burbs don't confront the disagreements between racial profiles in boroughs
in cities.
 
The Following User Groans At Micawber For This Awful Post:
Grajonca (Today)

Whatever the fuck has you upset, at least I'm not trying to make not being a bigot a dirty word.
 
Cypress said:
I am not sure I buy the argument that the Confereracy was representative of world norms, while the Union was revolutionary and unique.

Since the United States presents itself as the modern progeny of western civilization, it is the western world we compare our standard of conduct to. I don't think our nation has any business pointing to Africa, China, Brazil, or the steppes of Eurasia to justify our conduct.

Chattel slavery did not exist anywhere in Western Europe or North America outside of the southern states. Western civilization is the bar of moral conduct we have to clear.

By the standards of 19th century western civilization, I maintain we have to make the statement that what was happening in the southern states in 1861 was unusually cruel, inhumane, and exceedingly immoral
Click to expand...

And we did! Though again I reiterate much of western society, even though they had outlawed chattel slavery, were still structurally agrarian aristocratic feudal societies that had more in common with the Southern Confederacy than the industrialized liberal democracies of Northern Europe and the United States. Why do you think that the vast majority of the European aristocracy supported the Confederacy and not the United States? Only one European Government, Russia (in pure self interest for US Naval support in case of war against Britain) verbally supported the United States during the Civil War. None of them officially Supported the United States. Why do think that was so?
 
Last edited:
Micawber said:
and also the North's failure to enforce the fugitive slave act to return slave property well enough, in the estimation of the south.
Click to expand...

Which just proves the lie that the Civil War was about States Rights. If by that it’s meant a States right to keep slavery legal well then yea but the Slave States were adamantly opposed to Northern States Rights to ignore the Fugitive Slave act and put a great deal of pressure on the Federal Government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in those States which did not enforce it. So much for the States Rights argument.
 
Grajonca said:
Great Britain used its power to stop the slavery in Brazil, so that's not a hypothetical, now is it? Historians indulge in whatifs all the time, just because you don't is neither here nor there. Oh and the source for a million or more dying after the war is a book, by historian Jim Downs entitled Sick From Freedom. No doubt you'll dismiss it out of hand because you've never heard of it.

Oh and why do keep telling me things that I've already posted about. I know full well that GB had alternative sources like India, Turkey and Egypt for raw cotton.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war

Here's a link to the book!

https://www.amazon.com/Sick-Freedom...dp/0190218266?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_marketplace
Click to expand...

I never accepted Lincoln’s argument that the union must be preserved at all costs. People seem to forget that the states created the Federal government, not vice versa, and that forcing states to remain part of the union against their will wasn’t consistent with what the founders envisioned when they wrote the 10th Amendment, for example.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was considered morally inferior to the West because they were holding entire countries hostage behind the Iron Curtain thus prevented them from seeking their own destiny as free men. Realising that good ol' Abe was guilty of the exact same thing and actually allowed so many to die to make his point always seemed totally hypocritical to me.
 
Grajonca said:
Great Britain used its power to stop the slavery in Brazil, so that's not a hypothetical, now is it? Historians indulge in whatifs all the time, just because you don't is neither here nor there. Oh and the source for a million or more dying after the war is a book, by historian Jim Downs entitled Sick From Freedom. No doubt you'll dismiss it out of hand because you've never heard of it.

Oh and why do keep telling me things that I've already posted about. I know full well that GB had alternative sources like India, Turkey and Egypt for raw cotton.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war

Here's a link to the book!

https://www.amazon.com/Sick-Freedom...dp/0190218266?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_marketplace
Click to expand...

Tom...Brazil was not the Confederacy. As I stated before slavery didn’t stop Britain from buying slave produced cotton from the South before or during the war. The only thing that stopped them from buying Southern slave produced cotton was the Confederacies Ill advised embargo.

Also, comparing the Confederacy to Brazil is a false equivalency. At the time of Civil War the Confederacy was the worlds sixth largest economy. The ability of Britain to influence events economically or diplomatically in the Confederacy where minuscule compared to Brazil. It’s not like Britain didn’t try during the war but the Confederacy absolutely refused to compromise on slavery until the United States had essentially won the war. Which by then it was impossible for the British to support them.

Also I should point out that slavery in Brazil, used mainly in sugar production was economically unprofitable and was dying out. Which was also true in the United States until the 1820’s when Eli Whitney’s invention of the Cotton Gin made slave produced cotton extremely profitable, so much so, that slavery was in no danger of dying in the South at the outbreak of the Civil War as it was far too profitable. So you’re comparing apples to oranges.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
And we did! Though again I reiterate much of western society, even though they had outlawed chattel slavery, were still structurally agrarian aristocratic feudal societies that had more in common with the Southern Confederacy than the industrialized liberal democracies of Northern Europe and the United States. Why do you think that the vast majority of the European aristocracy supported the Confederacy and not the United States? Only one European Government, Russia (in pure self interest for US Naval support in case of war against Britain) verbally supported the United States during the Civil War. None of them officially Supported the United States. Why do think that was so?
Click to expand...

It is outside my realm of knowledge, but I presume Britain and France considered recognizing CSA for economic and geopolitical reasons. Not because they felt kinship with a chattel slavery economic system. Every nation on the planet in 1861 was primarily agrarian. But the chattel slave economy of the south was at at level of cruelty not seen anywhere else in Europe or North America. Serfdom was outlawed everywhere in Europe prior to the outbreak of the civil war, and even then, the average Russian serf was not the victim of the wanton cruelty American chattel slaves endured.

And that is why I maintain the chattel slavery of the American South in 1861 really was in a league by itself and had no analog anywhere else in Europe or North America
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Tom...Brazil was not the Confederacy. As I stated before slavery didn’t stop Britain from buying slave produced cotton from the South before or during the war. The only thing that stopped them from buying Southern slave produced cotton was the Confederacies Ill advised embargo.

Also, comparing the Confederacy to Brazil is a false equivalency. At the time of Civil War the Confederacy was the worlds sixth largest economy. The ability of Britain to influence events economically or diplomatically in the Confederacy where minuscule compared to Brazil. It’s not like Britain didn’t try during the war but the Confederacy absolutely refused to compromise on slavery until the United States had essentially won the war. Which by then it was impossible for the British to support them.

Also I should point out that slavery in Brazil, used mainly in sugar production was economically unprofitable and was dying out. Which was also true in the United States until the 1820’s when Eli Whitney’s invention of the Cotton Gin made slave produced cotton extremely profitable, so much so, that slavery was in no danger of dying in the South at the outbreak of the Civil War as it was far too profitable. So you’re comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

No mention of the book I see, why is that? You're not impressing me, cotton was the South's number one industry especially in Mississippi. They were stupid to attempt an embargo on GB and it most definitely backfired on them. However you're just not seeing the big picture here, if the South had seceded then they would have had no choice but finish with slavery in due course. They had few friends in the world and they could ill afford to piss off the Brits.

Do you know why Lancashire was so important to the cotton spinning industry? It would have made far more sense to base it in somewhere like Liverpool but cotton needed dampness to ensure the fibres twisted properly and the Lancashire hilly climate was ideal for that.

Here is something else for you to read as well.

http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/291/cotton-and-the-civil-war
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top