NationStates

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Dracoria wrote:
Thing is, I frequently find myself a devil's advocate in forums. There are times when I may argue the Confederacy wasn't as bad as some posters say. But I just can't when the Confederacy apologists are so blinded by their alternate history that they claim the Union was in any way morally inferior to the Confederacy.

Kind of like I stop promoting National Socialism if a thread has too many sincere Nazis posting racist crap. I get that.

There are individual Confederate officers that I might defend sometimes, depending on the context, but the Confederate cause was still evil.

Dracoria wrote:Welcome to the club. Oh, I found out I'm a Northern liberal and a yankee in this thread, too. It was pretty surprising at first, but I think I'll do okay in my apartment in the big city, eating a slice of pie for breakfast with my cat while gazing longingly at a picture of Abraham Lincoln.

Reunited Yugoslavia wrote:

Master Shake wrote:This thread is STILL going?

Huh..I'm impressed...

Anyway what is there left to talk about?

We did slavery,State's Rights,military action against civilians, POW camps and talk about what the flag represents...What is there left to discuss?

Luckily I can't be a Yankee because I'm in Southern California!

Dracoria wrote:

Nazi Flower Power wrote:
Kind of like I stop promoting National Socialism if a thread has too many sincere Nazis posting racist crap. I get that.

There are individual Confederate officers that I might defend sometimes, depending on the context, but the Confederate cause was still evil.

I have immense respect for James Longstreet. Even if he'd been a complete screwup in the war and not one of the more successful Confederate tacticians, the fact that he became The Atoner after the war sealed it. It's fun to watch for people who hate Longstreet for his post-war shift, as they're usually Lost Causers.

Ucropi wrote:

Sdaeriji wrote:
In other words, it was written by southern revisionists.

Glad you can see how wrong your side is that you try to find the smallest crack in my post to pick at. Also British/Canadian historians don't really care about the north or south when they right history books.

Ucropi wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:What does that have to do with the causes of the American Revolution? And anyway, the topic is the Confederate battle flag and what it stands for, not the American Revolution. You are welcome to start another thread on that subject.

You seriously don't see the parallels?

Both America and the CSA secede
Both are motivated by the fear of the loss of slavery
Both claim "higher" political reasons for secession

Master Shake wrote:

Dracoria wrote:
At this point, what difference does it make?

I agree. Now one attacks a building unless it houses something that makes people hate it...(or they burn it down because they are a pyro, but that is different...)

Reunited Yugoslavia wrote:(Image)

Damn it!

Well I still think the South kicked ass...Slavery would have been obsolete in a few years after the war anyway. Due to the industrial revolution and scientific advances that were beginning to be introduced to the Americas after the Civil War.

Dakini wrote:

Master Shake wrote:
I agree. Now one attacks a building unless it houses something that makes people hate it...(or they burn it down because they are a pyro, but that is different...)



Damn it!

Well I still think the South kicked ass...Slavery would have been obsolete in a few years after the war anyway. Due to the industrial revolution and scientific advances that were beginning to be introduced to the Americas after the Civil War.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who has even the tiniest bit of knowledge about the US Civil War that the South did not "kick ass"; they had their asses kicked. Severely.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Dakini wrote:It's pretty obvious to anyone who has even the tiniest bit of knowledge about the US Civil War that the South did not "kick ass"; they had their asses kicked. Severely.

A lot of people don't seem to realize just how severely they got their asses kicked. We get a lot of alternate histories and speculation about how things could have gone differently, so people often forget just how uneven the balance of power really was.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Dakini wrote:It's pretty obvious to anyone who has even the tiniest bit of knowledge about the US Civil War that the South did not "kick ass"; they had their asses kicked. Severely.

A lot of people don't seem to realize just how severely they got their asses kicked. We get a lot of alternate histories and speculation about how things could have gone differently, so people often forget just how uneven the balance of power really was.

Dakini wrote:

Nazi Flower Power wrote:
A lot of people don't seem to realize just how severely they got their asses kicked. We get a lot of alternate histories and speculation about how things could have gone differently, so people often forget just how uneven the balance of power really was.

Yeah, I mean, if the CSA had gone a few years without picking a fight with the USA and if they'd managed to bring a few more border states along and if they'd spent all their time working on industrialization (which they didn't want to do) and planting food instead of cash crops (which they also didn't want to do) then maybe they would've had a fighting chance.

..but given that they were already making plans on Mexico... probably not.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Dakini wrote:Yeah, I mean, if the CSA had gone a few years without picking a fight with the USA and if they'd managed to bring a few more border states along and if they'd spent all their time working on industrialization (which they didn't want to do) and planting food instead of cash crops (which they also didn't want to do) then maybe they would've had a fighting chance.

..but given that they were already making plans on Mexico... probably not.

I don't think the CSA ever really stood a chance.

The Orson Empire wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I don't think the CSA ever really stood a chance.

No, they didn't. In my opinion, the biggest reason was the lack of industrialization in the South.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Dakini wrote:Yeah, I mean, if the CSA had gone a few years without picking a fight with the USA and if they'd managed to bring a few more border states along and if they'd spent all their time working on industrialization (which they didn't want to do) and planting food instead of cash crops (which they also didn't want to do) then maybe they would've had a fighting chance.

..but given that they were already making plans on Mexico... probably not.

I don't think the CSA ever really stood a chance.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Dakini wrote:Yeah, I mean, if the CSA had gone a few years without picking a fight with the USA and if they'd managed to bring a few more border states along and if they'd spent all their time working on industrialization (which they didn't want to do) and planting food instead of cash crops (which they also didn't want to do) then maybe they would've had a fighting chance.

..but given that they were already making plans on Mexico... probably not.

I don't think the CSA ever really stood a chance.

Dracoria wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I don't think the CSA ever really stood a chance.

Not a one. It was much like Germany or Japan in WWII. On paper, they started with more experienced troops and leaders. In reality, they lacked the ability to replenish their losses or keep their troops fed, armed and supplied in the field for long. During the industrial era up until the cold war, waging a war of conquest against a nation with more industry, transport and food agriculture was just about suicide.

The Orson Empire wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I don't think the CSA ever really stood a chance.

No, they didn't. In my opinion, the biggest reason was the lack of industrialization in the South.

The Orson Empire wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I don't think the CSA ever really stood a chance.

No, they didn't. In my opinion, the biggest reason was the lack of industrialization in the South.

Dakini wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
I don't think the CSA ever really stood a chance.

I don't think they did either. Having a chance would have required them to change a lot about their way of life and they were very obviously opposed to any suggestion of doing so (or even the whiff of a suggestion). The CSA was run by a bunch of people who were stuck in the past and thought themselves invincible. Losing the war was probably the best case scenario for the people of the Southern States.

Oh, also, putting off the war would have required them to stop pretending that certain Union states were part of the Confederacy...


In addition, I don't actually think that the US Civil War was avoidable at all. If the CSA hadn't started the war by attacking Fort Sumter, they would have started it when the USA began putting more people in the territories claimed by the CSA and giving them statehood.

Dakini wrote:

The Orson Empire wrote:No, they didn't. In my opinion, the biggest reason was the lack of industrialization in the South.

My favourite part was the part where they couldn't even decide on a standard gauge for rail lines so they couldn't easily transport goods or troops throughout their own territory.

Dracoria wrote:

Dakini wrote:My favourite part was the part where they couldn't even decide on a standard gauge for rail lines so they couldn't easily transport goods or troops throughout their own territory.

To be fair, that situation existed beforehand. The Union had it to a lesser extent, but the rail companies up North figured out that this was a situation where industry standards would make things easier on everyone.

Dakini wrote:

Dracoria wrote:
To be fair, that situation existed beforehand. The Union had it to a lesser extent, but the rail companies up North figured out that this was a situation where industry standards would make things easier on everyone.

I know. It's still kinda funny and also part of why they didn't stand much of a chance, imo.

Distruzio wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
If a U.S. Embassy is attacked in a Foreign Country, are they attacking the U.S. or are they just attacking the building?

Was the Union territory attacked territory recognized by the Union to exist in another nation on territory justifiably agreed to belong to the Union? If so, then that would hold true.

Each fort was built upon leased territory.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Dracoria wrote:
Not a one. It was much like Germany or Japan in WWII. On paper, they started with more experienced troops and leaders. In reality, they lacked the ability to replenish their losses or keep their troops fed, armed and supplied in the field for long. During the industrial era up until the cold war, waging a war of conquest against a nation with more industry, transport and food agriculture was just about suicide.

Like Communism. In theory it looks good, but in practice? Not so much.

The North Pacific League wrote:

Dracoria wrote:
He didn't want to keep slavery. He wanted to keep a nation whole even if it meant putting up with slavery until a better opportunity came to abolish it peacefully. By the way, I speak English quite well and have studied real history. If I'm not familiar with revisionist Lost Cause history, I'm sorry. Still, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Hm, then would you explain to me the case of Clement Vallandigham (D-Ohio) without looking it up? Or the writ of habeas corpus and its place in the U.S. Constitution, and what Lincoln's actions on that were? Or the interpretation of Constitutional law vis-a-vis federal power vs. State power at the time of the Civil War with regards to the abolition of slavery in one part of (what Lincoln alleged to be) the Union but not in another?

Or could you tell me what the Sea Island Colony plan was without using Wikipedia?

I repeat: The North was run by racists who were quite content to preserve slavery. The South was run by racists who were quite content to preserve slavery, except for some of its most prominent generals who, if it won the war, most likely would have assumed positions of political power. Lincoln violated the Constitution in multiple ways, and recklessly and irreparably damaged the Union he was supposedly trying to preserve in doing so, by setting harmful precedent. He was not a hero, but you can stick to your grade-school history lessons if you please.