The American Civil War

[Fedeledland]

Because a little patience worked out perfectly well for the South during the nullification crisis.

It did, they got the offensive tariffs reduced for ten years.

And entirely ignored the problems that resurfaced only 30 years afterwards. And the tariffs returned soon enough stronger than ever.

[Forsher]

More sensible than the US Revolution. Fought more or less about some misplaced sense of unity, everything else is political dressing.

[Farnhamia]

It did, they got the offensive tariffs reduced for ten years.

And entirely ignored the problems that resurfaced only 30 years afterwards.

And that were exacerbated by people who made their money off an economy that had bondage slavery at its base, without which it would collapse. The United States was born of a war but was supposed to be the example of how a nation can manage its affairs democratically without resorting to arms.

[Fedeledland]

And entirely ignored the problems that resurfaced only 30 years afterwards.

And that were exacerbated by people who made their money off an economy that had bondage slavery at its base, without which it would collapse. The United States was born of a war but was supposed to be the example of how a nation can manage its affairs democratically without resorting to arms.

I'll have to agree with you there; my point is, the CSA weren't entirely the agressors in the war; the Union had been provoking them before.

[Farnhamia]

And that were exacerbated by people who made their money off an economy that had bondage slavery at its base, without which it would collapse. The United States was born of a war but was supposed to be the example of how a nation can manage its affairs democratically without resorting to arms.

I'll have to agree with you there; my point is, the CSA weren't entirely the agressors in the war; the Union had been provoking them before.

The "CSA" never existed before 1861. It could not have been provoked. And if you want to trade provocations, I think the Fugitive Slave Act went a long way toward making the South appear to be an evil bastion of darkness to the people of the North.

[Fedeledland]

I'll have to agree with you there; my point is, the CSA weren't entirely the agressors in the war; the Union had been provoking them before.

The "CSA" never existed before 1861. It could not have been provoked. And if you want to trade provocations, I think the Fugitive Slave Act went a long way toward making the South appear to be an evil bastion of darkness to the people of the North.

As Harper's Ferry and Uncle Tom's Cabin were to the slave states.

[Farnhamia]

The "CSA" never existed before 1861. It could not have been provoked. And if you want to trade provocations, I think the Fugitive Slave Act went a long way toward making the South appear to be an evil bastion of darkness to the people of the North.

As Harper's Ferry and Uncle Tom's Cabin were to the slave states.

True enough, there was provocation on both sides. War was still the fool's option.

[Fedeledland]

As Harper's Ferry and Uncle Tom's Cabin were to the slave states.

True enough, there was provocation on both sides. War was still the fool's option.

I'll agree with you there.

[Confederate Socialist States of America]

We were starting to go off topic in the "Your favorite president?" thread so I decided to bring the conversation here.

What is your take on the Civil War? Who do you think was at fault? Was the war necessary? Was the war about slavery or state's rights? And what would side would you have supported?

I believe it was an awful war that should never have happened, the southern Rebels are at fault in my eyes.
I say that the war was over the issue of slavery and I would have fought for the Union.

Your turn, lets get this thing started. Bang. Bang.

(Image)
(Image)

Those who claim the Union was out to end slavery are also the same assholes who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or that "we've got to stop Joseph Kony (i.e. Bankers and War Profiteering scum)." The Civil War didn't end Slavery, it just made it more sophisticated. Why bother with owning peoples' bodies (but not their minds) when you can pretend to free them, then force them into the same position of servitude, but trick them into thinking they're free instead? Thus shackling their minds in the form of mindless mass entertainment (effectively turning them into what Orwell would call Proles) and an education system filled with pro-Government, Illumnati-made bullshit for those aren't stupid enough to fall for Prolefeed, yet too weak-minded to connect the dots.

[Alien Space Bats]

Because a little patience worked out perfectly well for the South during the nullification crisis.

As a matter of fact, it did. The Tariff of Abominations - which is what South Carolina was upset about in the first place - got repealed.

And entirely ignored the problems that resurfaced only 30 years afterwards. And the tariffs returned soon enough stronger than ever.

You have quite obviously never studied the tariff history of America in the early 19th Century: Tariffs never returned to 1828 levels until well after South Carolina seceded; indeed, on December 20th, 1860 - the day South Carolina quit the Union - tariffs were lower than they had been at any other point in the 19th Century.

[Nauritropia]

The Union. Many parts of the Confederate constitution were dedicated to slave ownership and oppression and also it said that states in the Confederacy didn't have the right to secede. Oh the hypocrisy.

[PapaJacky]

We were starting to go off topic in the "Your favorite president?" thread so I decided to bring the conversation here.

What is your take on the Civil War? Who do you think was at fault? Was the war necessary? Was the war about slavery or state's rights? And what would side would you have supported?

I believe it was an awful war that should never have happened, the southern Rebels are at fault in my eyes.
I say that the war was over the issue of slavery and I would have fought for the Union.

Your turn, lets get this thing started. Bang. Bang.

(Image)
(Image)

Those who claim the Union was out to end slavery are also the same assholes who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or that "we've got to stop Joseph Kony (i.e. Bankers and War Profiteering scum)." The Civil War didn't end Slavery, it just made it more sophisticated. Why bother with owning peoples' bodies (but not their minds) when you can pretend to free them, then force them into the same position of servitude, but trick them into thinking they're free instead? Thus shackling their minds in the form of mindless mass entertainment (effectively turning them into what Orwell would call Proles) and an education system filled with pro-Government, Illumnati-made bullshit for those aren't stupid enough to fall for Prolefeed, yet too weak-minded to connect the dots.

That was more or less the German's fault.

[Fedeledland]

The Union. Many parts of the Confederate constitution were dedicated to slave ownership and oppression and also it said that states in the Confederacy didn't have the right to secede. Oh the hypocrisy.

Well, seceding from a country which seceded from a country which seceded from a country sounds a lot like a certain 2010 movie to be allowed in an 1861 constitution...

[Forster Keys]

Probably none, though I have strong sympathies for abolitionism.

[Alien Space Bats]

<continued from above>

Everything You Know Is Wrong - Part II

---

In the interest of brevity, I will not document all of the claims I have made above regarding the faulty narrative most Americans are given in secondary school as part of the established explanation of the causes underlying the War of the Rebellion; rather, I will briefly repeat those claims I have already established in other posts and threads, and if challenged cite those other posts. This should save us all a great deal of time.

As a segue into this, let me start by quoting my previous post:

But I also learned many, many things that were wrong, the three greatest being: That the war was about the future of slavery, especially as it pertained to expansion into the West; that the war was about States' Rights, insofar as the South sought to free itself from unwarranted Federal interference with the same; and that the war was about high tariffs, which the South believed would be their ruin.

Of these three "truths", I have learned this: That the first was an oversimplification to the point of completely obfuscating the real issues involved in the matter; that the second was worse than a fabrication, but indeed a complete reversal of the truth; and that the third was at best an old argument of minor importance that had long since been resolved in favor of the South, and which was only brought up later to expand the list of "grievances" claimed by Dixie as justification for its cause.

Just for the sake of completeness, let me address these three "issues" in increasing order of importance.

#1: Tariffs

I will not claim that North and South did not have differing interests when it came to the collection of tariffs; the South, which imported a great many luxury goods from abroad and had little interest in major public works, wanted tariffs kept as low as possible; Northern industrial interests, OTOH - which faced competition from foreign business enterprises (and especially English ones) that enjoyed both lower labor costs than could be found in America and had the backing of a government quite willing to engage in unfair trade practices (including forcible monopolization [by both legal and military means] of foreign markets and dumping) - wanted protection from such competition, which high import tariffs provided. There were other factors as well (eg., any protectionist trade policy that suppressed imports also worked to hobble exports, including cotton - the South's economic mainstay), but this should be enough for now.

That said, these same Northern interests never had the political clout to impose their will on the country when it came to tariffs for any great length of time: From the end of the War of 1812 until the War of the Rebellion, proponents of high protective tariffs got their way only twice - once in 1828 (in enacting the so-called "Tariff of Abominations") and once in 1842 (with the so-called "Black Tariff"). Moreover, each of these tariffs was repealed within a few years of its passage (with the Tariff of 1828 being subsequently slashed in 1832 and then phased out altogether beginning the following year; the Tariff of 1842, in turn, was repealed in full four years later [in 1846]; the resulting Walker Tariff was even lower than the Compromise Tariff that had been in place prior to the Black Tariff's passage [in 1842], making the final outcome of that round of political duelling a net loss for protectionists). However populous the North, and however badly Northern industrial interests wanted protectionist policies put into place, they apparently lacked sufficient influence in Washington to either get such policies enacted or manage to have them stick once they did.

Indeed, claims of Southern apologists to the contrary, secession can not realistically be seen as a response to a pattern of continually rising tariffs; the reason for this is simple: After the defeat of the Black Tariff in 1846, tariffs not only remained at an all-time low, but rather actually fell again on the eve of the War, in 1857.

So unless "constantly rising tariffs" is some kind of wierd code-phrase for "historically low and falling tariff rates", and the South actually wanted to be taxed harder, any claim that the South didn't get what it wanted when it came to customs duties in the last decade and a half of the antebellum era is factually inaccurate; consequently, claims that rising tariffs were a cause of the War of the Rebellion must be rejected out of hand as ridiculous.

I will, however, concede one pont here: For reasons I will discuss in future posts, tariffs remained a sensitive issue with the South; in spite of historically low customs duties in particular, the South clearly thought that they were forced to bear an unfair share of the Nation's tax burden. In that respect - much like today - Southern carping about "constantly rising taxes" was less a reflection of historical reality than it was a simple statement of general offense at the notion of having to bear any sort of real Federal tax burden whatsoever.

<more to come>

[Laerod]

Governments are by definition public institutions. It's kinda obvious that they're not private individuals so treating them as such is idiotic.

This would be a foreign government though. What basis are they possessing the land?

Treaties, typically. You wouldn't be able to evict a foreign embassy on grounds of eminent domain, I guarantee you that.

I don't know, Cuba got screwed out of that land in the first place, america imposed some really bullshit terms of Cuban independence, the bay area is part of that. That agreement was torn it (and rightly so) by Castro and his ilk

Cuba never owned that land. Spain did. We gave independence to Cuba, and if they don't like the way we did it, they can revert to Spain.

Not necessarily the point. Cuba recognized the right of the US to lease the land and there's a binding contract that the Castro regime, as the successor to the Batista regime, is bound by, regardless of whether they were involved in the process of drafting it or not. Treaties and agreements don't just get revoked simply because there's a change in management. Sometimes it becomes impractical to enforce them, but that doesn't make breaking them any less illegal.
(Sorry if I'm using your post as a springboard here.)

Federal property, yes, but if you seceded from a nation and the nation kept a fort off your first state's capital, which was threatening your nation with annexation anyways, and which had tacit support from Europe, you might've reacted the same way. It was definitely not the act of imperialistic agression you're all making it look like.

ASB is the one calling it "imperialistic", and he may have a point. The rest of us have been calling it downright illegal for being downright illegal. Guantanamo Bay being a pretty awesome harbor doesn't give Cuba the right to take it back. And I see it's been pointed out that Charleston wasn't the capital.

Could still be a cassus belli.

Not a legal one, no. You wouldn't consider Cuba an innocent victim of aggression if they attacked and forced the surrender of Guantanamo Bay either.

I'll have to agree with you there; my point is, the CSA weren't entirely the agressors in the war; the Union had been provoking them before.

And it's still an invalid point. When you attack you are the aggressor. The South attacked a fort they had no legal right to.

[Laerod]

We were starting to go off topic in the "Your favorite president?" thread so I decided to bring the conversation here.

What is your take on the Civil War? Who do you think was at fault? Was the war necessary? Was the war about slavery or state's rights? And what would side would you have supported?

I believe it was an awful war that should never have happened, the southern Rebels are at fault in my eyes.
I say that the war was over the issue of slavery and I would have fought for the Union.

Your turn, lets get this thing started. Bang. Bang.

(Image)
(Image)

Those who claim the Union was out to end slavery are also the same assholes who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or that "we've got to stop Joseph Kony (i.e. Bankers and War Profiteering scum)." The Civil War didn't end Slavery, it just made it more sophisticated. Why bother with owning peoples' bodies (but not their minds) when you can pretend to free them, then force them into the same position of servitude, but trick them into thinking they're free instead? Thus shackling their minds in the form of mindless mass entertainment (effectively turning them into what Orwell would call Proles) and an education system filled with pro-Government, Illumnati-made bullshit for those aren't stupid enough to fall for Prolefeed, yet too weak-minded to connect the dots.

That's metaphorical slavery and not actual slavery. And I'd be interested to know what mass entertainment was used to keep the former slaves in a state of mind-shackling...

[Wikkiwallana]

Those who claim the Union was out to end slavery are also the same assholes who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or that "we've got to stop Joseph Kony (i.e. Bankers and War Profiteering scum)." The Civil War didn't end Slavery, it just made it more sophisticated. Why bother with owning peoples' bodies (but not their minds) when you can pretend to free them, then force them into the same position of servitude, but trick them into thinking they're free instead? Thus shackling their minds in the form of mindless mass entertainment (effectively turning them into what Orwell would call Proles) and an education system filled with pro-Government, Illumnati-made bullshit for those aren't stupid enough to fall for Prolefeed, yet too weak-minded to connect the dots.

That's metaphorical slavery and not actual slavery. And I'd be interested to know what mass entertainment was used to keep the former slaves in a state of mind-shackling...

But it is actual bullshit.

[Alien Space Bats]

Federal property, yes, but if you seceded from a nation and the nation kept a fort off your first state's capital, which was threatening your nation with annexation anyways, and which had tacit support from Europe, you might've reacted the same way. It was definitely not the act of imperialistic agression you're all making it look like.

ASB is the one calling it "imperialistic", and he may have a point.

It's not what happened at Fort Sumter per se that I see as establishing a pattern that suggests the South intended that the final result of the war be Southern conquest of the North followed by its forcible absorption into the new Confederacy, rather than the creation of a new country side by side with the old one; what happened at Sumter was merely one small part of a larger pattern, which I will get to shortly.

[Forsher]

ASB is the one calling it "imperialistic", and he may have a point.

It's not what happened at Fort Sumter per se that I see as establishing a pattern that suggests the South intended that the final result of the war be Southern conquest of the North followed by its forcible absorption into the new Confederacy, rather than the creation of a new country side by side with the old one; what happened at Sumter was merely one small part of a larger pattern, which I will get to shortly.

I don't think that either could have existed side by side.

[Laerod]

ASB is the one calling it "imperialistic", and he may have a point.

It's not what happened at Fort Sumter per se that I see as establishing a pattern that suggests the South intended that the final result of the war be Southern conquest of the North followed by its forcible absorption into the new Confederacy, rather than the creation of a new country side by side with the old one; what happened at Sumter was merely one small part of a larger pattern, which I will get to shortly.

Yes, this is what I was getting at when I said that. Looking forward to part III...

[TaQud]

It's not what happened at Fort Sumter per se that I see as establishing a pattern that suggests the South intended that the final result of the war be Southern conquest of the North followed by its forcible absorption into the new Confederacy, rather than the creation of a new country side by side with the old one; what happened at Sumter was merely one small part of a larger pattern, which I will get to shortly.

I don't think that either could have existed side by side.

Well if they did exist for like 10-20 years back in the 1860s, there would probably be a war due to border disputes and kidnapping of free slaves in the north.

[Artanili Datium]

Union.

States rights are a joke.

Not really.

Yes really.

A strong central government ensures unity and standardized procedure within the state.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Nope, the Southern States were defending themselves from the Union.

Oohhhhh

So attacking Fort Sumter was a mistake by of blind gunner who kept tyring to fire a warning shot?

No, they were making an impression on the occupies of the fort. Have you seen the casualty report? A Confederate horse. It wasn't an accident there were no casualties. They wanted them out, peacefully, just like every other fort in the South had been abandoned peaceably. This fort was being supplied, unnecessarily, unless it was being supplied with ammunition, which is obviously aggressive. Defending.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'll have to agree with you there; my point is, the CSA weren't entirely the agressors in the war; the Union had been provoking them before.

And it's still an invalid point. When you attack you are the aggressor. The South attacked a fort they had no legal right to.[/quote]
When you attack you are the aggressor? That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

You're walking down a street, when suddenly, a man jumps out of an alley. He points a gun at your face, and orders you to give him your money. Now, he doesn't hurt you, he doesn't touch you - he is just pointing the gun, with his finger on the trigger. So, you hit him in the face, knocking him down.
You, therefore, struck first. You attacked. He did not. Does that make you the aggressor?