Advertisement
by Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:51 pm
by Melkor Unchained » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:51 pm
Natapoc wrote:Melkor Unchained wrote:I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.
But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.
It is not hypocritical so long as the "European" in question also scolded involved nations of europe for the same.
by Natapoc » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:52 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:Natapoc wrote:This was considered a basic human right. I realize rights have gone out of style lately in favor of nihilism but taxation without representation was seen as a fundamental violation of natural rights.
What are the narural right and from where do they get their authority?
by United Southernours » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:53 pm
by North Suran » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:54 pm
Melkor Unchained wrote:I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.
Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.
Geniasis wrote:The War on Christmas
by Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:56 pm
North Suran wrote:Melkor Unchained wrote:I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.
True. While slavery may have been at the heart of the Confederate Government, it was not the sole factor which motivated the Southern population to seceede.Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.
The problem is, not only did Europe take the lead in the abolition movement, it was also the most active in abolishing the slave trade itself. Furthermore, while racism was still high in the 20th century, it was not institutionalised as in the USA. Furthermore, while the US Government had seen fit to condemn European imperialism pre-WWII, it immediately reversed on this position when it became convienent for the USA due to the threat of the USSR.
by Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:56 pm
Melkor Unchained wrote:Lacadaemon wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?
-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.
*winces*
A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."
by North Suran » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:56 pm
Melkor Unchained wrote:Lacadaemon wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?
-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.
*winces*
A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.
Geniasis wrote:The War on Christmas
by Lacadaemon » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:57 pm
Melkor Unchained wrote:But it couldn't have "take[n] off" without the framework put in place by European colonists.
by Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:58 pm
Yootopia wrote:Melkor Unchained wrote:Lacadaemon wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?
-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.
*winces*
A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."
A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.
by Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:58 pm
Maurepas wrote:The same can be said of Britain in India and Asia.
by Panzerjaeger » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:02 pm
Maurepas wrote:Yootopia wrote:Melkor Unchained wrote:Lacadaemon wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?
-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.
*winces*
A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."
A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.
Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...
New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...
More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!
Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!
Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"
New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.
by Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:03 pm
Gyan Prakash, [78] is of the opinion that the abolition of slavery in India in 1843 constructed the British government as a force of reason and progress, while it actually refashioned slavery and turned it into debt-bondage. In form of a detailed case study, he has studied the changing fate of the kamias, a group of agricultural labourers, who were largely members of a larger outcaste Bhuniya community in the Gaya district of south Bihar. These kamias had lohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_ ... ageng-term relations to landlords (maliks), who mostly belonged to upper castes. In fact, this kamia-malik tie was shaped like a patron-client relationship as is evident for example through the institution of kamiauti, a transaction of grain, money and a plot of land given to the kamia by the landlord if the former’s son married -"these relations were structured as dependent ties that represented the landlord as a munificent patron and the labourer as his dependent subject".
by Melkor Unchained » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:05 pm
North Suran wrote:Melkor Unchained wrote:Lacadaemon wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?
-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.
*winces*
A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."
Just because the previous regime established something doesn't mean that their successors are exempt from guilt if they decide to continue it. For example, Uzbekistan.
by North Suran » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:05 pm
Maurepas wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in ... bt_bondageGyan Prakash, [78] is of the opinion that the abolition of slavery in India in 1843 constructed the British government as a force of reason and progress, while it actually refashioned slavery and turned it into debt-bondage. In form of a detailed case study, he has studied the changing fate of the kamias, a group of agricultural labourers, who were largely members of a larger outcaste Bhuniya community in the Gaya district of south Bihar. These kamias had lohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_ ... ageng-term relations to landlords (maliks), who mostly belonged to upper castes. In fact, this kamia-malik tie was shaped like a patron-client relationship as is evident for example through the institution of kamiauti, a transaction of grain, money and a plot of land given to the kamia by the landlord if the former’s son married -"these relations were structured as dependent ties that represented the landlord as a munificent patron and the labourer as his dependent subject".
It's not traditional slavery of course, but, still is, imo, rather similar to that which was done in the Northeastern United States at the time, and to illegal immigrants in the US today...
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.
Geniasis wrote:The War on Christmas
by Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:05 pm
Panzerjaeger wrote:Maurepas wrote:Yootopia wrote:Melkor Unchained wrote:Lacadaemon wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?
-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.
*winces*
A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."
A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.
Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...
New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...
More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...
And when those got razed to the ground Goodbye Confederacy. People seem to assume Sherman's March to the Sea was just to prove a point when in reality it was to destroy a key Confederate Industrial Stronghold.
by Phenia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:06 pm
Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.
by Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:06 pm
Yootopia wrote:We still have that bond today, Maurepas. That's how a bank can take your house if you don't pay a mortgage.
by Panzerjaeger » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:06 pm
Maurepas wrote:Panzerjaeger wrote:Maurepas wrote:Yootopia wrote:Melkor Unchained wrote:Lacadaemon wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?
-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.
*winces*
A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."
A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.
Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...
New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...
More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...
And when those got razed to the ground Goodbye Confederacy. People seem to assume Sherman's March to the Sea was just to prove a point when in reality it was to destroy a key Confederate Industrial Stronghold.
Yep, the South could survive until the powder mills in Atlanta and Augusta are gone, after that, it's prettymuch the end....
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!
Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!
Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"
New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.
by Derscon » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:06 pm
by Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:06 pm
Maurepas wrote:New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...
by Free and Open States » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:07 pm
by Vervaria » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:07 pm
Derscon wrote:So?
Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.
Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.
Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.
Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint
Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.
Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Eahland, Ineva, Kannap, New Temecula, Nuevo Meshiko, Ravemath, Shrillland, Soviet Haaregrad, Statesburg, The Two Jerseys, The Vooperian Union, Tiami, Verkhoyanska, Xind, Yasuragi
Advertisement