Virginia Republicans, Stealing The Senate?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Seanchaidh:
Of slave-owners. Just because you want to spin it another way doesn't mean that's not what they were about.

Once again, slave owners were a minority amongst southerners. The property rights of just slave owners would be irrelevant to your average southerner.

Very interesting, but none of that addresses the point: Texas put slavery and white supremacy ahead of all other considerations when declaring their causes of secession.

And what about Texans? Elites=/=the people.

Believing something doesn't make it true.

As you have proven in this topic.

Frankly, no.

Frankly, yes.

Which is about as relevant as calling feathers in one's hat macaroni.

So let me get this straight, you will take the words of some documents written by the wealthiest elements of the southern society but you will not take the words sung on the field by the common men. Mind explaining that one to me?

Jux:
You're off the deep end farson. In what bizarre world do you live in where you think I am going to argue with you not because I hold different views than you, but for... what? Because I want to screw with you? If you think that, get yourself checked man, that line of thinking just isn't normal.

Why do you assume that I am stating that you know your point is wrong? Your point is bullshit. A very wide ranging term that includes the idea that your point is misleading, or that it is ridiculous, or disingenuous, or there is also wrong). And of course the question arises which point am I talking about. I wonder if you can answer that. Start by thinking about it, now go look and see what I actually said.

I find it interesting that you and Astia always seem to assume I am saying something far worse than what I am actually saying. You two need to relax and stop thinking that every one of my posts is a personal affront.

Also, tell me, would it be acceptable to attack a person over a crime that does not exist but is only perceived based upon vague coincidence? Before we continue I want to know that.

farson135:
snip

You know, I was just about ready to submit another response, but then I took a step back and realized just how much we'd derailed the conversation and how many of the tangents we had gotten off on had devolved into a rather juvenile back and forth over who was more at fault. By this point, really, any observer will have seen enough to draw whatever conclusions they want on that subject and we certainly aren't going to convince one another. It's clear that this isn't going to end until one of us decides not to continue the discussion any further, and I don't know about you, but I'm certainly ready for this to end, given the apparent impasse we're at and how each of our responses were reaching critical mass (largely on issues regarding our perceptions of one another rather than the topic at hand, to boot). So in the interest of sanity for both of us, and in hopefully ceasing to derail the thread, I'm going to go ahead and bow out. Were we fully on-topic I'd be happy enough to continue, but the argument we were having that seemed to monopolize our responses simply isn't worth continuing. So best wishes to you and I hope that if we see each other again in a different thread we'll be on better terms.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
Of slave-owners. Just because you want to spin it another way doesn't mean that's not what they were about.

Once again, slave owners were a minority amongst southerners. The property rights of just slave owners would be irrelevant to your average southerner.

Only if you think there isn't such a thing as people having values independent of their own narrow interest. Since that is evidently the case, your grasp of human psychology leaves something to be desired.

People fight for things that don't directly affect them all the time. Do you really need this explained to you? Most Americans weren't aboard the Lusitania nor did they travel overseas. Most Americans were not personally invested in the war against Spain. Or Mexico. Or Canada. Most Americans didn't give two flying fucks about French Indochina or Ho Chi Minh. Or Korea. In fact, I'd say very few in the United States lived in Korea. Or Kuwait. Or in the Shiite south of Iraq or the Kurdish north. Most Americans didn't know anyone who died in the World Trade Center attacks-- either of them.

The ACLU isn't full of accused criminals. Most people who protest abortion have never been subject to the procedure (and in the cases they have been, they tend to think it was justifiable.) The members of the Westboro Baptist Church, Focus on the Family, and all such organizations are not at all personally affected by gay people existing/marrying.

Therefore!

None of these organizations actually do what they say they do. None of the wars America fought were actually about anything to do with the countries they fought them in. All of history, in short, is a lie. Of course, farson! No one does anything he is not personally and practically invested in. Southerners couldn't possibly have supported slavery as an institution for the very same reason that everyone who supports drug legalization must use drugs. For the very same reason that only people who regularly rode buses cared about the Montgomery bus boycotts. For the very same reason that general strikes never happened in response to the grievances of just one industry. For the very same reason that no one but soldiers or their families protest wars overseas. For the very same reason that there was massive and persistent protests of World War II to the point that there was nearly a rebellion over the draft. For the very same reason that not a single wealthy person is a socialist or supports higher tax rates. For the very same reason that no one ever contributes to charity. For the very same reason that only people without jobs care about the state of the economy.

Ascribing some ridiculous hyper-rationality to southerners (and apparently southerners only) in one case (attitude to slavery) while denying it in another (nationalism, respect for the founders, anti-Protectionism, the rights of states, whatever) is transparent special pleading. You're so wrong it ought to hurt.

Very interesting, but none of that addresses the point: Texas put slavery and white supremacy ahead of all other considerations when declaring their causes of secession.

And what about Texans? Elites=/=the people.

So let me get this straight, you will take the words of some documents written by the wealthiest elements of the southern society but you will not take the words sung on the field by the common men. Mind explaining that one to me?

'Elites' like to try to speak for the people when they make documents that justify their actions. These declarations of causes were not narrowly addressed to some interest group or other. They were meant for popular consumption and to stir up support among ordinary people for the new Confederacy. Of course that trumps some song full of platitudes and sentimentality!

Yankee Doodle went to town a-riding on a pony, stuck a feather in his hat and called it macaroni.

Seanchaidh:
Only if you think there isn't such a thing as people having values independent of their own narrow interest. Since that is evidently the case, your grasp of human psychology leaves something to be desired.

Actually your understanding leaves something to be desired.

People fight for things that don't directly affect them all the time.

In your opinion but not in their opinion.

Most Americans weren't aboard the Lusitania nor did they travel overseas.

But most Americans did see the attack on the Lusitania as an attack on their group (the US). And most Americans still had relatives and connections overseas (my family did which is why they signed up for the navy and not the army during WW2).

Most Americans were not personally invested in the war against Spain.

Except that they saw the attack on the Maine as an attack on everybody in the US.

Or Mexico.

Many saw the Mexican incursions as an attack on the US.

Or Canada.

Many Americans thought that Canada wanted to be free and join them.

Most Americans didn't give two flying fucks about French Indochina or Ho Chi Minh. Or Korea. In fact, I'd say very few in the United States lived in Korea.

But they did give a fuck about Communist expansion (among other things).

Or Kuwait.

But most Americans did feel that Saddam was a threat to world peace and most Americans were against that.

Or in the Shiite south of Iraq or the Kurdish north.

But many Americans did sympathies with their efforts.

Most Americans didn't know anyone who died in the World Trade Center attacks-- either of them.

An attack on the American nation.

The ACLU isn't full of accused criminals.

Just people who understand that they may be accused one day.

Most people who protest abortion have never been subject to the procedure (and in the cases they have been, they tend to think it was justifiable.)

But they either want the option or they feel it their spiritual/moral duty to oppose it.

The members of the Westboro Baptist Church, Focus on the Family, and all such organizations are not at all personally affected by gay people existing/marrying.

Unless you believe as they do that gays are harming their chance at access to heaven (among other arguments).

Ascribing some ridiculous hyper-rationality to southerners (and apparently southerners only) in one case (attitude to slavery) while denying it in another (nationalism, respect for the founders, anti-Protectionism, the rights of states, whatever) is transparent special pleading. You're so wrong it ought to hurt.

Hyper-rationality? Try rationality.

'Elites' like to try to speak for the people when they make documents that justify their actions.

They can try but if you read the rest of the documents you see other things. I think everybody can find something they support in those documents. Plenty of life, liberty, and property talk for everyone.

These declarations of causes were not narrowly addressed to some interest group or other. They were meant for popular consumption and to stir up support among ordinary people for the new Confederacy.

Which is why they made points beyond slavery. Or did you not notice?

Farson, I'm saying this as a native Virginian;

There are people in my region TODAY who are mad that blacks were emancipated. You going to tell me that the average Confederate citizen was just hunky dory with the idea of abolition of slavery and that it was soley the mentality of the plantation aristocracy? Are you really going to try to push that?

farson135:
Why do you assume that I am stating that you know your point is wrong? Your point is bullshit. A very wide ranging term that includes the idea that your point is misleading, or that it is ridiculous, or disingenuous, or there is also wrong). And of course the question arises which point am I talking about. I wonder if you can answer that. Start by thinking about it, now go look and see what I actually said.

I find it interesting that you and Astia always seem to assume I am saying something far worse than what I am actually saying. You two need to relax and stop thinking that every one of my posts is a personal affront.

Also, tell me, would it be acceptable to attack a person over a crime that does not exist but is only perceived based upon vague coincidence? Before we continue I want to know that.

Ah, I see now. You chose a term that has multiple conotations, without elaborating as to which one you actually meant. I'm not here to play the guessing game with you farson. If you can't be concise in your posts, I take no responsibility for failing to understand what it is you're trying to say.

If it were a crime that did not exist, how would it be a crime?

Captcha: better call saul

Why cap, can saul explain what farson is trying to say?

edit: I still contend that none of my points have been bullshit, by any stretch of the term.

GunsmithKitten:
Farson, I'm saying this as a native Virginian;

There are people in my region TODAY who are mad that blacks were emancipated. You going to tell me that the average Confederate citizen was just hunky dory with the idea of abolition of slavery and that it was soley the mentality of the plantation aristocracy? Are you really going to try to push that?

Actually I would say that most would have been fine with it if the idea to send them all back to Africa had panned out. Also, I never said just the elites. I said that your average southerner had bigger fish to fry than dealing with slaves. In addition, I never talked about abolition. I was talking about slavery itself.

There are also people in my area who are angry about emancipation. However, if you listen to what they have to say the greater anger seems to be towards the defeat and later humiliation rather than just emancipation (luckily I can talk to them while passing as a dark skinned white boy). Here in Texas, we did not have many slaves but the effects of reconstruction pissed a lot of people off. My grandfather can tell you stories from my great-great-great-grandfather. Many of those stories include the horrible policies of Edmund Davis, a man so despised in Texas that we did not elect another Republican as governor for over a century. Other stories included when the Union forces actually marched through the area. Apparently they were a major pain in the ass. And this was in an area that supported the Union.

Jux:
Ah, I see now. You chose a term that has multiple conotations, without elaborating as to which one you actually meant. I'm not here to play the guessing game with you farson. If you can't be concise in your posts, I take no responsibility for failing to understand what it is you're trying to say.

Failing to take responsibility for your mistakes. Typical.

Most paragraphs include elements that have various connotations. Perhaps instead of guessing you could try taking the middle ground. You know, take the statement at face value instead of taking it personally.

If it were a crime that did not exist, how would it be a crime?

Ask Mao. Or maybe George Orwell, he wrote extensively about it.

farson135:

Jux:
Ah, I see now. You chose a term that has multiple conotations, without elaborating as to which one you actually meant. I'm not here to play the guessing game with you farson. If you can't be concise in your posts, I take no responsibility for failing to understand what it is you're trying to say.

Failing to take responsibility for your mistakes. Typical.

Again, some bizarre world you live in where you failing to communicate properly is someone elses failing. Laughable, but that attitude is something I've come to expect from you.

farson135:
Most paragraphs include elements that have various connotations. Perhaps instead of guessing you could try taking the middle ground. You know, take the statement at face value instead of taking it personally.

Farson, when you say 'Your argument is bullshit and you know it', there really isn't an impersonal way of taking it. No matter how you cut it, you're attacking my integrity. Stop making attacks on my integrity and I'll stop taking the things you say personally.

farson135:

If it were a crime that did not exist, how would it be a crime?

Ask Mao. Or maybe George Orwell, he wrote extensively about it.

Neither of them asked me the question. You did. If you don't have an answer for me, if you can't communicate what the hell you meant, I can't give you an answer.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
Only if you think there isn't such a thing as people having values independent of their own narrow interest. Since that is evidently the case, your grasp of human psychology leaves something to be desired.

Actually your understanding leaves something to be desired.

People fight for things that don't directly affect them all the time.

In your opinion but not in their opinion.

Source?

Most Americans weren't aboard the Lusitania nor did they travel overseas.

But most Americans did see the attack on the Lusitania as an attack on their group (the US). And most Americans still had relatives and connections overseas (my family did which is why they signed up for the navy and not the army during WW2).

Most Americans were not personally invested in the war against Spain.

Except that they saw the attack on the Maine as an attack on everybody in the US.

Or Mexico.

Many saw the Mexican incursions as an attack on the US.

Or Canada.

Many Americans thought that Canada wanted to be free and join them.

Most Americans didn't give two flying fucks about French Indochina or Ho Chi Minh. Or Korea. In fact, I'd say very few in the United States lived in Korea.

But they did give a fuck about Communist expansion (among other things).

Or Kuwait.

But most Americans did feel that Saddam was a threat to world peace and most Americans were against that.

Or in the Shiite south of Iraq or the Kurdish north.

But many Americans did sympathies with their efforts.

Most Americans didn't know anyone who died in the World Trade Center attacks-- either of them.

An attack on the American nation.

The ACLU isn't full of accused criminals.

Just people who understand that they may be accused one day.

Most people who protest abortion have never been subject to the procedure (and in the cases they have been, they tend to think it was justifiable.)

But they either want the option or they feel it their spiritual/moral duty to oppose it.

The members of the Westboro Baptist Church, Focus on the Family, and all such organizations are not at all personally affected by gay people existing/marrying.

Unless you believe as they do that gays are harming their chance at access to heaven (among other arguments).

Ascribing some ridiculous hyper-rationality to southerners (and apparently southerners only) in one case (attitude to slavery) while denying it in another (nationalism, respect for the founders, anti-Protectionism, the rights of states, whatever) is transparent special pleading. You're so wrong it ought to hurt.

Hyper-rationality? Try rationality.

'Elites' like to try to speak for the people when they make documents that justify their actions.

They can try but if you read the rest of the documents you see other things. I think everybody can find something they support in those documents. Plenty of life, liberty, and property talk for everyone.

These declarations of causes were not narrowly addressed to some interest group or other. They were meant for popular consumption and to stir up support among ordinary people for the new Confederacy.

Which is why they made points beyond slavery. Or did you not notice?

Hey look, a number of things which had no direct relevance to the everyday lives of most Americans. Even less so than the practice of slavery had to the average plain-folk southerner: thank you for enumerating my point.

I don't think the circumstances behind this particular instance of gerrymandering automatically makes the Virginia GOP racist. I mean, they might be for all I know. But this doesn't prove that they are. It does suggest however that they're rather tone deaf and didn't properly think about the implications of their actions and the circumstances surrounding them.

Jux:
Again, some bizarre world you live in where you failing to communicate properly is someone elses failing. Laughable, but that attitude is something I've come to expect from you.

Tell me, how is it my fault that you refuse to read what I write?

Farson, when you say 'Your argument is bullshit and you know it', there really isn't an impersonal way of taking it. No matter how you cut it, you're attacking my integrity. Stop making attacks on my integrity and I'll stop taking the things you say personally.

Is it an attack on your integrity or an attack on the bullshit you stated? I attacked the argument.

Neither of them asked me the question. You did. If you don't have an answer for me, if you can't communicate what the hell you meant, I can't give you an answer.

Wow. It should not take a 10 page essay for you to understand what I meant.

You are attacking them for a crime that exists nowhere but in your head.

Seanchaidh:
Source?

Sorry, I have no intention of wasting my time citing sources for 10 different events especially when what I am saying is commonly accepted.

Hey look, a number of things which had no direct relevance to the everyday lives of most Americans. Even less so than the practice of slavery had to the average plain-folk southerner: thank you for enumerating my point.

A nice effort to move the goal posts but unfortunately for you an invasion has direct relevance to the nation invading and being invaded. Slavery on the other hand still is only relevant to those involved. And most southerners were not involved.

farson135:
Tell me, how is it my fault that you refuse to read what I write?

I read what you wrote. When I respond, it's always 'thats not what I meant'. Then when I ask you to clarify, you inevitably follow it up with 'go back and read it again.' Like I said before, I'm not here to play guessing games with you. If you cannot communicate effectively, it's your own fault. I have a hard time believing you're an instructor and not doing this on purpose. Isn't one of the main skills of being a teacher effective communication?

farson135:

Farson, when you say 'Your argument is bullshit and you know it', there really isn't an impersonal way of taking it. No matter how you cut it, you're attacking my integrity. Stop making attacks on my integrity and I'll stop taking the things you say personally.

Is it an attack on your integrity or an attack on the bullshit you stated? I attacked the argument.

No, an attack on the argument would be 'This argument is misleading/wrong/fallacious, because X'. Not, 'your argument is bullshit and you know it'. Do you see the difference? In the first example, you substitute 'bullshit' for a word that I don't have to guess at the meaning. Then, you give a reason for why you think my argument is misleading/wrong/fallacious. By stating 'and you know it', you attack my integrity. It's no longer an attack on the argument, its an attack on me. Come on Farson, I may disagree with you on just about everything, but I know you're not stupid.

farson135:

Neither of them asked me the question. You did. If you don't have an answer for me, if you can't communicate what the hell you meant, I can't give you an answer.

Wow. It should not take a 10 page essay for you to understand what I meant.

You ask me a nonsensical question, so you can expect me to ask you to clarify. If its a crime that doesn't exist, how is it a crime? That is a simple question, it shouldn't require a 10 page response. It's your own fault for phrasing your question in a way that doesn't make sense.

farson135:
You are attacking them for a crime that exists nowhere but in your head.

I'm not accusing them of a crime at all. I stated from the very start that this incident has racist undertones. I never said racism was a crime. Nor is it just in my head, as multiple people have also shared my take on this incident.

Jux:
I read what you wrote. When I respond, it's always 'thats not what I meant'. Then when I ask you to clarify, you inevitably follow it up with 'go back and read it again.' Like I said before, I'm not here to play guessing games with you. If you cannot communicate effectively, it's your own fault.

Tell me, how sure are you that you are not the one at fault? Every single fucking time you misread what I say I bring it back and show you exactly what I meant. Every single time it is due to a misreading on your part. How is it my fault?

No, an attack on the argument would be 'This argument is misleading/wrong/fallacious, because X'. Not, 'your argument is bullshit and you know it'. Do you see the difference? In the first example, you substitute 'bullshit' for a word that I don't have to guess at the meaning. Then, you give a reason for why you think my argument is misleading/wrong/fallacious. By stating 'and you know it', you attack my integrity. It's no longer an attack on the argument, its an attack on me. Come on Farson, I may disagree with you on just about everything, but I know you're not stupid.

And I know that you are not stupid. Try it this way. If I were to tell Tony Romo, that was a stupid pass and you know it. Would I be questioning his integrity? Only if he denied that accusation BEFORE I said it.

Do I need to explain this further to you? Do you get it? Do I need to write a 10 page paper to you and bring in a team of linguists for you to understand? I said what you wrote was stupid. People mistype all the fucking time on this forum. If no one ever made mistakes then there would be no need for the edit button.

If its a crime that doesn't exist, how is it a crime?

Ever heard of a thought crime?

That is a simple question, it shouldn't require a 10 page response.

For you, apparently it does.

I'm not accusing them of a crime at all.

Crime- something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful

Am I the only one who uses the fucking dictionary?

Nor is it just in my head, as multiple people have also shared my take on this incident.

Shared insanity does not mean that bugs are really appearing out of thin air.

farson135:

Jux:
I read what you wrote. When I respond, it's always 'thats not what I meant'. Then when I ask you to clarify, you inevitably follow it up with 'go back and read it again.' Like I said before, I'm not here to play guessing games with you. If you cannot communicate effectively, it's your own fault.

Tell me, how sure are you that you are not the one at fault? Every single fucking time you misread what I say I bring it back and show you exactly what I meant. Every single time it is due to a misreading on your part. How is it my fault?

A misreading on my part, or poor communication on your part? This argument would have more merit if it didn't occur with such frequency not just with me, but with most of the people I've seen you argue with.

farson135:

No, an attack on the argument would be 'This argument is misleading/wrong/fallacious, because X'. Not, 'your argument is bullshit and you know it'. Do you see the difference? In the first example, you substitute 'bullshit' for a word that I don't have to guess at the meaning. Then, you give a reason for why you think my argument is misleading/wrong/fallacious. By stating 'and you know it', you attack my integrity. It's no longer an attack on the argument, its an attack on me. Come on Farson, I may disagree with you on just about everything, but I know you're not stupid.

And I know that you are not stupid. Try it this way. If I were to tell Tony Romo, that was a stupid pass and you know it. Would I be questioning his integrity? Only if he denied that accusation BEFORE I said it.

Hindsight for actions is 20/20. This is a poor equivocation, as we are not talking about objective outcomes of actions at all. If I physically did something, which turned out badly, and it was pointed out that what I did was objectively wrong/stupid, then in retrospect, yes, I could say 'yes, I was stupid to do that'. That argument doesn't work here Farson. I made an argument, which I did not find, nor do I find now, to be faulty or misleading. You claim that it was 'a bullshit argument and you know it'. You still haven't even shown my argument to be bullshit, much less prove that I knew it was bullshit when I made it, or know that it is bullshit now.

I might also add that Romo doesn't seem all that bright, so maybe he wouldn't realize that his pass was a bad one. Disclaimer: The last statement was snark, as I am not a Cowboys fan, and am making a jab at Romo in jest. Please don't trot out Romo's college grades or his statistics as a QB to show that he is actually by and large a smart quarterback.

farson135:
Do I need to explain this further to you? Do you get it? Do I need to write a 10 page paper to you and bring in a team of linguists for you to understand? I said what you wrote was stupid. People mistype all the fucking time on this forum. If no one ever made mistakes then there would be no need for the edit button.

I think you're the one that isn't getting it.

farson135:

If its a crime that doesn't exist, how is it a crime?

Ever heard of a thought crime?

As a literary device or hyperbole, yes. As an actual crime in the legal sense, no.

farson135:

That is a simple question, it shouldn't require a 10 page response.

For you, apparently it does.

Maybe you're just not very succinct.

farson135:

I'm not accusing them of a crime at all.

Crime- something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful

Right here, perfect example of how you are a poor communicator. I'm sorry Farson, but that is not the first definition that comes to mind when you use the word 'crime'. That's why it's listed as the 4th entry for definitions in the Merriam-Webster.

Definition of CRIME
1: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
2: a grave offense especially against morality
3: criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>
4: something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful [it's a crime to waste good food]

edit: Going off of your definition, yes, I am accusing them of a crime, though I feel your word choice was poor. The reason I feel it is a poor fit is because its not only hyperbolic, but the word crime can be used to describe two components of the act (the gerrymandering, and the alleged racist undertones), where different definitions can be applied to each part. This can lead to misunderstanding and confusion.

farson135:
Am I the only one who uses the fucking dictionary?

Pretty sure you're the only one who uses the most obscure and least fitting definitions for words in the dictionary.

farson135:

Nor is it just in my head, as multiple people have also shared my take on this incident.

Shared insanity does not mean that bugs are really appearing out of thin air.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is not an extraordinary claim, and plenty of evidence has already been given as to why this incident is accepted to have had racist undertones.

edits for clarity.

farson135:
-snip-

Farson, I'm really tired of your hostility at this point. If you can't debate and argue with me in an amicable way, then we really have nothing to debate. If you need citations, you need look no further than this thread. As for reasons you might have to distrust my honesty, that we are on different sides of the ideological isle is front and center. As for assumptions, I think mine requires fewer.

Your statement requires that I seek to insult you. Which requires fewer assumptions?

Stop being a smartass.

Namecalling.

Have you ever even read a fucking book?

Insulting my intelligence.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of this.

Accusations of attempted dishonesty. An attack on my integrity.

I think it's pretty clear which senario requires the fewest assumptions. Considering that a) we have this problem more often than not, b) you have this problem with others, and c) I rarely have this problem with others, I think it's a fair assumption that this is a 'you' based problem.

Farson, I come to the R&P forums not just to share my own views with others, but to see things from a different perspective. Sure, I often reject others worldviews, but even when I do I feel I grow as a person for having seen a side of something I was previously not aware of. You make it very hard to empathize with you though. You come off as angry and often times, condescending, which makes it very difficult for me to maintain a neutral and open mind. If you feel that I am close minded to your ideas, please step back for a moment and try to see things from my side. Have a good day man, this is where I bow out of this thread.

farson135:
There are also people in my area who are angry about emancipation. However, if you listen to what they have to say the greater anger seems to be towards the defeat and later humiliation rather than just emancipation (luckily I can talk to them while passing as a dark skinned white boy). Here in Texas, we did not have many slaves but the effects of reconstruction pissed a lot of people off. My grandfather can tell you stories from my great-great-great-grandfather. Many of those stories include the horrible policies of Edmund Davis, a man so despised in Texas that we did not elect another Republican as governor for over a century. Other stories included when the Union forces actually marched through the area. Apparently they were a major pain in the ass. And this was in an area that supported the Union.

It sounds extremely unlikely that people would be upset about something policital or a local occurance of centuries and centuries back. If anything that's faux outrage because they weren't there, neither were their parents, or their grandparents.

It's a far more likely explanation that they're just angry they have to treat black people as people.

Jux:
Farson, I'm really tired of your hostility at this point.

MY hostility? Ok, now I am fucking hostile. I am sick and fucking tired of you dismissing my arguments and calling me hostile WHEN I AM JUST FUCKING TALKING TO YOU.

God-fucking-damn it. If you do not have the ability to debate me then STOP.

If you can't debate and argue with me in an amicable way, then we really have nothing to debate. If you need citations, you need look no further than this thread.

Go ahead and cite them. Go for it. The only thing you will show is something that in some vague way might possibly be considered hostile. Nothing conclusive. Why? Because you are making it up. You are just begging me to put you on ignore. For the love of Christ, stop attacking me and just fucking debate me.

As for assumptions, I think mine requires fewer.

Prove it.

Namecalling.

Using the word smartass means by necessity that I am hostile? Apparently it is impossible to give someone a title without it being hostile. Does that make you hostile for constantly calling me hostile?

Insulting my intelligence.

So you cannot be intelligent without being well read? THAT is an example of a bullshit statement. And if you do not understand that then you need to go sit in a corner.

Accusations of attempted dishonesty. An attack on my integrity.

Even you have to admit that that is a huge ass fucking stretch. You are a bad rhetorician. You are attempting to get away from the fact that you were wrong. As evidenced by the fact that you have not even tried to defend your point.

I think it's pretty clear which scenario requires the fewest assumptions. Considering that a) we have this problem more often than not, b) you have this problem with others, and c) I rarely have this problem with others, I think it's a fair assumption that this is a 'you' based problem.

Care to cite examples? Of course not.

A) denotes a possible problem with you and not me.
B) I have posted 4 times as many posts as you do. It is not unlikely that the odd miscommunication occurs. Few take it as far as you do. Only a select few have decided something equivalent to, crime in the rhetorical sense is an obscure way of reading the word (from your lack of a response I am guessing you have heard of that particular phrase). I suppose if you want to bring out Tech's, because your estimated number is 0.03 off from the actual number you obviously cannot do math, then you may have a point. Failure to admit mistakes is not exclusive to you (I admitted the fact that my number was an estimation but he still decided to attack me on it, then left in a huff).
C) Once again, you have posted far less than I have. Also, the fact that you have not made controversial statements that require long series of posts shows that you are on a different plane than I am. Some of my debates have gone on for dozens of posts (for me alone). The odd miscommunication is to be expected. That you take the safe course does not mean there is a problem with me (especially since it takes you FAR less time to misread my statements than other people). Also, from your own profile I see that you have two warnings to my zero. Apparently you are being rather disingenuous when you state that you rarely have this problem. You have pissed someone off.

You come off as angry and often times, condescending, which makes it very difficult for me to maintain a neutral and open mind. If you feel that I am close minded to your ideas, please step back for a moment and try to see things from my side.

Have you ever considered that the reason you think that I am that way is because you are viewing me from your perspective and not from a neutral perspective? The other guy decided that the fact that I regularly curse is a sign that I am angry. That is just proof that he does not understand my perspective and is NOT neutral. Why do you think I am angry/condescending? You have shown no real reason for it. Auf Wiedersehen.

Blablahb:
It sounds extremely unlikely that people would be upset about something policital or a local occurrence of centuries and centuries back.

I have seen you post on Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Are you trying to tell me that there are not people pissed about events that happened decades or even centuries ago? As someone who studies European history I can tell you that WW1 and WW2 were not the first instances of the French and Germans fighting over that area. In fact the first major instance (very short summary) was when Louis the Pious surrendered his kingdom to Lothair, Pepin of Aquitaine, and Louis the German. All of that occurred in the late 9th century.

The Civil War was an extremely traumatic event. My grandfather still speaks about events my family was involved in to this day. Why? Because his father and grandfather spoke about it so much.

farson135:
I have seen you post on Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Are you trying to tell me that there are not people pissed about events that happened decades or even centuries ago?

Ands you'll notice how pretty much nobody cares about either "Get those terrible Jews off the land that my long dead grandfather thinks he might've owned!" or about "Get those horrible Palestinians off the land that we got promised in this milennia old book written by some tribes of barbarians".

Likewise you should work on your hostility level and forget the civil war.

farson135:
As someone who studies European history I can tell you that WW1 and WW2 were not the first instances of the French and Germans fighting over that area. In fact the first major instance (very short summary) was when Louis the Pious surrendered his kingdom to Lothair, Pepin of Aquitaine, and Louis the German. All of that occurred in the late 9th century.

They were just totally unrelated to the later conflicts centuries later. That was just because they were borderlands. And you'll note how it was all forgotten and forgiven in under 30 years. France and Germany are best buddies today, their parliaments even hold joint sessions.

farson135:

Hey look, a number of things which had no direct relevance to the everyday lives of most Americans. Even less so than the practice of slavery had to the average plain-folk southerner: thank you for enumerating my point.

A nice effort to move the goal posts but unfortunately for you an invasion has direct relevance to the nation invading and being invaded. Slavery on the other hand still is only relevant to those involved. And most southerners were not involved.

Slavery is relevant to anyone who cares about slavery for whatever reason. There are many people who favor a higher minimum wage who don't receive minimum wage, and there are many people who favor abortion rights who have never had an abortion in their family or among their friends. There are many people who favor drug legalization who don't plan to use drugs, and for whatever reason a lot of people seem to care about free speech even though they might never want to see or say certain things-- and would be prepared to die to defend the right. It's called value rationality, and southerners of the time were rather committed to slavery. It shows in the politicians they elected. They felt that slavery was a property right, that slave-owners were being unfairly treated by the national government and other states, and that black people were only tolerable in America if they were living in servitude: this is why even the Confederacy limited the importation of slaves in its Constitution; so maybe it was only half-slavery and the other half was just racism. So much better. -_-

As I said, if slavery was really just some random side-issue as you seem to think, and was merely "a device" for the North to somehow abuse or bully the South, then they could have just gotten rid of the institution like decent people would be likely to do. But their intentions were clearly otherwise.

Blablahb:
Ands you'll notice how pretty much nobody cares about either "Get those terrible Jews off the land that my long dead grandfather thinks he might've owned!" or about "Get those horrible Palestinians off the land that we got promised in this milennia old book written by some tribes of barbarians".

Just because only a handful of people care about the issue does not mean that those arguments do not exist. You just contradicted your own statement. You said that you found it unlikely that people would care about something that happened almost 150 years ago then you mentioned the fact that some people still care about an event that happened several thousand years ago.

Likewise you should work on your hostility level

MY hostility level? What in my previous statement is hostile? Jack shit. Stop trying to jump on the bandwagon. It will not help you.

and forget the civil war.

Why should I forget about a major historical event?

They were just totally unrelated to the later conflicts centuries later. That was just because they were borderlands.

No they were not unrelated. All you have to do is read some of the propaganda coming out of France after the Franco-Prussian War. That propaganda is very similar to the propaganda that came out after those areas were lost by the states of the Holy Roman Empire and France at various periods. Those areas have been in contention for over 1000 years. And I am not talking about minor contention. Or even just general conquest. I am talking about each side thinking that that area is their territory and waiting for the chance to get it back.

And you'll note how it was all forgotten and forgiven in under 30 years. France and Germany are best buddies today, their parliaments even hold joint sessions.

Because Germany has something more tangible to sink its teeth into. Besides, it is a different world and Germany is very much a part of it.

Seanchaidh:
Slavery is relevant to anyone who cares about slavery for whatever reason.

And what reasons do they have?

It's called value rationality, and southerners of the time were rather committed to slavery.

All southerners? Citation?

It shows in the politicians they elected.

Even today we do not elect the politicians that do exactly what we want. And those politicians tend to handle things that we do not care about.

They felt that slavery was a property right, that slave-owners were being unfairly treated by the national government and other states

Which had further implications on the more general population.

As I said, if slavery was really just some random side-issue as you seem to think, and was merely "a device" for the North to somehow abuse or bully the South, then they could have just gotten rid of the institution like decent people would be likely to do. But their intentions were clearly otherwise.

You are ignoring the reason for slavery's existence. If the conditions from which slavery arises still exist then no, they would not get rid of slaves (especially when the people who use the slaves are the ones in power). The reason for the existence of slavery is low population combined with high labor requirements. The South in the mid-1800s had a relatively low population and extremely high labor requirements. All of that was made worse by the war itself. Given enough time slavery becomes pointless (unless you are a state like Sparta whose entire society requires slave labor to function). And southerners would have gotten rid of slavery themselves once the burden on the people became apparent. Hell, the Romans had laws constricting slavery because its population was out of work. What the hell do you think would happen if the labor market had a chance to catch up to and then beat the slave market? The only reason the Romans did not completely outlaw slavery was because a), the elites controlled the senate and b) they still needed a non-mobile population (which would later lead to the growth of feudalism).

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
Slavery is relevant to anyone who cares about slavery for whatever reason.

And what reasons do they have?

Racism, for one.

It's called value rationality, and southerners of the time were rather committed to slavery.

All southerners? Citation?

Most. It shows in the politicians they elected, the justifications for the rebellion and so on.

It shows in the politicians they elected.

Even today we do not elect the politicians that do exactly what we want. And those politicians tend to handle things that we do not care about.

And they tend to focus on those things that no one cares about when publicly justifying a popular revolution? Really?

They felt that slavery was a property right, that slave-owners were being unfairly treated by the national government and other states

Which had further implications on the more general population.

Citation?

As I said, if slavery was really just some random side-issue as you seem to think, and was merely "a device" for the North to somehow abuse or bully the South, then they could have just gotten rid of the institution like decent people would be likely to do. But their intentions were clearly otherwise.

You are ignoring the reason for slavery's existence. If the conditions from which slavery arises still exist then no, they would not get rid of slaves (especially when the people who use the slaves are the ones in power). The reason for the existence of slavery is low population combined with high labor requirements. The South in the mid-1800s had a relatively low population and extremely high labor requirements. All of that was made worse by the war itself. Given enough time slavery becomes pointless (unless you are a state like Sparta whose entire society requires slave labor to function). And southerners would have gotten rid of slavery themselves once the burden on the people became apparent. Hell, the Romans had laws constricting slavery because its population was out of work. What the hell do you think would happen if the labor market had a chance to catch up to and then beat the slave market? The only reason the Romans did not completely outlaw slavery was because a), the elites controlled the senate and b) they still needed a non-mobile population (which would later lead to the growth of feudalism).

Considering that the practical result of emancipation was sharecropping, your idea is stupid. Considering that the South did not resume the importation of slaves (which would be something that they would be inclined to do if they truly needed more labor) your idea is stupid. Considering that the North had even higher labor requirements, your idea is stupid. Slavery occurs because a population has an ideology that supports it and people which they can forcibly exploit. Lost Cause mythology might salve the egos of some people, but it is historically false.

Seanchaidh:
Racism, for one.

And racism requires slavery because?

the justifications for the rebellion and so on

I have pointed out SEVERAL times that the justifications were varied.

And they tend to focus on those things that no one cares about when publicly justifying a popular revolution? Really?

Strawman. The civil war was justified using state's rights and freedom. As I have stated several times

Citation?

It is called judicial precedent.

Considering that the practical result of emancipation was sharecropping, your idea is stupid.

First of all, not my idea. Historians far and wide state such things.

Second of all, what the fuck are you talking about? The war caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the south alone. At the same time, technology had not significantly decreased the labor needs. Sharecropping is a logical step given emancipation under those conditions.

Considering that the South did not resume the importation of slaves (which would be something that they would be inclined to do if they truly needed more labor) your idea is stupid.

Still not my idea.

Also, the south was blockaded. No importation, also no exportation (so the massive cotton plantations were generally pointless). In addition, the south had a perpetually increasing slave population. Southerners bred slaves IN the south.

Considering that the North had even higher labor requirements, your idea is stupid.

Still not my idea.

Also, the north had an ever increasing number of immigrants to deal with their labor needs.

Slavery occurs because a population has an ideology that supports it and people which they can forcibly exploit.

So let me get this straight, the practical is completely irrelevant, all that matters is the ideology. If there was never any need for slaves nations and people would still own slaves, just because. Talk about mythology. I suppose you think that religious rituals had no practical basis whatsoever. Perhaps you should try researching the purpose of slavery before you try and say that the practical is irrelevant.

Slavery only develops in areas with high labor requirements. Primitive tribes tend not to have slaves but primitive agricultural societies do.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
Racism, for one.

And racism requires slavery because?

Requires? Heavens no. But it supported it. I'll let the fine gentlemen from Mississippi tell you why:

"It [abolitionism] advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."

People who didn't own slaves nevertheless felt that they were better than blacks and didn't want to be made socially or politically equal to them.

the justifications for the rebellion and so on

I have pointed out SEVERAL times that the justifications were varied.

And every single one included slavery as the most important element. Also, repetition doesn't make something true.

And they tend to focus on those things that no one cares about when publicly justifying a popular revolution? Really?

Strawman. The civil war was justified using state's rights and freedom. As I have stated several times

And which is shown for the bullshit it is when you consider that the Confederate Constitution disallowed states from making their own laws with regard to slavery: it mandated that slavery be legal.

Just like believing, 'stating' also doesn't make something a fact. Here is the straw person from Mississippi again to make his case for the institution of slavery:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

I suppose you'll attempt to read some new meaning between the lines or something.

Citation?

It is called judicial precedent.

The North won the war and somehow the rights of property survived-- absent the right to own slaves. Some precedent.

Considering that the practical result of emancipation was sharecropping, your idea is stupid.

First of all, not my idea. Historians far and wide state such things.

Second of all, what the fuck are you talking about? The war caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the south alone. At the same time, technology had not significantly decreased the labor needs. Sharecropping is a logical step given emancipation under those conditions.

The idea is that the labor that made slavery "necessary" stayed around anyway.

Considering that the South did not resume the importation of slaves (which would be something that they would be inclined to do if they truly needed more labor) your idea is stupid.

Still not my idea.

Also, the south was blockaded. No importation, also no exportation (so the massive cotton plantations were generally pointless). In addition, the south had a perpetually increasing slave population. Southerners bred slaves IN the south.

The South continued the Constitutional ban on the importation of slaves. It was against the law to do so; this is part of the racism: it was their ideology that the only 'tolerable' way for Africans to fit into their society was as slaves. But they apparently didn't want to import more.

Considering that the North had even higher labor requirements, your idea is stupid.

Still not my idea.

Also, the north had an ever increasing number of immigrants to deal with their labor needs.

It's almost as if the whip is unnecessary.

Slavery occurs because a population has an ideology that supports it and people which they can forcibly exploit.

So let me get this straight, the practical is completely irrelevant, all that matters is the ideology. If there was never any need for slaves nations and people would still own slaves, just because. Talk about mythology. I suppose you think that religious rituals had no practical basis whatsoever. Perhaps you should try researching the purpose of slavery before you try and say that the practical is irrelevant.

Yes, the practical is completely irrelevant, which is why I listed a practical concern: the existence of "people which they can forcibly exploit." I don't think you would know a strawman if you woke up next to one in bed, which is odd considering how reflexively you throw around the term.

Slavery only develops in areas with high labor requirements. Primitive tribes tend not to have slaves but primitive agricultural societies do.

Primitive tribes tend not to have slaves because primitive tribes tend not to have large or dense enough spheres of control that would effectively prevent their escape. Agricultural societies have denser populations and more robust structures that allow them to more effectively confine people. It is still a matter of choice as to whether they do so. And slavery being "a necessity" to the South, if true, would not support your idea that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Seanchaidh:
People who didn't own slaves nevertheless felt that they were better than blacks and didn't want to be made socially or politically equal to them.

Once again, that required slavery because? Slavery doesn't exist, today blacks are a minority on the level of the Jews in the US (probably even smaller).

And every single one included slavery as the most important element.

Citation?

And which is shown for the bullshit it is when you consider that the Confederate Constitution disallowed states from making their own laws with regard to slavery: it mandated that slavery be legal.

And once again, who controlled the Confederate Congress? The people wealthy enough to be a congressman. You could not be a congressman and a poor cattle rancher from north Texas in those days (and probably not today either).

I suppose you'll attempt to read some new meaning between the lines or something.

Actually I will pose a fact coming from one of the most permeate confederates. In 1864 Robert E. Lee (among many others) proposed emancipation for any and all slaves who volunteered to serve in the Confederate Army. Eventually the proposal was accepted and a black regiment was formed. It never saw action because it was formed too late to get onto the field. Most my ass.

The North won the war and somehow the rights of property survived-- absent the right to own slaves. Some precedent.

First of all, just because it was expected does not mean that it necessarily had to happen. Second of all, apparently you have not heard about the problems we are having with emanate domain.

The idea is that the labor that made slavery "necessary" stayed around anyway.

And?

The South continued the Constitutional ban on the importation of slaves. It was against the law to do so

Citation?

this is part of the racism: it was their ideology that the only 'tolerable' way for Africans to fit into their society was as slaves. But they apparently didn't want to import more.

Your line of reasoning makes no sense.

It's almost as if the whip is unnecessary.

Do you understand the geographic distance between New York City and South Carolina? Also, you do realize that slavery was formed in the south several hundred years before major immigration occurred right?

Yes, the practical is completely irrelevant, which is why I listed a practical concern: the existence of "people which they can forcibly exploit."

That is a completely different subject and you fucking know it.

Primitive tribes tend not to have slaves because primitive tribes tend not to have large or dense enough spheres of control that would effectively prevent their escape. Agricultural societies have denser populations and more robust structures that allow them to more effectively confine people. It is still a matter of choice as to whether they do so.

Horseshit. I want a fucking citation for that load of garbage. Tiny ass Greek city states had slaves. What's more, because slavery was often a temporary institution the slave could not generally be marked. Walk 5 miles down the road and no one could identify you. In addition, densely populated? You have no idea what you are talking about. There are large stretches of the south were few people live TODAY. Nevertheless in the mid-1800s.

In addition, very complex societies did not have slaves (they were in the minority but they did exist). Why? Because they were unneeded. Your position is irrational. Slavery is a pain in the ass to maintain. Who on God's great ass would maintain such a difficult institution for no damn good reason?

And slavery being "a necessity" to the South, if true, would not support your idea that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Straw man. Analysis of people's beliefs does not mean that I believe them. In addition, a necessity to the elites does not necessarily say something about the general population. Mass labor was necessary to keep the big plantations running. A small hold farmer was a different matter.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
People who didn't own slaves nevertheless felt that they were better than blacks and didn't want to be made socially or politically equal to them.

Once again, that required slavery because?

Because acknowledging the rights of blacks in regard to slavery meant acknowledging their personhood and therefore their rights as citizens-- which was resisted for at least another hundred years-- and not just by "elites".

Slavery doesn't exist, today blacks are a minority on the level of the Jews in the US (probably even smaller).

Relevance?

And every single one included slavery as the most important element.

Citation?

The documents I've already shown you: the explicit justifications for secession.

And which is shown for the bullshit it is when you consider that the Confederate Constitution disallowed states from making their own laws with regard to slavery: it mandated that slavery be legal.

And once again, who controlled the Confederate Congress? The people wealthy enough to be a congressman. You could not be a congressman and a poor cattle rancher from north Texas in those days (and probably not today either).

So it is your position that the people rebelled for state's rights in order to support a new nation that did not provide state's rights. Fascinating, please tell me more.

I suppose you'll attempt to read some new meaning between the lines or something.

Actually I will pose a fact coming from one of the most permeate confederates. In 1864 Robert E. Lee (among many others) proposed emancipation for any and all slaves who volunteered to serve in the Confederate Army. Eventually the proposal was accepted and a black regiment was formed. It never saw action because it was formed too late to get onto the field. Most my ass.

So instead of addressing the point, you'll dangle a red herring. And quite a good one, at that! A losing rebellion proposed allowing slaves to fight and die for them; how very generous!

The North won the war and somehow the rights of property survived-- absent the right to own slaves. Some precedent.

First of all, just because it was expected does not mean that it necessarily had to happen. Second of all, apparently you have not heard about the problems we are having with emanate domain.

Yes, I'm sure whatever problem you have with eminent domain references precedents having to do with escaped slaves or traveling slaveowners.

The idea is that the labor that made slavery "necessary" stayed around anyway.

And?

So slavery clearly wasn't necessary to satisfying labor requirements.

The South continued the Constitutional ban on the importation of slaves. It was against the law to do so

Citation?

The motherfucking Confederate Constitution???

Article I Section 9(1)The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

this is part of the racism: it was their ideology that the only 'tolerable' way for Africans to fit into their society was as slaves. But they apparently didn't want to import more.

Your line of reasoning makes no sense.

Take it up with them. They said as much.

It's almost as if the whip is unnecessary.

Do you understand the geographic distance between New York City and South Carolina? Also, you do realize that slavery was formed in the south several hundred years before major immigration occurred right?

And? Decisions were being made with regard to whether to choose slavery or the Union around 1860.

Yes, the practical is completely irrelevant, which is why I listed a practical concern: the existence of "people which they can forcibly exploit."

That is a completely different subject and you fucking know it.

Nope.

Primitive tribes tend not to have slaves because primitive tribes tend not to have large or dense enough spheres of control that would effectively prevent their escape. Agricultural societies have denser populations and more robust structures that allow them to more effectively confine people. It is still a matter of choice as to whether they do so.

Horseshit. I want a fucking citation for that load of garbage. Tiny ass Greek city states had slaves.

Key word in that sentence being "city".

What's more, because slavery was often a temporary institution the slave could not generally be marked. Walk 5 miles down the road and no one could identify you. In addition, densely populated? You have no idea what you are talking about. There are large stretches of the south were few people live TODAY. Nevertheless in the mid-1800s.

How handy, then, that southern society was color coded for convenience. Your argument gets a bit lost in the particulars.

In addition, very complex societies did not have slaves (they were in the minority but they did exist). Why? Because they were unneeded. Your position is irrational. Slavery is a pain in the ass to maintain. Who on God's great ass would maintain such a difficult institution for no damn good reason?

People who would rather whip than work.

And slavery being "a necessity" to the South, if true, would not support your idea that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Straw man. Analysis of people's beliefs does not mean that I believe them. In addition, a necessity to the elites does not necessarily say something about the general population. Mass labor was necessary to keep the big plantations running. A small hold farmer was a different matter.

You sound like Glenn Beck with all this talk of the inordinate power of "the elites". You know what? There actually is a direct economic reason a small hold farmer would want to support the institution of slavery. He wouldn't want the competition from freed slaves. So there you go. On top of all the racism, the explicit justifications, the lack of state's rights in the Confederate Constitution, there was that. Your theory is fucking stupid.

farson135:
Actually I will pose a fact coming from one of the most permeate confederates. In 1864 Robert E. Lee (among many others) proposed emancipation for any and all slaves who volunteered to serve in the Confederate Army. Eventually the proposal was accepted and a black regiment was formed. It never saw action because it was formed too late to get onto the field. Most my ass.

So the slavemasters realised they were going to lose and their little rebellion would be crushed into the dirt, so they pressganged some slaves into military service to try and turn the tide.

Not like that never happened before. Forming militias from slaves happened a lot. It makes sense for slavemasters to look at slaves as cannon fodder. Fortunately those southern leaders weren't saved by their uncivilised cruelty.

farson135:
Horseshit. I want a fucking citation for that load of garbage. Tiny ass Greek city states had slaves. What's more, because slavery was often a temporary institution the slave could not generally be marked.
Walk 5 miles down the road and no one could identify you.

Walk 5 miles down the road and you'd be killed as a runaway, or captured and brought back by slavecatchers to be tortured. People hunters have been a recurring theme in such societies.

farson135:
In addition, very complex societies did not have slaves (they were in the minority but they did exist). Why? Because they were unneeded. Your position is irrational. Slavery is a pain in the ass to maintain. Who on God's great ass would maintain such a difficult institution for no damn good reason?

The same reason people still vote conservative today: Personal profit. The majority of primitive societies practised slavery by the way. Some still do today, like Mauretania, Dubai and other gulf states, Saudi-Arabia, Ivory Coast and a few other places.

The conditions in which Mexican labourers are forced to live due to being 'illegal' also closely resemble slavery since all the regulations are set up to how they can best be exploited by American business owners.

And notice how conservatives tend to lobby for keeping that status-quo even today?

Seanchaidh:
Because acknowledging the rights of blacks in regard to slavery meant acknowledging their personhood and therefore their rights as citizens-- which was resisted for at least another hundred years-- and not just by "elites".

Which required slavery because?

Relevance?

You state that intolerance breeds slavery. If not for slavery the only real African population would be in Africa (and some immediate areas).

So it is your position that the people rebelled for state's rights in order to support a new nation that did not provide state's rights. Fascinating, please tell me more.

When did I say that? Oh wait, I didn't.

So instead of addressing the point, you'll dangle a red herring. And quite a good one, at that! A losing rebellion proposed allowing slaves to fight and die for them; how very generous!

So you are going to ignore the basic fact that one of the most important confederates supported (throughout the war might I add) the emancipation of slaves through service. You know, sort of like the DREAM Act, do you speak about that Act in the same way?

So slavery clearly wasn't necessary to satisfying labor requirements.

If the slaves are not there to begin with then how do the big plantations get started?

The motherfucking Confederate Constitution???

You said that the law was against the law. I wanted a citation for that.

And? Decisions were being made with regard to whether to choose slavery or the Union around 1860.

At a time when the vast majority of immigration was still to areas other than the south.

Key word in that sentence being "city".

City states did not always include cities as we know them. The city state of Sparta at its height had about 10,000 citizens. Most city states were way smaller. In fact most city states had only a few hundred people. Most city states were little more than small tribes with glorified titles.

How handy, then, that southern society was color coded for convenience. Your argument gets a bit lost in the particulars.

Which does not prove your point about slavery in general. Also, by 1860 1/9 black people in the south were free.

People who would rather whip than work.

Which can be done by hiring people rather than by implementing a massive and expensive system.

You sound like Glenn Beck with all this talk of the inordinate power of "the elites".

Really? Have you ever spent some time listening to MSNBC? Or have you looked through some of the posts on this forum?

You know what? There actually is a direct economic reason a small hold farmer would want to support the institution of slavery. He wouldn't want the competition from freed slaves. So there you go.

Citation? No of course not. There is no citation.

Blablahb:
So the slavemasters realised they were going to lose and their little rebellion would be crushed into the dirt, so they pressganged some slaves into military service to try and turn the tide.

Actually that very act was sponsored several times throughout the war.

Not like that never happened before. Forming militias from slaves happened a lot.

No it did not. Serfs yes. Slaves, no. Slaves were trusted even less than mercenaries.

Walk 5 miles down the road and you'd be killed as a runaway, or captured and brought back by slavecatchers to be tortured. People hunters have been a recurring theme in such societies.

And how do you plan to catch them? Think about the case of Martin Guerre. That was a French case were a man pretended to be another man. He was so convincing that the family and the whole town could not tell the difference, at least until the real Martin showed up. There were no photographs in those days.

farson135:
No it did not. Serfs yes. Slaves, no. Slaves were trusted even less than mercenaries.

Ghulams, Mamelukes, Jannissaries... Even Romans have had to arm slaves on occasion, in crisis situations.

Crisis situations kind of like when the US army twice the size of your rebel army is owning your little uprising of slaveowners and will crush it in a matter of a few years.

farson135:
And how do you plan to catch them?

Threaten them with guns, overpower them, etc. Don't tell me you can't imagine how confederates worked.

Really, this conservative stuff about defending the rebels rising up over wanting to be able to keep slaves is quite amusing. I thought such ideas would be extinct even in the US. Guess I was mistaken and it's yet worse than I imagined.

Blablahb:
Ghulams, Mamelukes, Jannissaries

All of which are very, very, VERY different kinds of slaves than what we are talking about.

Even Romans have had to arm slaves on occasion, in crisis situations.

And they gave them their freedom as a result. So not slaves anymore.

Crisis situations kind of like when the US army twice the size of your rebel army is owning your little uprising of slaveowners and will crush it in a matter of a few years.

Because they knew that would happen in 1861 when the act was first proposed.

Threaten them with guns, overpower them, etc. Don't tell me you can't imagine how confederates worked.

You did not address the point.

Says the slave master, go get my runaway slave. Says the catcher, what does (s)he look like? Says the master, (s)he is black. Says the catcher, anything else? No? Then sorry, count it as a loss.

Really, this conservative stuff about defending the rebels rising up over wanting to be able to keep slaves is quite amusing. I thought such ideas would be extinct even in the US. Guess I was mistaken and it's yet worse than I imagined.

Silly me for thinking that you could have a reasonable debate with someone. Everything you just said is ridiculous and you know it. You know my party affiliation and you know what this topic is about. Yet you state the exact opposite. I suppose I should just give up hope for you.

farson135:
All of which are very, very, VERY different kinds of slaves than what we are talking about.

White or African slaves in the middle-east:
-property of their master
-looked down upon as inferior people
-looked down upon as heretical and backwards
-exploited for economic gain
-deprived of rights so the 'better race' could profit
-got used as soldiers

Black slaves in the south:
-property of their master
-looked down upon as inferior people
-looked down upon as heretical and backwards
-exploited for economic gain
-deprived of rights so the 'better race' could profit
-got used as soldiers

Yes, I agree their situation was totally different. I mean, looking at this list of traits of the circumstances of their life, it's so clear that the slaveholders in the south of the US were totally different from slaveholders elsewhere.

farson135:
And they gave them their freedom as a result. So not slaves anymore.

No, actually they crucified the lot of them afterwards.

farson135:
You did not address the point.
Says the slave master, go get my runaway slave. Says the catcher, what does (s)he look like? Says the master, (s)he is black. Says the catcher, anything else? No? Then sorry, count it as a loss.

Guess I'm going to have to educate you on your country's history again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slave_laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_County,_Pennsylvania#Slavery_and_the_Christiana_incident

That's googled up in under 1 minute by the way.

As you can read there, not only were there slavecatchers and did the authorities in the south enforce slavery, but the free states were even enforcing slavery to try and keep the peace.

Blablahb:
Yes, I agree their situation was totally different. I mean, looking at this list of traits of the circumstances of their life, it's so clear that the slaveholders in the south of the US were totally different from slaveholders elsewhere.

Actually I would state that military slaves are completely different from economic slaves.

No, actually they crucified the lot of them afterwards.

Citation.

Guess I'm going to have to educate you on your country's history again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slave_laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_County,_Pennsylvania#Slavery_and_the_Christiana_incident

That's googled up in under 1 minute by the way.

As you can read there, not only were there slavecatchers and did the authorities in the south enforce slavery, but the free states were even enforcing slavery to try and keep the peace.

If you are going to educate me you should try telling me something I do not already know. Also, if you are going to pretend to understand the issue you should try and stick to the topic. Laws that allow you to catch slaves do not equal success.

Also, if you actually paid attention you would have noticed that when I made my statement I was talking about the ancient Greek city states not the US. Fail.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
You know what? There actually is a direct economic reason a small hold farmer would want to support the institution of slavery. He wouldn't want the competition from freed slaves. So there you go.

Citation? No of course not. There is no citation.

Basic fucking economics.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked