Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

Voter suppression

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
JamesMuenchen
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 194
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139353

Postby JamesMuenchen » May 16th, 2018, 12:33 pm

XFool wrote:
mosschops wrote:
ap8889 wrote:I am really enjoying the debate, but think it is rewriting history to argue the NSDAP was right wing.

The clue is in the name: it is " Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei"

It was clearly informed by socialist principles: hence the demand that unfortunate citizens subjugate their individual talents and lives to the national collective.

No, it’s the opposite of this, it’s preserving the historiography against what seems to have become an ideological attack. There isn’t really any debate from any serious historian that the Nazis, and Fascism in general, were socialists/of the left.

And later:

mosschops wrote:The recent (and it is recent, probably because the generation that fought in the war are dying out) phenomenon of people trying to frame the Nazis as left wing...

I found this a little confusing. Obviously, while understanding that some of the Nazis economic policies sound 'socialist', in today's term, that is hardly what they are remembered for today!

e.g.

'15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.'

Mind you, they too may have a few 'image problems' due to their version of 'Clause 4':

'4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race.'

But I guess this is just a minor detail in the scale of things...

Trying to attach the term 'Left wing', in today's terms, to the Nazis is simply preposterous! It's like me trying to demonstrate the UK Tory party are 'communists'.

Well! - The 'Conservative Party'; The 'Communist Party'

QED.

But the original point you quote isn't saying they were left wing. It is saying that they were not right wing.

The Nazis were neither left wing or right wing. They were Nazis. The Wikipedia link you provided above even says that the Nazis themselves denied being either left or right. (Because they were trying to attract support from both). And that they had factions within, eg the SA under Röhm attracted more socialists and had a more revolutionary socialist agenda.

They had nationalist policies (right-wing) and socialist policies (left-wing). Often mixed together. Social equality, for Germans. Right to employment, for Germans. Socialised old age provision, for Germans. Socialised health care, for Germans. Nationalisation of industry and redistribution of profits, for Germans. Socialised education, for Germans. Etc, etc (for Germans)

As has been mentioned already, left and right isn't a very descriptive way of looking at any complete set of principles. Even Dungeons and Dragons managed to have two axes: Good-Evil, Order-Chaos.

It doesn't really matter and it has little to do with the subject of this thread.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3107
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 447 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139374

Postby Lootman » May 16th, 2018, 3:03 pm

mosschops wrote:The recent (and it is recent, probably because the generation that fought in the war are dying out) phenomenon of people trying to frame the Nazis as left wing has a lot in common to the way that the Confederates recast the American Civil War in the 1890s/1900s to be a question of states rights rather than slavery, when at the time if you asked anyone what the war was about then slavery would be their first response. They were pretty successful in their efforts, but we owe it to the memory of those that died fighting the Nazis that we don’t let the same thing happen again.

Perhaps those efforts were successful because even Lincoln asserted that the civil war was not ultimately about slavery:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it"

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lin ... reeley.htm

mosschops
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 114
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 6:55 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139379

Postby mosschops » May 16th, 2018, 3:38 pm

Lootman wrote:
mosschops wrote:The recent (and it is recent, probably because the generation that fought in the war are dying out) phenomenon of people trying to frame the Nazis as left wing has a lot in common to the way that the Confederates recast the American Civil War in the 1890s/1900s to be a question of states rights rather than slavery, when at the time if you asked anyone what the war was about then slavery would be their first response. They were pretty successful in their efforts, but we owe it to the memory of those that died fighting the Nazis that we don’t let the same thing happen again.

Perhaps those efforts were successful because even Lincoln asserted that the civil war was not ultimately about slavery:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it"

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lin ... reeley.htm


Yes, because for the North and for Lincoln it was about preserving the Union, but for the South it was about maintaining slavery, as explicitly stated in the secession documents for Texas and Mississippi, South Carolina even went as far as stating that states rights should be suppressed in that New York shouldn’t be allowed to NOT have legalised slavery. The secession of the South due to the desire to maintain slavery was the catalyst for the war, Lincoln’s motivations were neither here nor there really, abolition was inevitable hence the formation of the Confederacy.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3107
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 447 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139386

Postby Lootman » May 16th, 2018, 3:52 pm

mosschops wrote:Yes, because for the North and for Lincoln it was about preserving the Union, but for the South it was about maintaining slavery, as explicitly stated in the secession documents for Texas and Mississippi, South Carolina even went as far as stating that states rights should be suppressed in that New York shouldn’t be allowed to NOT have legalised slavery. The secession of the South due to the desire to maintain slavery was the catalyst for the war, Lincoln’s motivations were neither here nor there really, abolition was inevitable hence the formation of the Confederacy.

I can agree that slavery was the "catalyst" for the war or, if you prefer, the pretext.

But ultimately there was always going to be a massive conflict between the North and the South, and between the Federal government and the States. It blew up over slavery but could have blown up over other things. The fundamental issue was how much power should the Federal government have over rights that States had reserved for themselves.

One can look at America as a great social experiment, with the idea that you have a minimal central government with the vast majority of powers and rights delegated to the States. The Civil War can be seen as marking the beginning of the end of that experiment, and heralded the modern concept of a strong, powerful interventionist central government, much like European nations have.

Starting with the Civil War, then with the creation of income tax and the Federal Reserve, through the New Deal and Civil Rights, in just 100 years the US went from a bold experiment in decentralised power to just another European-style nation with a top heavy central government. A shame, I have always thought (which is not so say that I think the end of slavery was a shame).

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1520
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139389

Postby ursaminortaur » May 16th, 2018, 4:09 pm

Lootman wrote:
mosschops wrote:Yes, because for the North and for Lincoln it was about preserving the Union, but for the South it was about maintaining slavery, as explicitly stated in the secession documents for Texas and Mississippi, South Carolina even went as far as stating that states rights should be suppressed in that New York shouldn’t be allowed to NOT have legalised slavery. The secession of the South due to the desire to maintain slavery was the catalyst for the war, Lincoln’s motivations were neither here nor there really, abolition was inevitable hence the formation of the Confederacy.

I can agree that slavery was the "catalyst" for the war or, if you prefer, the pretext.

But ultimately there was always going to be a massive conflict between the North and the South, and between the Federal government and the States. It blew up over slavery but could have blown up over other things. The fundamental issue was how much power should the Federal government have over rights that States had reserved for themselves.

One can look at America as a great social experiment, with the idea that you have a minimal central government with the vast majority of powers and rights delegated to the States. The Civil War can be seen as marking the beginning of the end of that experiment, and heralded the modern concept of a strong, powerful interventionist central government, much like European nations have.

Starting with the Civil War, then with the creation of income tax and the Federal Reserve, through the New Deal and Civil Rights, in just 100 years the US went from a bold experiment in decentralised power to just another European-style nation with a top heavy central government. A shame, I have always thought (which is not so say that I think the end of slavery was a shame).


The balance of power between the states and the central federal government had been pretty much sorted out 70 years before the start of the Civil War when the USA became a federation in 1789 with the ratification of the US constitution and in particular with the 10th amendment to that constitution adopted in 1791.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3107
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 447 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139391

Postby Lootman » May 16th, 2018, 4:17 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:The balance of power between the states and the central federal government had been pretty much sorted out 70 years before the start of the Civil War when the USA became a federation in 1789 with the ratification of the US constitution and in particular with the 10th amendment to that constitution adopted in 1791.

The trend might have started then but it was been continual since. Not just the things I mentioned but Social Security, MediCare, MediCaid and other Federal programmes picking up where States used to provide.

Again there have been many SCOTUS decisions that have rolled back the States' ability to project power and reserve rights.

And the massive rise in the Federal budget and deficit again indicates an inexorable rise in the power of the national government.

America held the promise of learning from the mistakes that Europe made, but ultimately ended up repeating them. The civil war was just one stepping stone on that journey, but an important one. The scars endure to this day. In that context, slavery was just a footnote.

JMN2
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1894
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:21 am
Has thanked: 297 times
Been thanked: 272 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139400

Postby JMN2 » May 16th, 2018, 4:42 pm

mosschops wrote:... the Confederates recast the American Civil War in the 1890s/1900s to be a question of states rights rather than slavery, when at the time if you asked anyone what the war was about then slavery would be their first response. They were pretty successful in their efforts,....


Lincoln didn't have a clue then...Civil War was northern modern industrialised economy versus agrarian backward economy (with slavery embedded).

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=2956

Slavery being the reason for Civil War is a very simplistic approach, it was a lot more complex than that.
Last edited by JMN2 on May 16th, 2018, 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1520
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139402

Postby ursaminortaur » May 16th, 2018, 4:44 pm

Lootman wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:The balance of power between the states and the central federal government had been pretty much sorted out 70 years before the start of the Civil War when the USA became a federation in 1789 with the ratification of the US constitution and in particular with the 10th amendment to that constitution adopted in 1791.

The trend might have started then but it was been continual since. Not just the things I mentioned but Social Security, MediCare, MediCaid and other Federal programmes picking up where States used to provide.

Again there have been many SCOTUS decisions that have rolled back the States' ability to project power and reserve rights.

And the massive rise in the Federal budget and deficit again indicates an inexorable rise in the power of the national government.

America held the promise of learning from the mistakes that Europe made, but ultimately ended up repeating them. The civil war was just one stepping stone on that journey, but an important one. The scars endure to this day. In that context, slavery was just a footnote.


The first proposal for an income tax in the USA was proposed during the War of 1812 by the Secretary of the Treasury Alexander J. Dallas though it wasn't implemented. Such an income tax was implemented during the Civil war through the revenue act of 1861 these income taxes expired in 1872.
Things became slightly complicated after the Pollock case in 1894

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Income_taxes_before_the_Pollock_case

After Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends, and rental income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be "direct" (and thus required to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, "indirect" (and thus required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity).

This was sorted out by the 16th amendment to the constitution in 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

There is a high bar to get an amendment made to the US constitution since it requires either

a 2/3 vote of both the Senate and the House. That's 66 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House. The amendment must then be approved by 3/4 of the states, either through the legislature or through ratifying conventions (only ever used for the 21st amendment), "within a reasonable time" after the proposal.

or

2/3 of the states must agree to call for a constitutional convention. This method has never actually been used, and the exact process once the convention is called is entirely undefined at the present time.

mosschops
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 114
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 6:55 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139406

Postby mosschops » May 16th, 2018, 5:06 pm

JMN2 wrote:
mosschops wrote:... the Confederates recast the American Civil War in the 1890s/1900s to be a question of states rights rather than slavery, when at the time if you asked anyone what the war was about then slavery would be their first response. They were pretty successful in their efforts,....


Lincoln didn't have a clue then...Civil War was northern modern industrialised economy versus agrarian backward economy (with slavery embedded).

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=2956

Slavery being the reason for Civil War is a very simplistic approach, it was a lot more complex than that.


Nah, it’s pretty much spot on:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/qz.com/3 ... ights/amp/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 279b6a56fc

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpoli ... wars-cause

The only state right they were interested in was slavery.

JMN2
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1894
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:21 am
Has thanked: 297 times
Been thanked: 272 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139409

Postby JMN2 » May 16th, 2018, 5:22 pm

Saying slavery caused civil war is like saying shooting an archbishop in his car caused WW1. Slavery was evil so it follows that it has to be the reason - looked through modern eyes. I am sure it helped a lot.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1520
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139416

Postby ursaminortaur » May 16th, 2018, 5:35 pm

JMN2 wrote:Saying slavery caused civil war is like saying shooting an archbishop in his car caused WW1. Slavery was evil so it follows that it has to be the reason - looked through modern eyes. I am sure it helped a lot.


It is what the seceding states said in their declarations of secession

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
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.



http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

mosschops
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 114
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 6:55 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139419

Postby mosschops » May 16th, 2018, 5:43 pm

JMN2 wrote:Saying slavery caused civil war is like saying shooting an archbishop in his car caused WW1.


No, it's not.

JMN2 wrote:Slavery was evil so it follows that it has to be the reason - looked through modern eyes. I am sure it helped a lot.


And through eyes at the time, South Carolina's Declaration of Secession:

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.


Ole Miss:

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.


Georgia:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.


Texas:


She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.


VP of the Confederacy:

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3107
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 447 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139509

Postby Lootman » May 17th, 2018, 9:02 am

mosschops wrote:The only state right they were interested in was slavery.

At that time, perhaps. But as shown by the Lincoln remarks I cited earlier, the real issue was much larger. In any war there is always an immediate pretext (Hitler's invasion of Poland, the assassination of Ferninand) but a much bigger and broader underlying conflict. So too with the American Civil War where attributing it all to slavery is a shallow analysis.

And of course with these types of discussions there is always a self-serving angle. The Left wants to claim it was all about slavery so they can paint the South as the "baddies". Claim instead it was about freedom and states' rights and suddenly it is the North that looks like interventionist control freaks.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. The civil war are good if your major concern was being able to tell people in other states how they should live, but not otherwise.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1520
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139528

Postby ursaminortaur » May 17th, 2018, 10:33 am

Lootman wrote:
mosschops wrote:The only state right they were interested in was slavery.

At that time, perhaps. But as shown by the Lincoln remarks I cited earlier, the real issue was much larger. In any war there is always an immediate pretext (Hitler's invasion of Poland, the assassination of Ferninand) but a much bigger and broader underlying conflict. So too with the American Civil War where attributing it all to slavery is a shallow analysis.

And of course with these types of discussions there is always a self-serving angle. The Left wants to claim it was all about slavery so they can paint the South as the "baddies". Claim instead it was about freedom and states' rights and suddenly it is the North that looks like interventionist control freaks.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. The civil war are good if your major concern was being able to tell people in other states how they should live, but not otherwise.


Different sides in a war may well be fighting for different reasons. For the North and Lincoln the American Civil war was about preserving the Union whereas, as indicated by the secession declarations, for the South it was definitely about slavery.
I fail to see how you can seriously claim it wasn't about slavery as far as the South was concerned when those documents written at the time by the leaders of the seceding states make that so clear.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

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.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3107
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 447 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139530

Postby Lootman » May 17th, 2018, 10:39 am

ursaminortaur wrote:Different sides in a war may well be fighting for different reasons. For the North and Lincoln the American Civil war was about preserving the Union whereas as indicated by the secession declarations for the South it was definitely about slavery.
I fail to see how you can seriously claim it wasn't about slavery as far as the South was concerned when those documents written at the time by the leaders of the seceding states make that so clear.

The South seceded because the North made it impossible for them to remain. As such the distinction you draw there is largely illusory,

An analogy might be cases like constructive dismissal or constructive eviction. In such cases the worker or tenant voluntarily quits, but the understanding is that it was the unreasonable behaviour of the employer or landlord that was the direct cause.

Saying the civil war was only about slavery is like saying WW2 was only about Poland.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1520
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 79 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139538

Postby ursaminortaur » May 17th, 2018, 11:15 am

Lootman wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:Different sides in a war may well be fighting for different reasons. For the North and Lincoln the American Civil war was about preserving the Union whereas as indicated by the secession declarations for the South it was definitely about slavery.
I fail to see how you can seriously claim it wasn't about slavery as far as the South was concerned when those documents written at the time by the leaders of the seceding states make that so clear.

The South seceded because the North made it impossible for them to remain. As such the distinction you draw there is largely illusory,

An analogy might be cases like constructive dismissal or constructive eviction. In such cases the worker or tenant voluntarily quits, but the understanding is that it was the unreasonable behaviour of the employer or landlord that was the direct cause.

Saying the civil war was only about slavery is like saying WW2 was only about Poland.


The reason for "quitting" was the North's growing interference with the South's continued use of slaves. Something which threatened the economy of those Southern states and the wealth of landowners. Hence as attested by the secession documents the issue of slavery was the cause of the American Civil war as far as the Southern states were concerned. The North then fought against what they considered this unlawful secession and treasonous attacks starting with the assault on Fort Sumter.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3107
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 447 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139565

Postby Lootman » May 17th, 2018, 1:58 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:The reason for "quitting" was the North's growing interference with the South's continued use of slaves. Something which threatened the economy of those Southern states and the wealth of landowners. Hence as attested by the secession documents the issue of slavery was the cause of the American Civil war as far as the Southern states were concerned. The North then fought against what they considered this unlawful secession and treasonous attacks starting with the assault on Fort Sumter.

With respect, that is a sixth form analysis, along with some sixth form bias.

The reality is that there were really two nations within one. One was industrial, urban and liberal. The other was agrarian, rural and conservative. That was never going to end well - slavery was merely the pretext.

With hindsight it would have been better to have let the South secede. We would then have had no slaughter and carnage. You can think of North America as being three nations - the loyalists (Canada), the North (urban liberals) and the South (rural conservatives)

And the irony is that slavery would have gone away in the South anyway - just look at Texas.

As it is the South is still getting its revenge to this day, being key to the election of Reagan, Bush Junior and Trump. How do ya like dem apples, liberals?

mosschops
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 114
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 6:55 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139572

Postby mosschops » May 17th, 2018, 2:15 pm

Lootman wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:The reason for "quitting" was the North's growing interference with the South's continued use of slaves. Something which threatened the economy of those Southern states and the wealth of landowners. Hence as attested by the secession documents the issue of slavery was the cause of the American Civil war as far as the Southern states were concerned. The North then fought against what they considered this unlawful secession and treasonous attacks starting with the assault on Fort Sumter.

With respect, that is a sixth form analysis, along with some sixth form bias.

The reality is that there were really two nations within one. One was industrial, urban and liberal. The other was agrarian, rural and conservative. That was never going to end well - slavery was merely the pretext.

With hindsight it would have been better to have let the South secede. We would then have had no slaughter and carnage. You can think of North America as being three nations - the loyalists (Canada), the North (urban liberals) and the South (rural conservatives)

And the irony is that slavery would have gone away in the South anyway - just look at Texas.

As it is the South is still getting its revenge to this day, being key to the election of Reagan, Bush Junior and Trump. How do ya like dem apples, liberals?


Texas who was part of the Confederacy and who explicitly mentioned slavery as part of their secession document as posted like 4 posts above? Don’t think you would even have reached the sixth form with that analysis...

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3107
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Been thanked: 447 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139574

Postby Lootman » May 17th, 2018, 2:20 pm

mosschops wrote:Texas who was part of the Confederacy and who explicitly mentioned slavery as part of their secession document as posted like 4 posts above? Don’t think you would even have reached the sixth form with that analysis...

Evidently my point went over your head. Texas was not bound to get rid of slavery by the outcome of the civil war. It retained them. But then got rid of slavery a few years later anyway. As surely would have the rest of the South.

The civil war ultimately was not necessary if, as you claim, it was only about slavery. If you accept it was more about freedom and rights, as I do, then it all makes a lot more sense. But of course the winners write history so the South gets painted as the bad guys. The truth is much more complex and nuanced, if you are willing to go beyond a shallow sixth form analysis.

And of course if the French had not blockaded the British navy during the war of independence then slavery would have gone away 50 years earlier. But that doesn't fit well with your narrative either.

You were half right when you suggested the Right has co-opted the civil war. What you missed was that the Left does exactly the same thing

mosschops
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 114
Joined: November 9th, 2016, 6:55 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Voter suppression

#139575

Postby mosschops » May 17th, 2018, 2:31 pm

Lootman wrote:
mosschops wrote:Texas who was part of the Confederacy and who explicitly mentioned slavery as part of their secession document as posted like 4 posts above? Don’t think you would even have reached the sixth form with that analysis...

Evidently my point went over your head. Texas was not bound to get rid of slavery by the outcome of the civil war. It retained them. But then got rid of slavery a few years later anyway. As surely would have the rest of the South.

The civil war ultimately was not necessary if, as you claim, it was only about slavery. If you accept it was more about freedom and rights, as I do, then it all makes a lot more sense. But of course the winners write history so the South gets painted as the bad guys. The truth is much more complex and nuanced, if you are willing to go beyond a shallow sixth form analysis.

And of course if the French had not blockaded the British navy during the war of independence then slavery would have gone away 50 years earlier. But that doesn't fit well with your narrative either.

You were half right when you suggested the Right has co-opted the civil war. What you missed was that the Left does exactly the same thing


Then please post up some primary source materiel corroborating your point, I’ve posted several contemporary documents, including one that directly calls for the primacy of federal law over the states in direct opposition to your point. You can also post up some evidence for Texas retaining slavery after the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation was equally applied to all the Confederate States.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bruncher, Sorcery and 1 guest