The Debate Thread

[Barry Goldwater]

The "5 Southern Distortions" bullcrap? I've been posting in that thread for a while now.

At the risk of reigniting the ACW debate, and to actually use this creation of Dan's Why is it 'bullcrap exactly'?

[Bjorn]

Sticky this thread Barry!

[Dave Strider]

Because they talk about stuff like State's Rights, the Tariffs, and pretty much every REAL reason why the war was fought like it's a damn fairy tale.

[Barry Goldwater]

Ask and ye shall receive

[Barry Goldwater]

Because they talk about stuff like State's Rights, the Tariffs, and pretty much every REAL reason why the war was fought like it's a damn fairy tale.

Uh, because it is? Let's see:

1. States' rights. Yeah, for what? To own other human beings like cattle? Excuse me if I don't quite sympathize with that. Not to mention the South had no problem with riding roughshod over states' rights when they were still large and in charge, ex. Fugitive Slave Act. Again, excuse me if I've no sympathy for hypocritical slavocrats.

2. Tariffs, again - lolwut? The Tariff of 1857 was the lowest in the country's history, so low that while it obviously benefited Southerners it damaged Northern industries. The South doesn't make up the entire country and its interests shouldn't be prioritized over those of the rest of the country, ya know?

3. Federal oppression? Don't make me laugh. Ever heard of the 3/5ths compromise? No? To give you an idea - what d'you think would've happened if three-fifths of New England's ships were allowed to vote? This compromise allowed the Southern states to wield disproportionate power in the Federal government, and as mentioned above to run roughshod over states' rights whenever they weren't on the receiving end.

4. I'll hit this button before you can - Yes, not all Southerners fought to preserve slavery. In fact, most probably didn't, including my ancestor. But this in no way changes the fact that, by fighting for the South, they were unintentionally doing just that; trying to preserve slavery. Most German soldiers probably just wanted to restore the greatness of their nation and couldn't give two about this kooky Nazi BS being spouted by Hitler & company, but did that in any way stop Hitler and the SS from carrying out the Holocaust?

And yes, despite being a generally center-rightist Virginian with somewhat libertarian social views I'd be quite happy to fight for the Union if I were somehow transported back to 1861. Just sayin'.

[Dan the Man]

Yay, sticky! I love how autonomous we are!

[Dave Strider]

Uh, because it is? Let's see:

1. States' rights. Yeah, for what? To own other human beings like cattle? Excuse me if I don't quite sympathize with that. Not to mention the South had no problem with riding roughshod over states' rights when they were still large and in charge, ex. Fugitive Slave Act. Again, excuse me if I've no sympathy for hypocritical slavocrats.

Technically, it's not trampling over State rights; After all, back then, Slaves were as much property as a Television or an X-Box is today. And today, if someone came home to fine something of theirs stolen, and later found out that the person taking it was caught, they'd want their rightful property back. It's not their right to take it, and it's certainly not the right of the place harboring it to...well...harbor it. The only rights it's trampling over is the Slave's rights.

2. Tariffs, again - lolwut? The Tariff of 1857 was the lowest in the country's history, so low that while it obviously benefited Southerners it damaged Northern industries. The South doesn't make up the entire country and its interests shouldn't be prioritized over those of the rest of the country, ya know?

I see that people seem to think that the South suddenly got mad at the Tariffs so suddenly, when they had been going, as you said, throughout the Country's history; Maybe they just never liked the Tariff in the first place, and the lowering of the Tariff wasn't enough to satisfy them? Or maybe it had been a while since the previous tariff, and they didn't want another one?

3. Federal oppression? Don't make me laugh. Ever heard of the 3/5ths compromise? No? To give you an idea - what d'you think would've happened if three-fifths of New England's ships were allowed to vote? This compromise allowed the Southern states to wield disproportionate power in the Federal government, and as mentioned above to run roughshod over states' rights whenever they weren't on the receiving end.

The South, in a sense, deserved the power in the Federal government; They had always been outnumbered by a largely unfair margin by the North, this guaranteeing the North better representation in the HoR. This is why the South preferred State governments, as it would allow them to live they way their individual states wanted to live without people from other states trying to tell them what they could and couldn't do.

4. I'll hit this button before you can - Yes, not all Southerners fought to preserve slavery. In fact, most probably didn't, including my ancestor. But this in no way changes the fact that, by fighting for the South, they were unintentionally doing just that; trying to preserve slavery. Most German soldiers probably just wanted to restore the greatness of their nation and couldn't give two about this kooky Nazi BS being spouted by Hitler & company, but did that in any way stop Hitler and the SS from carrying out the Holocaust?

As Industry advanced in the world, the South was bound to have given up Slavery if they won their independence. It was only a matter of time.

And yes, despite being a generally center-rightist Virginian with somewhat libertarian social views I'd be quite happy to fight for the Union if I were somehow transported back to 1861. Just sayin'.

And despite me being a far-left Neo-Communist, I'd gladly fight for the Confederacy if I was teleported back to 1861.

[Barry Goldwater]

Technically, it's not trampling over State rights; After all, back then, Slaves were as much property as a Television or an X-Box is today. And today, if someone came home to fine something of theirs stolen, and later found out that the person taking it was caught, they'd want their rightful property back. It's not their right to take it, and it's certainly not the right of the place harboring it to...well...harbor it. The only rights it's trampling over is the Slave's rights.

Which you'd say is a bad thing, yes?

Irregardless, this act made Northern state governments and citizens actually obligated to return the slaves that had fled there. No matter how pissed they were, for a bunch of guys so obsessed with not interfering in other states' business, it's awfully hypocritical. It'd be like Gandhi snapping and mowing down British troops with an MG, then turning around and continuing to preach about peaceful reformation and independence.

I see that people seem to think that the South suddenly got mad at the Tariffs so suddenly, when they had been going, as you said, throughout the Country's history; Maybe they just never liked the Tariff in the first place, and the lowering of the Tariff wasn't enough to satisfy them? Or maybe it had been a while since the previous tariff, and they didn't want another one?

Too bad, the North's industries deserve protection too, which they weren't getting under the Tariff of 1857 - one of the lowest in the world at the time, and the lowest in the history of the 'States. Southern needs shouldn't outweigh the needs of the rest of the country.

The South, in a sense, deserved the power in the Federal government; They had always been outnumbered by a largely unfair margin by the North, this guaranteeing the North better representation in the HoR. This is why the South preferred State governments, as it would allow them to live they way their individual states wanted to live without people from other states trying to tell them what they could and couldn't do.

Too bad then, that's how democracy works and I'm pretty sure setting the system up in a way to unfairly benefit yourself while screwing over the rest of the country goes against that. And considering some 'other people' wanted them to stop owning humans as chattel, I wouldn't say it's all bad really.

As Industry advanced in the world, the South was bound to have given up Slavery if they won their independence. It was only a matter of time.

Not really. Ever consider the possibility of moving slaves to factories, or keeping them around as purely household servants, like maids & butlers you didn't have to pay a dime for?

And despite me being a far-left Neo-Communist, I'd gladly fight for the Confederacy if I was teleported back to 1861.

Yes, I figured that much out

[Dave Strider]

Which you'd say is a bad thing, yes? Irregardless, this act made Northern state governments and citizens actually obligated to return the slaves that had fled there. No matter how pissed they were, for a bunch of guys so obsessed with not interfering in other states' business, it's awfully hypocritical. It'd be like Gandhi snapping and mowing down British troops with an MG, then turning around and continuing to preach about peaceful reformation and independence.

There's a difference. The escaped slaves go to Northern soil, the interfering in Southern politics happens on Southern soil.

Too bad, the North's industries deserve protection too, which they weren't getting under the Tariff of 1857 - one of the lowest in the world at the time, and the lowest in the history of the 'States. Southern needs shouldn't outweigh the needs of the rest of the country.

Have the rich give them some money, don't take it from a bunch of poor(monetarily, not the other "poor"), rural Southerners. You shouldn't expect them to be happy with that.

Too bad then, that's how democracy works and I'm pretty sure setting the system up in a way to unfairly benefit yourself while screwing over the rest of the country goes against that. And considering some 'other people' wanted them to stop owning humans as chattel, I wouldn't say it's all bad really.

It seems that it's either unfairly benefiting the North at the expense of the South, or vice versa.

Not really. Ever consider the possibility of moving slaves to factories, or keeping them around as purely household servants, like maids & butlers you didn't have to pay a dime for?

Moving Slaves to Factories? Where all the new immigrants will be competing with them for jobs? That'd be even more violent than the Civil War. As for household servants, they technically already were, at that time; some of them, at least.

Yes, I figured that much out

Rest assured, it's for Military reasons only.

['Gunny]

Also, Fred, you will notice that a majority of Northern acts restricted more the spread of slavery, than outlawing it, so its not like the Northerners went into the south and said 'Hey Everyone, give up your slaves" and used troops to do that (until a few years later ) It was more of, ok slavery can exist here and here, but lets keep it there

I'd gladly fight for the Confederacy if I was teleported back to 1861

I hope you are better at actual fighting than IH fighting

[Barry Goldwater]

There's a difference. The escaped slaves go to Northern soil, the interfering in Southern politics happens on Southern soil.

What difference? The South is interfering in Northern state affairs and politics by giving them an obligation to return runaways.

Have the rich give them some money, don't take it from a bunch of poor(monetarily, not the other "poor"), rural Southerners. You shouldn't expect them to be happy with that.

What, you mean make the slave-owning faux-aristocrats (who also pretty much ran Southern society) actually cough up some of their obviously hard-earned fortune for some damnyankees they neither know nor care about? Yeah, I don't see why they'd refuse to do THAT at all, obviously they'd have no opposition to what's basically socialism in antebellum America. Obviously.

It seems that it's either unfairly benefiting the North at the expense of the South, or vice versa.

Given that the North had more mouths to feed and represented the economic future of the country in its factories, I'd say the North should receive at least a slightly bigger slice of the pie than the largely rural and smaller South.

Moving Slaves to Factories? Where all the new immigrants will be competing with them for jobs? That'd be even more violent than the Civil War. As for household servants, they technically already were, at that time; some of them, at least.

Nevermind the Northern factories manned by immigrants, build Southern ones for the slaves only. At least with immigrants you have to occasionally cough up a paycheck, not so with slaves

[Dave Strider]

What difference? The South is interfering in Northern state affairs and politics by giving them an obligation to return runaways.

Yes, but the North did it of it's own free will. They didn't vote on the Northerners bringing them back.

What, you mean make the slave-owning faux-aristocrats (who also pretty much ran Southern society) actually cough up some of their obviously hard-earned fortune for some damnyankees they neither know nor care about? Yeah, I don't see why they'd refuse to do THAT at all, obviously they'd have no opposition to what's basically socialism in antebellum America. Obviously.

Or, you know, Northern Bankers/Entrepeneurs/Government officials/etc.

Given that the North had more mouths to feed and represented the economic future of the country in its factories, I'd say the North should receive at least a slightly bigger slice of the pie than the largely rural and smaller South.

Yes, but only slightly, not gigantically bigger.

Nevermind the Northern factories manned by immigrants, build Southern ones for the slaves only. At least with immigrants you have to occasionally cough up a paycheck, not so with slaves

But Slaves cannot into factories

[Barry Goldwater]

Yes, but the North did it of it's own free will. They didn't vote on the Northerners bringing them back.

Wait, what? Of course the North didn't vote on bringing slaves back, if they could the idea would've been torpedoed.

Or, you know, Northern Bankers/Entrepeneurs/Government officials/etc.

What, you mean Northern businesses being affected by the dangerously low tariff rates have to pay...themselves? With their own money? Because the Southern faux-aristocrats were too greedy to cough up a few cents and political concessions to bail out their own countrymen?

Yes, but only slightly, not gigantically bigger.

And that includes restricting their undemocratic influence in government and raising tariffs to a level that doesn't critically endanger Northern businesses to appease Southern rural interests, yes?

[Dave Strider]

Wait, what? Of course the North didn't vote on bringing slaves back, if they could the idea would've been torpedoed.

Touche.

What, you mean Northern businesses being affected by the dangerously low tariff rates have to pay...themselves? With their own money? Because the Southern faux-aristocrats were too greedy to cough up a few cents and political concessions to bail out their own countrymen?

A few cents, they could do. Their political concessions, no.

And that includes restricting their undemocratic influence in government and raising tariffs to a level that doesn't critically endanger Northern businesses to appease Southern rural interests, yes?

For the North, or the South?

[Barry Goldwater]

A few cents, they could do. Their political concessions, no.

And why not? The 3/5ths rule was undemocratic, can you imagine the uproar in the South if 3/5ths of Northern ships or factories were allowed to vote? And they just so happen to magically vote the same way their owners do?

For the North, or the South?

Uh, can you explain? Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Are you suggesting that the North's greater population getting to vote (and obviously they'll vote to serve their own interests, like pretty much everybody including Southerners) is somehow undemocratic, unlike let's say the 3/5ths compromise?

[Dave Strider]

And why not? The 3/5ths rule was undemocratic, can you imagine the uproar in the South if 3/5ths of Northern ships or factories were allowed to vote? And they just so happen to magically vote the same way their owners do?

Difference is, Slaves aren't inanimate objects. But yes, I understand what you're saying here; Slaves will "vote" with their masters, and ships will "vote" with their owners.

Uh, can you explain? Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Are you suggesting that the North's greater population getting to vote (and obviously they'll vote to serve their own interests, like pretty much everybody including Southerners) is somehow undemocratic, unlike let's say the 3/5ths compromise?

I was just asking if you were referring to the South or the North with that statement.

[Barry Goldwater]

Difference is, Slaves aren't inanimate objects. But yes, I understand what you're saying here; Slaves will "vote" with their masters, and ships will "vote" with their owners.

Well duh, but at the time they were considered property. Like the aforementioned ships. And yes, naturally their 'votes' went the same way as their masters'. You would agree that this is unfair and undemocratic, yes?

I was just asking if you were referring to the South or the North with that statement.

The South, naturally. Southern interests should in no way drive the country when they don't even make up a majority of the population, especially when those interests mean kicking the legs out from under Northern businesses that are the country's economic future and wielding disproportional power in the government.

[Dave Strider]

Well duh, but at the time they were considered property. Like the aforementioned ships. And yes, naturally their 'votes' went the same way as their masters'. You would agree that this is unfair and undemocratic, yes?

Yes.

The South, naturally. Southern interests should in no way drive the country when they don't even make up a majority of the population, especially when those interests mean kicking the legs out from under Northern businesses that are the country's economic future and wielding disproportional power in the government.

If the South didn't wield disproportional power, the North would, and would try to force National laws over State laws.

[Barry Goldwater]

If the South didn't wield disproportional power, the North would, and would try to force National laws over State laws.

At least they'd have the excuse of a demographic majority on their side, the South's desperate attempts to retain disproportional power reminds me of Apartheid South Africa - a small, extremely wealthy and extremely powerful clique of faux-aristocrats living on the backs of their supposed racial inferiors and screwing over whites who got in their way. And you would agree that a minority wielding such power is a bad idea, yes?

[Dave Strider]

Wielding power equal to the others involved is bad?