The Debate Thread

[Barry Goldwater]

Yes, troops were fighting for the South. Yes, the South had slavery. But does this mean that those troops was fighting for slavery? Not necessarily. In a way, yes, they were. But for the time, slavery was an accepted part of their way of life; it'd like be invading Maine because we hunt deer, or invading New Jersey because of douchebag Italian-Americans on the Jersey Shore(that's actually not a bad idea). They were fighting not only for that(hell, alot not for Slavery at all), they were fighting because they were having a large, armed military force on their soil that wasn't exactly there to protect them. They knew that armies tended to loot, and they didn't want their land being ransacked by bluebellies, so they joined the Confederate Army. Most, if not all troops below the rank of Brigadier General didn't give two about slavery, because all the wealthy slaveowners were in the higher ranks. Generals, that's a different story, but many Confederate generals didn't like it, and many Federal generals owned slaves. I find it strange you're only criticising the South for Slavery, and not Maryland, D.C., Delaware, Kentucky, or Missouri.

I've already explained why it doesn't matter what the Southern soldier thought he was fighting for. Again - the average Wehrmacht soldier probably didn't care about killing Jews or Slavs or the disabled or homosexuals, only about restoring the greatness of their country. In no way did this stop the Holocaust, though - just as Southern soldiers, no matter their motivations, would have been able to stop the entrenchment of slavery.

And I think there's quite a degree of difference between hunting deer and maintaining a system of chattel slavery.

In addition, let's think about the long-term ramifications of a Southern victory. You must surely know how it took active Federal intervention to end segregation, the Jim Crow laws, everything a hundred years after the Civil War was won. Even if they ended slavery, d'you think Southerners would be so eager to end discriminatory laws against blacks without outside intervention? We might see what's basically apartheid in North America today.

[Dave Strider]

I've already explained why it doesn't matter what the Southern soldier thought he was fighting for. Again - the average Wehrmacht soldier probably didn't care about killing Jews or Slavs or the disabled or homosexuals, only about restoring the greatness of their country. In no way did this stop the Holocaust, though - just as Southern soldiers, no matter their motivations, would have been able to stop the entrenchment of slavery.

The difference is that a large portion, perhaps even the majority, of Southern officers did not like Slavery, while a man would have no chance of being appointed as a Nazi German officer if he was not obedient to Der Fuhrer. And many Southerners would have tried to stop Slavery, eventually, whereas Nazi Germany would never have stopped it's genocides unless destroyed entirely.

And I think there's quite a degree of difference between hunting deer and maintaining a system of chattel slavery.

Well obviously, but there are similarities too.

[Barry Goldwater]

The difference is that a large portion, perhaps even the majority, of Southern officers did not like Slavery, while a man would have no chance of being appointed as a Nazi German officer if he was not obedient to Der Fuhrer. And many Southerners would have tried to stop Slavery, eventually, whereas Nazi Germany would never have stopped it's genocides unless destroyed entirely.

Like who, Lee? He (like most Southerners) felt that slavery was a Godly institution and owned slaves himself, setting them free only a month after he was supposed to.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Ge..._about_slavery
http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/rob...ended-slavery/
http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/let...ife-on-slavery

I expect sources for your claims like I've just done, BTW.

Lastly, even a few heroic characters isn't enough to change the fact that the Cause was evil, and the guys who really mattered (the Confed gov't and top echelons of Southern society) were all for slavery. Erwin Rommel, von Manstein, all these guys were cool - doesn't change that they were fighting for, well, Nazis.

Well obviously, but there are similarities too.

Not nearly enough to overcome that massive rift.

[Dan the Man]

[Bjorn]

Didnt think Barry was such a debater, he always looked to me like that "Good ol' grandpa" lololol

[Dave Strider]

Like who, Lee? He (like most Southerners) felt that slavery was a Godly institution and owned slaves himself, setting them free only a month after he was supposed to.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Ge..._about_slavery
http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/rob...ended-slavery/
http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/let...ife-on-slavery

I expect sources for your claims like I've just done, BTW.

He had delays that caused him not to free them, he was assigned to a Cavalrt unit until he was granted Arlington in his family member's will, which he then had to fix up, and then pay a gambling debt(I believe around $10,000). Then the John Brown raid occured, and then the war began. And I don't know where to find sources.

Lastly, even a few heroic characters isn't enough to change the fact that the Cause was evil, and the guys who really mattered (the Confed gov't and top echelons of Southern society) were all for slavery. Erwin Rommel, von Manstein, all these guys were cool - doesn't change that they were fighting for, well, Nazis.

They didn't really have a choice.

[Barry Goldwater]

He had delays that caused him not to free them, he was assigned to a Cavalrt unit until he was granted Arlington in his family member's will, which he then had to fix up, and then pay a gambling debt(I believe around $10,000). Then the John Brown raid occured, and then the war began. And I don't know where to find sources.

Ahem, read the letter. He explicitly says it's better for blacks to be slaves to their obviously loving white masters, that their brutal treatment is somehow necessary for their 'instruction of a race', and that they'll be set free when God wills it. (yeah, fat chance His messengers in the South are gonna say THAT anytime before 1870/80/90, possibly even later)

(4) It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things.
(5) How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist!

Goes without saying that these cannot be the words of a closet abolitionist.

They didn't really have a choice.

Yes they did, they could have simply left the country or turned in their commissions before Hitler suspected them. Just like Lee could've sided with the Union and brought a much faster and less bloody end to the ACW.

Didnt think Barry was such a debater, he always looked to me like that "Good ol' grandpa" lololol

Hehe, thanks. I used to frequent the D&D, guess what I did all the time there

[Dave Strider]

Ahem, read the letter. He explicitly says it's better for blacks to be slaves to their obviously loving white masters, that their brutal treatment is somehow necessary for their 'instruction of a race', and that they'll be set free when God wills it. (yeah, fat chance His messengers in the South are gonna say THAT anytime before 1870/80/90, possibly even later)
Goes without saying that these cannot be the words of a closet abolitionist.

It also goes without saying that he's not an ignorant overweight southern Redneck, as you made out the Confederacy to be.

Yes they did, they could have simply left the country or turned in their commissions before Hitler suspected them. Just like Lee could've sided with the Union and brought a much faster and less bloody end to the ACW.

Yeah, like there was a chance of Lee doing that.

[Barry Goldwater]

It also goes without saying that he's not an ignorant overweight southern Redneck, as you made out the Confederacy to be.

Doesn't change my main point - there was not a single major abolitionist with the political pull to actually enact their ideals within the Confederate army, and Lee was certainly no abolitionist.

Yeah, like there was a chance of Lee doing that.

And so, a case of horribly misguided loyalty and an attempt to preserve a morally bankrupt hypocritical regime forced us into the bloodiest war fought on our soil. High five, Lee.

[Dave Strider]

Doesn't change my main point - there was no single major abolitionist with the political pull to actually enact their ideals within the Confederate army.

I never said anything about single individuals.

And so, a case of horribly misguided loyalty and an attempt to preserve a morally bankrupt hypocritical regime forced us into the bloodiest war fought on our soil. High five, Lee.

Back then, State loyalties were alot stronger than National loyalties; If you lived in Boston, you were a Massachusettian first and foremost, THEN an American. It was no different for Lee; Federal armies would have had to move through Virginia to attack the CSA, and he did not want to be commander of an army moving throughout his home state, ransacking buildings and turning his Virginian bretheren against him.

[Barry Goldwater]

I never said anything about single individuals.

Not even a bunch of them working in tandem would be able to push through abolition as quickly as the Feds did in reality. Operation Valkyrie didn't go too well either, remember?

Back then, State loyalties were alot stronger than National loyalties; If you lived in Boston, you were a Massachusettian first and foremost, THEN an American. It was no different for Lee; Federal armies would have had to move through Virginia to attack the CSA, and he did not want to be commander of an army moving throughout his home state, ransacking buildings and turning his Virginian bretheren against him.

Which they probably wouldn't have done if he was the one leading, and if the war hadn't gone on so long that Sherman decided the only way to wrap things up ASAP was to launch a campaign of total war.

[Dave Strider]

Not even a bunch of them working in tandem would be able to push through abolition as quickly as the Feds did in reality. Operation Valkyrie didn't go too well either, remember?

Operation Valkyrie is not a suitable comparison. There was a very low chance of it actually succeeding, because it rested solely on the death of one man, whereas there was a much larger chance of such legislation passing Confederate Congress.

Which they probably wouldn't have done if he was the one leading, and if the war hadn't gone on so long that Sherman decided the only way to wrap things up ASAP was to launch a campaign of total war.

Still, Lee wouldn't have led the army. That's a fact. He didn't want to.

[Barry Goldwater]

Operation Valkyrie is not a suitable comparison. There was a very low chance of it actually succeeding, because it rested solely on the death of one man, whereas there was a much larger chance of such legislation passing Confederate Congress.

Right...and even if abolition is eventually enacted, how much longer until stuff like the Jim Crow laws and de-facto legalized lynching come to an end?

Still, Lee wouldn't have led the army. That's a fact. He didn't want to.

And again, that's why he's responsible for prolonging and indirectly worsening the conflict, in which he was fighting for the morally bankrupt and grossly hypocritical Confederate regime. Sometimes, we really don't want to do the right thing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have and instead allowed much worse things to happen.

[Dave Strider]

Right...and even if abolition is eventually enacted, how much longer until stuff like the Jim Crow laws and de-facto legalized lynching come to an end?

Probably the same as OTL, a century or so.

And again, that's why he's responsible for prolonging and indirectly worsening the conflict, in which he was fighting for the morally bankrupt and grossly hypocritical Confederate regime. Sometimes, we really don't want to do the right thing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have and instead allowed much worse things to happen.

At the time, leading the Federal army was the wrong thing to do for him.

[Barry Goldwater]

Probably the same as OTL, a century or so.

Seriously? It took the South one hundred years, considerable civil unrest and federal intervention to put those abominations to rest, and even then parties were working to reverse them into the 70's (check George Wallace). Without such outside pressure, we'll probably still have separate drinking fountains, schools, etc. today.

[Dave Strider]

Seriously? It took the South one hundred years, considerable civil unrest and federal intervention to put those abominations to rest, and even then parties were working to reverse them into the 70's (check George Wallace). Without such outside pressure, we'll probably still have separate drinking fountains, schools, etc. today.

One reason it took so long was the "We lost, but we're not happy about it" opinion of some Southerners, which undoubtably caused extremism in some cases(such as the fromation of the KKK). If they won, they might not be as sore towards the concept.

[Agamemnon]

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.

No, the federal government was passing laws that the constitution did not give it the power to pass. As General Pickett described it, "It's like a gentlemen's club. We joined of our own free will, and the club leaders decided to peer into our personal affairs. Now, they are telling us that we don't have the right to leave the club."

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?

Heh? How? It made it more expensive to export cotton and buy european goods, how did it hurt industry?

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.

Look, slaves were not even thought of as people, the 3/5ths compromise was in response to the South Carolinian ideas that a state's representation should be based on wealth, in which case the New England ships would count. Look, the feds requested the compromise, not the south.

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?

How? WTF? That doesn't make sense, as I've stated above the federal government was using powers it didn't have, so they seceded. The men fought for their rights. As one soldier said (yes, in the movie gettysburg, so what) "I ain't fightin' fer no darkies either way, I is fightin' fer my rights."

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, being slightly Libertarian, I'm sure you would. It's your choice, just sayin'.

Yes, I'm helping Fred, mostly because over the years northern historians have "rewritten history" to rationalize the fighting of a war that itself violated the constitution. The US had no right to hold the CSA in, but it did, which is also one of the first examples of big government taking too much power.

['Gunny]

Look, slaves were not even thought of as people, the 3/5ths compromise was in response to the South Carolinian ideas that a state's representation should be based on wealth, in which case the New England ships would count. Look, the feds requested the compromise, not the south.

I have to interject here... You think the Northerners wanted to give extra representation to the south? lolwut? I hope I misread...

[Agamemnon]

No, the south wanted them all to be counted because they recognised that they were people and deserved to be counted, and the north didn't, so to give themselves an edge they compromised.

['Gunny]

Lol, the south didnt want them to count fully because they were 'recognized as people'

You think the slave holder would let their slaves go out and vote?

No, the south wanted more power, and Slaves gave them just that.