The Debate Thread

[Barry Goldwater]

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.

Certainly some...interesting, uh, ideas there. Let's see:

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."

Yeah, like the power to outlaw slavery in new territories. Oh no, the horror!

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

I'm sorry, but what?! The Tariff of 1857 was among the lowest in the world, and the lowest in US history. You'd have to be smoking something impressive to think otherwise.

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.

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.

...



You've got to be joking. The Feds compromised because Northern states wanted only freed men to vote, the South wanted all their slaves counted and threatened to walk out of the Philadelphia Convention if they weren't. And the South recognized that they were people? Bahahaha, yeah, that was why they were treated and bred like cattle right?! The South wanted their votes to count their way to give themselves disproportionate power in government.

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."

I've already pointed out why this is ridiculous in past posts. The men could fight for whatever they thought was right, it didn't change what their country was built on and what they were unintentionally helping to perpetuate.

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

Yeah, see, I don't take too kindly to slavocratic noble-wannabees pushing around 'dem darkies' and treating them as cattle. I don't think any civilized man ought to.

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.

Don't be ridiculous. Without the ACW, slavery might not have been abolished until the friggin 1890s, much less Jim Crow laws and the like. Do you have any proof Southerners would've cared enough to push through their own Civil Rights Act at the same time the real US did?

[Agamemnon]

So? If the civil war had been about freeing the slaves, do you think that Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, or Missouri would have stayed in the union? No, especially not missouri, good God they nearly fought their own pro-slavery war in Kansas! Also, do you really think that if it had started about slavery there would have been volunteers? The US was a very racist place, and most northerners didn't care about slavery. Abolition was a political tool to keep Britain out of the war.

[Jingo Eugene]

So? If the civil war had been about freeing the slaves, do you think that Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, or Missouri would have stayed in the union? No, especially not missouri, good God they nearly fought their own pro-slavery war in Kansas! Also, do you really think that if it had started about slavery there would have been volunteers? The US was a very racist place, and most northerners didn't care about slavery. Abolition was a political tool to keep Britain out of the war.

Pretty much. Abe Lincoln probably realized that the British were laughing at them, sort of a "how do you like it?" thing. So he needed to keep Europeans out of the war using a "moral" reason. Slavery. As most of Europe had abolished slavery earlier.

[Agamemnon]

BTW, Barry, most Confederates did not own slaves, did not care about slavery, or didn't like slavery. Most of the generals, as well as many legislators, were anti-slavery, and it would have died out on its own. As Longstreet said "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Fort Sumter."

That doesn't sound like he supports slavery, does it?

[Barry Goldwater]

So? If the civil war had been about freeing the slaves, do you think that Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, or Missouri would have stayed in the union? No, especially not missouri, good God they nearly fought their own pro-slavery war in Kansas! Also, do you really think that if it had started about slavery there would have been volunteers? The US was a very racist place, and most northerners didn't care about slavery. Abolition was a political tool to keep Britain out of the war.

It may not have been at the start, but it was a driving cause by the end - and for the better, too. How long would it have taken the CSA to vote on abolition when so many state constitutions, and the Confederate constitution itself, embraced slavery, hmm?

BTW, Barry, most Confederates did not own slaves, did not care about slavery, or didn't like slavery. Most of the generals, as well as many legislators, were anti-slavery, and it would have died out on its own. As Longstreet said "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Fort Sumter."

That doesn't sound like he supports slavery, does it?

Just read over my old posts, I can't be bothered to quote them anymore. I have explained why this is a ridiculous argument several times over in this thread.

[Agamemnon]

Have you read the CSA constitution? It outlaws the slave trade itself.

[Barry Goldwater]

Have you read the CSA constitution? It outlaws the slave trade itself.

Yeah, while making it impossible for Congress to outlaw slavery anywhere.

[Agamemnon]

So? If the states don't want to do it, the national government can't make them. That's why they seceded, in case you forgot.

[Barry Goldwater]

So? If the states don't want to do it, the national government can't make them. That's why they seceded, in case you forgot.

So then, by that same logic should South Africa be allowed to continue its policies of apartheid unmolested, and Nazi Germany to carry out the Holocaust within their own borders?

This is an issue where I disagree with my political icon Barry Goldwater, basic human rights takes priority over states' rights. If you sit there and watch as someone gets raped and murdered despite having the ability to stop them, you can't call yourself any better than the criminal can you?

[Agamemnon]

No, but this isn't rape, this is slavery. If you have a moral responsibility to stop it, then try your best, but if they feel it is right to them and they are not doing something absolutely evil (like rape or murder), then leave them alone. I get the Nazi Germany was evil, and that it should have been stopped, but this isn't murder here, this is the rights of states to make laws and enforce their rights against the federal government.

[Barry Goldwater]

No, but this isn't rape, this is slavery. If you have a moral responsibility to stop it, then try your best, but if they feel it is right to them and they are not doing something absolutely evil (like rape or murder), then leave them alone. I get the Nazi Germany was evil, and that it should have been stopped, but this isn't murder here, this is the rights of states to make laws and enforce their rights against the federal government.

Wait wait wait.

I'm sorry, did you just say slavery isn't absolutely evil?

Besides that, states shouldn't be able to infringe on their peoples' rights.

[Agamemnon]

No, I said that allowing states to make the laws that best suit their land is not absolutely evil.

Also, why would that infringe on their people's rights? I mean, in the attitude of the time (and up to the '60s, in fact), blacks were not considered first-class citizens, and thus their enslavement, to their masters, wouldn't infringe on anybody's rights.

[Barry Goldwater]

No, I said that allowing states to make the laws that best suit their land is not absolutely evil.

Even if what they want to enact is indeed evil?

Also, why would that infringe on their people's rights? I mean, in the attitude of the time (and up to the '60s, in fact), blacks were not considered first-class citizens, and thus their enslavement, to their masters, wouldn't infringe on anybody's rights.

But now we know they are not merely completely and utterly wrong, but evil to boot, yes? So why support a system that wanted to perpetuate it?

[Agamemnon]

Because it was their right, their choice. Slavery would have eventually ceased to be profitable, then industry would be developed, and then it would end.

[Dave Strider]

Pretty much what Aggy said.

[Barry Goldwater]

Because it was their right, their choice. Slavery would have eventually ceased to be profitable, then industry would be developed, and then it would end.

...or Southern slaveowners could've used their brains and put the slaves to work in their own factories instead.

And even if they didn't, how long until it ends? Even one more day is too long in my books, Britain abolished it in friggin' 1834 without a civil war.

And just because it's your choice doesn't mean it's 'right' or 'moral'.

[Dan the Man]

I'm not getting involved in this debate because I think I've missed too much, but Barry is throwing you CSA fanboys around like a dog on a rabbit.

[Agamemnon]

How? All he is saying is that slavery is morally wrong over and over again, and calling us fanboys because we keep trying to tell him it was not about slavery.

[Dan the Man]

You're not proving anything by not addressing his previous post. Hop to it now, little rabbits.

[Barry Goldwater]

How? All he is saying is that slavery is morally wrong over and over again

Uh, maybe because it is?

and calling us fanboys because we keep trying to tell him it was not about slavery.

I've already explained why it was indeed about slavery. Read my past posts, I cannot be bothered to quote myself for the umpteenth time.