Is the left engaging in salami tactics? And what should we do about it?

[kouby]

Ah, look at this, another poster who has a basic highschool understanding of American history challenging me on the Civil War. It's such an easy bait, it literally never fails. This site is literally drowning in guys sitting there thinking "I saw a special on the history channel once, I think I've got this whole thing figured out."

If you're from outside the States, then that's perfectly understandable and I apologize. It's not reasonable for me to expect you to know our history. If you're American though, please don't say such things in public. I want the foreigners to think we still have decent schools.

You might want to elaborate further on your point of "the Federal propaganda during the civil war was so effective that most people still believe it to this day. In reality, the idea that the civil war was fought over slavery just doesn't match up with the situation of the time" just so that the whole interwebz can have a good laugh.
So what was it, a conspiracy to steal the lands from the good hard working southerners? Please come up with something funny, please.
If you're just one of those libertarian Lincoln haters I'm sorry you suffer from an immense lack of originality.
What will it be next? FDR caused Pearl Harbour?

---------- Post added 2013-01-11 at 07:31 AM ----------

Notably, General Robert E. Lee did not himself own slaves. In fact, he vigorously opposed slavery, as evidenced by documents dating as far back as 1856

So by the same logic Jefferson didn't hold slaves because he wrote so fervently about liberty maybe? Just wild guessing here.

[mvallas]

Ah, look at this, another poster who has a basic highschool understanding of American history challenging me on the Civil War. It's such an easy bait, it literally never fails. This site is literally drowning in guys sitting there thinking "I saw a special on the history channel once, I think I've got this whole thing figured out."

If you're from outside the States, then that's perfectly understandable and I apologize. It's not reasonable for me to expect you to know our history. If you're American though, please don't say such things in public. I want the foreigners to think we still have decent schools.

If you're an self-proclaimed expert on the Civil War... this American has just one question for you:

Which particular issues of Abraham Lincon's policies and his administration did that the South hate him and his administration so much that they decided it was time to leave?

[obdigore]

If you're an self-proclaimed expert on the Civil War... this American has just one question for you:

Which particular issues of Abraham Lincon's policies and his administration did that the South hate him and his administration so much that they decided it was time to leave?

It wasn't slavery so much as the fact that the north had a ton more votes and much more money and could pretty much override anything the south wanted to do if they so desired. iirc a majority of the states who rebelled didn't even put Lincoln on the ballot and he still won the popular vote.

[Kalyyn]

You might want to elaborate further on your point of "the Federal propaganda during the civil war was so effective that most people still believe it to this day. In reality, the idea that the civil war was fought over slavery just doesn't match up with the situation of the time" just so that the whole interwebz can have a good laugh.
So what was it, a conspiracy to steal the lands from the good hard working southerners? Please come up with something funny, please.
If you're just one of those libertarian Lincoln haters I'm sorry you suffer from an immense lack of originality.
What will it be next? FDR caused Pearl Harbour?

Let's use my last post as a starting point, shall we? Read that, then come back to me with any further grievances you may have.

So by the same logic Jefferson didn't hold slaves because he wrote so fervently about liberty maybe? Just wild guessing here.

I... what? What is this even supposed to mean?
Here's the god damn wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
If you believe that Robert E. Lee owned slaves, I'd recommend you contact a historian at the Smithsonian. Because apparently you know something they don't.

[Chonogo]

Oh, now here's something that's not in your state-approved curriculum. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to southern states.

This was in my state-approved curriculum. If we're going to continue, please try to avoid treating me like a simpleton on this subject. It's leaps and bounds my favorite topic of history.

The North didn't have to give up their slaves until the ratification of the 14th amendment, some time after the war was already over. Many Union generals held slaves throughout the war, and continued to do so after.

The North had pretty much abolished slavery on a state-by-state basis. Remember the Missouri Compromise? Three states in the North allowed slavery at the time of the Civil War, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland. Kentucky and West Virginia were allowed slaves as a political maneuver to keep the union safe. Maryland, as you recall, was put under martial law to prevent its secession. However, this is a side-story that ignores the main political arguments of that era. Slavery, and how to handle it, both in existing states, and new states. The Missouri Compromise, solely about slavery, is what led us to the path of the civil war.

Notably, General Robert E. Lee did not himself own slaves. In fact, he vigorously opposed slavery, as evidenced by documents dating as far back as 1856. He expressed his view of slavery as a "moral and political evil". When he inherited his father's plantation, he immediately freed every slave under his ownership.

Lee was, at best, indifferent about it. He personally wasn't for it, but he felt it wasn't his place to decide whether it was allowed or not.

By and large, slavery was already dying out in the South. The invention of the mechanical mule-drawn plow made slavery uneconomical, and by the time the Civil War broke out, the South had already freed over 250,000 slaves.

That ignores the political and economic situation of the times. The wealthy plantation owners, which owned the majority of the slaves, had control of the pulpit and the resources. They used this power to enrage the masses. Considering that an an overwhelming majority of Southern land owners didn't own slaves, it helps explain why they would go fight and possibly die to preserve slavery.

Another thing that does not get mentioned is the fact that before the Civil War, the south was paying 87% of the nations tariffs, despite only having roughly 30% of its total population.

Yet not mentioned a single time in any of the letters of secession. Slavery and states' rights, however, a different story.

And now somebody will tell me I'm wrong or lying, yet provide no evidence for their claim. I've been through this scenario enough to say that with confidence.

I'm half-agreeing with you. Slavery was not the sole reason for the civil war. But to say it had no part? I can't go there with you.

[Kalyyn]

If you're an self-proclaimed expert on the Civil War... this American has just one question for you:

Which particular issues of Abraham Lincon's policies and his administration did that the South hate him and his administration so much that they decided it was time to leave?

It wasn't slavery so much as the fact that the north had a ton more votes and much more money and could pretty much override anything the south wanted to do if they so desired. iirc a majority of the states who rebelled didn't even put Lincoln on the ballot and he still won the popular vote.

Oh wow, good on you Obdigore. I never knew you were so knowledgeable. But yeah, basically what Obdigore said. Also, as I mentioned before, the Northern controlled government was taxing the South to the point of absurdity. Southern businesses couldn't compete because they had to pay vastly higher taxes than those in the North. And it wasn't just Lincoln. No, it had been building up for decades before him. Lincoln just pushed it over the edge. The South threatened succession if the Federal government didn't compromise. To which Lincoln more or less responded "Do it, I dare you".

[vastx]

not really. what if i live in europe? there liberal means classical liberal. why not just say what you really mean instead of using vague language?

But me being an American and saying what I did, it shouldn't be too difficult to understand what I mean. If some random person from Europe used the word liberal, I'd surmise they were using it in terms they're accustomed to.

[Chonogo]

Oh wow, good on you Obdigore. I never knew you were so knowledgeable. But yeah, basically what Obdigore said. Also, as I mentioned before, the Northern controlled government was taxing the South to the point of absurdity. Southern businesses couldn't compete because they had to pay vastly higher taxes than those in the North. And it wasn't just Lincoln. No, it had been building up for decades before him. Lincoln just pushed it over the edge. The South threatened succession if the Federal government didn't compromise. To which Lincoln more or less responded "Do it, I dare you".

Regarding the tariffs. Think about it for a second. Why would the federal government impose tariffs on the South's exports? Would it be absurd to argue that they did it so help choke off the establishment of slavery? I don't think it was done to oppress Southerners because they talk funny or other strange reason.

There had to be a reason for the tariffs. Slavery was that reason. More than likely, they decided that if they can't talk people out of owning slaves, perhaps they can starve them. It still comes back to slavery though. And just needed a spark. Missouri Compromise, probably bitterness over the tariffs, all masked by the wealthy plantation owners as an oppressive Federal government.

[Kalyyn]

This was in my state-approved curriculum. If we're going to continue, please try to avoid treating me like a simpleton on this subject. It's leaps and bounds my favorite topic of history.



The North had pretty much abolished slavery on a state-by-state basis. Remember the Missouri Compromise? Three states in the North allowed slavery at the time of the Civil War, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland. Kentucky and West Virginia were allowed slaves as a political maneuver to keep the union safe. Maryland, as you recall, was put under martial law to prevent its secession. However, this is a side-story that ignores the main political arguments of that era. Slavery, and how to handle it, both in existing states, and new states. The Missouri Compromise, solely about slavery, is what led us to the path of the civil war.



Lee was, at best, indifferent about it. He personally wasn't for it, but he felt it wasn't his place to decide whether it was allowed or not.



That ignores the political and economic situation of the times. The wealthy plantation owners, which owned the majority of the slaves, had control of the pulpit and the resources. They used this power to enrage the masses. Considering that an an overwhelming majority of Southern land owners didn't own slaves, it helps explain why they would go fight and possibly die to preserve slavery.



Yet not mentioned a single time in any of the letters of secession. Slavery and states' rights, however, a different story.



I'm half-agreeing with you. Slavery was not the sole reason for the civil war. But to say it had no part? I can't go there with you.

Oh it certainly had a part, I won't disagree with you on that. But the uneducated like to demonize the South far more than it deserves. What they ignore is that most of the Confederate army consisted of poor farmers who could never even dream of affording a slave. They fought, what they felt, was a source of oppression. To claim they fought only for slavery is to dishonor some of the bravest Americans who ever lived. Now I'm not saying you would ever do that. You clearly seem quite educated on the subject, and I never meant any hostility between us. Any condescension you may have felt I was directing towards you was entirely unintended.

And to the person who called me a... what was it, "Lincoln-hating libertarian" or something to that effect? Yes, I'll have you know that I'm currently employed, quite happily, by the Federal government. So I don't think that description quite fits. I'm just an admirer of great men, such as Robert E. Lee and the brave soldiers who fought under his command.

[kouby]

I... what? What is this even supposed to mean?
Here's the god damn wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
If you believe that Robert E. Lee owned slaves, I'd recommend you contact a historian at the Smithsonian. Because apparently you know something they don't.

I guess for a libertarian to not understand the concept of someone expressing an opinion opposed to what he truly believes is alien. It's probably why you guys didn't see Ron Paul coming a mile away with his "let the people die on the streets" economic program.

btw your own wikipedia link clearly shows the state of mind of your dear character in his 1856 letter to his wife "The painful discipline they are undergoing[slavery], is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things."

Now you can say that the guy had nice feelings, or good intentions, or whatever, the fact remains that he viewed the slaves as inferior beings in need of "painful discipline" to "instruct their race". Maybe where you come from that's humane behaviour, from where I come it's called thinly veiled racism.
Oh and he fought a war against someone campaigning to end slavery, and not simply liberate some token slaves.

So... I fail to see how you proved that the civil war was not mostly fought over slavery? I'm waiting (but sleepy)

[vastx]

The Corwin Amendment

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

Corwin proposed his own text as a substitute and those who opposed him failed on a vote of 68 to 121. The House then declined to give the resolution the required two-thirds vote, with a tally of 120 to 61, and then of 123 to 71.[7][8] On February 28, 1861, however, the House approved Corwin's version by a vote of 133 to 65.[9] The contentious debate in the House was relieved by abolitionist Republican Owen Lovejoy of Illinois, who questioned the amendment's reach: "Does that include polygamy, the other twin relic of barbarism?" Missouri Democrat John S. Phelps answered: "Does the gentleman desire to know whether he shall be prohibited from committing that crime?"[5]

On March 2, 1861, the United States Senate adopted it, 24 to 12.[10] Since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. The Senators and Representatives from the seven slave states that had already declared their secession from the Union did not vote on the Corwin Amendment,[11] as they had already vacated their seats in Congress.[citation needed] The resolution called for the amendment to be submitted to the state legislatures and to be adopted "when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures."[12] Its supporters believed it had a greater chance of success in the legislatures of the Southern states than in their conventions, which were voting to secede from the Union just as Congress was considering the Corwin Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

And the South seceded anyway.

[Chonogo]

It wasn't slavery so much as the fact that the north had a ton more votes and much more money and could pretty much override anything the south wanted to do if they so desired. iirc a majority of the states who rebelled didn't even put Lincoln on the ballot and he still won the popular vote.

Yet the Democratic party(party of the South, states rights, and slavery) had 2/3 majority in the Senate and House for years. Not until the Republican party started becoming more and more opposed to slavery did the tides turn.

Personally I think it was a false condition towards a reason to secede. Unless slavery's part of that discussion.

My overall point here - no matter what reasons there were for the lead-up to the civil war, and the fighting of it, you can not rationally be able to remove slavery as the core of it.

[kouby]

And to the person who called me a... what was it, "Lincoln-hating libertarian" or something to that effect? Yes, I'll have you know that I'm currently employed, quite happily, by the Federal government. So I don't think that description quite fits. I'm just an admirer of great men, such as Robert E. Lee and the brave soldiers who fought under his command.

WHADAFOK? So you admire brave secessionists yet work for the oppressor? how the fuck does that work out?

[Chonogo]

Oh it certainly had a part, I won't disagree with you on that. But the uneducated like to demonize the South far more than it deserves. What they ignore is that most of the Confederate army consisted of poor farmers who could never even dream of affording a slave. They fought, what they felt, was a source of oppression. To claim they fought only for slavery is to dishonor some of the bravest Americans who ever lived. Now I'm not saying you would ever do that. You clearly seem quite educated on the subject, and I never meant any hostility between us. Any condescension you may have felt I was directing towards you was entirely unintended.

Yeah that's why I made sure to point out that when you said "wasn't fought over slavery", that your wording was off. And no biggie on the condescension part, we're both adults, and besides, my avatar was inspired by you!

[Porimlys]

Swazi - I just want to point something else out here with the birth control thing.

I'm married, for 15 years. In our early years of marriage, we weren't ready for children. But, like most married couples, we enjoyed having sex with each other. In order to best protect ourselves, and still enjoy sex to its fullest, my wife chose to take birth control, which she took every day.

Are you suggesting my wife is a slut? That we're sex freaks? Because that's where your logic(and Rush's) goes. And that's precisely why Rush got what he deserved when he made those comments. Because of normal people like my wife and myself, who know what the fuck birth control is, and how it works.

My favorite part of this post is the way you're still slut shaming. "Not everyone who uses birth control is like those other sluts and whores!"

[obdigore]

Yet the Democratic party(party of the South, states rights, and slavery) had 2/3 majority in the Senate and House for years. Not until the Republican party started becoming more and more opposed to slavery did the tides turn.

Personally I think it was a false condition towards a reason to secede. Unless slavery's part of that discussion.

My overall point here - no matter what reasons there were for the lead-up to the civil war, and the fighting of it, you can not rationally be able to remove slavery as the core of it.

I'm aware. It is hard to condense the reasons and history of the civil war into a small statement while I'm arguing with people about what the Second Amendment actually means in another thread.

Pretty much, the rich white men in the south realized that they didn't have the power to control their own destinies, and so they decided to secede and make their own southern country where they could. Slavery was a major issue where the north and the south disagreed, and it was instrumental in proving (as was Lincolns election) that the South didn't have the power to dictate terms, or even bargain on an even basis, with the north any longer. Power was the crux of the matter, as it so often is, regardless in the reasons wrapped around it.

[Chonogo]

btw your own wikipedia link clearly shows the state of mind of your dear character in his 1856 letter to his wife "The painful discipline they are undergoing[slavery], is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things."

Now you can say that the guy had nice feelings, or good intentions, or whatever, the fact remains that he viewed the slaves as inferior beings in need of "painful discipline" to "instruct their race". Maybe where you come from that's humane behaviour, from where I come it's called thinly veiled racism.
Oh and he fought a war against someone campaigning to end slavery, and not simply liberate some token slaves.

This is a big problem with looking at history. You must understand the context of the times. Lee's thoughts towards black people, at the time, would be considered a moderate to liberal position.

Lincoln himself was in the process of working out a way to have all black people sent to Liberia, because he felt the races didn't mix, and never would. He abhorred slavery always, but he still considered black people "lesser". That was pretty forward thinking back in the 1860's.
He backed away from that after having conversations with people like Frederick Douglas talk to him.

Just thought I'd point that out.

[Kalyyn]

Regarding the tariffs. Think about it for a second. Why would the federal government impose tariffs on the South's exports? Would it be absurd to argue that they did it so help choke off the establishment of slavery? I don't think it was done to oppress Southerners because they talk funny or other strange reason.

There had to be a reason for the tariffs. Slavery was that reason. More than likely, they decided that if they can't talk people out of owning slaves, perhaps they can starve them. It still comes back to slavery though. And just needed a spark. Missouri Compromise, probably bitterness over the tariffs, all masked by the wealthy plantation owners as an oppressive Federal government.

This is a strong possibility, no doubt. Most wars are started in a similar way. The catalyst usually isn't slavery, but somebody is upset because they money isn't moving the way it should. But I would point out the great numbers that the confederacy was able to rally to it's cause, and the fervor with which the confederate armies fought. Now again, these were mostly poor farm boys. And they were pissed as all hell at the government. Assuming your theory is correct, this means that whatever the North was doing to shut down those wealthy plantation owners, it was destroying the quality of life for everyone around them. That shows a callous disregard for the people of that region. They weren't just targeting wealthy businessmen; they were demolishing entire economies. The cause was noble, don't get me wrong. But it seems somewhat akin to burning down a village to find a single thief. There are better ways to do it that will hurt less people. Can you kind of see where I'm coming from here?

[Chonogo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

And the South seceded anyway.

Because they were already a new Confederate country. 7 states had already seceded, and Lincoln had made a call for troops, an action the South saw as treasonous. The damage was already done, it was a last ditch effort that got very little attention, considering that the majority of Southern congressman(Democrats) had vacated their seats in protest of the 1860 election of Lincoln.

Ironically though, that amendment is still on the books. The states could technically decide to troll us all and go ratify it.

[Kalyyn]

WHADAFOK? So you admire brave secessionists yet work for the oppressor? how the fuck does that work out?

You don't have to agree with the men you admire. I love America and I'm glad it staid together. But I admire all great generals, and all brave soldiers.

Yeah that's why I made sure to point out that when you said "wasn't fought over slavery", that your wording was off. And no biggie on the condescension part, we're both adults, and besides, my avatar was inspired by you!

Oh yes, the lawn darts! I had forgotten about that! Probably the best avatar I've ever seen, hands down.