View Poll Results: Was the civil war worth it

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    38 76.00%
  • no

    12 24.00%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 96

Thread: Was the civil war worth it all

  1. #61
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Was the civil war worth it all

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    I'm talking decisions which would effect national economies in the aggregate .....you know, as a macroeconomics issue. You seem to be looking at it from a microeconomics perspective......or how it only effects local or regionalized producers. Two very different approaches to the same issue.
    Example your view then, rather than assert it is your view without really explaining what you mean?

  2. #62
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Was the civil war worth it all

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Example your view then, rather than assert it is your view without really explaining what you mean?
    I did. In post #51.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  3. #63
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,482

    Re: Was the civil war worth it all

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    *Anybody who's planning on responding to me with some revisionist "but the war wasn't even about slavery" nonsense can move on. Most, if not all, of seceding states listed slavery as their primary concerns and all of the "other" reasons people give for the South wanting to secede from economics to states rights were based in slavery as well.
    Well, too bad because I'm going to respond anyway.

    1. There was never at any time prior to the Civil War a threat of emancipation.

    2. The Southern States never argued that they feared emancipation in existing slave States. Their arguments centered around whether or not NEW States would be slave-holding or free and whether or not Northern States would return fugitive slaves as the law mandated at that time.

    3. There were FAR more pressing issues with real-world consequences in the South, namely import tariffs, than legal and academic debates regarding slavery in future States.

    4. Abraham Lincoln did not have the moral conviction or political support to emancipate slaves without some politically expedient pretext. That pretext turned out to be the fact that emancipating slaves would deal a crippling economic blow to the Confederate States in the middle of a war in which the Union was being thrashed.

    The Civil War was not about slavery, but it brought about its end much sooner than it would have happened had Southerners been content with paying their taxes. So, the answer to the poll question is YES. It was worth it.
    Last edited by Napoleon; 03-20-13 at 12:23 AM.

  4. #64
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,149

    Re: Was the civil war worth it all

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    I stand by his first assumption. It's basically a simple question of economics. The rest of the civilized world had, for the most part, outlawed slavery and the slave trade.....and that means many of our potential trade partners. Simple supply and demand would have dictated an end to slavery. As other nations began to industrialize and find ways to produce commodoties such as sugar, tobacco and cotton more efficiently (and cheaply) .....the United States would have been forced to adapt or die economically speaking in the world markets. Nations that we supplied with cotton and other agricultural products would simply find cheaper sources for their goods.

    The Industrial Revolution was happening with or without the U.S. Question is....do you think that our free-market ideals and laissez faire mentality would have allowed us to lag that far behind by simply holding on to an outdated and inefficient method of production?

    Yes. They would have had slaves working in Southern factories. At least for a while. Realistically, until about the 1930s factory workers in the US were essentially slaves anyway. EVENTUALLY slavery would be illegal. Maybe by now, maybe not. It would make us more competitive in the labor market with China. Why should they have slaves but not us?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  5. #65
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: Was the civil war worth it all

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    It was worth it given that civil war seemed to be what was required to end slavery.

    If they could have ended slavery without having war that would have been preferable, but the South decided to act like a little bitch. Obviously, I would prefer that over 600,000 people not had to die over some bull****.

    *Anybody who's planning on responding to me with some revisionist "but the war wasn't even about slavery" nonsense can move on. Most, if not all, of seceding states listed slavery as their primary concerns and all of the "other" reasons people give for the South wanting to secede from economics to states rights were based in slavery as well.

    **Anybody who's planning on responding to me with some "but the South tried to resolve their differences peacefully, the North got us into this" nonsense can move on too. The South wanted to keep its slaves and it also wanted to secede which isn't permissible, so the North had to shut that **** down. And for those who had to do a double take, you read it right: secession wasn't permissible. Read Texas v. White for more information and if you've got a problem with that, take it up with the Supreme Court.
    (if you'll allow me to add)

    ***Anyone who's planning on responding with the "the US committed an act of aggression by invading the CSA," don't. The war wasn't an invasion of the Confederacy by the United States as the apologists like to pretend. The battle of Fort Sumter was CSA-initiated, on territory that was legally Union territory even if the secession of the states was legal, because Ft. Sumter was military property. Therefore the CSA was the aggressor.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  6. #66
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: Was the civil war worth it all

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    It seems rather clear the Confederacy as a nation would have sided with Germany. Although slavery ended in the South via the Civil War, widespread total bigotry against non-white, non-Christians certainly overwhelmingly dominated Southern society in the 1930s.
    Then the Allies would be less likely to win because the United States would engage in a brutal war with the Confederacy instead of being able to send troops to fight the Japanese in the Pacific and the Nazis in Europe. Even if slavery had ended, as you say it, the South was anti-black and anti-Jewish. Allying with Nazi Germany wouldn't have been beyond the Confederacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  7. #67
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: Was the civil war worth it all

    Quote Originally Posted by Eynon View Post
    I'll go there...so the premise is that the US stays out of Europe during WW2? ok so then:
    -Red Army still wins.
    -Hilter still winds up in a ditch on fire.
    -The longer war weakens the Soviets even more.
    -The weaker Soviet Union stays out of Asia.
    -US focuses more on Pacific.
    -Soviet puppet states of France and Holland are not allowed to re-occupy their Asian possessions.
    -Nationalists defeat Communists in China.
    -Korea is unified under an American backed government.
    -No Korea War, No Great-leap Forward, No Vietnam War, no Cambodian Kill Fields.
    -Millions of lives are saved.
    -backpacking across the recently liberalized european continent is cheaper.
    France was a Soviet puppet state?
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  8. #68
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: Was the civil war worth it all

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Abraham Lincoln Said the following: "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, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

    Also when Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves, it only applied to the Southern states. Missouri, Kentucky, Deleware and Maryland, slave holding states that remained in the Union were exempted from it.
    And he heavily supported the Thirteenth Amendment. He expressed his abolitionism many times over. He did see the preserving of the Union as more important, but he also intended to free the slaves.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  9. #69
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,928
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Was the civil war worth it all

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    And he heavily supported the Thirteenth Amendment. He expressed his abolitionism many times over. He did see the preserving of the Union as more important, but he also intended to free the slaves.
    Which he did.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  10. #70
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,551
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Was the civil war worth it all

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    It was not slander at all. To claim he believed that eventually slaves would have been freed anyway decades later - as if time stands still and if there would be no more slaves breed by rape and seized imported over the next decades - if slavery ever stopped at all - is not the irrelevancy as he asserts in silence.

    There would be no different than if I claimed WWII was not worth it because eventually Nazism would have failed, ultimately all nations would have regained their freedom and ultimately the killing of Jews would eventually stop... with all that happening within a few decades and no more than 1 or 2 more generations - and - because I speculate all that - I claim WWII was an unnecessary waste of lives and resources.

    Such is absurd and declares enslaving nations, people and genocide doesn't really matter much if you believe that will not continue for all eternity - as if when you are confident that within only half a century more or so it will end. Slavery is the ultimate evil. The number to suffer and die as slaves in his model? 4,000,000. Now many more imported, enslaved, and enslaved from birth within his time frame? 2-4,000,000 more - for which he shrugs his shoulders at all that... not even worth consideration to him. They were just cattle.

    How many decades are you willing for you, your children and all your relative now and born being slaves with no legal protections whatsoever?

    The OP is well known for bigotries. Raging that people with HIV/AIDS should not only be allowed to die, but deserve to die. Raging incessantly against people with religious bigotries... etc. The consistencies of the OP and the history is relevant - and to claim otherwise is to claim a person cannot claim the KKK is a racist organization by looking to it's history. The OPer has a history on this forum. So his OP trivializing blacks in slavery and that entire generation, an entire next generation born, and all those also seized in African all are just ... well, NOTHING. He ONLY counts white people who died in war. Not the millions dying in slavery.

    At least those who died in war died as free men - and they were in war at least as the result of a Democratic Republic. Not one slave voted to be a slave. Not to be born as a slave. Not to be worked as a slave. Not to be beaten, whipped, raped, inpregnated and murdered as a slave. Not to be captures and pressed into slavery. Not to die as a slave.
    Given your outrage over slavery and your characterization of it as "the ultimate evil" I'm curious as to why you never seem to post anything about slavery that goes on today all over the world. It's not just you, there seems to be a lack of concern and attention for this in general. Why is this the case? Why is the plight of people enslaved in modern times getting so little attention from the bleeding hearts in the West?

    Perhaps they never really cared. Certainly, progressives in America in pre-Civil War days had no problem at all with slavery. Indeed, they had "scientific" explanations for why people of color were inferior and bondage was justified. The only strong push toward abolition of slavery came from strongly Christian groups, the same sort that are routinely derided these days. The main attention that progressives had for people of color after the Civil War was mainly in terms of eugenics -- eliminating undesirable blood lines. Such was the impulse behind the founding of Planned Parenthood, to reduce the numbers of people of color and other "undesirables", and it's an effort that goes on even today and is highly effective.

    If progressives had established as an aim the destruction of the black community, the destruction of black society and the black family, and the genocidal elimination of the black race, then white progressives could hardly have done a better job of it short of organizing death squads. (Here I might mention the KKK, which were all Democrats, but I hesitate to call them progressive.)

    It's almost like all this concern for slavery in America coming from the left is just a bunch of partisan rhetoric and protective coloration that hides their true aims. The same goes for the obsessive harping on identity politics and the constant effort to demonize and marginalize political opponents.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •