War Room Lounge V36: Liquor in the rear, too

[Sketch]

The southern political class absolutely wanted war. That's why they started a war lol.
Also, the entirety of Bleeding Kansas kinda sorta flies directly in the face of your entire apologist narrative, bud.

As someone who identifies as American, I must say the civil war is a very confusing and troubling time for us and our past history.

 

[Captain Davis]

The southern political class absolutely wanted war. That's why they started a war lol.
Also, the entirety of Bleeding Kansas kinda sorta flies directly in the face of your entire apologist narrative, bud.

Dude Kansas was a shit show from both sides. Both sides flooded Kansas to sway the vote. Ultimately, the Yankees got more representation. To blame the South for that fiasco is disingenuous and you know it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Dude Kansas was a shit show from both sides. Both sides flooded Kansas to sway the vote. Ultimately, the Yankees got more representation. To blame the South for that fiasco is disingenuous and you know it.

That's not what i'm doing, and you've missed my point.

 

[Captain Davis]

The above highlighted sections are why your analysis continues to be stunted, Cap. First of all, I never said that, second of all I wouldn't say that, and third, if I did, I wouldn't say it like that.
You're creating this monolithic normative position, which is unsound, and then dismissing it with further such constructs.
The planter class was protecting slavery, the entire base of their social and political power structure, and refusing to allow for sharing of power with the political opposition.
I'm trying to move you away from "moral reasons" because analyzing history from a normative vantage point is fundamentally problematic.

I emphasize that because most people, especially the goobers in here that badger me about it, believe those were the sole reasons.

Regardless, you are in no position to question my beliefs. If there was a cut and dry answer, there would be no debates, however people still do with no clear cut answers. Most people’s beliefs are going to be based on their perceptions.

Also, just to be clear, would there have been a war if the economic side of the conflict was nonexistent?

 

[Limbo Pete]

As someone who identifies as American, I must say the civil war is a very confusing and troubling time for us and our past history.

You could say it was a tough transition

 

[BarryDillon]

The southern political class absolutely wanted war. That's why they started a war lol.
Also, the entirety of Bleeding Kansas kinda sorta flies directly in the face of your entire apologist narrative, bud.

John Brown is a god damn American hero.

 

[Lead]

I want my name in red. How do we make that happen?

Think the work you do as president and the times it by 50

 

[LMP]

Think the work you do as president and the times it by 50

Can we give him a pink belt?

 

[Captain Davis]

That's not what i'm doing, and you've missed my point.

I’m asking you a yes or no question.

Your deflection gives me my answer though.

 

[Captain Davis]

John Brown is a god damn American hero.

He was actually a true abolitionist. He was batshit crazy, but he lived and died for his cause. That is admirable.

 

[Islam Imamate]

There is truth to everything you are saying. However, the moral side of slavery was nothing more than an irritant to Lincoln. It wasn’t important enough for him to go to war over.

If you want to understand why the Confederate fought, read their memoirs. You never see anything about fighting over slaves. That only applied to the plantation owners. The Confederates genuinely believed in state sovereignty. Lincoln shit all over that idea.

The slavery overreaction early on was fueled by the fire eaters in South Carolina who were chomping at the bit to secede due to the ridiculous taxation by the federal government.

Lincoln was elected without one Southern vote. When he stated that he was against slavery spreading westward, the South heard, I am going to change everything and there is nothing you can do about it. This was irrational fear, because Lincoln never said that. The plantation owners were afraid that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery and they would not be compensated for it.

Both sections wanted their stake on the new territory. The transcontinental railroad played a huge role in this as well.

Also 4 states waited to join the Confederacy after Lincoln continued to act like a tyrant.

The Confederates really believed this was a second revolution. The soldiers never even mentioned slavery in their writings.

Also, read up on how the majority of Federal soldiers felt about fighting for slaves. That will be an eye opener as well.

That's all well and good, I am not in the business of demonizing the South or every Southerner and that includes Civil War soldiers. But the reality is that the opinions of these people did not have the impact on policy that the political and economic elites did and the political and economic elites, the architects of the Confederacy and its policies, were primarily interested in the institution of slavery and its preservation.

As for the Union, of course they were acting based on realpolitik and not primarily motivated by moral reasons. Lincoln was known to personally be against slavery and in favor of its abolition but he saw that his duty as president was to act in the interests of the nation and not on his personal morals. Which is why he said that he would preserve slavery if it preserved the Union because he saw the preservation of the Union as better for the whole.

Sure, in the sense that one thing exists (profit-motive) and the other doesn't (ethics to justify slavery).

Forcing the states to remain part of the union was/is immoral.

Wait what? That absolutely existed. Its true that as the 19th century progressed the idea of slavery become more and more morally repugnant and that an economic argument was increasingly used in its justification but there were without a doubt people who existed at the time that believed that slavery was an ethical institution and that society was better off with it than without it. That may not have been the sentiment of the rank and file soldiers or men like Robert E Lee but to deny that it even existed strikes me as bizarre.

 

[Fawlty]

John Brown is a god damn American hero.

Let's carve him into Stone Mountain

 

[BarryDillon]

Let's carve him into Stone Mountain

FDR, Henry Wallace, and John Brown.

 

[all caps]

You people are fucking crazy

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Can we give him a pink belt?

Red, motherfucker. Red.

Its true that as the 19th century progressed the idea of slavery become more and more morally repugnant and that an economic argument was increasingly used in its justification but there were without a doubt people who existed at the time that believed that slavery was an ethical institution and that society was better off with it than without it.

People can rationalize anything. Not sure I could argue it amoral, let alone ethical.

 

[Jack V Savage]

History is a pack of lies told by the winners.

Often (as in this case), the more successful pack of lies is told by the losers (unless you consider the South to have won through post-war terrorist campaigns to prevent black equality and reinstitute slavery through the prison system).

 

[Captain Davis]

That's all well and good, I am not in the business of demonizing the South or every Southerner and that includes Civil War soldiers. But the reality is that the opinions of these people did not have the impact on policy that the political and economic elites did and the political and economic elites, the architects of the Confederacy and its policies, were primarily interested in the institution of slavery and its preservation.

As for the Union, of course they were acting based on realpolitik and not primarily motivated by moral reasons. Lincoln was known to personally be against slavery and in favor of its abolition but he saw that his duty as president was to act in the interests of the nation and not on his personal morals. Which is why he said that he would preserve slavery if it preserved the Union because he saw the preservation of the Union as better for the whole.

Wait what? That absolutely existed. Its true that as the 19th century progressed the idea of slavery become more and more morally repugnant and that an economic argument was increasingly used in its justification but there were without a doubt people who existed at the time that believed that slavery was an ethical institution and that society was better off with it than without it. That may not have been the sentiment of the rank and file soldiers or men like Robert E Lee but to deny that it even existed strikes me as bizarre.

I am not denying anything you are saying here. Except that Lincoln cared anything about black people. He was against slavery, but not because he believed that the black man was equal to whites. It had to do with the value of work. He was interested in the idea of the American dream. To draw people to work and invest in land. He was actually for compensated emancipation, but the leaders in the Republican party were against it. They thought it would be too expensive. That would have solved it on that end. That is how all other nations ended slavery in their countries.

However, Lincoln never intended for the races to mix. And he certainly believed that whites were superior.

There were people who justified slavery. There were a variety of reasons.

There were also abolitionists on both sides.

Hell, my second cousins were the Solomon’s of Winston County, Alabama. Check that out if you get a chance.

However, the bottom line to all of this is, without the economic side of it, there would have been no war.

 

[LMP]

Red, motherfucker. Red

<{cruzshake}>

 

[Captain Davis]

You people are fucking crazy

What do you mean “you people?”

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

<{cruzshake}>

Yeah, like the color of Dom's shirt.