War Room Lounge V36: Liquor in the rear, too

[LMP]

Yeah, like the color of Dom's shirt.

That does it, @Lead it is time to change this man's name to yellow.

 

[Limbo Pete]

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?

I'm not interested in beliefs. It's your analysis that I question. And you know that i'm a historian and therefore in a direct position to question it.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not interested in beliefs. It's your analysis that I question. And you know that i'm a historian and therefore in a direct position to question it.

I heard that all you do is lie because you were the winner.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I’m asking you a yes or no question.

Your deflection gives me my answer though.

Your "questions" are part of the problem. Counterfactuals, sweeping normative judgements, etc. make for poor analysis.

 

[Islam Imamate]

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 bought 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.

Of course but that can be said for pretty much any modern war. People like to talk about how Churchill bravely advocated against Nazi Germany but he did so not because of his morals but because he saw Nazi Germany as a dangerous rival for the British Empire. That is why people were skeptical of Churchill's appeals, there was such an obvious ulterior motive behind them as evidenced by the fact that he also spoke out vehemently against Gandhi.

States governed by public institutions will only act on morals when there's a consensus across society or at least the political elites in control of said public institutions. More often than not realpolitik tends to drive the aggregate opinion of public institutions.

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

Whether or not you personally find it ethical doesn't change the fact that there did exist an argument for slavery that was ostensibly rooted in ethical concerns. Of course in hindsight we find those arguments morally confused and bankrupt but that's not how the people of the time saw it necessarily.

 

[Trotsky]

Neither side does. Blacks were freed and the states became enslaved to the federal system. The North could have both freed the slaves and recognized state sovereignty.

That's not how it works.

That's not how any of this works.

You don't get the dictate the terms of governance of a state whilst also recognizing its political sovereignty. If you're holding veto power over a political unit, it is not sovereign.The constitutional federalist regime was already such that states were/are considered to have maximal freedom consistent with shared prosperity and protection.

The South, and by that I mean the planter class aristocracy, wanted to control the federal government. Their entire worldview and social-economic system was based on an incredibly rigid class structure of power privilege that made sharing it less and less possible as the years went on. There were broad, popular movements in the south for many years supporting filibusters (not to be confused with the Senate term) that forcibly invaded other countries to try and set up slave empires/whatever. The southern people, like those in the north, were largely dissociated from how and why the war actually manifested (outside, of course, voting). The failure to reach a political compromise on the future of slavery, specifically regarding the Fugitive Slave Act (so much for not liking federal overreach and respecting state's rights) coupled with a bad election cycle, pushed the planter class into a full rejection of what they saw as permanent political marginalization. In other words, the idea was to take the ball and go home rather than entertain the notion of accepting a result that went the other team's way.
You go on and on about the economic aspects of the war, Cap, making the claim- or at least intimation- that northern industrial/financial greed and economic pillaging was the reason that they refused to let the south leave, let alone invade (never mind that the south fired the first shots).Do you know how many times they mention tariffs in the SC articles of secession? I do. Do you know how many times they mention slavery? I know this as well.

You gotta pull your head out of these memoirs; they aren't some ultimate authority. Primary sources have all sorts of problems and, as i've previously mentioned, require broad context and synthesis with historiographical perspective. The have to be interpreted, and you need to be trained to do so properly. I know this flies in the face of ideas about those damn liberal indoctrination centers, but otherwise you're never going to grow as an amateur historian of anything.

Oof. Baby, when you turn it on, you are a proper delight.

 

[HereticBD]

Any of you Jurassic slapnuts into baseball?

Yup. Looking at a 100 loss season for the Jays this year. Good times.

 

[luckyshot]

It's funny how politics really does divide people. The WR is probably the most hate filled sub here.

Why can't people just chill out when it comes to politics? It's like every other topic is cool, but wham, politics. Time to fight to the death.

And I quote, “Gun-toting neocon? Tree hugging lib? Duke it out in the War Room.”

 

[Sketch]

Yup. Looking at a 100 loss season for the Jays this year. Good times.

Lol, Jays are going to be terrible. Tell me about it.

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

So a deranged lunatic shot 4 people, killing two, yesterday in my neighborhood.

America really needs an overhaul on how were handle the drug crisis in this country.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ttle-shooting-bus-driver-presser-sot-vpx.kiro

 

[Sketch]

And I quote, “Gun-toting neocon? Tree hugging lib? Duke it out in the War Room.”

Hey dude, I asked you earlier;

What do you like about the green bill? What would you edit from the current flesh of it?

As for your quote of the forum slogan, I think it's a fun little quip. But we could both agree it get's really heated in here when it doesn't need to be that way.

 

[luckyshot]

Let's carve him into Stone Mountain

 

[Trotsky]

So a deranged lunatic shot 4 people, killing two, yesterday in my neighborhood.

America really needs an overhaul on how were handle the drug crisis in this country.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ttle-shooting-bus-driver-presser-sot-vpx.kiro

I feel like this is meant to be facetious, but I don't get it

 

[My Spot]

Yup. Looking at a 100 loss season for the Jays this year. Good times.

How old are you? I still remember watching the back to back titles.

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

I feel like this is meant to be facetious, but I don't get it

I hit post reply too fast, and just left it.

But I know this could be a gun issue but I'm pretty sure in this instance the drug issue is the real reason behind the crime. There is no real motive that anyone could tell.

 

[luckyshot]

Hey dude, I asked you earlier;

What do you like about the green bill? What would you edit from the current flesh of it?

As for your quote of the forum slogan, I think it's a fun little quip. But we could both agree it get's really heated in here when it doesn't need to be that way.

I like the part about how climate change might be real and maybe we should try to invest more in renewable energies just in case of, you know, the off chance that all the actual practicing climate scientists in the world turn out not to be stupider than right wing Youtube.

 

[Sketch]

I like the part about how climate change might be real and maybe we should try to invest more in renewable energies just in case of, you know, the off chance that all the actual practicing climate scientists in the world turn out not to be stupider than right wing Youtube.

Stupider is not a word but I agree that we should be looking into climate change a lot more than we currently are.

Anything else about the bill? Like the part(s) about airplanes, cows etc you would edit or change?

 

[Fawlty]

That's...a lot. lol.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Oof. Baby, when you turn it on, you are a proper delight.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That does it, @Lead it is time to change this man's name to yellow.

...there did exist an argument for slavery that was ostensibly rooted in ethical concerns.

You're welcome to make that argument.

That's not how it works.

That's not how any of this works.

You don't get the dictate the terms of governance of a state whilst also recognizing its political sovereignty. If you're holding veto power over a political unit, it is not sovereign.The constitutional federalist regime was already such that states were/are considered to have maximal freedom consistent with shared prosperity and protection.

I don't know what you're talking about.