War Room Lounge V47: The Cool Kids are in the Over-40 Club

Hey asshole, how old are you? (Cool people are over 40)


  • Total voters
    55
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fight me.

For once, lay it out there. I want to be wowed by your vast knowledge of 19th century history. You always reply to me in some condescending manner, as if you are above any conversation. You are a “real” historian and I am just an ignorant simpleton with a measly high school education.

If you or anyone here wants to put this up for debate, let’s do it.
giphy.gif
 
My wife made fast forward through the dog killing scene in Chernobyl.

Easily the saddest scene(s) of the show.

It made me realize that I honestly would have a harder time executing dogs than humans. The puppies would be easier, though, since they aren't as aware or intelligent. The adult dogs, though, that are smart and are predisposed to trust you yet don't understand what's happening? Nope. No way.
 
JFC, I miss the sitcom discussion and instead get stuck with the South Shall Rise Again semi-annual @Limbo Pete Historian callout.

fml.
 
That was a great read, thanks.

I think in making her excellent points, she undersells the 1860 Northern coalition's makeup w/respect to aversion to slavery, and not just slave owners. With slavery being so intertwined into the fabric of the country, it was something that was almost impossible to peacefully unwind. There isn't a good analogy for it, but abolition was as radical an idea as something like banning the use of cheap foreign labor while giving all illegal immigrants citizenship, at least for its scale and impact (and the label of "abolitionist" was something akin to labeling an American a "communist" during the Cold War). Except more radical than all of that, probably. Yet anti-slavery people (not just anti-slave-economy people) made up a real, live, morally influential part of the new party, without which it would probably not have won. A lot of antislavery beliefs were held down by the political impossibility of the proposal. It was a question of pragmatism vs. idealism for many, especially because everybody knew the Union was at stake.

I guess the difficulty of that moral stand lies somewhere between defying Nazi Germany and being a Never-Trumper. I don't think I would have been an abolitionist myself. Probably a Free Soiler who talked about how bad slavery was, and opposed it, but wanted to pick a fight at stopping the expansion of slavery rather than forcing the civil war that came anyway.

Imagine knowing that something is morally reprehensible and must be stopped, yet having no recourse to end it short of civil war, and trying to compromise- only to be forced into war anyway. That's the position every morally-forward but pragmatic person in America was in.

Yup, just look at Lincoln. It his well documented that he found slavery to immoral and thought it should be ended but he also made it clear he wasn't an abolitionist because he thought it was unconstitutional. So he wanted to stop it's expansion along with southern aggression like the refugee/slave act along with slowly having the government buy slaves from their owners to free them.

But to some people that boils down to Lincoln and the North not caring about slavery at all and somehow showing aggression
 
Yup, just look at Lincoln. It his well documented that he found slavery to immoral and thought it should be ended but he also made it clear he wasn't an abolitionist because he thought it was unconstitutional. So he wanted to stop it's expansion along with southern aggression like the refugee/slave act along with slowly having the government buy slaves from their owners to free them.

But to some people that boils down to Lincoln and the North not caring about slavery at all and somehow showing aggression
Getting the 13th Amendment through the House when and how it did should disabuse people of their lame ass notions that he didn't care about slaves. And yet, here we are.
 
Getting the 13th Amendment through the House when and how it did should disabuse people of their lame ass notions that he didn't care about slaves. And yet, here we are.

That was just because he hated white people though. He was a self-hating masochistic white SJW who was obsessed with identity politics while the Southerners were just trying to focus on real issues.
 
And then there are guys like this


giphy.gif

stupid memes. trite images. history majors are fuckin boring too. Go find a job on Wall St and make millions, I am sure many would be willing to hire you.
 
BTW, I took my folks to the Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, IL last weekend. Really, really incredible stuff. The political cartoons and excerpts from slave/Confederate-supporting pundits from the time were especially great/crazy.

Here's the eloquence and enduring historical accuracy of one of the conservatives' most ardent supporters, Wilbur Storey:

But one man was more impressed: Wilbur F. Storey, arch-conservative editor of the Lincoln-hating Chicago Times. A year before, when he described Lincoln’s speech at Gettysburg as “silly, flat and dishwatery utterances,” he was being relatively subdued in his criticism. Months before, he had said that “history does not acquaint us with so deplorable a failure as this administration,” and held up the coming Emancipation Proclamation as proof of what he’d said all along: that Lincoln was coming to take people’s slaves. This was no war to preserve the union, he said, but a contest to free “the debased and irredeemably barbarous negro.” The [Emancipation] proclamation itself, he said “Will be known in all history as the most wicked, atrocious and revolting deed recorded in the annals of civilization.”(That the war was something to do with states’ rights would not become a conservative talking point for decades).

Even this was not Storey at his worst. Though far more loquacious than most modern cable news loudmouths, some of his racial ramblings would fit in fine among alt-right commenters on youtube. In 1862 he complained that rather than caring about the rights of white men, congress had “n—r on the brain, n—r in the bowels, n—r in the eyes, n—r, n—r everywhere….all powers have found their superior in the great n—r power that moves the huge, unwieldy, reeking and stewing mess of rottenness which makes up this administration and its party.” Though it’s common now for detractors to claim that Lincoln didn’t do enough for the slaves, or that he was really just as big of a racist as any slave-holder, Storey’s rants (and his paper’s popularity) can be useful in showing just what Lincoln was up against.

Naturally, Storey supported McClellan in 1864, and covered the Democrat Convention as though it was the Second Coming (it’s useful to note that the parties of 1864 were very different; Storey referred to his party as both “The democrats” and “conservatives,” while referring to republicans as “the abolitionist party.”)

@Captain Davis @Limbo Pete
 
Yup, just look at Lincoln. It his well documented that he found slavery to immoral and thought it should be ended but he also made it clear he wasn't an abolitionist because he thought it was unconstitutional. So he wanted to stop it's expansion along with southern aggression like the refugee/slave act along with slowly having the government buy slaves from their owners to free them.

But to some people that boils down to Lincoln and the North not caring about slavery at all and somehow showing aggression

Lincoln also described the capitalist system as ''wage slavery.'' He really did. That's so fucking based. Lincoln you big commie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top