"Things liberals are responsible for"

[72o]

Liberals are responsible for pissing me off daily.

[thegreekdog]

Listen Beans... I never once asserted that the American Civil War was all about slavery. Do you know why? Because it was not all about slavery. Perhaps you should go back and read. I did point out that you were using the word "succeed" instead of "secede" which, frankly, kind of proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly, I think you read some book by some crazy guy dealing with revisionist history and how the "victors write the books" and all that, and have regurgitated (and by regurgitated I mean vomitted) the ideas onto this thread in some attempt to be intelligent, I don't know.

However, perhaps if you made a post with some bullets showing your views on the causes and prosecution of the American Civil War by the North, I could address each one in turn. I'd be interested to read your viewpoints so that I may adequately debunk this rather jaded and horrible education you have received.

[thegreekdog]

Wait, really? He has been? Interesting.

I wonder how future generations will look back on our actions today. I wish more politicians thought about posterity too, instead of when they'll get their next waverunner.

He said that the Senators that were blocking the passage of universal healthcare reminded him of the Senators who blocked the emancipation of the slaves and civil rights. Apart from being completely ridiculous and offensive, he neglected to figure out that there is at least one Democrat Senator still in office who blocked the civil rights act. But, anyway, I find all that kind of rhetoric atrocious, especially since Mr. Reid won't actually let anyone argue the facts; rather, they have to get this bill passed as soon as possible (cynically, they want to so that they won't have to go back to their states and hear about how their constituents don't actually want this bill). Anyway, whatever.

[Woodruff]

I'm confused....do your textbooks really say the war was solely fought for the liberation of slaves?

Not in any textbook I've seen.

[Woodruff]

You're all full of shit. There is no singularity to the cause for war. The reasons are as numerous as the stars in the sky, and as individual as we Americans like to think ourselves to be.

Many thousands of men gave their lives for the cause of abolition.

Many thousands of men gave their lives for the perceived invasion of their homes.

Stop pissing on their graves and just accept that there are no easy answers. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than a 200-300 word post on an internet forum can possibly convey.

And stop pushing this bullshit lie that the war was definitely NOT about slavery. It absolutely was to a great many people. It was also about a shit load of other things. I don't know why people are so quick to say it absolutely wasn't about slavery, but I suspect it's because they want to discount the sacrifice purchased in blood for freedom and remain bitter (or because they perceive it as a slight against their heritage of owning slaves). Things aren't so simple. Many white men shed their blood so the black man could be free. It's insulting to be told that is categorically false.

As a side note, the truly ironic thing about the Confederacy was that in order to wage war effectively, it needed to have the same centralized power that they were rebelling against. Jefferson Davis even said that. Often.

You claim "things aren't so simple" then you turn around and follow that up with the most simplistic statement in this thread so far. If you want to believe in fairy tails, go right ahead. You will be in wide company. But if you want to know the truth, I am sure that you CAN handle it. Just ask yourself a simple question. How could the very same people that slaughtered every Indian in their own region, Go fight and die to free "savages" in someone Else's home region ?

Where did you get the idea that everyone went out and slaughtered Indians? You sure have a black-and-white view of history.

[porkenbeans]

I mean, shit, I bet a lot of Germans around WW2 didn't give a flying f*ck about jews either way too. Probably a few high-ranking generals had no problem with them, but that doesn't mean that one of the major things wasn't the persecution of jews.

It was not so much the persecution of Jews, as it was the chest thumping "we are # 1" superiority attitude that the Germans as a whole, locked goose step with. Just like The American Civil War, It was a time of depression and hardship. This is a time when the masses will always be susceptible to leaders that would take advantage of this fact. I have seen it happen over and over again throughout human history. That is why I speak against the "we are #1" chest thumper's, when ever I encounter them. People in general are followers. and in times of hardship, are even more apt to enthusiastically follow along with the cheering crowd that chants the "we are #1" slogan. It makes them feel better about themselves in times of woe.

Have you ever watched the faces on the people that cheered for Hitler. Those were not the faces of deranged killers. They were faces of pride swelled, and happy people that truly believed they were #1, and the reason for all their troubles, were all of those lesser races, that were infesting their homeland. Or was it "fatherland". Homeland, motherland or fatherland, it is all just a way to separate ourselves, from the family of man.

A lot of people think that Hitler started all of his bullshit because he just hated Jews. Yeah, he hated them, along with everyone that was NOT of German blood. But he also hated those that were of German blood that were not perfect, such as mentally and physically challenged Germans. Some of his very first exterminations were aimed at these flawed humans of his own race.

[porkenbeans]

You're all full of shit. There is no singularity to the cause for war. The reasons are as numerous as the stars in the sky, and as individual as we Americans like to think ourselves to be.

Many thousands of men gave their lives for the cause of abolition.

Many thousands of men gave their lives for the perceived invasion of their homes.

Stop pissing on their graves and just accept that there are no easy answers. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than a 200-300 word post on an internet forum can possibly convey.

And stop pushing this bullshit lie that the war was definitely NOT about slavery. It absolutely was to a great many people. It was also about a shit load of other things. I don't know why people are so quick to say it absolutely wasn't about slavery, but I suspect it's because they want to discount the sacrifice purchased in blood for freedom and remain bitter (or because they perceive it as a slight against their heritage of owning slaves). Things aren't so simple. Many white men shed their blood so the black man could be free. It's insulting to be told that is categorically false.

As a side note, the truly ironic thing about the Confederacy was that in order to wage war effectively, it needed to have the same centralized power that they were rebelling against. Jefferson Davis even said that. Often.

You claim "things aren't so simple" then you turn around and follow that up with the most simplistic statement in this thread so far. If you want to believe in fairy tails, go right ahead. You will be in wide company. But if you want to know the truth, I am sure that you CAN handle it. Just ask yourself a simple question. How could the very same people that slaughtered every Indian in their own region, Go fight and die to free "savages" in someone Else's home region ?

Where did you get the idea that everyone went out and slaughtered Indians? You sure have a black-and-white view of history.

Show me where I said anything like that. You do not need to pick up a gun and kill someone to be involved in the murder. Inaction and apathy put you in the same boat as the ones that did the killing. Especially when you and your offspring get to share in the spoils.

[porkenbeans]

Listen Beans... I never once asserted that the American Civil War was all about slavery. Do you know why? Because it was not all about slavery. Perhaps you should go back and read. I did point out that you were using the word "succeed" instead of "secede" which, frankly, kind of proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly, I think you read some book by some crazy guy dealing with revisionist history and how the "victors write the books" and all that, and have regurgitated (and by regurgitated I mean vomitted) the ideas onto this thread in some attempt to be intelligent, I don't know.

However, perhaps if you made a post with some bullets showing your views on the causes and prosecution of the American Civil War by the North, I could address each one in turn. I'd be interested to read your viewpoints so that I may adequately debunk this rather jaded and horrible education you have received.

What kind of an idiot thinks that because some one misspells a word, they don't know what they are talking about.

[thegreekdog]

Listen Beans... I never once asserted that the American Civil War was all about slavery. Do you know why? Because it was not all about slavery. Perhaps you should go back and read. I did point out that you were using the word "succeed" instead of "secede" which, frankly, kind of proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly, I think you read some book by some crazy guy dealing with revisionist history and how the "victors write the books" and all that, and have regurgitated (and by regurgitated I mean vomitted) the ideas onto this thread in some attempt to be intelligent, I don't know.

However, perhaps if you made a post with some bullets showing your views on the causes and prosecution of the American Civil War by the North, I could address each one in turn. I'd be interested to read your viewpoints so that I may adequately debunk this rather jaded and horrible education you have received.

What kind of an idiot thinks that because some one misspells a word, they don't know what they are talking about.

Good answer.

[porkenbeans]

Listen Beans... I never once asserted that the American Civil War was all about slavery. Do you know why? Because it was not all about slavery. Perhaps you should go back and read. I did point out that you were using the word "succeed" instead of "secede" which, frankly, kind of proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly, I think you read some book by some crazy guy dealing with revisionist history and how the "victors write the books" and all that, and have regurgitated (and by regurgitated I mean vomitted) the ideas onto this thread in some attempt to be intelligent, I don't know.

However, perhaps if you made a post with some bullets showing your views on the causes and prosecution of the American Civil War by the North, I could address each one in turn. I'd be interested to read your viewpoints so that I may adequately debunk this rather jaded and horrible education you have received.

What kind of an idiot thinks that because some one misspells a word, they don't know what they are talking about.

Good answer.

Why don't you start by just addressing the ones that I have already proposed ?

[pimpdave]

Just like The American Civil War, It was a time of depression and hardship. This is a time when the masses will always be susceptible to leaders that would take advantage of this fact.

So then, you piece of human filth, why did my wealthy ancestors, who could have ridden out the war in total luxury and were in positions of influence VOLUNTEER TO DIE for their belief in equality of all? To free the slaves? f*ck you.

Choke on your lies. Choke on your bitterness, you worthless fool.

[the.killing.44]

I mean, shit, I bet a lot of Germans around WW2 didn't give a flying f*ck about jews either way too. Probably a few high-ranking generals had no problem with them, but that doesn't mean that one of the major things wasn't the persecution of jews.

It was not so much the persecution of Jews, as it was the chest thumping "we are # 1" superiority attitude that the Germans as a whole, locked goose step with. Just like The American Civil War, It was a time of depression and hardship. This is a time when the masses will always be susceptible to leaders that would take advantage of this fact. I have seen it happen over and over again throughout human history. That is why I speak against the "we are #1" chest thumper's, when ever I encounter them. People in general are followers. and in times of hardship, are even more apt to enthusiastically follow along with the cheering crowd that chants the "we are #1" slogan. It makes them feel better about themselves in times of woe.

Have you ever watched the faces on the people that cheered for Hitler. Those were not the faces of deranged killers. They were faces of pride swelled, and happy people that truly believed they were #1, and the reason for all their troubles, were all of those lesser races, that were infesting their homeland. Or was it "fatherland". Homeland, motherland or fatherland, it is all just a way to separate ourselves, from the family of man.

A lot of people think that Hitler started all of his bullshit because he just hated Jews. Yeah, he hated them, along with everyone that was NOT of German blood. But he also hated those that were of German blood that were not perfect, such as mentally and physically challenged Germans. Some of his very first exterminations were aimed at these flawed humans of his own race.

Okay. Firstly, it's called nationalism. Secondly, parts of this post about Hitler's rise to popularity are false, but it's not worth going into because your whole argument is devoid of common sense. You're saying anti-Semitic ideas weren't a large part of Hitler's scheme? Rhetorical question that you can't deny, by the way. Try reading even parts of Meinkampf and you'll be sorely wrong…unless it doesn't make it through your skull.

You basically just rattled off three paragraphs on why nationalism works. Nationalism does work. No one is going to deny that. Though you worded it extremely wrongly, you are right in saying that in times of extremes—in this case depression—people's minds aren't as rational and they do go with the extremists—Hitler (that is, if I can draw the conclusion that this is what you were trying to say). Were they drawn in because he was supporting a "superior Aryan race?" No. They were desperate in a ridiculous depression and needed a strong leader to get them out. Hitler was undeniably a good orator, and you also can't ignore the fact that he singlehandedly lifted Germany out of a depression, albeit by violating the Treaty of Versailles and remilitarizing the country.

You fail to see Snorri's point about the Nazis and anti-Semitic beliefs (about which, by the way, if you don't know about this it's a great read and is very relevant). Snorri is saying that fighting for a cause is not about being a staunch believer in the cause, but rather about bettering yourself and other people. Of course you went on an false spiel about how a large part of Nazism wasn't about anti-Semitic views, but the point stands in any conflict around morals. We all (well, most of us I guess) realize that ending slavery was NOT the sole reason for the American Civil War. It was ONE of them, just like anti-Semitic views are ONE part of Nazism. To reiterate what Snorri said, did all the German people during the rise of Hitler in the 1930's and while fighting for him in the '40's anti-Semitics? No! They followed his cause not only because they were nationalists (as is basically everyone), though this was not a large part of his popularity, but because they believed he would better their lives. He did. He brought Germany out of the depression and made living as a German much better. Just because they were following the Nazis does not mean they believed in all the morals of Nazis.

P.S. I can attest that I'm not being "brainwashed" to believe the Civil War was about freeing the slaves. I like how you said "The brainwashing," with the capital in the middle of the sentence.

[Phatscotty]

I mean, shit, I bet a lot of Germans around WW2 didn't give a flying f*ck about jews either way too. Probably a few high-ranking generals had no problem with them, but that doesn't mean that one of the major things wasn't the persecution of jews.

It was not so much the persecution of Jews, as it was the chest thumping "we are # 1" superiority attitude that the Germans as a whole, locked goose step with. Just like The American Civil War, It was a time of depression and hardship. This is a time when the masses will always be susceptible to leaders that would take advantage of this fact. I have seen it happen over and over again throughout human history. That is why I speak against the "we are #1" chest thumper's, when ever I encounter them. People in general are followers. and in times of hardship, are even more apt to enthusiastically follow along with the cheering crowd that chants the "we are #1" slogan. It makes them feel better about themselves in times of woe.

Have you ever watched the faces on the people that cheered for Hitler. Those were not the faces of deranged killers. They were faces of pride swelled, and happy people that truly believed they were #1, and the reason for all their troubles, were all of those lesser races, that were infesting their homeland. Or was it "fatherland". Homeland, motherland or fatherland, it is all just a way to separate ourselves, from the family of man.

A lot of people think that Hitler started all of his bullshit because he just hated Jews. Yeah, he hated them, along with everyone that was NOT of German blood. But he also hated those that were of German blood that were not perfect, such as mentally and physically challenged Germans. Some of his very first exterminations were aimed at these flawed humans of his own race.

Though you worded it extremely wrongly, you are right in saying...

exactly what I was saying

[thegreekdog]

Listen Beans... I never once asserted that the American Civil War was all about slavery. Do you know why? Because it was not all about slavery. Perhaps you should go back and read. I did point out that you were using the word "succeed" instead of "secede" which, frankly, kind of proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly, I think you read some book by some crazy guy dealing with revisionist history and how the "victors write the books" and all that, and have regurgitated (and by regurgitated I mean vomitted) the ideas onto this thread in some attempt to be intelligent, I don't know.

However, perhaps if you made a post with some bullets showing your views on the causes and prosecution of the American Civil War by the North, I could address each one in turn. I'd be interested to read your viewpoints so that I may adequately debunk this rather jaded and horrible education you have received.

What kind of an idiot thinks that because some one misspells a word, they don't know what they are talking about.

Good answer.

Why don't you start by just addressing the ones that I have already proposed ?

I need a handy outline. If you would be so kind as to provide such outline, I'll address what you've proposed. You've made so many posts, I can't handle it without some sort of guide.

[the.killing.44]

I mean, shit, I bet a lot of Germans around WW2 didn't give a flying f*ck about jews either way too. Probably a few high-ranking generals had no problem with them, but that doesn't mean that one of the major things wasn't the persecution of jews.

It was not so much the persecution of Jews, as it was the chest thumping "we are # 1" superiority attitude that the Germans as a whole, locked goose step with. Just like The American Civil War, It was a time of depression and hardship. This is a time when the masses will always be susceptible to leaders that would take advantage of this fact. I have seen it happen over and over again throughout human history. That is why I speak against the "we are #1" chest thumper's, when ever I encounter them. People in general are followers. and in times of hardship, are even more apt to enthusiastically follow along with the cheering crowd that chants the "we are #1" slogan. It makes them feel better about themselves in times of woe.

Have you ever watched the faces on the people that cheered for Hitler. Those were not the faces of deranged killers. They were faces of pride swelled, and happy people that truly believed they were #1, and the reason for all their troubles, were all of those lesser races, that were infesting their homeland. Or was it "fatherland". Homeland, motherland or fatherland, it is all just a way to separate ourselves, from the family of man.

A lot of people think that Hitler started all of his bullshit because he just hated Jews. Yeah, he hated them, along with everyone that was NOT of German blood. But he also hated those that were of German blood that were not perfect, such as mentally and physically challenged Germans. Some of his very first exterminations were aimed at these flawed humans of his own race.

Though you worded it extremely wrongly, you are right in saying...

exactly what I was saying

Well, no, he was right on one universal concept, despite wording it wrong. His grasp of history and morals is a bit different…

[thegreekdog]

Okay, I'm going to try to do this without a handy outline... regular type is you, italics are my responses...

(1) "The plane fact is, they [the north] wanted their hands on the excessive taxes that they were trying to force on the tobacco and cotton trade." Admittedly, I probably don't know what you're getting at here. In any event, there was no federal tax on sales and the like. I don't even know if there were state sales taxes. But if there were state sales taxes, Pennsylvania could not tax a transaction occurring outside of Pennsylvania. There were stamps and duties on a federal level, but that is not the full explanation. They were in existence for decades prior to the Civil War.

(2) "The south felt that they were being gouged by the political powers of the north." Yes, this is true. One of the areas which the northern states were gouging had to do with slavery.

(3) "They [the south] decided to just go ahead and succeed from the Union." Also true. However, they seceded because of a variety of things, including, but not limited to, the dangers inherent in a northern-controlled Congress and executive branch taking away slavery, which would ruin the south's economy.

(4) "The Northerners were just as bigoted and racist as the Southerners were." True. The difference is that no northerners owned slaves. Some southerners did own slaves. Most southerners did not own slaves.

(5) "The Union military did not even let Negroes fight in the war." False. Blacks were allowed to fight in the Civil War. Apart from the 54th Massachusetts, there were other units, as well as support units. Further, and more importantly, this lack of black soldiers had less to do with racism on the part of the US government and military, and more to do with the support President Lincoln needed to prosecute the war from people who did not want the war to be about slavery.

(6) "Their warped sense of honor would not let them allow a Negro to kill a white man." False and ridiculous. See above.

(7) "It was only when they were getting their butts kicked, and were close to loosing the war, that they set aside their honor..." False. Further, one regiment does not constitute allowing them to fight. In fact, the biggest rush of black volunteers came when the war was well in hand, I believe in late 1864.

(8) "For gods' sake, they [the north] pretty much burned everything to the ground. And that was after the surrender." Completely false.

(9) "Black units, (that were segregated by the way)." Do you know when black soldiers were integrated? It was not in the 19th century.

(10) "and were not treated any better than the slaves on the plantations were." I don't know about you, but I'd rather be paid and be employed at will than be a slave.

(11) "The North was perfectly happy with the slave situation in the South." And yet... and yet... the South decided to secede when Lincoln was elected. If the north was happy with slavery, why did the south secede? Oh yeah, taxes. See above.

(12) "So long as the South coughed up the ever increasing taxes on their..." What taxes?!?! There were no national taxes that had not already been around for YEARS and a northern state could not tax stuff going on in a southern state.

(13) "The South's economy was well on its way to becoming a powerhouse, that left on its own, would soon dwarf the northern union." Which is why the South couldn't feed their soldiers, couldn't arm their soldiers, couldn't build artillery, couldn't put a fleet to sea. Absurd... completely absurd.

On a general basis, think about what was going on prior to the Civil War. The north did not want slavery to expand into the various territories, the south did. Why? If the North wanted that sweet tax money, why didn't they support the expansion of slavery into the territories?

I'm tired. This is a good place to stop.

[The Neon Peon]

Okay, I'm going to try to do this without a handy outline... regular type is you, italics are my responses...

(1) "The plane fact is, they [the north] wanted their hands on the excessive taxes that they were trying to force on the tobacco and cotton trade." Admittedly, I probably don't know what you're getting at here. In any event, there was no federal tax on sales and the like. I don't even know if there were state sales taxes. But if there were state sales taxes, Pennsylvania could not tax a transaction occurring outside of Pennsylvania. There were stamps and duties on a federal level, but that is not the full explanation. They were in existence for decades prior to the Civil War.

There were tariffs that greatly impeded the South's economy since cotton was by far the largest export of the US.

(4) "The Northerners were just as bigoted and racist as the Southerners were." True. The difference is that no northerners owned slaves. Some southerners did own slaves. Most southerners did not own slaves.

To be fair there were riots about the Fugutive Slave Act, Black Codes after slavery, etc. Of course, most were racist, and that was still horribly evident even 40 years ago in most of the US, but to say that they were racist to the same extent seems rather odd if there were plenty of protests against slavery in the North and few in the South.

(8) "For gods' sake, they [the north] pretty much burned everything to the ground. And that was after the surrender." Completely false.

Sherman's march was a nice example. Burning and destroying everything is a military tactic that does not let you get to resources.

(10) "and were not treated any better than the slaves on the plantations were." I don't know about you, but I'd rather be paid and be employed at will than be a slave.

Actually, many Southerners were also pointing at how conditions in factories were in most cases worse than slavery conditions. Which is true, however, this bad treatment applies equally to the Irish, other immigrants, blacks, and the very poor in the North.

(12) "So long as the South coughed up the ever increasing taxes on their..." What taxes?!?! There were no national taxes that had not already been around for YEARS and a northern state could not tax stuff going on in a southern state.

The tariff of 1828 was what began the entire debate about secession.

(13) "The South's economy was well on its way to becoming a powerhouse, that left on its own, would soon dwarf the northern union." Which is why the South couldn't feed their soldiers, couldn't arm their soldiers, couldn't build artillery, couldn't put a fleet to sea. Absurd... completely absurd.

The South was one of the five richest areas of the world at the time. They just hardly had any factories, food, or industry. However, this did have a lot of wealth, especially in slaves and land.

On a general basis, think about what was going on prior to the Civil War. The north did not want slavery to expand into the various territories, the south did. Why? If the North wanted that sweet tax money, why didn't they support the expansion of slavery into the territories?

pork, this is a key point. There was plenty of conflict about slavery before and after the war there was plenty of conflict about slaves rights. Yes, the economy was a big factor, and it is what brought the issue up, but please... one of your main arguments is that the North wanted to keep the South from becoming powerful. Imagine if the issue had not been brought up and the South did become super wealthy and dwarfed the North's economy.

The North still has a larger population, so has a greater representation in the House of Representatives and a much greater chance of winning elections. The amount of states is still the same.

This is my last word. I have this rule of not arguing with idiots because it is a waste of time. If you seriously think that the North was happy with slavery, but abolished it for some reason that you later gave, I have nothing more to say to you. Don't even bother responding to this as I will never read it.

[the.killing.44]

"The South's economy was well on its way to becoming a powerhouse, that left on its own, would soon dwarf the northern union."

In•dus•tri•al•i•za•tion

It is the reason the Union succeeded in maintaining resources for its army. After seceding, the Confederacy relied on a farming society with trading being a large part of its livelihood. The South, with a farming-based economy, could not be self-sufficient. The Union succeeded in blockading the Southern ports, forcing them to fight an economic and military war at the same time (to supply the army, the South needed plantation owners; these men were the fighting force of the Confederacy—obviously one man cannot occupy two niches at once). It could not hold ground and Confederacy could not keep up with the demands of an army at war.

On the contrary, the North was industrializing rapidly in the Industrial Revolution. It had a very good railroad system that allowed them to transport resources, their ports were prosperous and plentiful, and the North's land itself could supply a war more easier. The Union did not only win out on the military aspect of the war, but crushed the South in economic prowess.

=====================

Sherman's march was a nice example. Burning and destroying everything is a military tactic that does not let you get to resources.

pork was referring to post-surrender obliteration.

[thegreekdog]

There were tariffs that greatly impeded the South's economy since cotton was by far the largest export of the US.

It would be interesting to see voting records on the tariffs and duties imposed. I believe they are available, unforutnately I no longer have access to my college's library.

Sherman's march was a nice example. Burning and destroying everything is a military tactic that does not let you get to resources.

Right, but this did not happen "after the war," which is what porkenbeans is claiming.

The tariff of 1828 was what began the entire debate about secession.

You are right. Forgot about that. Was it Calhoun who began talking of secession at that early date?

The South was one of the five richest areas of the world at the time. They just hardly had any factories, food, or industry. However, this did have a lot of wealth, especially in slaves and land.

Yes, except that I would not call the South a "powerhouse economy" despite being wealthy.

[thegreekdog]

"The South's economy was well on its way to becoming a powerhouse, that left on its own, would soon dwarf the northern union."

In•dus•tri•al•i•za•tion

It is the reason the Union succeeded in maintaining resources for its army. After seceding, the Confederacy relied on a farming society with trading being a large part of its livelihood. The South, with a farming-based economy, could not be self-sufficient. The Union succeeded in blockading the Southern ports, forcing them to fight an economic and military war at the same time (to supply the army, the South needed plantation owners; these men were the fighting force of the Confederacy—obviously one man cannot occupy two niches at once). It could not hold ground and Confederacy could not keep up with the demands of an army at war.

On the contrary, the North was industrializing rapidly in the Industrial Revolution. It had a very good railroad system that allowed them to transport resources, their ports were prosperous and plentiful, and the North's land itself could supply a war more easier. The Union did not only win out on the military aspect of the war, but crushed the South in economic prowess.

=====================

Sherman's march was a nice example. Burning and destroying everything is a military tactic that does not let you get to resources.

pork was referring to post-surrender obliteration.

Actually, I believe the South had an efficient railway system at the time as well.

[the.killing.44]

Actually, I believe the South had an efficient railway system at the time as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederat ... oad_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederat ... _Civil_War

It's Wiki, but I'm pretty sure it's right. So you are correct in saying they did, but the war managed to essentially shut it down.

Charles W. Ramsdell The Confederate Government and the Railroads The American Historical Review, Vol. 22, No. 4 (July, 1917), p. 795.
Charles W. Ramsdell The Confederate Government and the Railroads The American Historical Review, Vol. 22, No. 4 (July, 1917), p. 809-810.

If you must.

[pimpdave]

Actually, I believe the South had an efficient railway system at the time as well.

Not nearly as efficient as that in the North.

As troop movement began in earnest in May and June 1861, a crippling problem was discovered; many rail lines terminated in towns without connecting to continuing lines.[4] Instead, cargo would have to be unloaded, driven across town, and then reloaded. Soldiers, and other passengers, would often have to stay overnight to catch a continuing train the next day.[4] When the Confederate government attempted to rectify this problem, they ran into local opposition. Towns preferred the lack of connection, since it required the hiring of teamsters and populated hotels with guests.[4] Railroad operators, while not opposed to connecting lines, were opposed to the possibility of sharing rolling stock with rival companies.[4]

They also didn't have a standard gauge, letting each company set their own, so troops and supplies were held up based on protecting that stupid libertarian ideal of letting individual businessmen do whatever they want, including enslaving people and brutally forcing them to work with no pay. Yay states rights!


Also, the North had about 21 million people to the South's 8 million, 4 million of which were slaves. I think those numbers are right but someone can feel free to correct me. Although I am right about the rail. Look that one up too.

(the Union, on the other hand, enforced standardization to promote competition between rail companies. As a result, they were able to deploy their resources far quicker. But of course, that was government involvement, harumph harumph.)

[Woodruff]

You're all full of shit. There is no singularity to the cause for war. The reasons are as numerous as the stars in the sky, and as individual as we Americans like to think ourselves to be.

Many thousands of men gave their lives for the cause of abolition.

Many thousands of men gave their lives for the perceived invasion of their homes.

Stop pissing on their graves and just accept that there are no easy answers. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than a 200-300 word post on an internet forum can possibly convey.

And stop pushing this bullshit lie that the war was definitely NOT about slavery. It absolutely was to a great many people. It was also about a shit load of other things. I don't know why people are so quick to say it absolutely wasn't about slavery, but I suspect it's because they want to discount the sacrifice purchased in blood for freedom and remain bitter (or because they perceive it as a slight against their heritage of owning slaves). Things aren't so simple. Many white men shed their blood so the black man could be free. It's insulting to be told that is categorically false.

As a side note, the truly ironic thing about the Confederacy was that in order to wage war effectively, it needed to have the same centralized power that they were rebelling against. Jefferson Davis even said that. Often.

You claim "things aren't so simple" then you turn around and follow that up with the most simplistic statement in this thread so far. If you want to believe in fairy tails, go right ahead. You will be in wide company. But if you want to know the truth, I am sure that you CAN handle it. Just ask yourself a simple question. How could the very same people that slaughtered every Indian in their own region, Go fight and die to free "savages" in someone Else's home region ?

Where did you get the idea that everyone went out and slaughtered Indians? You sure have a black-and-white view of history.

Show me where I said anything like that.

The statement that "the very same people that slaughtered every Indian in their own region wouldn't go fight and die to free 'savages'in someone else's home region" certainly implies that there wasn't anyone left available to free the slaves nor who cared enough to do so (your "apathy" argument). I'm quite certain that's what you were intending to imply, as well.

You do not need to pick up a gun and kill someone to be involved in the murder. Inaction and apathy put you in the same boat as the ones that did the killing. Especially when you and your offspring get to share in the spoils.

Certainly true. Yet not applicable in any sort of a wholesale fashion to this discussion.

[Phatscotty]

Human

Nature

[Baron Von PWN]

apple

fruit