http://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/
My favorite piece which is refuting the "but Democrats do it tooooo" argument:
My favorite piece which is refuting the "but Democrats do it tooooo" argument:
[Question] Did the Confederacy actually win the United States Civil War?
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
I actually thought about it, and something about Johnny Reb never satisfying his lust for racism, but decided to pull up
You could also read the article to see the author's case!
It's more like the Confederacy never died, not that it won. It's still effectively neutered in the parts of the country that people actually give a fuck about (major cities and their surrounding counties) though.
Right. It sounds more like he's making the case that the Confederacy was merely suppressed, and never actually eliminated. But that would be true of pretty much any political ideology, ever.
--Patrick
That's a dangerous belief IMO. You basically just said, outside of big cities and their immediate areas, you don't give a fuck about them either. Yes that's the minority of your population, but it's also the majority of your land area. And it's basically playing right into the feelings of alienation that feed the sentiment in the first place.
At least that's how I read your statement from an outsider's perspective.
Silly Eriol, it's okay to have disdain for those outside of cities, they're all a bunch of uneducated racists hicks.
Texas hasn't been fly over territory for a long time and Ohio has only stopped being flyover territory by attracting huge corporations to Columbus by virtue of being one of the most diverse areas in America... something apparently no one knew until they could calculate the demographics. It really is just a case of finding a reason to go somewhere and then suddenly the entire town explodes into a hotspot. Personally, I couldn't be happier with Columbus turning into a more blue town like New York and Los Angeles... at least now I actually have things to DO on a Friday nite other than see a movie or get drunk at a bar.
So I guess this means that the war was only fought to keep all the states in the union.
well, it also eliminated outright, official slavery
GasBandit
Staff member
That wasn't the purpose of the war, however. The emancipation proclamation wasn't issued until 1863, almost 2 years after the start of the war.
Oddly enough, the proclamation also only applied to the states in official rebellion - the ~500,000 slaves in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and the states that were already de-facto retaken were later freed by separate arrangement via legislation. In fact, some ridicule the EP for its specific nature in freeing the slaves only in places over which the Union had no control.
Be that as it may, the civil war's pretext may have been about slavery, but at its core it was about the federal government's supremacy.
and crushed states rights, and setup an American identity over a State Identity (Virginians et. al became Americans).
Necronic
Staff member
Sam and Dean taught me to never underestimate the rural Midwest, as that will be where the final battle for heaven and hell will take place.
Also, fwiw the only reason that republicans are (on average) so racist, which...I'm sorry, but they are, is because all of the racist democrats switched sides after the Civil Rights movement. The real party of racism was 60s era southern democrats. Basically the south is just racist and whichever party they align with is racist. Which right now is republican.[DOUBLEPOST=1408138028,1408137973][/DOUBLEPOST]
ed: What I mean is that it's about both and trying to disentangle them is a disingenuous ploy weakly trying to hide a fact of history.
Also, fwiw the only reason that republicans are (on average) so racist, which...I'm sorry, but they are, is because all of the racist democrats switched sides after the Civil Rights movement. The real party of racism was 60s era southern democrats. Basically the south is just racist and whichever party they align with is racist. Which right now is republican.[DOUBLEPOST=1408138028,1408137973][/DOUBLEPOST]
That's like saying that rape isn't about sex.
ed: What I mean is that it's about both and trying to disentangle them is a disingenuous ploy weakly trying to hide a fact of history.
Um ... rape isn't about sex. It's about power.
Your analogy actually aligns with what Gas said.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, it isn't, and no, it isn't.
As Zero Esc points out, it's well documented psychology that rape is about power and domination, sex is just the vehicle.
The fact that the north actually didn't declare any slaves "free" (and even then, at first, only the slaves from the CSA, so that they could hopefully run away and join the Union army) until 2 years into the war shows that the north may have disapproved of slavery and been slowly moving to ensure its abolition, but it wasn't enough to precipitate war until the southern states directly and forcefully denied federal authority over them.
If the war's primary motivation had really been about slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been issued in 1861, and would have included all states - not just the confederacy.
Necronic
Staff member
Im going to go ahead and spoiler the rape analogy conversation jus in case anyone doesn't want to read it or finds it triggering, or simply non-Germaine
So, to talk about that in Civil War terms, I'm saying that while federal vs state power was a major part of it, it simply would not have gone to the level of war if not for the divergent views on the specific issue of slavery. It's not the first or last time states have butted heads on issues with the federal government, but this issue was the one that went to war. So while it absolutely was a matter of state vs federal, it was also absolutely about slavery.
I'm not saying that rape isn't about power, it absolutely is, but it's also very much about sex. If it wasn't then there would be far more hetero male on male rape, which, if reporting is to be believed, is not the case. I'm not down playing the power side of the dynamic, but that power dynamic is in many ways intrinsically tied to gender and sexuality, which is my point in comparing it.
So, to talk about that in Civil War terms, I'm saying that while federal vs state power was a major part of it, it simply would not have gone to the level of war if not for the divergent views on the specific issue of slavery. It's not the first or last time states have butted heads on issues with the federal government, but this issue was the one that went to war. So while it absolutely was a matter of state vs federal, it was also absolutely about slavery.
GasBandit
Staff member
That doesn't address any of what I said. The union didn't free its own slaves at first, it only declared the southern slaves in the states that it specifically didn't have control of free. That shows what they really were concerned about - it wasn't a war to stop slavery, it was a war to stop secession. It could even be argued that if it was about slavery, the union would have been content to simply ban slavery within its own borders and enact a trade embargo on the south. But, of course, they couldn't do that because they needed the agricultural products to supply food and raw materials to the industrialized/urbanized north.
EDIT: Never mind, it doesn't matter.
YES! Now you get it!
Hetero male on male rape is a common occurrence in any jail for men. In fact, if a man IS going to be raped by another man, it's something like a 9/10 chance that it's going to happen in a jail. It's just vastly under reported because admitting to the rampant sexual abuse in prisons would force us to do something about it and the right wing seems to think that being raped in prison is supposed to be PART of the prison experience.
That was my deleted post's message, although mine lacked numbers or proper sentences.
The Civil War started out as states rights, specifically the right to secede over laws that were against what states wanted. It became a battle over slavery, because that was the primary reason for the secession of Southern states.
The "it wasn't about slavery" argument was a tautology of the first degree: Southern states did not want a federal law prohibiting slavery, and therefore chose to secede from the union - but the Federal government didn't have the stomach to do anything about slavery until states started to secede.
---
"Don't go there. Great-great-grandson of a GAR veteran..."
The "it wasn't about slavery" argument was a tautology of the first degree: Southern states did not want a federal law prohibiting slavery, and therefore chose to secede from the union - but the Federal government didn't have the stomach to do anything about slavery until states started to secede.
---
"Don't go there. Great-great-grandson of a GAR veteran..."
I think you can't claim rape isn't about sex when there are plenty of countries in the world where (chemical) neutering is (part of/an option in) the punishment. Whether it's more about power, sex, or some other issues is another matter aand can partially differ from case to case. Saying all rape has the same guiding reasons is like saying all murder or all highway speeding has the same underlying issues and themes.
Outside of this discussion--a country's method of dealing with a problem doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Look at almost anything the U.S. does on a national/global scale. "You can't say there aren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when several countries invaded there searching for them."
A country's actions do not dictate reality, so it's poor reasoning for saying something is true. "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong!" Yes, they can.
A country's actions do not dictate reality, so it's poor reasoning for saying something is true. "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong!" Yes, they can.
It's not that the Confederacy won. Rather, it's the fact that losing the Civil War did not end racism or oppression, only direct slavery. Also, it shows that history is not always written by the winners. The South did an excellent job of spreading their bullshit version of the truth after the war, and they did it so well that some of their bullshit is still repeated by some folks today.
Last edited: