One more place racist garbage is no longer welcome

You're still ignoring how they won the war, those Irish men were essentially slaves dude.

Not to mention that yes, just because it shut it down economically and handed them all the power doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery... but it doesn't mean it was either and since the end result was they get all the power... I'm thoroughly unconvinced.

..also, it's easy for me to imagine a bunch of rich white guys in a room saying: "hey, let's crush these guys so we can have all the power, yes it will cost us a fortune but in the end we will be richer and more powerful."

It's way harder for to imagine those same guys sitting in a room saying: "hey, let's crush these guys so we can free the slaves, yes it will cost us a fortune but in the end we all people will be free. Incidentally let's use slave labour to do it, put in special tax so rich people can avoid the war.. but remember, this is about us all being equal, not about how rich we're going to get"

Dair wrote: Shouldn't this thread be titled "One more place racist garbage is no longer welcome" or "One less place racist garbage is welcome"?

Or, perhaps, "One less place racist garbage is no longer unwelcome"?

Jacob, the US Civil War only took place because the Southern states decided to secede over the issue of slavery. If they didn't, nobody knows how it would have turned out. You could also be arguing, "Hey, all of Europe would be communist now, if the Nazis hadn't invaded the Soviet Union". I grant you that the war was dirty as hell - all civil wars are - but don't give me that "slavery wasn't the issue" crap. I don't care what they taught you in school. Look at the facts. Slavery is right there in the articles of secession.

Schweig! wrote: Jacob, the US Civil War only took place because the Southern states decided to secede over the issue of slavery. If they didn't, nobody knows how it would have turned out. You could also be arguing, "Hey, all of Europe would be communist now, if the Nazis hadn't invaded the Soviet Union". I grant you that the war was dirty as hell - all civil wars are - but don't give me that "slavery wasn't the issue" crap. I don't care what they taught you in school. Look at the facts. Slavery is right there in the articles of secession.

It's not what they taught me in school, it's what my pessimistic brain interpreted their teachings as. I think the slavery thing is way overplayed. Especially considering how they won.

But that's another thing I don't understand, if a state wants to secede, why not let them? Whenever Quebec decides to separate (every 10 years or so) here in Canada we just put it to a vote. If they want to leave, collectively, let them. But what is the interest in NOT letting them leave? Power, tax dollars... I'm not giving you shit I asked for one thing... a book recommendation. Like I said no amount of on line bickering will convince me, I want to read an expert.

JonJacob wrote:
It's not what they taught me in school, it's what my pessimistic brain interpreted their teachings as. I think the slavery thing is way overplayed. Especially considering how they won.

No doubt.

JonJacob wrote: But that's another thing I don't understand, if a state wants to secede, why not let them? Whenever Quebec decides to separate (every 10 years or so) here in Canada we just put it to a vote. If they want to leave, collectively, let them. But what is the interest in NOT letting them leave? Power, tax dollars... I'm not giving you shit I asked for one thing... a book recommendation. Like I said no amount of on line bickering will convince me, I want to read an expert.

Well you nailed it. The U.S. was originally founded as a united federation of states. For some time each state had it's own currency. Slowly thing consolidated, and you're right on: power, and dollars. There's a lot of history there, but you've put forward a damn good question: If a member of the union disagrees, what power to we have to prevent them from leaving the union?

wadenels wrote:

JonJacob wrote:
It's not what they taught me in school, it's what my pessimistic brain interpreted their teachings as. I think the slavery thing is way overplayed. Especially considering how they won.

No doubt.

JonJacob wrote: But that's another thing I don't understand, if a state wants to secede, why not let them? Whenever Quebec decides to separate (every 10 years or so) here in Canada we just put it to a vote. If they want to leave, collectively, let them. But what is the interest in NOT letting them leave? Power, tax dollars... I'm not giving you shit I asked for one thing... a book recommendation. Like I said no amount of on line bickering will convince me, I want to read an expert.

Well you nailed it. The U.S. was originally founded as a united federation of states. For some time each state had it's own currency. Slowly thing consolidated, and you're right on: power, and dollars. There's a lot of history there, but you've put forward a damn good question: If a member of the union disagrees, what power to we have to prevent them from leaving the union?

Military power.

Jacob, it's all well and good that you doubt history as it's written, but you need to follow that up with your own historical research, else you're making it quite obvious that you're pretty clueless about the events that led to the US Civil War. Put simply, the Southern states started it. The bombardment of Fort Sumter moved any peaceful resolution of the conflict out of the picture. It's pretty irrelevant then how the North won in the end. I personally believe that slavery could have been abolished - although plantation owners would have been at a loss regardless - without completely wrecking the Southern agricultural economy. But by the secessionists' decision to go to war, they risked exactly that - and the outcome was even worse.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter who started the actual war.

He has doubts that the North, who were very, very racist wanted to abolish slavery for humanitarian reasons. Which is a fair doubt because it sounds way too idealistic about a bunch of XIX century politicians who regarded the actual slaves as subhuman morons.

It's like saying the Revolutionary wars in the Americas were about the freedom of the people, you know? Too good to be true.

Mmmm. Similar thing happened in UK with the co opting of the flag of St George by the racists. Now, flying the St George flag can easily be considered racist in some sectors of society.

Definitely don't agree about the Hammer and Sickle. I'm afraid racism is a totally different thing to communism and no amount of bickering will persuade me that they are the same thing. Also, I have a massive Hammer and Sickle flag bought when I went to the USSR in 1986 and it's great. Also have a little statue of Lenin at Finlandia station on top of an armoured car, that one used to hold the aerial up on top of my TV.