Some thoughts on the NFL

Status
Not open for further replies.

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
If South's economy was doomed, the North could have let them secede and just waited for them to fail economically.

I never said it was doomed; I said it was inferior. The southern elites had severe debt problems that persisted through the war.

Anywho, the North was extremely slow in mobilizing an army. Then Lee invaded Maryland.

It is what it is and your avoiding even acknowledging it is very telling.
 

adbutcher

K9NME
Messages
12,287
Reaction score
2,910
It was was preventable. Some are not. The US couldn't avoid World War II. They could have easily avoided the Civil War.

Little was actually accomplished. Ex-slaves become impoverished share-croppers with similar lifestyles, and in some cases worse lifestyles. The abolition of slavery would have evolved without war just like civil rights evolved in the sixties.

Like I said before, if the North really cared about slaves, they could have pressured the South to implement rules to improve the conditions of slaves, but that never happened because the leaders and businessmen in the North only cared about their own power and wealth.

If you want more reality, the US didn't drop the bomb(s) on Japan to win the war. They did it to scare the crap out of the Soviets.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't make it a habit of making arguments against delusional people. We are collectively screwed by ignorance, hopefully we can win another super bowl before it all goes to pot.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
If you want more reality, the US didn't drop the bomb(s) on Japan to win the war. They did it to scare the crap out of the Soviets.

Why does it have to be either or? For someone who claims superiority on the bigger picture you do struggle with basic logical deductions.

This just seems to be more of your typical arguing for a conclusion.

You really think Marshall and Truman wanted to invade the Japanese mainland but chose not to so they could scare the Russians?
 

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
The South seceded because they wanted states to have the right to allow slavery. They stated it explicitly repeatedly.

Southerners like to wave their hands at Harper's Ferry but Brown was put down hard by the feds. Following secession, Fort Sumter and Lee's invasion of Maryland were the first provocation.

Sure the Northerners were opportunistic but had the South not seceded and attacked the North there is no reason to believe that Lincoln or anyone other president would have invaded the South. Their desire to keep slaves as property was the stated cause for secession.

i dont think slavery was the end all but a way of life that was crucial to the south's economy.
it was clear their economic interest were divergent.
i find it hard to believe that the north was primarily motivated by rights of the slaves, though it was a nice point to rally around.
 

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
The war was a waste of people. Primarily young men, not Northern leaders or northern businessmen. Machinery and industrialization was going to cause the South to give up on slavery in a few years anyway. The North claimed to be great liberators of slavery, but in reality the changes were not that significant for a long time. Slaves became sharecroppers who had similar lifestyles. The sharecroppers lived in overt poverty until machinery and industrialization started to replace them. Even then, their families continued to live in poverty for the most part.

Yippie, the North "abolished" slavery but there were no jobs for the ex-slaves. If the North really cared about slaves, they would have forced some rules for how slaves were treated onto the South years before it came to a War.

The Union could have made slavery illegal in the Northern states, made it illegal to import slaves in all areas and then they could have slowly purchased slaves from the South until the supply dwindled to the point that the South could no longer rely on them. It was the dumbest war in the history of wars and completely unnecessary.

The real motivation was not even slavery. They used slavery as an excuse to do what they wanted to do which was to be in control of the south and to take the natural resources that were there without having to deal on the South's terms.

The North (Union) was basically doing the same thing the Mongols, Romans, Crusaders and others had done and what Hitler would later do. They wanted to be in charge of other people. The South wanted to be the owners of slaves. The North wanted to be the owners of the South. If you don't believe that, look up the history of Carpetbaggers. Hint, they were Northerners that came to the South after the war for person gain.

Was the Northern regime so incompetent they could not enforce any changes on the South over time using the processes available?

Here is one example of the real reasons behind the war:
Historically, southern slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization, and supported having the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manufacturing, could not compete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offering high prices for cotton imported from the South and low prices for manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.

The above issue was about money and control. The North wanted more money but the South resisted changes that would result in more money for the North and less for the South.

The Northern leaders and Northern businessmen wanted more power and money. They could care less about the slaves. Slavery was just their excuse for the war. They caused the following to happen in order to enrich and further empower themselves:

North:
110,000+ killed in action/died of wounds
230,000+ accident/disease deaths
25,000–30,000 died in Confederate prisons
365,000+ total dead, 282,000+ wounded
181,193 captured
Total: 828,000+ casualties

South:
94,000+ killed in action/died of wounds
26,000–31,000 died in Union prisons
290,000+ total dead
137,000+ wounded
436,658 captured
Total: 864,000+ casualties

what evidence is there for a fight for natural resources?
i thought it was a matter of free trade vs. protectionism.
 

haleyrules

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,060
Reaction score
42,877
i dont think slavery was the end all but a way of life that was crucial to the south's economy.
it was clear their economic interest were divergent.
i find it hard to believe that the north was primarily motivated by rights of the slaves, though it was a nice point to rally around.
Ha! You ain't just whistling Dixie!! That conflict was about taking over the means of production!! Money...like always.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
i dont think slavery was the end all but a way of life that was crucial to the south's economy.
it was clear their economic interest were divergent.
i find it hard to believe that the north was primarily motivated by rights of the slaves, though it was a nice point to rally around.

Sure they were motivated when Lee invaded.

That is my entire point. The issues of slavery, economics, and states rights were intrinsically linked at that time. The southern economy was dependent on wage free slave labor and the right they wanted states to have was the right to permit slavery.

It's not desirable to be seen as pro-slavery so the modern racist instead tries to act like the issues were somehow separate. Like the Kansas-Nebraska Act wasn't all about states rights to sanction slavery or secession was not about preserving the slave economy.

Of course the issue is nuanced and complex but the leadup to the war is all in the historical record. They used to have brawls on the floor of the legislature between abolitionists and slaveowners. Henry Clay's ability to get the two sides to compromise is what earned him his reputation.
 

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
I would not expect you to be able to step back and see the big picture. In fact you are the last person that I would expect to be able to do that. You, like many people with technical background, might be good with details but often can't see the forest for the trees. Apple does not bec


You're the last person I would expect to see the big picture. Can't see the forest for the trees often comes to mind when I see your posts.

You're often good with details, but the big picture seems to allude you.

If the civil war was really about slaves, then invading Iraq was really about Saddam having Weapons of Mass Destruction. Both were just excuses to get the public to go along.

There are many ways the North could have used the process to make changes, but instead chose to provoke the South into war.

The founding fathers intended for States to be empowered with the federal government having the minimum necessary power. The civil war destroyed the power of the individual states which truly is not what was intended back in 1776. Much of today's problems can be tracked back to the lack of real power by the individual states. Empowering all of the individual states would be similar to a free market economy as compared to a socialist economy. People would be able to choose where they wanted to live based on the laws in that state. Eventually the worst states would suffer consequences and would end up adapting based on free market dynamics. Instead everyone is forced to live under the least common denominator way of doing things. Everything at the federal level has to be least common denominator or done such that the masses can live with it. Intelligent and progressive ways of doing things is almost impossible. The masses said that Ron Leary sucked in his 1st two years with the team, then the massed said they can't live without him after he was gone. The masses were really mad when the Cowboys waited to the 4th round to draft a QB and the masses exclaimed that Dak would not amount to much, and definitely couldn't do anything as a rookie.

I agree with the states' rights, but seeing the plans for Saddam's bioreactors sure scared the hell out of me.
You can hide from chemical weapons and even nuclear weapons, but you really cannot hide from small pox.
 

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
It was was preventable. Some are not. The US couldn't avoid World War II. They could have easily avoided the Civil War.

Little was actually accomplished. Ex-slaves become impoverished share-croppers with similar lifestyles, and in some cases worse lifestyles. The abolition of slavery would have evolved without war just like civil rights evolved in the sixties.

Like I said before, if the North really cared about slaves, they could have pressured the South to implement rules to improve the conditions of slaves, but that never happened because the leaders and businessmen in the North only cared about their own power and wealth.

If you want more reality, the US didn't drop the bomb(s) on Japan to win the war. They did it to scare the crap out of the Soviets.

the nutcases on the 2 sides precipitated the war, like most wars.
though i seriously doubt the invasion of the japanese mainland was appetizing.
look at the way the japanese fought over those islands.
i am sure there was revenge in there also.
especially the 2nd A-bomb which seemed kind of unnecessary.
 

adbutcher

K9NME
Messages
12,287
Reaction score
2,910
Sure they were motivated when Lee invaded.

That is my entire point. The issues of slavery, economics, and states rights were intrinsically linked at that time. The southern economy was dependent on wage free slave labor and the right they wanted states to have was the right to permit slavery.

It's not desirable to be seen as pro-slavery so the modern racist instead tries to act like the issues were somehow separate. Like the Kansas-Nebraska Act wasn't all about states rights to sanction slavery or secession was not about preserving the slave economy.

Of course the issue is nuanced and complex but the leadup to the war is all in the historical record. They used to have brawls on the floor of the legislature between abolitionists and slaveowners. Henry Clay's ability to get the two sides to compromise is what earned him his reputation.
This! The states rights argument is a veiled attempt to rewrite history. It is the same argument that rebel flag flyers or confederate celebrators try to hide behind. This country was built on the backs of free labor and those who minimized that fact are delusional. It takes a very vile individual to condone slavery overtly or while hiding behind state rights nonsensical argument. The south and it's ill begotten ideology will not rise again, thank God for that.
 

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
Lee invaded the North.
The plantation owners were perpetually up to their ears in debt and there is no better illustration of economic superiority than war in the industrial era.
It was was preventable. Some are not. The US couldn't avoid World War II. They could have easily avoided the Civil War.
Little was actually accomplished. Ex-slaves become impoverished share-croppers with similar lifestyles, and in some cases worse lifestyles. The abolition of slavery would have evolved without war just like civil rights evolved in the sixties.
Like I said before, if the North really cared about slaves, they could have pressured the South to implement rules to improve the conditions of slaves, but that never happened because the leaders and businessmen in the North only cared about their own power and wealth.
If you want more reality, the US didn't drop the bomb(s) on Japan to win the war. They did it to scare the crap out of the Soviets.

i think we all agree economics was the determining factor for the disagreements.
the shots were fired by the extremes on both sides, like most cases.

although i dont know about WW2, many say the US wanted to enter the war
but given the isolationists, the japanese were tricked/forced into it.
many point to the aircraft carriers' absence from pearl harbor as key evidence.
 

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
Sure they were motivated when Lee invaded.

That is my entire point. The issues of slavery, economics, and states rights were intrinsically linked at that time. The southern economy was dependent on wage free slave labor and the right they wanted states to have was the right to permit slavery.

It's not desirable to be seen as pro-slavery so the modern racist instead tries to act like the issues were somehow separate. Like the Kansas-Nebraska Act wasn't all about states rights to sanction slavery or secession was not about preserving the slave economy.

Of course the issue is nuanced and complex but the leadup to the war is all in the historical record. They used to have brawls on the floor of the legislature between abolitionists and slaveowners. Henry Clay's ability to get the two sides to compromise is what earned him his reputation.

i suspect there were plenty of racists on both sides.
i used to live in new jersey as a youngster and sometimes i thought i was in the old south...
having dealt with a reasonably large number of politicians, it is hard to tell what is rallying point and what is real.
fortunately, the slaves seemed to have benefit in the long term.
while winners get to rewrite history books, the books were written in way that drew the line between right and wrong.
 

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
you guys, history is fun and all.
anyone know what happened with rico, jaylon, taco, and others in camp today?
i have not really seen much other than coaches saying rico is a real nfl player now.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
General Lee is a good example of what the OP is getting at.

For the southern racist there is perhaps no greater sacred cow. You do not question the sanctity of his decisions no matter what.

What they should have done is examine his decisions critically. For example: what if he had not attacked Maryland in 1861. Would the North ever been able to get the population to go along with conscription, income tax, and all of the other devices that were used to beat the south?

It certainly did not seem to be the case leading up to his invasion.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
i suspect there were plenty of racists on both sides.
i used to live in new jersey as a youngster and sometimes i thought i was in the old south...
having dealt with a reasonably large number of politicians, it is hard to tell what is rallying point and what is real.
fortunately, the slaves seemed to have benefit in the long term.
while winners get to rewrite history books, the books were written in way that drew the line between right and wrong.

I never said that racists were exclusive to the south. From my experience it splits along economics and education more than geography.

The rest of your post is so nebulous as to be meaningless. Politicians nowadays are not like politicians from the middle of the 19th century.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,574
Reaction score
27,856
i think we all agree economics was the determining factor for the disagreements.
the shots were fired by the extremes on both sides, like most cases.

although i dont know about WW2, many say the US wanted to enter the war
but given the isolationists, the japanese were tricked/forced into it.
many point to the aircraft carriers' absence from pearl harbor as key evidence.

What are you even talking about?

I have no idea if Lee was "extreme" but either way he was the leader of the Confederacy's military and he chose to invade Maryland. Quite frankly I am not interested in oversimplified categorizations in an effort to understand complex issues. The southern elites are not really analogous to the japanese elites from a century later.

And who exactly is cooking up conspiracy theories that the Navy command tried to "trick" Japan into an assault? As @adbutcher pointed out we are getting overwhelmed by ignorance.
 

waldoputty

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,375
Reaction score
21,163
I never said that racists were exclusive to the south. From my experience it splits along economics and education more than geography.

The rest of your post is so nebulous as to be meaningless. Politicians nowadays are not like politicians from the middle of the 19th century.

i am just saying that slaves ultimately benefited even if it was economics driven.
 

adbutcher

K9NME
Messages
12,287
Reaction score
2,910
I never said that racists were exclusive to the south. From my experience it splits along economics and education more than geography.

The rest of your post is so nebulous as to be meaningless. Politicians nowadays are not like politicians from the middle of the 19th century.
It is part of the great game. The 1%, which is actually less than 1% has fooled the poor and disenfranchised whites to take up their divisive cause. Chris Rock had a joke that if poor white folks knew how the ultra rich lived, they would burn this country to the ground. The poor and the middle class regardless of race, creed, or ethnicity are in the same boat as each other but we are all rowing in different directions and that is by design. Poor white folks that fought for the south were duped and they are still being duped. Looking at the literacy rates in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina will blow your freaking mind and that's how the powers want it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top