Some thoughts on the NFL

[waldoputty]

Ok, you bated me in. I don't care about what the north cared about as long as the end result was the end of slavery. Any argument you make is nonsensical in my opinion because an avoided war would have left slavery in existence. Unless you have a time machine to prove your claim. The south would have never willingly abolished slavery. Hell, Texas didn't let slaves know they were free until long after they were emancipated.

and why would they demolish slavery, racism or not.
it would make no sense.
it was their way of life and gave them an economic advantage.

 

[xwalker]

Ok, you bated me in. I don't care about what the north cared about as long as the end result was the end of slavery. Any argument you make is nonsensical in my opinion because an avoided war would have left slavery in existence. Unless you have a time machine to prove your claim. The south would have never willingly abolished slavery. Hell, Texas didn't let slaves know they were free until long after they were emancipated.

What if slavery would have ended 1 year later without the war? Would it have been worth waiting?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is a saying that the first person to complain about the smell of a fart it the one that did it.

You sure like to talk around the issue when you know you've lost merit.

Anyway, I'm not interested in trying to convince a segregationist type. You should tell us more about how the slaves were worse off for being freed or how the North should have tried to improve conditions for the slaves first if they really meant it.

 

[waldoputty]

What if slavery would have ended 1 year later without the war? Would it have been worth waiting?

there is no merit to this. why would they give up their way of life and economic advantage.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

ok, excuse my low IQ, but what the heck is that supposed to mean. are you saying he is a good guy or a bad guy?

You really cannot see the irony about xwalker saying that the slaves were no better off for being freed given the context I just gave you?

 

[waldoputty]

You really cannot see the irony about xwalker saying that the slaves were no better off for being freed given the context I just gave you?

oh, i did not connect the "slaves were no better off for being freed given the context"

imo, x's comments can be accounted for as someone with a deep resentment against the north.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

@FuzzyLumpkins is just taking shots at me. Intellectually, he knows I'm right, but emotionally he can't accept it.

He knows that the North was motivated by things other than slavery but he won't admit to it because of his emotional hatred against the South because of slavery. In reality only the elite plantation owners owned slaves.

Does anyone believe that all of the South rallied to go to war just to protect the elite plantation owner's rights to own slaves? No, Billy Bob Nobody didn't go to war just because the North wanted to abolish slavery. The North wanted to take over the South for it's own purposes which they basically did after the war.

You've been reduced to talking about farts and psychobabble and you want to claim that I cannot accept your position because of emotion?

You still have yet to even acknowledge Lee's invasion of Maryland. The way you make it seem, the North organized at the behest of the steel and oil barons and were the one's that attacked first.

The North was winning politically. The gambit that Calhoun and co tried with the Kansas-Nebraska act failed when both states went abolitionist and the actual resources in Appalachia were decidedly pro union as exhibited by the split of Virginia. Those Scots and Scots-Irish really never bought into what the southern gentry were selling.

A constitutional amendment to abolish slavery was coming down the pipe and they knew it. That is why they seceded so they could hold onto their slave economy.

 

[xwalker]

i think fuzzy actually said economics wear interlinked.
i am a follow-the-$ money, so i naturally put the biggest emphasis on $.

i do find a few things you said disturbing.
like equating Grant to Hitler.
destroying the enemy forces and kill the will to fight is not equated to gas chambers and having fun 'experimentally trying to change people's eye color to blue.
i am not going to make any judgment from you because what you say can be attributed to someone who holds a grudge against the north.

so what the heck does the william wallace thing mean?

I never used the name Grant. That was Fuzzy. I threw the Hitler reference in just to irritate Fuzzy.

The Mongols are the best example. They concurred other people, took what they wanted but allowed the people to generally continue living their previous life minus everything the Mongols took for themselves. The North won the war, took as much from the South as they could get their hands on, but generally allowed the Southerners to continue their previous lifestyle, just without any power of their own. The North basically created a condition like the one that America fought the Revolutionary War to get away from. Taxation without representation. That's effectively what they ended up with in the South after the war.

What the idealists like Fuzzy are ignoring is that the ex-slaves ended up going back to the same work and the same living conditions. The end of slavery was really just a concept that the North claimed credit for achieving. In practice, the ex-slaves living conditions didn't improve for decades after the war.

It's similar to how in 2010 the US announced that the war in Iraq was over. What they didn't announce was the 50,000 soldiers were remaining. It was a theoretical end of the war, not an actual end of the war. Nevertheless, the media ate it up and continually proclaimed how great of an achievement it was.

Slavery is basically the same as the Iraq war example. They announced that it ended in 1863 so that the leaders could take credit for it; however, in practice it basically continued for decades afterwards. The main difference is that the profits from slaves working on the cotton plantations was now ending up in the pockets of Northern businessmen and politicians instead of in the pockets of Southern plantation owners.

Fuzzy is trying to make this into a racial issue, but I'm sure you can see that it has nothing to do with that. It's about the false claims that the North went to war because of noble intentions to abolish slavery. They did it for power and money.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never used the name Grant. That was Fuzzy. I threw the Hitler reference in just to irritate Fuzzy.

The Mongols are the best example. They concurred other people, took what they wanted but allowed the people to generally continue living their previous life minus everything the Mongols took for themselves. The North won the war, took as much from the South as they could get their hands on, but generally allowed the Southerners to continue their previous lifestyle, just without any power of their own. The North basically created a condition like the one that America fought the Revolutionary War to get away from. Taxation without representation. That's effectively what they ended up with in the South after the war.

What the idealists like Fuzzy are ignoring is that the ex-slaves ended up going back to the same work and the same living conditions. The end of slavery was really just a concept that the North claimed credit for achieving. In practice, the ex-slaves living conditions didn't improve for decades after the war.

It's similar to how in 2010 the US announced that the war in Iraq was over. What they didn't announce was the 50,000 soldiers were remaining. It was a theoretical end of the war, not an actual end of the war. Nevertheless, the media ate it up and continually proclaimed how great of an achievement it was.

Slavery is basically the same as the Iraq war example. They announced that it ended in 1863 so that the leaders could take credit for it; however, in practice it basically continued for decades afterwards. The main difference is that the profits from slaves working on the cotton plantations was now ending up in the pockets of Northern businessmen and politicians instead of in the pockets of Southern plantation owners.

Fuzzy is trying to make this into a racial issue, but I'm sure you can see that it has nothing to do with that. It's about the false claims that the North went to war because of noble intentions to abolish slavery. They did it for power and money.

You compared the North's action to Hitler's. Other than the March to Atlanta I fail to see what else you could point to. Your claim "I was just trolling" demonstrates your bravery quite clear.

Lee surrendered at Appomattox and Douglas' government dissolved. Union troops occupied the Southern states and reconstruction commenced.

Sure the KKK was formed and used some guerrilla tactics but there was no revival of the southern army or the confederacy.

This notion that southern plantation owners were disenfranchised and had their property seized is unfounded nonsense. No such thing happened.

An honest review of the next 100 years show an environment where they enacted segregation and suppression, voter or otherwise. The vast majority of the violence was not against the Northerners who occupied during reconstruction but instead against the freed slaves.

Blaming the north for that is a typical delusion though. Like they made your kind behave in such a manner.

I have no idea why you constantly try to dumb things down so that it is one thing or another. Sure there were war profiteers on both sides and sure there was an economic impetus. That doesn't mean that the south didn't have a slave economy they were trying to preserve.

Your take on the Mongols is pretty ignorant. They allowed religious freedom but they did not just allow people to do what they wanted. You had to pay tribute and you had to obey mongol law. If you violated it you died. Trade and many other aspects were closely governed.

 

[waldoputty]

I never used the name Grant. That was Fuzzy. I threw the Hitler reference in just to irritate Fuzzy.

The Mongols are the best example. They concurred other people, took what they wanted but allowed the people to generally continue living their previous life minus everything the Mongols took for themselves. The North won the war, took as much from the South as they could get their hands on, but generally allowed the Southerners to continue their previous lifestyle, just without any power of their own. The North basically created a condition like the one that America fought the Revolutionary War to get away from. Taxation without representation. That's effectively what they ended up with in the South after the war.

What the idealists like Fuzzy are ignoring is that the ex-slaves ended up going back to the same work and the same living conditions. The end of slavery was really just a concept that the North claimed credit for achieving. In practice, the ex-slaves living conditions didn't improve for decades after the war.

It's similar to how in 2010 the US announced that the war in Iraq was over. What they didn't announce was the 50,000 soldiers were remaining. It was a theoretical end of the war, not an actual end of the war. Nevertheless, the media ate it up and continually proclaimed how great of an achievement it was.

Slavery is basically the same as the Iraq war example. They announced that it ended in 1863 so that the leaders could take credit for it; however, in practice it basically continued for decades afterwards. The main difference is that the profits from slaves working on the cotton plantations was now ending up in the pockets of Northern businessmen and politicians instead of in the pockets of Southern plantation owners.

Fuzzy is trying to make this into a racial issue, but I'm sure you can see that it has nothing to do with that. It's about the false claims that the North went to war because of noble intentions to abolish slavery. They did it for power and money.

sorry, i cannot equate slavery in the south to ex-slaves even if they have the same salary and prospects.
in that sense, it does run contrary to what william wallace stands for.
i understand for the political credit taking etc, but slavery is slavery.

as you probably know, i put credibility in conspiracy stories, whether it was the Cowboys FO/salary cap, or FDR forcing the Japanese into the WW2.
but i think you are drawing a false equivalence for slavery with what happened in iraq just because of the PR element in any government action.
Yes, the winners rewrite the history.
But there is right or wrong, whether it was the primary intention of the North or not.

 

[xwalker]

oh, i did not connect the "slaves were no better off for being freed given the context"

imo, x's comments can be accounted for as someone with a deep resentment against the north.

No, I have no resentment. I'm trying to explain the difference in reality vs the version of history that was fabricated.

People can sit here now and have a idealistic, romantic notion that the end of slavery was the greatest thing ever for those slaves; however, for the actual people that were living through it, that's often not their reality. They generally continued working the same jobs and had the same living conditions. The only difference is that the money from the cotton was ending up in the pockets of Northern businessmen and politicians instead of the Southern Plantation owners. Under slavery the plantations often kept families together including the elderly slaves. After the war elderly ex-slaves were often in dire conditions.

William Wallace was talking about actual freedom, not pretend freedom. They had over 800 thousand casualties on each side in the Civil War but in 1950 a black person didn't have the freedom to use his public bathroom of choice. That's not the type of freedom that William Wallace was fighting to achieve.

 

[xwalker]

sorry, i cannot equate slavery in the south to ex-slaves even if they have the same salary and prospects.
in that sense, it does run contrary to what william wallace stands for.
i understand for the political credit taking etc, but slavery is slavery.

as you probably know, i put credibility in conspiracy stories, whether it was the Cowboys FO/salary cap, or FDR forcing the Japanese into the WW2.
but i think you are drawing a false equivalence for slavery with what happened in iraq just because of the PR element in any government action.
Yes, the winners rewrite the history.
But there is right or wrong, whether it was the primary intention of the North or not.

Do you think that William Wallace would have quit fighting if the King said, we won't allow anybody to own you, but we're not going to let you vote, use public restrooms or water fountains and we're going to own all land and resources. Your only options will be to work for us at the pay rate that we dictate. You won't be able to afford a horse to travel to other areas of the country. Basically your life will remain the same or possibly get worse but we're going to pat ourselves on the back for giving you freedom. I can't see William Wallace signing up for that deal.