"Breaking News", the South Lost the Civil War. Vanity

self | 9/26/02 | tall_tex

[tall_tex]

I have been watching Ken Burns, "Civil War Series" again. I do not know why I keep watching and holding out hope that this time we might just win.

My sad announcement, is that we did not win, this time either.

Why did we loose, surely we had God on our side.

Why do the good guys continue to loose, Roy and Dale won, the Lone Ranger and Tonto won.

The Clinton's win, the Dash@@786450897, have and are winning still, and again.

I guess good guys finish last, maybe we should not be such good guys.

[Non-Sequitur]

The term "Civil War" is defined as two (or more) factions within the same country fighting for control of the government.

From Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

Sounds like a pretty accurate description to me.

[stainlessbanner]

The actual name is War of Northern Aggression. "Civil War" was something ya'll invented to make it sound nicer - suit yourself!

[strela]

Fort Sumter was lousy duty anyway ;)

[Non-Sequitur]

Sure, once y'all started shootin' and raisin' a fuss. Before that it was great duty.

[The Person]

Thank you very much for posting SC's Declaration of Secession. Paragraphs 17-29 are all about slavery. Anyone who thinks that the South seceded, not to protect slavery, but mainly for economic reasons other than the right of property in slaves, is either hopelessly biased or an IDIOT!

Read the darn document. They give their reasons for secession as plainly as they can. If they had tried to cover them up, one might pierce them to see the real reasons, but they admit it flatly. They want to own people and use them as property and the Northern states were making it harder to do so.

They quite explicitly say that they are seceding because, with the election of a Republican anti-slavery president, the federal government will become an enemy of the slave-holding states.

[MAWG]

You are right when you say that the reason the south chose to secede had nothing to do with states rights. It had nothing to do with slavery either. The REAL reason was handed down to the men in my family in a letter written by my great, great, grandfather General Beauregard E. Culpepper. According to the General, it was important that the South be able to have its own army separate from a Northern army so that we Southern Gentlemen wouldnt be forced to shower with Yankees! It's as simple as that.

[The Person]

Had cooler heads prevailed, the institution of slavery would've ended. With the preaching of the Wesleys (late 1700s) and their followers, it would have ended much as it had in Britain. But slowly.

Is that what they taught you growing up? What nonsense!

First, the heads were awfully cool until the anti-slavery movement seriously got going in 1830. Before then the debate was pretty rational for the times and the subject and almost NOTHING HAPPENED. Slavery was not dying out or even weakening, as it had decades earlier in England. Your precious Wesleys did not eliminate slavery and it was NOT about to die out. The US did not follow the English lead because there were too many slaves, too financially important, too close to home for Southerners to give them up.

On the eve of the Civil War, the value of slaves in the South was larger than the value of land. They were incredibly valuable and the South wouldn't give them up without a fight.

If Lincoln had allowed the South to secede, a country FOUNDED on the preservation of slavery would have continued slavery for a LONG, LONG time. We will never know, but probably not until the mid-20th century would slavery have ended in the South, though it all depends on how seriously the Confederacy wanted to join the community of decent nations.

[Non-Sequitur]

With the preaching of the Wesleys (late 1700s) and their followers, it would have ended much as it had in Britain. But slowly.

Slavery didn't exist in Britain, it existed in the colonies, primarily in the Caribbean. And even though it was a compensated emancipation it was still done in the face of strenuous opposition from the slave owners.

And there wouldn't have been an entire race/class of uneducated and ill-prepared people simply turned out to fend for themselves.

And what makes you say that? Do you really think that slave owners would, at their own expense and in the face of a declining value of their asset, have footed the bill to educate and train their slaves for life after slavery? Slavery ending of it's own accord in an independent south wouldn't have left the freed slaves any better off.

[Aurelius]

"I apologize for being born with intelligence and the ability to see through horse manure."

No need to apologize, your supposed offense exists only in your imagination.

[Aurelius]

"That the south fired first is undisputed."

But Lincoln manipulated the into it, just as Roosevelt did the Japanese.

[CobaltBlue]

I respectfully object to the characterization of the debate as "North-South."

I was born in Virginia, grew up in Louisiana, and now live in Virginia. Both of my parents were born in Mississippi. I am not now, never was, and never will be a Yankee.

But I do know that slavery is why the South seceded, not "state's rights" or tariffs, although those were important, too. I'd love to believe that the real Confederate cause was taxes. We haven't had anybody willing to fight and die over taxes since the Whiskey Rebellion.

[Bigun]

a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

Sounds like a pretty accurate description to me.

So, in your opinion, the Confederate States of America did not exsist?

[r9etb]

so that we Southern Gentlemen wouldnt be forced to shower with Yankees! It's as simple as that.

LOL!!!

(And here I thought southerners never bathed.... ;-)

[r9etb]

We haven't had anybody willing to fight and die over taxes since the Whiskey Rebellion.

And imagine that -- those rebels were northerners......

[Non-Sequitur]

So, in your opinion, the Confederate States of America did not exsist?

That is correct.

[Twodees]

Back then, the democrats were the conservatives and the republicans were the upstart utopians, socialists and atheistic haters of Christian society and the constitution.

The parties haven't switched sides, they have simply decided to apply the same standards. Seriously, Larry, why are you buying into the line championed by the marxists in academia? Is it because the republican party also champions that same line in defiance of the historical record?

[Twodees]

You're 23, in favor of the war and you refuse to enlist. That makes you a slacker. Whatever you're trying to prove with your absurd analogy, you're still a slacker. Here's your question and an answer: When I advocate Clinton being arrested for his crimes, should I "enlist" as a police officer, so as to not be a hypocrite"?

No, you're just in opposition to the president on that subject. One doesn't have to be a cop to want to see justice done. One does need to be willing to serve in the armed forces if he's fit, or he has no standing to advocate that other young men go and fight the war he wants. The chicken hawk routine is for old men who can't get into the armed forces. Young men playing at that game are hypocrites.

[Texaggie79]

Our military is such that it does not require FULL enlistment of all it's men under 25. Our situation is such that the roll is adequately filled by those that volunteer.

The analogy was just. I will try an even better one. What if I want a crime boss taken out? How dare I suggest that police risk their lives taking out a proven crime boss when I don't enlist into the police force? That is the equivalent of what you ask.

[Corin Stormhands]

They were incredibly valuable and the South wouldn't give them up without a fight.

And, while we all admit it was morally wrong, the slaves were their property, legally bought and sold. Of course it was an horrid institution.

Hey, I'm fully willing to admit that slavery was an important issue. It wasn't the only one.

Tell me. Are you willing to have someone march in and destroy your entire way of life without offering any solution for change? Just end slavery. Turn em all out in the streets with no education and nowhere to go.

Where were they going? Was the North welcoming them with open arms? Don't be absurd.

The South may have treated the slaves as property. But they saw them fed, clothed and housed. The North didn't want them to be property.

They just didn't want them.