A Southern lawmaker called Lincoln a ‘tyrant’ and compared him to Hitler
- Thread starter 88m3
- Start date
The hell are you talking about? He only posts in smileys. In fact as soon as he posts anything longer than one word he gets sonned.
Ya gotta listen to the podcast
A Southern lawmaker called Lincoln a ‘tyrant’ and compared him to Hitler
NC going for the crown this year
General Sherman would know how to handle a treasonous SOB like the one in the article.
Slavery was ended everywhere else without conflict... supporting the idea.
What makes you think that war was necessary?
You do realize that the Civil War was not really about slavery; right?
The North was actually fighting to preserve the Union. The South was fighting to secede which they cloaked under some bullshyt called "States rights", which many Southern White planters pointed to maintaining slavery. So the North was not actually fighting to abolish slavery it was just a byproduct of the North's victory and the desire to preserve the Union. What is lost in history is that there were many Southerners that did not want slavery and many Northerners that were pro-slavery.
You realize that the question is was war necessary to end slavery in America?You do realize that the Civil War was not really about slavery; right?
Not what was the war over slavery
? was slavery ok
? was ending it a good/bad thing
? was it just
?Or any of the other straw men erected in this thread.
southpawstyle
Superstar
Tell me what great liberal treaty would have been made without the forceful elimination of slavery all knowing moderatorYou realize that the question is was war necessary to end slavery in America?
Not what was the war over slavery
was slavery ok
was ending it a good/bad thing
was it just
Or any of the other straw men erected in this thread.
southpawstyle
Superstar
And dont give me any passive daps
You realize that the question is was war necessary to end slavery in America right?
Not what was the war over slavery
was slavery ok
was ending it a good/bad thing
was it just
Or any of the other straw men erected in this thread.
First you stated that "slavery was ended elsewhere without conflict."
So apparently you never heard of one of the largest slave revolts in history?
Haitian Revolution - Wikipedia
There were slave revolts all over the Western Hemisphere and interference from foreign governments instigating the revolts were some of real reasons that slavery ended in other places.
The second thing that you are not grasping is that in the USA the Civil War was not fought to end slavery. The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. People keep conflating the abolitionists positions with the positions of all Northerners. The abolitionist were definitely against slavery, but so were the small Southern farmers in places like North Carolina and Tennessee; because they could not compete economically against the larger plantations in their States that had slaves.
Some northerners were for slavery. The financiers were in favor of it, because they were the bankers for the slavers and they also traded the slave goods on international markets.
First you stated that "slavery was ended elsewhere without conflict."
So apparently you never heard of one of the largest slave revolts in history?
Haitian Revolution - Wikipedia
There were slave revolts all over the Western Hemisphere and interference from foreign governments instigating the revolts were some of real reasons that slavery ended in other places.
The second thing that you are not grasping is that in the USA the Civil War was not fought to end slavery. The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. People keep conflating the abolitionists positions with the positions of all Northerners. The abolitionist were definitely against slavery, but so were the small Southern farmers in places like North Carolina and Tennessee; because they could not compete economically against the larger plantations in their States that had slaves.
Some northerners were for slavery. The financiers were in favor of it, because they were the bankers for the slavers and they also traded the slave goods on international markets.
Was war necessary? If so why?I cited instances where the practice was ended without war to illustrate that....
never mind.#higherlearning
I'm getting a lot of "Lost Cause" and general apologist vibes from this thread 
The Lincoln comparison to Hitler is so overblown and hysterical, I don't even know where to begin. But it's exactly the kind of comparison I'd expect an old white Southerner to make.
I'm seeing posts in here arguing slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War. I'll just link to this Reddit post(and there's sources at the end of the post as well for anyone who'd like to read more about it): The Lost Cause, the American Civil War, and the Greatest Material Interest of the World, aka IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY!
This quote in particular sums it up pretty well:
As for slavery ending on its own? We can't say for sure it wouldn't have ended on its own, but then again, we shouldn't be arguing it would've ended on its own either in that case.
For Southerners, it was more than just an economic system that used race as its justification, like libertarians often seem to imply it was. Slavery was embedded in their their conceptions of liberty and morality. For them, a man should aspire to own land. And to own slaves. To be a slave owner meant you "made it". It meant you were truly a free man. Anything that threatened to upend the institution, or even the possibility of one day becoming a slave owner yourself, was basically infringing on your rights.
Whether or not it would've ended on its own can't really be answered because we'd basically just be talking about alternate history. I will say that slavery as practiced in the South wasn't the kind of institution that goes quietly in the night. It was extremely reactionary to any and all threats, real or imagined.
The Lincoln comparison to Hitler is so overblown and hysterical, I don't even know where to begin. But it's exactly the kind of comparison I'd expect an old white Southerner to make.
I'm seeing posts in here arguing slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War. I'll just link to this Reddit post(and there's sources at the end of the post as well for anyone who'd like to read more about it): The Lost Cause, the American Civil War, and the Greatest Material Interest of the World, aka IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY!
This quote in particular sums it up pretty well:
As for slavery ending on its own? We can't say for sure it wouldn't have ended on its own, but then again, we shouldn't be arguing it would've ended on its own either in that case.
For Southerners, it was more than just an economic system that used race as its justification, like libertarians often seem to imply it was. Slavery was embedded in their their conceptions of liberty and morality. For them, a man should aspire to own land. And to own slaves. To be a slave owner meant you "made it". It meant you were truly a free man. Anything that threatened to upend the institution, or even the possibility of one day becoming a slave owner yourself, was basically infringing on your rights.
Whether or not it would've ended on its own can't really be answered because we'd basically just be talking about alternate history. I will say that slavery as practiced in the South wasn't the kind of institution that goes quietly in the night. It was extremely reactionary to any and all threats, real or imagined.
Last edited:
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Sherman should've been given a free hand, if anyone ever deserved total war it was the south
