Who Would You Have Supported In the American Civil War
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:46:34 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Who Would You Have Supported In the American Civil War
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Union
 
#2
Rebel
 
#3
Neutral
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 103

Author Topic: Who Would You Have Supported In the American Civil War  (Read 5593 times)
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2013, 09:44:01 PM »

Almost undoubtedly the Union. My hometown was an anti-slavery hotbed and to my knowledge I don't have a single southern ancestor.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2013, 09:44:44 PM »


Ha ha lol. There are actually people besides Southern rednecks and Tea Party morons sympathetic to the Confederacy wow. Then again I could see people inclined to support the BNP or Front Nationale...
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,625
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2013, 09:45:20 PM »

Union (not a racist/Southerner)
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: November 13, 2013, 09:50:33 PM »

Redalgo's position here is a good reason as to why ideological non-interventionism/pacifism is incompatible with reality.
Your young and in your prime. Why don't you go pick up a gun and go fight for some other peoples freedoms. Its not as easy as you would think, and when the draft was instituted in 1863, NYC went up in flames.

Totally missing the point here.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,064
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: November 13, 2013, 10:11:03 PM »


Why, exactly? Is there something I'm missing that makes foreigners more sympathetic to the south than Americans? Huh
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: November 13, 2013, 10:12:17 PM »


Why, exactly? Is there something I'm missing that makes foreigners more sympathetic to the south than Americans? Huh

France and the UK were relatively pro-South during the course of the war, iirc.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 13, 2013, 10:18:02 PM »

With hindsight I'm going with the union. It was a lot more complicated than liberals and textbooks tell us today. If someone from the south says they'd be in the union or someone in the north says they'd be in the union without significant consideration, then they're not well informed about history. If I lived at the time of the Civil War like most people in the country, I'd probably be in the confederacy along with most of my state.
Logged
DINGO Joe
dingojoe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,700
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: November 13, 2013, 10:28:10 PM »


Why, exactly? Is there something I'm missing that makes foreigners more sympathetic to the south than Americans? Huh

France and the UK were relatively pro-South during the course of the war, iirc.

Not really, the South thought that the loss of cotton to European textile mills would led to assistance from England and/or France but that never happened.  Google Cotton Diplomacy.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: November 13, 2013, 10:34:57 PM »

Make no mistake - I do strongly object to slavery - but I am also still a moral relativist and my respect for foreign customs is far stronger than my urge to maim or slaughter anyone who gets between me and a world where my morals have been made the law of the land. Slaves and Southern abolitionists in revolt, in contrast, would lend legitimacy to an argument of the CSA's government being illegitimate by virtue of being unrepresentative of - and also unresponsive to shifts in - the values of the People.

1. As many others have previously stated, "foreign customs" does not justify SLAVERY

2. Is legitimacy not already lent to the argument that the CSA did not represent the people by the mere fact that it was legal to own people? I'd say widespread SLAVERY is a pretty good case for saying that the people are not being represented.
Logged
Spamage
spamage
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,825
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: November 13, 2013, 10:36:31 PM »

Union. In fact one of my great-great-great-great grandfathers was a 100 year old Methodist Abolitionist in Indiana at the time of the fighting.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: November 13, 2013, 10:47:58 PM »


It is well known that South Carolina, the first state to secede, was also the first among the British American colonies to elect a Jewish member to the colonial legislature.  In fact, outside Poland--another place which, like the American South, often finds itself the butt of politically incorrect jokes--it was the first place in the Western World to elect a Jew to public office.  Louisiana, another secession state, was the only region outside to welcome several thousand French-speaking refugees from the region of Acadia--now Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island--after having been expelled from their homelands by the British during the French and Indian War.  The Texas legislature welcomed Germans and Czechs in large numbers in the early days after their independence from Mexico.  We could go on and on along these lines, of course, and it's not that any of this history has any more relevance to the thread than your bizarre post, but it seems that you might benefit from just a little historical education.


Perhaps xenophobic was a strong word, but come on, you can't deny that the South was very wary of anything that didn't fit the perceived Southern "way of life"; they did not like the North's culture, at least. Yes, in those isolated instances, they did welcome refugees and have diverse elected officals, but keep in mind; Judah P Benjamin, one of the Jewish Senators you're talking about? A slaveholder.

And I'm sure many Texans would tell you that Texas is not entirely a part of the South, even though it went along with the Confederacy.

I probably should have used the word "expansionist"; I was trying to say that they despised those who weren't part of Southern culture, while at the same time they wanted to annex Cuba to expand slavery.

Also, I was referring to the elites, not the regular people.
Logged
Sopranos Republican
Matt from VT
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,175
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.03, S: -8.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: November 13, 2013, 10:55:12 PM »
« Edited: November 14, 2013, 09:52:29 AM by VP Matt »

Union (I have a soul)
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: November 13, 2013, 10:58:45 PM »

@Oakvale:

The Civil War was not for abolishing slavery. It was for beating renegade republics into submission and then reabsorbing them into the Union.

There are two classic misconceptions here:
1) As Lincoln did not plan to completely abolish slavery either in his election campaign or even after Ford Sumter, the war was not really about slavery
2) The rebelling states were fighting for independence from an overbearing government.

These are both false and obviously so. Let's begin with the simple fact: Before 1860 the slave interest was a dominant - perhaps the dominant - interest in American government. The two presidents previous to Lincoln, Buchanan and Pierce had both tried to 'negotiate' the slavery issue by passing legislation favourable to the slave interest in the face of previous compromises that had not been so favourable (How else can you explain The Kansas-Nebraska Act?). Some of these laws were not only an affront to the liberty of persons but actually contradicted the notion of states rights such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 that was passed by the Fillmore administration which required local militias to chase and arrest escaped slaves even in states where slavery was illegal and there was strong abolitionist sentiment. Not only that but under Polk, one of the presidents closest to the slave interest, the United States expanded its territory massively following a war against Mexico which brought large territories which were given over to the slave interest who were the driving force behind the idea of expansion. Texas, which had originally separated from Mexico in part because the Mexican government under the 'tyran't Santa Ana had tried to ban Slavery, joined the United States as a consequence of the war. Later on, of course, Texas would separate again, this time from the US, because of slavery.

Not to mention that a large area of the cotton growing south, including pretty much the entire state of Mississippi owes its genesis to the land policies of president Andrew Jackson who engaged in what was perhaps the most openly genocidal campaigns of all of the campaign in American History against its original inhabitants. The confederates were hardly men of peace.

Now to address #1, Lincoln had the first president elected without any support of the South and the first who had campaigned for abolitionist-leaning reform of the slavery laws. The United States, being an empire, was expanding rapidly to the west and taking in all kinds of states. Previous agreements, which were eventually torn up by the Kansas-Nebraska act (see above), had stated that these expansion states would mostly be slavery free. Furthermore, the land of the plains was completely unsuitable to the high extensive cotton agriculture seen in the Deep South and thus it would be difficult under normal economic conditions for slavery to gain an interest in most of the west. In addition to this, the land in the west from was in demand by settlers from the North (and outside the US) who wished to own private property in their own personal manner (i.e. Free from slavery) with all the goods and services that the northern states provided at that time such as public education, which didn't even exist in most southern states at the time. As well as greater equality, at least among those who owned land, as there was a greater disparity between landowners in the south and north. Why? One simple reason: The profits from cotton. And as the profits from cotton were so great, there was no need for the South (in the eyes of its plantocracy rulers) to invest in public goods. Note this: Of the 20 largest cities in the United States in 1860, nineteen were in the North plus the port city of New Orleans. The south was an agricultural economy completely dominated economically and socially by the fact of slavery; the relationship of the government with the people, its economic and class structure even for non-slaves, its undemocratic nature compared to the North were connected to slavery. To support, therefore, the confederacy is to associate yourself with the most powerful anti-modernist, anti-development, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, imperialist expansionists, racists and genociders in American history.

Don't believe me? Let's take a quote from the horses' mouth, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about the reasons given by the states?

Here's Georgia

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Mississippi

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it goes on like this... seriously read these

(cont)...
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: November 13, 2013, 10:59:35 PM »

When Lincoln got elected on the promise of restricted the expansion of slavery this was a major threat to these interests. Because of the growth of Northern industry the population of North was growing very rapidly as opposed to the South which was much more stagnant. The south was getting outvoted and was losing its influence in Washington due to the effects of demographics and the election of 1860 showed this and its influence would clearly grow weaker and weaker in a situation where there were more non-slave states. Thus secession. Which started in South Carolina, the only state in which the electorate could not vote in Presidential elections (the legislature picked their candidate... although if the eligible population (less than 25% of the adult population as the black majority couldn't vote because they enslaved and Women didn't have suffrage yet) had voted there's no doubt they would have agreed with the legislature. South Carolina then seized federal property and then started the war by attacking Fort Sumter. That's right, the confederates and not the Union started the war. This attack led to four further states seceding from the Union and creating the situation that led to the deaths of 600,000 people in the defense of slavery, hierarchy and pseudo-aristocracy. And because they had lost an election.

This strongly suggests that these people were not willing to listen to 'reason' on the slavery issue.

You know, sometimes Redalgo you should realize that people regularly act in bad faith especially when self-interest is concerned.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some of this I've already gone though and the rest is complete and utter waffle of the most waffliest kind. Who would these "armed opponents" be? The men at Fort Sumter? The Slaves? (Good luck with that...) The Abolitionists? The same Abolitionists that were despised by nearly all Southern Society and most of the north as well... or perhaps the real armed opponents of the regime, The United States Government.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll ignore the issue of definitions - what does "support" mean in this context or "broad-based"? I, of course, agree with you for the most part on the US' role in the world today. Unilateral conflict, especially if based on spurious evidence-free assertion such as "WMD" is a pretty bad idea as the last 10-15 years have shown. However, as the Arab Spring has also shown we should not expect rebels in other countries to share our sentiments. Like so much isolationists, you are in fact a perverse nationalist believing that if only America became the true moral exemplar unruined by such corruptions as actual military conflict then the world would simply become more like America anyway. This is false; Democracy, liberalism, etc are not universal values and they were not, as I have pointed out already, the values of the confederacy which was a paternalistic oligarchy.

I'm currently research into Puritan missionaries in Early New England and one of the most amazing ideas they had was that natives would suddenly convert by magic if only the American Indians saw how utterly amazing they were; how Godly, how well behaved, how biblical, etc. Of course this had no relation to their actual actions and even less was this successful, a failure which was then blamed on the ignorance and stupidity of the 'Indian'. It's good to see with Redalgo and the 'Anti-Imperialist' Left such arguments re-appearing.

No if we want Democracy and liberalism to spread around the world, then democracy and liberalism should be aggressively (but not too aggressively) promoted. Of course, we could otherwise retreat into pseudo-relativist blather about other customs and cultures.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh good lord, where to begin? As Scott rightly pointed out you claim Slavery is immoral yet you are also a moral relativist with respect for foreign customs (such as slavery per chance?). This whole argument seems like nothing more than a Chewbacca defense - "that does not make sense"; "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must be neutral in all conflicts because peace and goodwill to all man. Also, have I mentioned that I'm a Tibetan Buddhist... Oh, the Dalai Lama, he's so spiritual man"

I have nothing wrong with respecting foreign customs, I think a bland rationalist world a la the fantasies of Richard Dawkins would be a dull place but I think if local custom meant denying the privilege of anyone, especially a large group of people chosen only because of their geographical origins and skin colour, to choose their customs would be a crime that no relativist can support. Catholicism is the custom of my country and Presbyterianism the custom of my ancestors but I reject both of them; Black African slaves had no such chance. The situation isn't even comparable. It's mad, bigoted and racist to suggest otherwise.

As for Diplomacy ending slavery, lol. The confederates best chance, in fact, lay in diplomacy especially in getting recognition in Britain and France. Yes, local moral indignation was a major part of the reason preventing that from happening but the British and French were far away, Lincoln in Washington on the border with the now Confederate Virginia, not so much.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So your alternative to the slaughter - awful as it was - that took place would be a bound-to-be genocidal revolt. Let's not forget no widespread slave report bar one has ever been successful in world history and the one exception was a highly unusual case (which, btw, inspired the southern plantocracy to be ever more vigilant over their 'property'). This revolt, which would somehow be instantaneous and involve most African slaves (despite their geographical dispersal) and Southern abolitionists (who were an oppressed and tiny minority of intellectuals who were banned from sending their literature through the mail), would of course somehow be successful and end slavery despite this being in the interest of nobody with power or influence.

This simply at the Ron Paul level of magical thinking that somehow slavery would disappear because it had to disappear through the amazing forces of progressive history. I would like to think that historical arguments made even on an internet message board are more sophisticated than those offered by Ron Paul. But alas, it seems, no. Your entire argument boils down to, in essence, "I would be against the war because it hurts my feelings and there's always a better way". I'm sure you think such hallmark sentiments are ennobling but given that it took 600,000 deaths to end American Slavery, I imagine they would have been remarkably ineffective.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: November 13, 2013, 11:00:57 PM »

Oh, btw, if you haven't figured from my post, I would have supported the Union.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: November 13, 2013, 11:08:56 PM »

Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: November 14, 2013, 12:10:55 AM »

Never mind, Tetro Kornbluth explained it far better than I did. Though he/she didn't mention the Southern planter aristocracy's ambitions to spread slavery throughout the Caribbean and parts of Central America. They seriously wanted to conquer Cuba for the interests of slavery. They weren't going to stay nice and quiet in their own little slaveholder's kingdom.
Logged
Enderman
Jack Enderman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,380
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: November 14, 2013, 12:13:13 AM »

Born a Californian (Union), grew up in Florida (Confederacy), but 60% of the family is from Wisconsin (Union)... so 2/3 it'd be Union. Also, to add to that, I hate racism and slavery, so...
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: November 14, 2013, 12:28:38 AM »

Radical Republican.  Draconian Reconstruction.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: November 14, 2013, 01:59:25 AM »
« Edited: November 14, 2013, 02:31:49 AM by Redalgo »

I'm seeing a big contradiction here.  You think slavery is immoral, yet you don't think it's moral to intervene when other countries are clearly guilty of that human rights violations out of respect for foreign customs?  If you object to the way the Union fought the war or rallied for the anti-slavery cause, that's another discussion entirely, but I strongly object to your sentiment that we shouldn't intervene simply because we don't want to look like we're disrespecting other cultures.  And just how do you measure the legitimacy of a government by the way the citizenry reacts?  If the abolitionists and slave-owners fought and lost the war by themselves, does that mean the CSA was legitimate in its subjugation of the black race?

A nation cannot and should not use the military to enforce moral order all the time for a number of reasons, but I think the circumstances of the American Civil War clearly permitted intervention on our part.  I don't even think it's remotely comparable to imperialism, as you think it is, if only because the Union was trying to regain territory that seceded from the country.  The intent was not to extend power and influence to foreign nations that we had no business in.

The contradiction would be if I held the position that might should make right when I'm the one holding the gun to someone's head but not when the situation is reversed. If I were to be violently in favor of abolition of slavery I would have to support wars against every country that allows it, every country that has conscription, and every one that can coerce prisoners of state to work without pay.

The following still enforce some form of slavery; feel free to advocate abolitionist wars against them if you please:

- Algeria
- Angola
- Argentina
- Austria
- Bolivia
- Brazil
- Chile
- China (both)
- Cuba
- Cyprus
- Denmark
- Ecuador
- Egypt
- Estonia
- Finland
- Greece
- Iran
- Israel
- Japan
- Jordan
- Korea (both)
- Kuwait
- Libya
- Mexico
- Moldova
- The Netherlands
- Norway
- Philippines
- Russia
- Seychelles
- Singapore
- Switzerland
- Syria
- Thailand
- Turkey
- United States
- Venezuela

And mind you, that is before one gets loose with the word "slavery" and applies it to capitalist forms of wage labour or to societies where people must work to have access to basic necessities of life as opposed to having them guaranteed under the protection of human rights. Slavery was not even abolished all throughout the Union's northern states before or during the Civil War, so I'm assuming the pro-Union votes must be for a lesser of evils, no?

Mind you, my opposition is not so simple as wanting to avoid looking bad for disrespecting other cultures. It is rooted in the golden rule, in a deep conviction that nations should have a right to self-determination. To answer your questions though (1.) I consider widespread violent unrest an indicator of people ceasing to recognize a regime's legitimacy - as tearing up the social contracts usually binding them with their respective states (as a general rule of thumb I assume enough people are apathetic during revolutionary times that 1/3 or greater support for a coop or revolution implies the state is being propped up only by an oppressive minority of loyalists - many up whom have special privileges from the state they don't want to see revoked under a new order); and (2.) if abolitionists lost fighting the war alone within the CSA it would not mean the CSA's regime was legitimate - merely that its guardians possessed more and/or better applied capital in war (the reason I support aid for revolutionaries is because they often have the will and good intent but not the assets needed to achieve their goals - often fighting from a dreadfully disadvantaged position).  

If slaves and abolitionists did not rise up at all, it implies to me enough apathy or complacency on their parts to accept the Davis regime's legitimacy - regardless of whether they work within the existing order to pursue reforms. If they rise up but in too few of numbers I would still see them as freedom fighters but also as out of touch with the values of their fellow Confederates to such an extent that their triumph would require subjugation of the masses to advance the interests of just a few, which would obviously be a far from an ideal outcome. There is no truly respectable way to force abolition upon a broadly pro-slavery population without turning to authoritarianism or - in the case of the Union as a foreign entity - imperialism. I stand by the use of that word because the Confederacy was obviously not of the same cultural nation as that of northern states of the Union. The cultural subjugation of one nation and domination by the other is by definition a type of imperialism. Whether imperialism can be righteous is where we appear to disagree.

I do not mean any disrespect Scott but I have really given this matter considerable thought.

...

But perhaps an effective counter-argument for getting me onto your side would be to point out that enslaved African Americans in the CSA were a cultural, ethnic, or racial nation of their own being oppressed by the Confederates. That would appeal to me a lot better than any argument that slavery in inherently immoral. It'd tap into that remaining reservoir of rage against and aggression toward expansionists, colonialists, imperialists, genocidaires, etc. I have as where to draw the line between tolerating self-determination and subjectively feeling justified to wage war. Having thought of this just now is actually causing me to switch positions and return to the pro-Union camp, though for the remainder of this post I'll continue to debate the posts directed at me.

Of course, now the contradiction for me is tolerating slavery in some instances but not others. You've brought me down a troubling line of thought. I don't like to have loose threads in my fabric of theory on how to approach and solve political problems. If you have a rabbit in your hat for dealing with that dilemma I want to see it pulled out, for peace of mind. Tongue


. . . moral relativism falls flat on its face.

Unfortunately, I have yet to hear any compelling arguments for why any moral absolutes exist. There are arguably some benefits to be had by pretending things can be objectively good or bad but whether moral relativism falls flat on its face in practice has no bearing on whether it actually appears to be the most reasonable of conclusions available. One of the reasons I embrace liberalism and the social contract in theory is because I honestly cannot think of any other way (aside from the [subjectively!] HP-incarnate, might-makes-right argument) to respond when an anarchist challenges the widespread assumption that state has a right - or at least moral justification - to implement its laws and otherwise threaten to do violence upon individuals.

I am not quite ready to embrace and feel comfortable with the theory that I am just another manipulative brute trying to strong-arm people into compliance with my wishes without a cause any nobler than raw and vicious, ethical egoism.


Better to end slavery in one's own country than in none at all for fear of coming across as parochial.

If one considers the endeavor justified, yes, though in practice it seems like most folks have ceased to notice, much less care, about residual institutions of slavery in the U.S. and abroad regardless of position on abolition in the CSA.


1. As many others have previously stated, "foreign customs" does not justify SLAVERY

2. Is legitimacy not already lent to the argument that the CSA did not represent the people by the mere fact that it was legal to own people? I'd say widespread SLAVERY is a pretty good case for saying that the people are not being represented.

Foreign customs do not lend slavery immunity from criticism, aye, but the more pertinent question to me on this matter is whether slavery justifies political violence in opposition and other forms of harm inflicted to bring about its abolition. Where does our moral authority to do that come from, Alfred? My waffling on the issue revolves around that concern.


@Gully Foyle:

Your posts are quite long and I might not get to reading them until tomorrow morning. I am not ignoring you - rather just making sure I don't get engrossed in their content until I have sufficient time to reply. I appreciate you going through the trouble of being so thorough!


Edit: For clarification by the way, when I express a personal opinion about what is right or wrong, correct or false, I am offering a subjective appraisal that makes sense within the constructed framework of perceiving reality pieced together in my head. When I express my belief in slavery being immoral for example, what I mean to say is that I personally feel that slavery is wrong and recommend it not be practiced... but make no claim as to whether it is objectively good or bad. Explaining that every time I judge something would make my posts even more wretchedly verbose and difficult to read than they already are! D:
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: November 14, 2013, 04:37:59 AM »

That was beautiful, Gully.

The idea that some people in the 21st century who aren't southern rednecks are actually defending the Confederacy is utterly sickening.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 14, 2013, 07:20:33 AM »

Norway is enforcing some form of slavery?!
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: November 14, 2013, 07:26:56 AM »

Norway is enforcing some form of slavery?!

Who knew?
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: November 14, 2013, 07:28:15 AM »


Why, exactly? Is there something I'm missing that makes foreigners more sympathetic to the south than Americans? Huh

France and the UK were relatively pro-South during the course of the war, iirc.

Yeah, France and the UK together Purple heart.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: November 14, 2013, 07:49:01 AM »

Born a Californian (Union), grew up in Florida (Confederacy), but 60% of the family is from Wisconsin (Union)... so 2/3 it'd be Union. Also, to add to that, I hate racism and slavery, so...

Yes, because the Union was so anti-racist.

Which of course still doesn't justify the Confederate position, which was racism and slavery.  It's like a double stacked sh*t sandwich with an extra helping of piss.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 14 queries.