Crimea votes to be part of Russia

[AZGrizFan]

Ok, warmongers. An estimated 620k killed and about 900k wounded, not to mention the catastrophic psychological toll and wholesale destruction of the south. Was it worth it?
http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil ... lties.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes. Think of the gene pool clensing that was accomplished during the war

We could use another purge.

[SDHornet]

Yes. Think of the gene pool clensing that was accomplished during the war

We could use another purge.

Lawyers and banker first.

[BDKJMU]

Yeah boy, just wait another 40 years and you'll have your freedom!

There is debate regarding the idea that slavery was on it's way out, not every historian agrees. I doubt either side would have spilled so much blood for something if they knew it was about to end anyway.

Most Southern soldier weren't fighting to keep slaves, as they didn't own any. And most northern soldiers wren't fighting to free the slaves, but rather to preserve the Union. The world was entering the 2nd Industrial Revolution (1860s-early 1900s), which lessened the South's need for slaves. And check out the abolition of slavery timeline, esp 1850-1899.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_ ... y_timeline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Slavery was entering its twilight phase in the South, Civil War or no Civil War.

[SDHornet]

Too bad they didnt have this graph or a Jelly graph for enlightenment.

[BDKJMU]

Ok, warmongers. An estimated 620k killed and about 900k wounded, not to mention the catastrophic psychological toll and wholesale destruction of the south. Was it worth it?
http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil ... lties.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, the South should have given up slavery.

They would have- see my above post.

[kalm]

No, the South should have given up slavery.

They would have- see my above post.

It was fucking slavery. Tell that to those who were in chains. It's ok...you'll be free in another 40 or so years.

You're like Dal, but with slightly better grammar.

[kalm]

I retract that last statement and regret for lumping Dal in with BDK .

[Skjellyfetti]

Slavery was entering its twilight phase in the South, Civil War or no Civil War.

Slavery wasn't always going to exist in the South.

But, it was certainly NOT in its twilight. Southern leaders were going to cling to slavery as long as possible.

And Southern leaders certainly didn't think it was anywhere approaching twilight.

Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy in 1861:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

[Everytime someone defends the Confederate States of America... THIS is the government they're defending:]

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ne-speech/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


What a shitbag.



edit: that speech reads like a JSO post. Railing against egalitarianism, applauding scientific racisim, and long-winded as fuck.

[YoUDeeMan]

I wasn't argueing that. I was argueing the for the North letting the South go. Without a war there would haven't have been the loss of 600k lives and the wholesale destruction of most Southern cities (along with a good bit of countryside). Wouldn't have been the resulting bitterness. Slavery was on its way out on its own and would have ended by the turn of the century. Think the South & North would have reunited by early 20th century..

Yeah boy, just wait another 40 years and you'll have your freedom!

C'mon, man...people were NOT fighting for the freedom of the slaves.

We aren't fighting for the freedom of the Afghan people, the freedom of the Libyan people, the freedom of the Syrian people, and certainly not the freedom of the Saudis or Bahrainianites (or whatever they are called). We don't give a crap about freedom...unless it serves our interests.

The Civil War, as most wars, was about power and money. Slavery was just a sideshow.

[BDKJMU]

They would have- see my above post.

It was **** slavery. Tell that to those who were in chains. It's ok...you'll be free in another 40 or so years.

You're like Dal, but with slightly better grammar.

Tell that to those about 1.5 million casualties, including about 620k dead in a country of only about 31 million. After all that life for most of the former slaves didn't greatly improve, as they were treated only about 1 notch better than slavery.

[BDKJMU]

Slavery was entering its twilight phase in the South, Civil War or no Civil War.

Slavery wasn't always going to exist in the South.

But, it was certainly NOT in its twilight. Southern leaders were going to cling to slavery as long as possible.

And Southern leaders certainly didn't think it was anywhere approaching twilight.

Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy in 1861:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

[Everytime someone defends the Confederate States of America... THIS is the government they're defending:]

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... ne-speech/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


What a shitbag.



edit: that speech reads like a JSO post. Railing against egalitarianism, applauding scientific racisim, and long-winded as ****.

Doesn't matter what some southern politician was bloviating about. Politicians have always bloviated that something that soon ended up changing was never going to change.

[BDKJMU]

Estonia next?

"Russia signaled concern on Wednesday at Estonia's treatment of its large ethnic Russian minority, comparing language policy in the Baltic state with what it said was a call in Ukraine to prevent the use of Russian.

Russia has defended its annexation of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula by arguing it has the right to protect Russian-speakers outside its borders, so the reference to linguistic tensions in another former Soviet republic comes at a highly sensitive moment......."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... J620140319" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

Yeah boy, just wait another 40 years and you'll have your freedom!

C'mon, man...people were NOT fighting for the freedom of the slaves.

We aren't fighting for the freedom of the Afghan people, the freedom of the Libyan people, the freedom of the Syrian people, and certainly not the freedom of the Saudis or Bahrainianites (or whatever they are called). We don't give a crap about freedom...unless it serves our interests.

The Civil War, as most wars, was about power and money. Slavery was just a sideshow.

BDK and Cluck are right. I've been saying this for years on here.

Hey, what do you expect will happen when the South, with all of its raw materials, leaves and the North (who needs those raw materials) see's the prices increase?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Wars are fought for economics/resources, but the reason given to the population is an ideology.


We're fighting for independence from Britain (b/c we don't want to pay them any more taxes)
We're fighting for slavery (keep our economic system in tact. Those Yankees depended on cheap labor.)
We're fighting to free the Iraqi People (of their oil.)


WW2: Japan and Germany were fighting for both resources and an ideology.

[Ibanez]

It was **** slavery. Tell that to those who were in chains. It's ok...you'll be free in another 40 or so years.

You're like Dal, but with slightly better grammar.

Tell that to those about 1.5 million casualties, including about 620k dead in a country of only about 31 million. After all that life for most of the former slaves didn't greatly improve, as they were treated only about 1 notch better than slavery.

It's interesting how blacks weren't treated any better in the North.

[Ibanez]

Estonia next?

"Russia signaled concern on Wednesday at Estonia's treatment of its large ethnic Russian minority, comparing language policy in the Baltic state with what it said was a call in Ukraine to prevent the use of Russian.

Russia has defended its annexation of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula by arguing it has the right to protect Russian-speakers outside its borders, so the reference to linguistic tensions in another former Soviet republic comes at a highly sensitive moment......."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... J620140319" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Didn't we see this before?

Sudentland, anyone?

[BlueHen86]

Estonia next?

"Russia signaled concern on Wednesday at Estonia's treatment of its large ethnic Russian minority, comparing language policy in the Baltic state with what it said was a call in Ukraine to prevent the use of Russian.

Russia has defended its annexation of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula by arguing it has the right to protect Russian-speakers outside its borders, so the reference to linguistic tensions in another former Soviet republic comes at a highly sensitive moment......."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/ ... J620140319" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Didn't we see this before?

Sudentland, anyone?

Our NATO allies need to start spending on their own defense instead of relying on us. I'm not thrilled about the idea of Russia moving into other countries, the excuse given is very similar to the one Hitler gave from Germany's moves.

However, Russia is a much bigger threat to Western Europe than it is to us, let them (Western Europe) spend their money to build up their armies and stand up to the Russians.

[Pwns]

Yeah boy, just wait another 40 years and you'll have your freedom!

C'mon, man...people were NOT fighting for the freedom of the slaves.

We aren't fighting for the freedom of the Afghan people, the freedom of the Libyan people, the freedom of the Syrian people, and certainly not the freedom of the Saudis or Bahrainianites (or whatever they are called). We don't give a crap about freedom...unless it serves our interests.

The Civil War, as most wars, was about power and money. Slavery was just a sideshow.

Good to see you are consistent. It's interesting to me that people that are pacifists or are just overall skeptical about motives in war believe in a comic book version of the American Civil War. Do these people think there weren't people who stood to lose a lot of money if the South created its own currency?

[BlueHen86]

C'mon, man...people were NOT fighting for the freedom of the slaves.

We aren't fighting for the freedom of the Afghan people, the freedom of the Libyan people, the freedom of the Syrian people, and certainly not the freedom of the Saudis or Bahrainianites (or whatever they are called). We don't give a crap about freedom...unless it serves our interests.

The Civil War, as most wars, was about power and money. Slavery was just a sideshow.

Good to see you are consistent. It's interesting to me that people that are pacifists or are just overall skeptical about motives in war believe in a comic book version of the American Civil War. Do these people think there weren't people who stood to lose a lot of money if the South created its own currency?

Lots of factors came together in order for the war to happen. Economics were a huge and perhaps biggest reason. Social differences between the North and South played a role, as did states rights. Saying the war was about slavery over simplifies it, but slavery definitely played a part. If nothing else it was a catalyst, but the states had been arguing about slavery for decades prior to the war.

Interesting internet discussion, I get the sense that school children in the south are taught from different textbook than children from the north use.

[Ibanez]

Good to see you are consistent. It's interesting to me that people that are pacifists or are just overall skeptical about motives in war believe in a comic book version of the American Civil War. Do these people think there weren't people who stood to lose a lot of money if the South created its own currency?

Lots of factors came together in order for the war to happen. Economics were a huge and perhaps biggest reason. Social differences between the North and South played a role, as did states rights. Saying the war was about slavery over simplifies it, but slavery definitely played a part. If nothing else it was a catalyst, but the states had been arguing about slavery for decades prior to the war.

Interesting internet discussion, I get the sense that school children in the south are taught from different textbook than children from the north use.

No,they just get bad information from their parents.

[YoUDeeMan]

This is way too funny.

Somehow, our Northern heroes cared about the plight of black people, but it was OK to go slaughter them redskin Injuns for several more decades. And don't get me started on those Spics.

You know, because when you become enlightened, you do it certain shades at a time.

[Ibanez]

This is way too funny.

Somehow, our Northern heroes cared about the plight of black people, but it was OK to go slaughter them redskin Injuns for several more decades. And don't get me started on those Spics.

You know, because when you become enlightened, you do it certain shades at a time.

[VictorG]

However, Russia is a much bigger threat to Western Europe than it is to us, let them (Western Europe) spend their money to build up their armies and stand up to the Russians.

Agreed!!!

But we'll be happy to send over Dennis Rodman and Justin Bieber!

[GannonFan]

Good to see you are consistent. It's interesting to me that people that are pacifists or are just overall skeptical about motives in war believe in a comic book version of the American Civil War. Do these people think there weren't people who stood to lose a lot of money if the South created its own currency?

Lots of factors came together in order for the war to happen. Economics were a huge and perhaps biggest reason. Social differences between the North and South played a role, as did states rights. Saying the war was about slavery over simplifies it, but slavery definitely played a part. If nothing else it was a catalyst, but the states had been arguing about slavery for decades prior to the war.

Interesting internet discussion, I get the sense that school children in the south are taught from different textbook than children from the north use.

Slavery didn't just play a part, it was the main reason the war happened. Heck, it was the main reason almost anything significantly political in the first 50 years of our country (Constitutional Convention, Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, etc) happened as well. If slavery didn't exist, the Civil War never would've happened. You can argue about the nuances of how people felt about slavery and who treated Blacks better, but there's no getting around the fact that if slavery didn't exist we wouldn't have had a civil war.

[Skjellyfetti]

Slavery didn't just play a part, it was the main reason the war happened. Heck, it was the main reason almost anything significantly political in the first 50 years of our country (Constitutional Convention, Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, etc) happened as well. If slavery didn't exist, the Civil War never would've happened. You can argue about the nuances of how people felt about slavery and who treated Blacks better, but there's no getting around the fact that if slavery didn't exist we wouldn't have had a civil war.

"States' rights" and "economics" can also be cited... but, slavery is still the primary factor there as well.

If the South didn't think Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, they wouldn't have seceded.

Just read the states' articles of secession. They expressly state slavery as the primary motivation for them seceding... just like Alexander Stephens named slavery as the "cornerstone" on which the Confederacy was built.

Mississippi:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I get the sense that school children in the south are taught from different textbook than children from the north use.

Not really. There is a revisionist history that became a part of the South's culture after and during reconstruction that seeks to explain away the role of slavery in the southern states seceding and in the war.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause ... onfederacy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_South" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

Are you jackasses done? This topic has been discussed ad nasuem.