|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
this list of sh!t
I refuse to maintain a "civil" discourse
partisan feces
idiots who put this piece together
drooling Neanderthal
abject dumbass
so insipidly stupid its childish
sewage of propoganda
Here's a tip, JaTo: those who engage in argument for a living (media commentators, lawyers, political operatives, academics) know that incivility toward one's opponent is a sign of weakness. It is perceived by the audience as a tacit concession of the strength of the opposing argument. Resort to insults and name-calling is almost universally interpreted as an admission of one's failure to prevail in the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by BP:
most historians (and abe himself) dance around the issue by attributing the war to state's rights, political/economical woes, and the deterioration of the union due to the southern states wanting more representation.
How did Lincoln "dance around" the issue, when in speeches and correspondance he blantanly stated that slavery as a moral issue wasn't his concern, but keeping the Union together was? If slavery was such a divided issue to hold a war over, why did it take two centuries for it to come to blows? Why didn't slaves immediately obtain equal rights under law if the North fought for this specific purpose?
Originally posted by BP:
but what was all of this born out of...the southern states feeling their economy would suffer as a result of losing their rights to function as they please.
Since only 10% of the Southern population was known as owning slaves, where was this overwhelming economic burden with the bulk of the citizenry?
Originally posted by BP:
they were afraid that the fed would establish an overarching set of laws that would ultimately regulate how they conduct commerce and in turn affect the southern economy. and what was the lifeblood of the southern economy? slavery.
Exactly. Slavery was a pillar under State's Rights, albeit a large one. Not the other way around. The North and the Federal Goverment was dictating taxation policy, legislative policy, import/export policy and slave policy with little to no input from Southern representatives.
Originally posted by BP:
so in a word slavery may not have been the stated reson for the war, but ALL of the issues can be traced back to it.
I would say it was intermingled with most of the issues that were cropped up to a varying degree. As a moral disagreement, it was NOT the reason behind the conflict. It was a part of a financial and power struggle, and only became a popular moral argument once the fight was under way.
I seem to recall that most people of color (Indians, blacks, etc.) were by in large treated differently and looked upon as inferior by a fair number of the population in the North even after the Civil War.
This is evident in that equal rights under law wasn't achieved until close to a century later under LBJ's administration....
Originally posted by BP:
still you never answered my original question which i will now restate: if the southern economy was not dependant on slave labor would there have been a civil war? i've given you several examples in my previous post of how the fed regulation of commerce was directly related to slavery.
Absolutely. Although there exists a small amount of debate over the causes of the civil war, there is next to NO debate that war was avoidable. There were simply too many fissures that existed between the Northern and Southern states; take slave labor out of the equation and the economic disadvantage that the South would have been placed in would have been even GREATER.
If Southern States were given more control away from Federal mandates, this perhaps could have changed things. One can totally remove slavery from the equation (reckless, I know) but the fact still stands that there exists MANY serious grievances that the Southern states would have had against the Federal government.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Here's a tip, JaTo: those who engage in argument for a living (media commentators, lawyers, political operatives, academics) know that incivility toward one's opponent is a sign of weakness. It is perceived by the audience as a tacit concession of the strength of the opposing argument. Resort to insults and name-calling is almost universally interpreted as an admission of one's failure to prevail in the debate.
Here's a tip, Red: Then perhaps next time around, you, like the poster of this sewage, can bring something researched, valid and cohesive to the table to discuss instead of "cut and paste" propaganda.
When I'm presented with thought, logic, carefully and well-addressed discourse, I take care to respond in like. Partisan sewage? You bet I'll tear a new oriface into it if it has the hint of ineptitude.
I am also aware in debates that the insistance of one party to constantly label the other something they are not and have proven not to be (does the term "neo-con" ring a bell here?) is a sign of desperate, ill-researched, and ill-informed individual.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Resort to insults and name-calling is almost universally interpreted as an admission of one's failure to prevail in the debate.
We know. I pointed that out in this thread when you started calling everyone a neocon when you had clearly lost that debate.
If you think JaTo is trying to conceal a lack of knowledge or understanding on a topic by 'name-calling' and 'insulting', then I suggest you pay more attention to what he posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115 |
Originally posted by Davo:
when you started calling everyone a neocon
Nooooo!!! Not neo-con again! Aaaaahhhhrrrggg! 
"Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
i may have misdirected my statement of dancing around the issue. lincoln knew he couldn't use the abolition of slavery as a central point of the war, because he wanted the south to have confidence that he would protect their economy. however, even though he didn't state it directly before the war towards we did end up seeing the emancipation proclamation. Originally posted by JaTo:
Since only 10% of the Southern population was known as owning slaves, where was this overwhelming economic burden with the bulk of the citizenry?
because the southern economy had become almost exclusively a slave based, cash crop agricultural one. add to that close to between 80 to 90% of all land in the slave states was owned by the approximately 10% of the population who were slaveholders. and even further, more than 80% of the southern economy at the time was based in agriculture! is that not an overwhelming economic burden? and since we know that economy and politics were synonymous back then, is it not obvious it would be in south's primary economic/political interest to protect their right's to slave labor?
Originally posted by Jato:
I would say it was intermingled with most of the issues that were cropped up to a varying degree. As a moral disagreement, it was NOT the reason behind the conflict. It was a part of a financial and power struggle, and only became a popular moral argument once the fight was under way.
i agree, i'm not saying slavery was a cause of war as a moral issue for the confederacy, but rather an economic/political issue.
from my recollection of the confederacy's constitution it's not hard to deduce that they wanted to establish a political institution which would guarantee its two most important "state rights" directly related to: human slavery, and free trade economic policies.
Originally posted by Jato:
If Southern States were given more control away from Federal mandates, this perhaps could have changed things. One can totally remove slavery from the equation (reckless, I know) but the fact still stands that there exists MANY serious grievances that the Southern states would have had against the Federal government.
true but ALL of their most serious grievances were a result of economic control and political representation. and once again ALL of those grievances can be traced back to the importance of slave labor in the southern economy. i haven't seen one major grievance in all of my studies and reading that could not be traced back to economic/political issues related to slavery. can you provide any examples?
i'll let you have the last word on this one jato as i've thoroughly enjoyed the threadjacking. now i'm off to play pool. 
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 839
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 839 |
i think ill keep my mouth shut on this topic...... being stuck in the land o' sand and all 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17 |
Originally posted by Davo:
If you think JaTo is trying to conceal a lack of knowledge or understanding on a topic by 'name-calling' and 'insulting', then I suggest you pay more attention to what he posts.
I do not think anyone is questioning Jato's knowledge upon the subject. However, degrading another poster because you do not agree with his or her opinion is immature, unprofessional, and downright disrespectful. It becomes quite obvious that political discussions become emotional for those deeply involved with them such as Jato. However, that gives no member the right to maliciously attack another member. If a member is uncertain as to whether he or she can take part in an online discussion respectfully, perhaps it would be best if they remain silent.
2000 Ford Contour SVT, black on tan, 43K
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115 |
Hey BlackonTan, how's the sunroof?
"Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
'Maliciously attack'??? Give me a break. 
|
|
|
|
|
