American civil war question

[TomC]

Most likely they were not less racist but they damn sure had no reason to help the Confederacy being that they want the land for themselves. That also complicated things if they wanted to assist the Union. To my knowledge, they played both sides in hopes to gain from the weakness. That obviously didn't work out for them. America was just too shitty to Mexico for it to be useful or for Mexico to exploit anything. It's why the Union was French kissing the French anyway. to keep Mexico at bay (this is video game knowledge so a whole 50-pound bag of salt is required).

Edit: btw we stole more than Texas from Mexico

Yes. And Mexico stole the land from the Natives.

I can't figure out why [MENTION=346]Gospel[/MENTION]; brought up Mexico in the first place.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

"The Confederacy seceding resulted in the Union military sending an invasionary force to take over the fort."
Did this "invasion" to take control of a fort the military still owned fire any shots?

 

[SLD]

The Confederate leadership did no such thing. Northerners invaded them, they didn't attack anyone.

I'm not a "delusional Confederate lover". I think that the War of Northern Aggression rescued southern culture from winding up like Mexico or Brazil, second world countries dominated by a wealthy elite and masses of the poor.

But the fact remains. There was no Civil War. There wasn't really even a War between the States. The northern industrialists weren't any more willing to accept the succession of southerners than the British were willing to accept the succession of the Colonies. But the slavers won the first war of Succession and not the second one.
Tom

On the contrary, the South did attack the North. That’s exactly what they did at Fort Sumter. Lincoln waited for them to strike the first blow and by doing so he was able to raise the ire of Northern Americans to put down a deliberate military attack on the federal government. That is treason.

If you go by the history as written by the victors you'd believe that. But it isn't really true.

Fort Sumter was built to dominate the harbor thereby protecting the harbor from the British. The British remained a big threat to the nascent USA for many years after The First War of Succession. Sumter had largely been forgotten because the British threat had faded over the years. The Confederacy seceding resulted in the Union military sending an invasionary force to take over the fort. Then they could control the most crucial seaport in the Confederacy. Either destroy it or use it as a beachhead for more invasion.

For the Unionists, it was a can't lose. Either they succeeded in putting a choke hold on the enemy or they could claim that the Confederate government was the aggressor. The second option is what happened.

In bar brawl terms, this is called a "sucker punch". Try to punch someone and when they defend themselves pretend you were attacked.

You won't find this history in your public school textbooks, but it's easily available. Add a bit of critical thinking and most of it's obvious. It's sometimes referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression", because that's exactly what it was.
Tom

No. There was absolutely no invasion force sent to take over the fort. No reinforcements were sent to the fort from the time of secession until the bombardment. You are just wrong. Sorry, Tom. This was not a war of Northern aggression. It was a revolt against the constitutionally enacted government of the US. That’s treason.

 

[TomC]

It's why the Union was French kissing the French anyway.

Here's another interesting little bit that you won't find in the victor's history books.

European aristocracy was under threat from colonial uprisings like the USA.
So, on the one hand, they couldn't openly take sides. The Unionists would probably win their invasion, but no guarantees. On the other hand, the aristocracy was thrilled to see this war break out amongst those "Democratic Republicans". Watching those uppity colonists destroy themselves was definitely in their interests. That'll teach them not to mess around with "The Divine Right to Rule" that's clearly taught in Scripture.

The war would have been shorter and less bloody and destructive if the Confederacy hadn't gotten so much surreptitious help from EuroChristians who wanted the USA to destroy itself.
Tom

 

[TomC]

If you go by the history as written by the victors you'd believe that. But it isn't really true.

Fort Sumter was built to dominate the harbor thereby protecting the harbor from the British. The British remained a big threat to the nascent USA for many years after The First War of Succession. Sumter had largely been forgotten because the British threat had faded over the years. The Confederacy seceding resulted in the Union military sending an invasionary force to take over the fort. Then they could control the most crucial seaport in the Confederacy. Either destroy it or use it as a beachhead for more invasion.

For the Unionists, it was a can't lose. Either they succeeded in putting a choke hold on the enemy or they could claim that the Confederate government was the aggressor. The second option is what happened.

In bar brawl terms, this is called a "sucker punch". Try to punch someone and when they defend themselves pretend you were attacked.

You won't find this history in your public school textbooks, but it's easily available. Add a bit of critical thinking and most of it's obvious. It's sometimes referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression", because that's exactly what it was.
Tom

No. There was absolutely no invasion force sent to take over the fort. No reinforcements were sent to the fort from the time of secession until the bombardment. You are just wrong. Sorry, Tom. This was not a war of Northern aggression. It was a revolt against the constitutionally enacted government of the US. That’s treason.

The First War of Succession, popularly known as The Revolutionary War, was also a war of treason. And if the Founding Fathers hadn't protected slavery it would have failed.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

The First War of Succession, popularly known as The Revolutionary War, was also a war of treason.

Yes...and this changes the treason committed in the Civil War....how?

 

[TomC]

The First War of Succession, popularly known as The Revolutionary War, was also a war of treason.

Yes...and this changes the treason committed in the Civil War....how?

I didn't say it did. I'm saying treason isn't necessarily a bad thing. Or perhaps, better phrased, "It's not a bad thing if you win. Then it's patriotism."

The fact remains, the Confederacy didn't launch a war. Sumter was South Carolinians repelling an invasion by a foreign army. The Confederacy would have been happy peacefully going their own way. Just as the Founding Fathers would have been.

But the British didn't want the Colonies to secede, so they launched a war. The Northern Unionists didn't want the Confederate States to secede, so they launched a war.

Both the British and the Northerners were aggressors against people who peacefully seceded. Therefore, The War of Northern Aggression.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

The First War of Succession, popularly known as The Revolutionary War, was also a war of treason.

Yes...and this changes the treason committed in the Civil War....how?

I didn't say it did.

funny, i thought somewhere in here you were saying it was self-defense, not treason.

I'm saying treason isn't necessarily a bad thing. Or perhaps, better phrased, "It's not a bad thing if you win. Then it's patriotism."

okay.
But thery lost. So it's treason.

The fact remains, the Confederacy didn't launch a war. Sumter was South Carolinians repelling an invasion by a foreign army. The Confederacy would have been happy peacefully going their own way. Just as the Founding Fathers would have been.

Ah. The South did not fire the first shot because The North forced them to fire the first shot.
Sounds like a Self-Mutation argument.

But the British didn't want the Colonies to secede, so they launched a war. The Northern Unionists didn't want the Confederate States to secede, so they launched a war.

Tricksy Unionists. We hates them and their whole 'not firing the first shot of a war' start of a war..

Both the British and the Northerners were aggressors against people who peacefully seceded. Therefore, The War of Northern Aggression.
Tom

Yeah, that's why Davis wrote a strongly worded letter about Fort Sumter, rather than authorize military action. For the peaceful.

 

[Gospel]

It's why the Union was French kissing the French anyway.

Here's another interesting little bit that you won't find in the victor's history books.

European aristocracy was under threat from colonial uprisings like the USA.
So, on the one hand, they couldn't openly take sides. The Unionists would probably win their invasion, but no guarantees. On the other hand, the aristocracy was thrilled to see this war break out amongst those "Democratic Republicans". Watching those uppity colonists destroy themselves was definitely in their interests. That'll teach them not to mess around with "The Divine Right to Rule" that's clearly taught in Scripture.

The war would have been shorter and less bloody and destructive if the Confederacy hadn't gotten so much surreptitious help from EuroChristians who wanted the USA to destroy itself.
Tom

Won't get any arguments from me. There was way more going on than my liquor-washed brain can process at once.

 

[Gospel]

Most likely they were not less racist but they damn sure had no reason to help the Confederacy being that they want the land for themselves. That also complicated things if they wanted to assist the Union. To my knowledge, they played both sides in hopes to gain from the weakness. That obviously didn't work out for them. America was just too shitty to Mexico for it to be useful or for Mexico to exploit anything. It's why the Union was French kissing the French anyway. to keep Mexico at bay (this is video game knowledge so a whole 50-pound bag of salt is required).

Edit: btw we stole more than Texas from Mexico

Yes. And Mexico stole the land from the Natives.

I can't figure out why [MENTION=346]Gospel[/MENTION]; brought up Mexico in the first place.
Tom

Because I ate pozole from Las Cazuelas not too long before that post.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The First War of Succession, popularly known as The Revolutionary War, was also a war of treason.

Yes...and this changes the treason committed in the Civil War....how?

I didn't say it did. I'm saying treason isn't necessarily a bad thing. Or perhaps, better phrased, "It's not a bad thing if you win. Then it's patriotism."

The fact remains, the Confederacy didn't launch a war.

They did something worse. They tried to ignore the results of a democratic election. Imagine if states just left the US every time they didn't like the results of a Federal Election? Also, they fired on Federal Troops.

Sumter was South Carolinians repelling an invasion by a foreign army.

Invasions typically involve people that weren't already there.

The Confederacy would have been happy peacefully going their own way. Just as the Founding Fathers would have been.

Yeah, let's just look at that ridiculous statement because it ignores one minor thing... the West.

Both the British and the Northerners were aggressors against people who peacefully seceded. Therefore, The War of Northern Aggression.

Except for the Colonies, they were separating from a monarchy system and establish a Democracy. The South attempted to split from a Democracy because they didn't like the results of an election to form a Democracy that had election results they liked better and to guarantee slavery. Your parallel is terribly weak. The South didn't wage a war on the North, they waged a war on the Constitution.

 

[BH]

All you can really derive from any political decision was thast the politicians felt it was in their own interests. If i had to guess, i'd suspect the people in charge at the time saw all those military-experienced men and thought, if we label them as traitors now, it'll be damn tricky to draft them if another war breaks out with Mexico...

It's simpler than that, the traitors were "one of us".

Edit: How else do you explain Fuckery E Lee running a school afterwards and living out the rest of his days in relative peace. Meanwhile, Black people who didn't require pardons couldn't do that.

Edit: Black people couldn't even vote while Fuckery E Lee had major political influence after the Civil War. Yeah I know, he was helping to calm the south BUT FUCK THAT NIGGA.

Yeah, I've read he loved having involuntary sex with black women up in Maryland. Another name for that is rape.

I've read the Confederacy didnt just want to secede and leave. It actually declared war on the US and tried to take more territory from it, territory the people in that area voted to stay in the US.

 

[BH]

The more I read the less about the Confederacy and its leaders I like. One of my ancestors died fighting on the southern side and some ancestors owned slaves. The more I read about slavery the more I go from "my ancestors were stupid" to " my ancestors were evil sons of bitches".

 

[TomC]

okay.
But thery lost. So it's treason.

By this standard, the Afghanis who helped the USA military are now treasonous.

The Taliban won. The USA lost. Afghanis who supported the USA deserve whatever they get, because "might makes right". They lost.

The Taliban will be writing history in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

okay.
But thery lost. So it's treason.

By this standard, the Afghanis who helped the USA military are now treasonous.

yeah....

The Taliban won. The USA lost. Afghanis who supported the USA deserve whatever they get, because "might makes right". They lost.

yes, in the eyes of the current power in Afghanistan, sure.

The Taliban will be writing history in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future.
Tom

nah. China will.

 

[TomC]

. yeah...

OK.
At least you're agreeing that "might makes right".

Whatever you're fighting for becomes right, if you win.

Got it.
Tom

 

[bilby]

. yeah...

OK.
At least you're agreeing that "might makes right".

Whatever you're fighting for becomes right, if you win.

Got it.
Tom

"Right" has always been a matter of opinion, and you can be sure that if people are fighting for something, they think it's right. Even if they don't win.

There are no moral absolutes. And nobody's fighting for a cause they themselves believe to be evil, except in comic books and dumb religious fiction (aka "scripture").

In a very large fraction of the world, "the American way" is seen as being evil, ugly, and wrong; And fighting against America and all she stands for* is considered a moral duty.


*What she actually stands for; Not the myths sold to her people, but the realities of her observed behaviour, which is frequently evil, ugly, and/or wrong.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

. yeah...

OK.
At least you're agreeing that "might makes right".

Whatever you're fighting for becomes right, if you win.

Got it.
Tom

Slavery. We fought the war because of slavery. Is there some question as to whether or not that was wrong? Had the south won everyone would have been cool with owning slaves?

aa

 

[TomC]

. yeah...

OK.
At least you're agreeing that "might makes right".

Whatever you're fighting for becomes right, if you win.

Got it.
Tom

Slavery. We fought the war because of slavery. Is there some question as to whether or not that was wrong? Had the south won everyone would have been cool with owning slaves?

aa

Yeah yeah,

And we invaded Iraq to democratize the middle east. Rescue Iraqis from tyranny...

Tom

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Slavery. We fought the war because of slavery. Is there some question as to whether or not that was wrong? Had the south won everyone would have been cool with owning slaves?

aa

Yeah yeah,

And we invaded Iraq to democratize the middle east. Rescue Iraqis from tyranny...

Tom

????
There is some question around our motives for going into Iraq that could be considered unsettled. That is no parallel to the US Civil War. It was slavery.

aa