U.S. Politics

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, magnkarl said:

 

To follow up on Chris' post. Here's an illustration.

As you can see, any exports (facilities, boats, ports) were decimated by the trade being moved to New York. Most farms were commandeered, and agriculture was moved up to the North States or put in the hands of people profiting from the war. Railroads were moved or destroyed, and the total manufacture output by the South went from 10% to around 2%.

To believe anything else than that the North treated the South with utter disdain, looted, pillaged and ruined industry is very blue eyed and naive. As usual in war the victors wrote the history, painted a whole swathe of the country as slave holders and made it hard for the South for generations to come.

Your table there doesn't prove the point you think it does. I don't think anyone is arguing anything other than that the north's economy was spurred on by the Civil War while the south's was destroyed by it. But that isn't the same as your claim, which is that the north 'forcibly removed most industry'. That's not an accurate interpretation. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by HanoiVillan

[Keyblade]

19 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Unless it's a secret plot to put Bannon back in charge of Breitbart where he can do more damage on behalf of the administration?

Top comment on Breitbart

[Chindie]

Bannon did an interview a few days ago which undermined the North Korea position.

Either he knew he was gone, or wanted to go.

Another position and the arts committee has gone as well.

[magnkarl]

40 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Your table there doesn't prove the point you think it does. I don't think anyone is arguing anything other than that the north's economy was spurred on by the Civil War while the south's was destroyed by it. But that isn't the same as your claim, which is that the north 'forcibly removed most industry'. That's not an accurate interpretation. 

Mjmoony put this very nicely. The fact that there was a whole term called carpetbaggers just after the war says otherwise. It's hard to admit that people who fought for the "good side" were indeed not much better than the "bad side" in a war where the whole economy shifted North as a result. History, especially in the US, isn't nearly as streamlined as what is taught in American schools. Just like we don't like to speak about what the allies did to a Germany not fighting back in the latter stages of WW2 and WW1, a lot of historians don't like to talk about how the South was essentially turned into a second state within the US.

Being a good victor in a war is what lays foundations for a long peace, the North certainly did not do their bit in making sure that there was no lingering resentment in the South. At least Marshall aid was a good way to prevent the cycle from continuing after WW2.

Edited August 18, 2017 by magnkarl

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Mjmoony put this very nicely. The fact that there was a whole term called carpetbaggers just after the war says otherwise. It's hard to admit that people who fought for the "good side" were indeed not much better than the "bad side" in a war where the whole economy shifted North as a result. History, especially in the US, isn't nearly as streamlined as what is taught in American schools. Just like we don't like to speak about what the allies did to a Germany not fighting back in the latter stages of WW2 and WW1, a lot of historians don't like to talk about how the South was essentially turned into a second state within the US.

Being a good victor in a war is what lays foundations for a long peace, the North certainly did not do their bit in making sure that there was no lingering resentment in the South. At least Marshall aid was a good way to prevent the cycle from continuing after WW2.

It's like you're so close to seeing the point . . . 

[NurembergVillan]

4 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

Unless it's a secret plot to put Bannon back in charge of Breitbart where he can do more damage on behalf of the administration?

Lo and behold, he's back at Breitbart as Executive Chairman.

Either my conspiracy theory is coming true, or he's going to get revenge on Trumpet.

Interestingly the current Editor (I think) tweeted #war when Bannon's departure was first announced. Smokescreen? Legit?

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Lo and behold, he's back at Breitbart as Executive Chairman.

Either my conspiracy theory is coming true, or he's going to get revenge on Trumpet.

Interestingly the current Editor (I think) tweeted #war when Bannon's departure was first announced. Smokescreen? Legit?

Bannon is supposedly on record saying he's going back to fight for Trump away from the shackles of the White House.

[NurembergVillan]

Minister Goebbels, reporting for duty.

On a somewhat related note - coincidence that Paul Joseph Watson shares his first and middle names with Paul Joseph Goebbels? And publicises both names?

[Chindie]

Just now, NurembergVillan said:

Minister Goebbels, reporting for duty.

On a somewhat related note - coincidence that Paul Joseph Watson shares his first and middle names with Paul Joseph Goebbels? And publicises both names?

We can but hope he has a similar end. Soon.

[maqroll]

21 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Somebody got killed over one of these statues ffs.

It's all so stupid, I feel like we're turning into New Serbia.

[maqroll]

The Terminator is slowly morphing into America's Grandfather. I like old Arnie.

 

[a m ole]

Draining the swamp til there's nothing left but a sad orange frog.

[il_serpente]

12 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Mjmoony put this very nicely. The fact that there was a whole term called carpetbaggers just after the war says otherwise. It's hard to admit that people who fought for the "good side" were indeed not much better than the "bad side" in a war where the whole economy shifted North as a result. History, especially in the US, isn't nearly as streamlined as what is taught in American schools. Just like we don't like to speak about what the allies did to a Germany not fighting back in the latter stages of WW2 and WW1, a lot of historians don't like to talk about how the South was essentially turned into a second state within the US.

Being a good victor in a war is what lays foundations for a long peace, the North certainly did not do their bit in making sure that there was no lingering resentment in the South. At least Marshall aid was a good way to prevent the cycle from continuing after WW2.

As in an earlier post where you alluded to Confederate statue supporters being inspired to honor Lee not just because he fought for slavery but because he fought against a side that didn't treat the vanquished fantastically after their victory (what a shock!), I think the bolded part ignores some basic accepted principles of chronology and cause and effect.  I mean, are you saying that Lee and the Confederates were primarily fighting the war and asked for support to enable them to win because of what they thought was likely to happen if they were to lose?   In that case, why start the war to begin with?   You do remember that the South seceded and fired the first shots, don't you?   I don't think it's at all hard to admit that the people who fought for the "good side" were much better than the "bad side" leading up to and during the war.  They were heading toward abolishing slavery and fought only because the South attempted to dissolve the union by seceding and then attacked.   Not much of a gray area there for me as to who's good and who's bad.  To suggest that people want to honor Lee because he fought against a side that, despite clearly having the moral high ground until after victory was secured, took advantage of their victory at the expense of the losers seems to be an flailing attempt at rationalizing to me.

Statues of Lee, et al., honor men whose primary contribution of note was to lead a war against the union that was executed primarily in order to preserve the institution of slavery and the ability to expand it to new states.  Any attempts to claim otherwise are either misguided or an attempt to mask support for the notion that "America was better when whites were in charge," in my opinion.

As for arguments about what the North did to the South's economy, remember that the economy in a large part of the Confederacy was built upon the institution of slavery, so of course its defeat by the North devastated the economy.  That's not to say the North's actions didn't make things worse, but you can't say that statistics suggesting a shift in economic strength is solely (or perhaps even primarily) a result of the terrible things they did to the South after the war.

[meregreen]

Carpetbaggers were a relatively small number of private devious individuals who tried to asset strip a few of the rich white landowners who found themselves struggling after the abolition of slavery. They certainly were not Government agents from the North , nor were they any part of any official policy from the Federal Government. Basically the South was a Cotton dominated agrarian economy with very little heavy industry to speak of. When their supply of slaves was removed their economy suffered, not something to feel any remorse for I think.

[magnkarl]

Ugh, does this mean Breitbart will get publicity? I can't think of a much worse publication with a bigger readership. (barring the Sun and Daily Mail of course ) 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, il_serpente said:

As in an earlier post where you alluded to Confederate statue supporters being inspired to honor Lee not just because he fought for slavery but because he fought against a side that didn't treat the vanquished fantastically after their victory (what a shock!), I think the bolded part ignores some basic accepted principles of chronology and cause and effect.  I mean, are you saying that Lee and the Confederates were primarily fighting the war and asked for support to enable them to win because of what they thought was likely to happen if they were to lose?   In that case, why start the war to begin with?   You do remember that the South seceded and fired the first shots, don't you?   I don't think it's at all hard to admit that the people who fought for the "good side" were much better than the "bad side" leading up to and during the war.  They were heading toward abolishing slavery and fought only because the South attempted to dissolve the union by seceding and then attacked.   Not much of a gray area there for me as to who's good and who's bad.  To suggest that people want to honor Lee because he fought against a side that, despite clearly having the moral high ground until after victory was secured, took advantage of their victory at the expense of the losers seems to be an flailing attempt at rationalizing to me.

Statues of Lee, et al., honor men whose primary contribution of note was to lead a war against the union that was executed primarily in order to preserve the institution of slavery and the ability to expand it to new states.  Any attempts to claim otherwise are either misguided or an attempt to mask support for the notion that "America was better when whites were in charge," in my opinion.

As for arguments about what the North did to the South's economy, remember that the economy in a large part of the Confederacy was built upon the institution of slavery, so of course its defeat by the North devastated the economy.  That's not to say the North's actions didn't make things worse, but you can't say that statistics suggesting a shift in economic strength is solely (or perhaps even primarily) a result of the terrible things they did to the South after the war.

Many good points, however the idea that the civil war was started only because of slaves is also entirely false. In fact most freed slaves suffered under really bad laws or "black codes" passed by the same people who wanted to free them after the war was over, forcing them to work in the worst possible physical jobs in society. 

Another big influence on why the war broke out was protective tariffs and how the North's factories profited hugely from the raw materials produced in the South. Only certain factories were allowed to produce finished goods which carried huge tariffs, meaning that the Northern factories bought materials carrying no tariffs from the South and then proceeded to sell the finished article to the South with hefty tariffs included. Most of the tariffs were collected in the South and ended up in the North.

Linky

Quote

Much of the tariff revenue collected from Southern consumers was used to build railroads and canals in the North. Between 1830 and 1850, 30,000 miles of track was laid. At its best, these tracks benefited the North. Much of it had no economic effect at all. Many of the schemes to lay track were simply a way to get government subsidies. Fraud and corruption were rampant.

The rewritten history of the Civil War began with Lincoln as a brilliant political tactic to rally public opinion. The issue of slavery provided sentimental leverage, whereas oppressing the South with hurtful tariffs did not. Outrage against the greater evil of slavery served to mask the economic harm the North was doing to the South.

Again, no one is arguing that slavery wasn't bad or incredibly oppressive, but there are many other reasons why the South seceded.  

[Dr_Pangloss]

11 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

Minister Goebbels, reporting for duty.

On a somewhat related note - coincidence that Paul Joseph Watson shares his first and middle names with Paul Joseph Goebbels? And publicises both names?

He has a face that you could punch until it is nothing more than a bloody stump.

[NurembergVillan]

10 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

He has a face that you could punch until it is nothing more than a bloody stump.

And then I'd enjoy dipping it in salt.

[magnkarl]

14 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

And then I'd enjoy dipping it in salt.

I hear citric acid is good too.

[magnkarl]

Turns out most statues in both the South and North are exactly the same, just with a slight difference on the belt buckle where union statues have US and confed statues have CS. Article in Washington Post here.

Quote

The nameless figure, known to many as the Silent Sentinel, gazes over town squares and courthouse steps in dozens of Southern towns — but not just there.

Many of the South’s Silent Sentinels turn out to be identical to the statues of Union soldiers that decorate hundreds of public spaces across the North. Identical, but for one detail: On the soldier’s belt buckle, the “U.S.” is replaced by a “C.S.” for “Confederate States.”

Again, I do think that tearing down a statue like the one in Durham that is a reminder of the millions of young men that died on both sides rather than a political ideal is vandalism. Most of the soldiers didn't have a clue what they were fighting for - but was rather forcefully drafted into the army.

Quote

In the case of the Confederate statues that have turned into powerful and, to many, disturbing symbols more than 150 years after the war, the Southern women who paid for most of the statues between 1880 and 1920 said they wanted a place to honor their fallen husbands and fathers

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by magnkarl