Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

Yes it does make you a satanist, and therefore you should have no problem changing the motto to "In God we trust, and Satan too"

---

:huh:

I think I'll pass xD

There are probably too many Christians in the US to make that change. It's not a truly religion-neutral country, like you said yourself. And Utah would launch a civil war if that happened lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

If your concerns are economic, would you not bring other propositions to the table than what the south did? It's obvious that a non-slave based economy can function, in fact, the north did it as per your own admission.

---

The ifrst bit is 100% a fair point but I do not feel that its fair to compare the norths economy with the souths. The north was industrialized with factory's that took raw goods and used the to fabricate. Pelts and cotton would become coats. The south produced raw goods. They farmed the cotton and gathered the pelts. This is why I constantly refer to the 'industrialized north vs the agrarian south.' They are two fundamentally different economy's. I do agree with you that a 'slave free agrarian economy' could exist but your argument here is contrived.
The pointed difference would be change. If you live one way your whole life and I walk up and tell you that you have to change and you are morally wrong on a fundamental level how receptive to that message would you be? I could argue how a problem-solution format would have been more effective for the north to use but I simply do not believe their objective was moral. They just wanted control over the raw goods they depended on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

If the root problem was taxation, economic oppression, and technological advancement, and not actually slavery, wouldn't you think that they would actually negotiate in economic terms? Once again, all the south argued for in every single major negotiation and conference they had was maintaining slavery; nothing else. You'd think if an entire country is struggling financially and they're trying to negotiate with a supposed economic oppressor who is taxing the shit out of them and advancing technologically while they're left in the dirt, they'd discuss changing that rather than discussing constitutional amendments guaranteeing that they can keep their tractors, no?

---

I absolutely would. I do feel that it would be silly to haggle on the price of cotton if the topic of discussion removed the production of cotton but you have a solid point here. I will have to read into the negotiations as it is something I have never really dug into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

You're getting at my point at last, if maybe only by accident!

---

I feel like you are more dedicated to your position than I am to mine. I am totally open to changing my opinion based on the information in front of me. Would it help if I flat out said the south was a racist society that defined African Americans as less than human and undeserving of human rights? My discussion of the context and details of the situation does nothing to refute this in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

If the north's motivations were to oppress the south and not to free slaves, why did they not accept the south's demands to make slavery a constitutional right if it would have maintained the union? By your own admission, the north was already outstripping the south in every economic aspect. You already mentioned that they were advancing at a rapid rate, their population and economy outpacing the south due to industrialization and supposed economic pillaging and taxation. Surely, if all the south was demanding was to maintain slavery, and the north were just greedy fucks that wanted to keep exploiting the south and they truly didn't give a fuck about slaves, they would have taken the south's proposal to amend the constitution to guarantee holding slaves as a right, maintained the union, and continued their exploitation? Why didn't they do that?

---

I can't answer that the same as you can't answer why the North did not free slaves if their fight was about human rights. I can make the assumption that it was a power struggle that ended up being fought over slavery on the basis that decisions on both sides do not make sense as a fight over human rights. But it is an assumption. I was not there.

I could be wrong about the south and the norths motives but at the end of the day I just can not let go of the fact the north used African Americans as cannon fodder in a war they paint as being about human rights instead of just granting them freedom. From what I know I really do feel that calling the war as a fight over slavery is an extreme oversimplification that is not supported by the most basic macro actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

:huh:

I think I'll pass xD

There are probably too many Christians in the US to make that change. It's not a truly religion-neutral country, like you said yourself. And Utah would launch a civil war if that happened lol.

---

Lol!

I kinda think its funny how caught up people get on categories. Add 20 qualifications that are exactly the same but with two different names and you will be put in the box that the other side wants you to be in so they can tell you that you are wrong. Even if they hold the same 20 qualifications themselves.

The oppositional defiant nature of people never ceases to amuse me. I feel like bigotry is one of the defining characteristics of our generation. All too often any effort to open someones mind is seen as an attack on their belief structure and invalidated into an argument instead of a discussion.

Lincoln used the emancipation proclamation as a tool for sure to win the war, what better way to disrupt the economy of the south than to say lol you're free. He was willing to keep slavery if it meant that the Union stayed together as did other Northerners. I think people are getting hung up on the wrong figureheads tho. Abolitionism was a key driving part of Northern policy. Why do you think the South took a moral stance on the issue? When everything else is exhausted your morals is really all you have left. They saw the writing on the wall, the North (for the most part) did not want slavery.

Uhh if you want to challenge or understand someone's opinion you literally have to argue. Do you want to hold hands and dance around a fire singing kumbaya until we eventually understand each other? I get that you want to be "open minded" but that is a pretty naïve view on how people with opposing ideas talk to each other.

Quote:

---

In logic and philosophy an argument is a series of statements intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.

---

This thread has been for the most pretty fucking tame. If you don't believe me just log onto Facebook for a reminder lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

Lincoln used the emancipation proclamation as a tool for sure to win the war, what better way to disrupt the economy of the south than to say lol you're free. He was willing to keep slavery if it meant that the Union stayed together as did other Northerners. I think people are getting hung up on the wrong figureheads tho. Abolitionism was a key driving part of Northern policy. Why do you think the South took a moral stance on the issue? When everything else is exhausted your morals is really all you have left. They saw the writing on the wall, the North (for the most part) did not want slavery.

---

Touching in this for clarity, I believe Lincoln was motivated by abolishment sentiments but also heavily valued the Union being held together even if it meant forgoing abolishment aspirations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

The ifrst bit is 100% a fair point but I do not feel that its fair to compare the norths economy with the souths. The north was industrialized with factory's that took raw goods and used the to fabricate. Pelts and cotton would become coats. The south produced raw goods. They farmed the cotton and gathered the pelts. This is why I constantly refer to the 'industrialized north vs the agrarian south.' They are two fundamentally different economy's. I do agree with you that a 'slave free agrarian economy' could exist but your argument here is contrived.
The pointed difference would be change. If you live one way your whole life and I walk up and tell you that you have to change and you are morally wrong on a fundamental level how receptive to that message would you be? I could argue how a problem-solution format would have been more effective for the north to use but I simply do not believe their objective was moral. They just wanted control over the raw goods they depended on.

---

Your point about the different types of industries is valid but you prove my point a bit by saying that the north just wanted control over the raw goods. Surely, if the north solely wanted control over the raw goods for economic purposes, and slavery was the best way, or even a good way, to exploit those goods, the north wouldn't have wanted to abolish slavery, no? They would have just wanted to keep the status quo?

You keep actually stating/proving my point exactly with your arguments, including here, whether it's inadvertent or whether we agree without realizing it. You say that it's the principle of change and resistance to so-called change that kept the South stuck to the way they kept doing things. Except, the topic at hand is solely slavery. That's my point. The south stuck to slavery because it was one of their core principles, and they didn't want the north to change it because they saw keeping slaves as one of their rights.

Quote:

---

I absolutely would. I do feel that it would be silly to haggle on the price of cotton if the topic of discussion removed the production of cotton but you have a solid point here. I will have to read into the negotiations as it is something I have never really dug into.

---

Slave-free production of cotton was possible, the South did it after the war. A large part of why the South had economic issues after the war was because the Confederacy had a strategy of embargoing cotton trade with Europe to force France and England's hand to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate government. Instead, they just started up cotton production in Egypt and India instead, thus reducing their reliance on American cotton even after the war ended.

Quote:

---

I feel like you are more dedicated to your position than I am to mine. I am totally open to changing my opinion based on the information in front of me. Would it help if I flat out said the south was a racist society that defined African Americans as less than human and undeserving of human rights? My discussion of the context and details of the situation does nothing to refute this in any way.

---

My whole point is that the Confederacy was a nation founded upon the immoral and racist principle that slavery is a right and the natural order of things. I don't particularly care what the Union did, nor do I claim that they weren't racist. I also take major issue with the idea that intent matters more than actions and results but that's a separate topic.

Quote:

---

I can't answer that the same as you can't answer why the North did not free slaves if their fight was about human rights. I can make the assumption that it was a power struggle that ended up being fought over slavery on the basis that decisions on both sides do not make sense as a fight over human rights. But it is an assumption. I was not there.

I could be wrong about the south and the norths motives but at the end of the day I just can not let go of the fact the north used African Americans as cannon fodder in a war they paint as being about human rights instead of just granting them freedom. From what I know I really do feel that calling the war as a fight over slavery is an extreme oversimplification that is not supported by the most basic macro actions.

---

I don't think the Union not immediately freeing slaves is much of a point against them. Clearly, they had the intention of freeing slaves as history proves they eventually did. I suspect that they may have not freed all slaves immediately as a strategic move, realizing that that being too hasty in freeing slaves would 1) divert attention and resources from the war and 2) cause enough destabilization to harm the war effort, both of which could have resulted in a Confederate victory leading to a worse overall result for slaves. I don't think the Union was perfectly virtuous and that every single citizen or even politician was entirely anti-racist, as their own rhetoric proves, but I do think their actions more than show that they held freeing all slaves in the US as a goal to be pursued strictly out of moral virtue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

:huh:

I think I'll pass xD

There are probably too many Christians in the US to make that change. It's not a truly religion-neutral country, like you said yourself. And Utah would launch a civil war if that happened lol.

---

If you aren't okay with that motto, why is "In god we trust" acceptable? It's hypocritical to support one and not the other.

We on religion now?

Neat.

Ping me when the debate on taxes show up. That or pollution.

Nerd topics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperJack

We on religion now?

Neat.

Ping me when the debate on taxes show up. That or pollution.

---

Oh taxation is easy!

Low corporate taxes, scrap welfare and replace with negative tax brackets, scrap most sales tax, tax property and capital gains rather than wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Oh taxation is easy!

Low corporate taxes, scrap welfare and replace with negative tax brackets, scrap most sales tax, tax property and capital gains rather than wealth.

---

We on taxes now?

Neat.

Ping me when the debate on pollution show up. That or religion.

Climate change is often the loudest voice heard on the destruction of the great barrier reef, but do you know what is just as damaging? Starfish juiced up on agriculture sector run offs.

Quote:

---

In 2000, an outbreak contributed to a loss of 66% of live coral cover on sampled reefs in a study by the CRC Reefs Research Centre.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

Climate change is often the loudest voice heard on the destruction of the great barrier reef, but do you know what is just as damaging? Starfish juiced up on agriculture sector run offs.

---

We on pollution now?

Neat.

Ping me when the debate on religion show up. That or taxes.

reported

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

reported

---

=)

(=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

Lol!

I kinda think its funny how caught up people get on categories. Add 20 qualifications that are exactly the same but with two different names and you will be put in the box that the other side wants you to be in so they can tell you that you are wrong. Even if they hold the same 20 qualifications themselves.

The oppositional defiant nature of people never ceases to amuse me. I feel like bigotry is one of the defining characteristics of our generation. All too often any effort to open someones mind is seen as an attack on their belief structure and invalidated into an argument instead of a discussion.

---

The issue is that belief systems are more or less necessary. And that most people look to politics for a concrete belief system that they can use in their lives. It’s not STRICTLY a categorisation issue because e.g. someone who is staunchly against, say, capitalism, will probably try to refuse capitalism in all of its forms.

Intent and action are interlinked. When action deviates strongly from intent, perhaps the person was lying about their real intent.

Anyway, one change I’d like to see is a more interactive taxation system where you get to choose where a certain percentage of the taxes you pay go. I would put as much as I could into space exploration because it’s, in my view, the single most important problem we are facing right now, and it heavily contributes to scientific advancement. Hell, it would be nice if we really went to Mars before 2030 like NASA is currently planning on doing.

Who else thinks fusion power is fucking dope?

The strongest argument in favour of the Union not really giving much of a shit about slavery are the Jim Crow laws. It took nearly a century to repeal them. Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Oh taxation is easy!

Low corporate taxes, scrap welfare and replace with negative tax brackets, scrap most sales tax, tax property and capital gains rather than wealth.

---

Negative tax brackets? I have never heard of such a thing, is that essentially a way of giving people money if they don’t make enough?
I don’t know if I agree with that though. I think wellfare is a better idea. People who don’t have a lot of money probably shouldn’t be trusted with it.

I think the war was more about secession than slavery. The only reason the north attacked the south was because they tried to secede. The South seceded because they were afraid slavery would be abolished in the South as well - I think the Union didn’t really give much of a shit about freedom and whatnot.

Congratulations you have just gone full circle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

I think the war was more about secession than slavery. The only reason the north attacked the south was because they tried to secede. The South seceded because they were afraid slavery would be abolished in the South as well - I think the Union didn’t really give much of a shit about freedom and whatnot.

---

Lol. What happened to all of the discussion pages ago about how the war was LITERALLY about slavery.?

North wanted to end slavery, South didn't. South was clearly on the verge of seceding so the North compromised to allow slavery in existing Southern slave states. The South saw the writing on the wall that even if this happened, slavery wasn't destined to stay so they seceded anyway to ensure it's survival on their terms. The Union declared war because they seceded. This is as layman as I think I can make it while not subscribing to a biased narrative. I really do not know why you keep trying to push this other narrative.

Let me rephrase this:
For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. I’m saying the Union didn’t give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

I also don’t think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.

And I'd fall back on my original point, the causation cannot be put aside for the justification. Full circle yay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

Let me rephrase this:
For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. I’m saying the Union didn’t give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

I also don’t think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.

---

I can't understand how you logic yourself into such a position. You admit that the war was about slavery, and for the north the war was about keeping the union intact. Yet the whole reason the south started the war by seceding was because they wanted to keep slaves. If the north didn't care about slaves then why the fuck didn't they just keep slavery legal and end the whole thing immediately lmao. Or just not start it in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

Let me rephrase this:
For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. I’m saying the Union didn’t give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

I also don’t think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.

---

The southern states wanted state rights so that they can keep slaves. They feared that with the election of Abraham Lincoln, their state rights (slavery was a state right at that time) would be diminished. While this was happening, the Northern states were expanding westward, gaining more states that favored federal laws over state laws. This is why the Southern states seceded. Because state rights favored slavery and discrimination, and the North wanted to take away state rights. State rights in the United States are shit because even after the Civil War, Jim Crow laws (more state rights) became a thing regardless.

So yes, at its very core principle, the North wanted to take away or restrict slavery as hypocritical as it may seem from someone like Abe Lincoln.

We going round again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Your point about the different types of industries is valid but you prove my point a bit by saying that the north just wanted control over the raw goods. Surely, if the north solely wanted control over the raw goods for economic purposes, and slavery was the best way, or even a good way, to exploit those goods, the north wouldn't have wanted to abolish slavery, no? They would have just wanted to keep the status quo?

---

Im not sure when the word "Just" got added into my argument about the Norths motivations. I have never made that point and have pushed pretty emphatically that it was a power struggle. In the same way the USA struggle with Iran is not just about oil but it is one point of contention that almost lead to war. The USA could give a shit about their contribution to oil but it is a power struggle. When you strangle a nations ability to self sustain they have to answer to you and do what you want- even if it has nothing to do with (in this example) oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

You keep actually stating/proving my point exactly with your arguments, including here, whether it's inadvertent or whether we agree without realizing it. You say that it's the principle of change and resistance to so-called change that kept the South stuck to the way they kept doing things. Except, the topic at hand is solely slavery. That's my point. The south stuck to slavery because it was one of their core principles, and they didn't want the north to change it because they saw keeping slaves as one of their rights.

---

I really think thats an oversimplification. You say the 'sole topic at hand is slavery' which may be why we disagree. I am not sure what new and creative way I can find to say to you that the things I am arguing in no way make the souths actions moral. If we are simply talking about 2 different things maybe we just need to disentangle them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Slave-free production of cotton was possible, the South did it after the war. A large part of why the South had economic issues after the war was because the Confederacy had a strategy of embargoing cotton trade with Europe to force France and England's hand to recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate government. Instead, they just started up cotton production in Egypt and India instead, thus reducing their reliance on American cotton even after the war ended.

---

I honestly think this is absurd. Do you really think the fact the Union targeted civilian housing and infrastructure was not a major impact? How about the loss of a third of their population through slaves? Or maybe the loss of another 400k of whatever was left as casualties (which was of their most physically capable?) Nevermind the fact that the unions core battle plan was to cut off the souths trade via the Mississippi river to choke out the confederacy.
You would have to present quite a bit of sources for me to even consider this as a potential. Maybe you came across something I never have but this sounds like some political nonsense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

My whole point is that the Confederacy was a nation founded upon the immoral and racist principle that slavery is a right and the natural order of things. I don't particularly care what the Union did, nor do I claim that they weren't racist. I also take major issue with the idea that intent matters more than actions and results but that's a separate topic.

---

We can agree to disagree no problem.
On that separate topic though (if we can 100% separate this from any civil war talk) why do you identify morality with actions and results if its unintentional? I have never herd this position taken before and genuinely would like to hear more about why you feel this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I don't think the Union not immediately freeing slaves is much of a point against them. Clearly, they had the intention of freeing slaves as history proves they eventually did. I suspect that they may have not freed all slaves immediately as a strategic move, realizing that that being too hasty in freeing slaves would 1) divert attention and resources from the war and 2) cause enough destabilization to harm the war effort, both of which could have resulted in a Confederate victory leading to a worse overall result for slaves. I don't think the Union was perfectly virtuous and that every single citizen or even politician was entirely anti-racist, as their own rhetoric proves, but I do think their actions more than show that they held freeing all slaves in the US as a goal to be pursued strictly out of moral virtue.

---

I agree that it was a strategit move by the union to not free slaves. I just think their 2 points were:
1) To make the black man die in place of the white man in their fight to gain power
2) Because freeing slaves would eliminate practices such as confiscating slaves from the south and reappropriating them to the railroads.

I really dont understand why its so important to you to paint the union as moral. Like... The union is dead and gone by over a hundred years. Why do you push against the idea that they were greedy? You are not even an American and these are people so far past dead finding even a 3rd level account of them as a human being is near impossible. I totally agree with you that the confederacy was immoral and reprehensible. Would it help if I pointed out that the Union was majority republican? From my understanding a big part of your belief structure is anti financial interest/republican...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

The issue is that belief systems are more or less necessary. And that most people look to politics for a concrete belief system that they can use in their lives. It’s not STRICTLY a categorisation issue because e.g. someone who is staunchly against, say, capitalism, will probably try to refuse capitalism in all of its forms.

---

Fair point. But I believe people have beliefs as they are convenient to them. My favorite recent day story comes from Oxford where the students launched a climate change protest and demanded the college stopped its use and investments in fossil fuels. The dean responded by offering to shut off the gas powered heat as a step in that direction which some people asked the dean if that was provocative. He responded "You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope; It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement"

Saying "I want healthcare" once you are sick is easy but being told to pay into it while you are healthy is not taken well
Saying "Give tax money to this cause" is easy until that money is coming out of your pocket

People want the benefit or to benefit the cause they care about but if you ask them to pay for what they want they will usually jump to ATE or a red herring. Sure they want homeless people to have a home but ask them to take one into the room next to their teenage daughter? Then its no longer convenient to have such a belief and they will fight it harder than they ever would have supported homeless housing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

North wanted to end slavery, South didn't. South was clearly on the verge of seceding so the North compromised to allow slavery in existing Southern slave states. The South saw the writing on the wall that even if this happened, slavery wasn't destined to stay so they seceded anyway to ensure it's survival on their terms. The Union declared war because they seceded. This is as layman as I think I can make it while not subscribing to a biased narrative. I really do not know why you keep trying to push this other narrative.

---

Would it be a shock for me to say that I feel like this is a biased narrative? The story of the moral and good North wanting what was right but accepting less to try to make everyone happy while the evil south was greedy and seceded forcing the north to declare war? This is as biased as it gets. The south is evil while the north is good in spite of the presented facts.

Why is it such a terrible thing to accept the north was also evil in this situation? I don't think a single piece of information has come up to suggest anything against it other than arguing the south was evil. Why is it such a stretch to believe both sides were wrong when we have access to years of historical accounts of almost every side in every war ever acting out of self interest?

Never said the North wasn't evil in fact I have made several posts indicating the opposite. If you choose to interpret that I have the stance that the North is morally superior and can't be evil after I have said numerous times they weren't then that's on you, not me. I'm not here to argue every half degree, intricate variable of the civil war. I have said my purpose time and time again, you cannot separate the abolishment sentiment that predominantly came from Northern states from why the South seceded. I think I have said this at least 5 times now. Literally go read the thread again if you think I am propping the North up on some false moral platform.

You and Ganelon can run off on tangents all you want but I will keep bringing up the point that Ganelon tries to stray from.

This entire discussion is 50x longer than it needs to be because it literally ran off into dozens of whataboutisms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

Also saying Abraham Lincoln was racist has no weight. It was mid 1800's. Every man and his dog was probably racist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

Was waiting for when the appeasement from the north to keep the union together was going to be mentioned lol.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

The Union was by no means morally superior. If you read the actual appeasements they tried to make you will see how cooked everyone in the USA was. Some of it can be argued as time wasting but the Corwin Amendment... lol

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

Sounds fairly standard as far as war time doctrines go but the actual implementation of it leaves a lot to be desired. The south did not recover for a very long time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

Sherman by no means is innocent, he pretty clearly sets himself up to be absolved of any possible perceived immorality while at the same time reaping the rewards if such immorality isn't perceived.

---

Quick look over shows I am well aware of the immoralities of the North. But again, I am not here to argue the immoralities of the North when there are people in this thread trying to prop up the "state rights" argument over slavery.

From the link in previous posts

Quote:

---

Contemporary historians overwhelmingly agree that secession was motivated by slavery. There were numerous causes for secession, but preservation and expansion of slavery was easily the most important of them. The confusion may come from blending the causes of secession with the causes of the war, which were separate but related issues. (Lincoln entered a military conflict not to free the slaves but to put down a rebellion or, as he put it, to preserve the Union.)

---

Even historians of that era overwhelmingly disagree with the rhetoric put out here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

On that separate topic though (if we can 100% separate this from any civil war talk) why do you identify morality with actions and results if its unintentional? I have never herd this position taken before and genuinely would like to hear more about why you feel this way.

---

I think that intent, in a large portion of situations, is relatively constant. If you reduce it, most actions people take are done to benefit themselves or their lineage, at least to their own knowledge. Also in general I'm definitely a pragmatist, and I think sitting around philosophizing about intent and even morality of actions depending on one's ulterior motives is absolutely useless. I think someone's ulterior motives in taking an action, insofar as those ulterior motives don't manifest themselves as malicious actions down the line, don't matter at all.

That's why I don't particularly care if Lincoln actually wanted to free the slaves or if he just wanted to use the slaves as a political tool against the south, because the end result was the same. The only reason I would care is if I had reason to believe that his motives one way or another resulted in a less favourable situation for black people in the US than would have otherwise happened.

Keep in mind I'm not denying that motives are entirely irrelevant, to the extent that these motives might result in future underhanded actions. For example, someone giving a donation might want something out of it and attach strings to the donation, versus someone just donating out of the good of their heart. But again, this comes down to difference in actions, and to me it's useless to consider motives if the end result is exactly the same. This is also why murder and manslaughter deserve to be different crimes; someone who killed someone with intent has a different predisposition to commit more crimes than someone who killed someone unintentionally, and they should be treated differently based on that, whether in terms of future support or protecting society from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

I really dont understand why its so important to you to paint the union as moral. Like... The union is dead and gone by over a hundred years. Why do you push against the idea that they were greedy? You are not even an American and these are people so far past dead finding even a 3rd level account of them as a human being is near impossible. I totally agree with you that the confederacy was immoral and reprehensible. Would it help if I pointed out that the Union was majority republican? From my understanding a big part of your belief structure is anti financial interest/republican...

---

I'm not really trying to paint the Union as moral, I just don't think that the Union's actions are in any way a reflection of what the Confederacy was. The Confederacy wanted to keep slaves and was founded on a cornerstone of racism, which is in stark contrast with the Union, which while also racist for many years also didn't have racism codified as a central belief. I don't think honouring Confederate symbols and figures is something that people should protect because of what the Confederacy represented. It's impossible to disentangle those ideas and symbols from slavery and racism.

The Union did a lot of bad stuff during the war and they absolutely perpetrated racism, including systematic racism, for many years. But I really don't give a shit because that barely has anything to do with my original point.

I understand the Union was majority Republican. I also understand that political parties change over many years. To my understanding, the Republican party was respectable and generally more aligned with my beliefs until Nixon's presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helz

Fair point. But I believe people have beliefs as they are convenient to them. My favorite recent day story comes from Oxford where the students launched a climate change protest and demanded the college stopped its use and investments in fossil fuels. The dean responded by offering to shut off the gas powered heat as a step in that direction which some people asked the dean if that was provocative. He responded "You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope; It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement"

Saying "I want healthcare" once you are sick is easy but being told to pay into it while you are healthy is not taken well
Saying "Give tax money to this cause" is easy until that money is coming out of your pocket

People want the benefit or to benefit the cause they care about but if you ask them to pay for what they want they will usually jump to ATE or a red herring. Sure they want homeless people to have a home but ask them to take one into the room next to their teenage daughter? Then its no longer convenient to have such a belief and they will fight it harder than they ever would have supported homeless housing.

---

Oh, absolutely. Such people do exist. I’m thinking that people are opportunistic with their belief system (a fact they are probably aware of on some preter-conscious level). I believe that there are also genuine ideologues who flock to a belief system simply because they don’t have anything else in their lives. This group naturally overlaps with the opportunists you described, so I’m not sure how you separate them.

Or maybe I’m wrong and there is no difference between the two groups and rabid ideologues are just holding on to ideologies that they believe won’t kill them, and their belief system then is simply a tool - not something they truly believe in, deep town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I can't understand how you logic yourself into such a position. You admit that the war was about slavery, and for the north the war was about keeping the union intact. Yet the whole reason the south started the war by seceding was because they wanted to keep slaves. If the north didn't care about slaves then why the fuck didn't they just keep slavery legal and end the whole thing immediately lmao. Or just not start it in the first place.

---

Good question. The political climate at the start of the war was such that it is possible the South wouldn’t just have surrendered and asked to be welcomed back into the Union. It was not inconceivable to them that the North would’ve abolished slavery in their territories anyhow. I had something else to say but I forgot what it was soooooo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumox

Never said the North wasn't evil in fact I have made several posts indicating the opposite. If you choose to interpret that I have the stance that the North is morally superior and can't be evil after I have said numerous times they weren't then that's on you, not me. I'm not here to argue every half degree, intricate variable of the civil war. I have said my purpose time and time again, you cannot separate the abolishment sentiment that predominantly came from Northern states from why the South seceded. I think I have said this at least 5 times now. Literally go read the thread again if you think I am propping the North up on some false moral platform.

You and Ganelon can run off on tangents all you want but I will keep bringing up the point that Ganelon tries to stray from.

---

I’m not sure who you’re arguing with here. Both of us agreed that the South was evil; we simply stated that the North as, as well.

I think it’s simple really: the South was racist, AND they used racism as an excuse for slavery.
The North was racist but they were industrialized and didn’t need slaves. Why do you think the north abolished slavery very early on (with New York abolishing it in 1792, if I’m not mistaken).

Anyways if the Union had really cared about blacks they wouldn’t have founded the American Colonizatjon Society. Even ignoring the way Liberia turned out, you can’t kick your citizens from your country just because they’re of a different skin colour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

Good question. The political climate at the start of the war was such that it is possible the South wouldn’t just have surrendered and asked to be welcomed back into the Union. It was not inconceivable to them that the North would’ve abolished slavery in their territories anyhow. I had something else to say but I forgot what it was soooooo

---

But the whole reason they seceded was because Lincoln won the election and he was the anti-slavery candidate. It's not like secession happened randomly one day and they had to figure out why later.

No Ganelon my point of discussion with you and Helz are different, you aren't the same person. My point with you and always has been is how you keep pushing away the slavery aspect of the civil war. You have done it since the beginning of the thread and you are still doing it.

>Abolishment was an undeniable Northern policy
>War is started over this policy

"Northerners didn't give a shit about slavery they just wanted to protect the union."

If you think the Northerners didn't give a shit about slavery what was the point of even taking the stance? You keep on trying to separate the slavery when you fucking can't, then you go off on a tangent. You can't chop away the driving factor of something and just look at the result. This is what I have been saying on the topic since I started commenting on it. I give up chasing you down all these rabbit holes you go down to dodge this.

lol

If they did give a shit answer me this. Why the Jim Crow laws? And why was the military segregated for a long time? I’m just saying, the North probably did away with slavery because it didn’t affect their economy much. They didn’t have many slaves to begin with; they only had indentured servants. It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganelon

If they did give a shit answer me this. Why the Jim Crow laws? And why was the military segregated for a long time? I’m just saying, the North probably did away with slavery because it didn’t affect their economy much. They didn’t have many slaves to begin with; they only had indentured servants. It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it

---

Jim Crow laws and military segregation are not slavery. Nobody is claiming the north wasn't racist.

I love the statement "It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it". Probably the funniest sentence I've read in this thread. I like how we've gotten to the point where feeling empathy for enslaved people is an argument against someone's character.