Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism - Page 35
Register

User Tag List

Page 35 of 35 FirstFirst ... 25 31 32 33 34 35
Results 681 to 695 of 695
  1. #681

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    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. Iím saying the Union didnít give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

    I also donít 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.
    Spoiler : Forum Mafia :

    FM VI: Ash (Sinner) FM VII: Glen (Drug Dealer) FM VIII: Liane (Vigilante) FM IX: Andrei (Reserved Proletarian) FM X: fm Deathfire123 (Modkilled Blacksmith) FM XI: Corki (Citizen) FM XIII: Phoebe (Bodyguard) FM XIV: Helena (Grave Robber) FM XV: FM Pikachu (Mayor) FM XVI: FM Master Chef (Escort)

  2. #682

  3. #683

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  4. #684

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    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. Itís 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 Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  5. #685

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    if we could just stop catering to the toxic attitude and apathy that has become the culture of this site.
    Its easy to tear something down. Building something real takes a level of conviction and dedication that is not cool or fun.

  6. #686

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    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.

  7. #687

  8. #688

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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 View Post
    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.

  9. #689

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    From the link in previous posts

    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.

  10. #690

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    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 View Post
    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.

  11. #691

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    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. Iím 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 donít have anything else in their lives. This group naturally overlaps with the opportunists you described, so Iím not sure how you separate them.

    Or maybe Iím wrong and there is no difference between the two groups and rabid ideologues are just holding on to ideologies that they believe wonít kill them, and their belief system then is simply a tool - not something they truly believe in, deep town.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  12. #692

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    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 wouldnít just have surrendered and asked to be welcomed back into the Union. It was not inconceivable to them that the North wouldíve abolished slavery in their territories anyhow. I had something else to say but I forgot what it was soooooo
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  13. #693

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    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.
    Iím not sure who youíre arguing with here. Both of us agreed that the South was evil; we simply stated that the North as, as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  14. #694

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    I think itís simple really: the South was racist, AND they used racism as an excuse for slavery.
    The North was racist but they were industrialized and didnít need slaves. Why do you think the north abolished slavery very early on (with New York abolishing it in 1792, if Iím not mistaken).
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

  15. #695

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Anyways if the Union had really cared about blacks they wouldnít have founded the American Colonizatjon Society. Even ignoring the way Liberia turned out, you canít kick your citizens from your country just because theyíre of a different skin colour.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    lmao he is the baby in your picture

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •