|
Didn't the north actually start the war over primarily economic concerns? Even Lincoln wasn't all that jazzed about freeing the blacks and mostly did it to keep the country together.
SaltyJesus fucked around with this message at 15:10 on May 2, 2014 |
#
?
May 2, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
Koramei posted:I went to one of the largest fairs in inland Maine one summer, with thousands of people attending, and I saw approximately three black people and one asian over the course of the entire day. Why does it bother you? I'd be bored in a place like that, but it wouldn't bother me any more than visiting other super-homogeneous places like Argentina or Poland or Japan. TheImmigrant fucked around with this message at 14:55 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:didn't the north actually start the war over primarily economic concerns, even Lincoln wasn't all that jazzed about freeing the blacks and mostly did it to keep the country together Immediately before the states started seceding they were proposing an act which would add an unamendable part of the constitution to ensure slavery forever, and to extend the Missouri Compromise line all the way to the Pacific, (possibly) dividing up California in the process.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:didn't the north actually start the war over primarily economic concerns, even Lincoln wasn't all that jazzed about freeing the blacks and mostly did it to keep the country together Lincoln just wanted to save the union at the beginning but implying that northerners were tricked into freeing the slaves like Riso is, is goddamn ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Considering that cousin loving was invented by the rich people who lived in cities as a way to preserve the family line... While it's true that the nobility believed in cousin loving, they didn't really start moving into the cities until the modern age (especially in France where their powers were curbed by the absolutist monarchy in this period). It does lead to a minor increase in the incidence of harmful recessive conditions, but they probably would have considered it an acceptable trade-off.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Tell us more about how your negative experiences in life are universal truisms. I grew up in a small town and was neither isolated nor unhappy, though I did move to the nearest city when I got to my 20s for the better starting job opportunities. It's easy for you to pull out a polite and objective metric like "there's no jobs". I mean yeah, that's why America loves St. Patrick's day, because there's the land of opportunity, and then there's rural Ireland. It's the same everywhere, it's easy to romanticise things you don't have to deal with on a daily basis. And again, lots of people are perfectly happy in small towns and tiny villages, and a lot of people, myself included, cannot really imagine how that happiness comes about. And I'm perfectly happy to accept the "big city hipsters think they're hot poo poo" stuff, but at least we have jobs here.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Why does it bother you? I'd be bored in a place like that, but it wouldn't bother me any more than visiting other super-homogeneous places like Argentina or Poland or Japan. When you're not used to it, it can be pretty weird. I had the same impression visiting a college in Caen and seeing almost only white people.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Riso posted:Reminder: if people in the North had known the civil war would free the blacks they'd have stayed at home. Generally speaking, New England actually was strongly in favor of abolitionism, while the Midwest and urban immigrants were more ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:at least we have jobs here. It always strikes me as mildly amusing that when people who've migrated here from the north to work in lovely jobs because they are shithead idiots who thought to get an education in house building in a semi-literal wilderness are always also the biggest "nigers teik my job" hitlers. I don't have a map of that sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:When you're not used to it, it can be pretty weird. I grew up in Washington, D.C., and my wife grew up in San Diego. Living in Iowa has really taught me how important it is to go to a big city or to the south and experience non-white people once in a while, because yeah, if you didn't grow up with it, it is very weird.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
This is kind of amazing. When I posted that I thought I was in the GBS America vs. Europe thunderdome, then I came to the maps thread and thought "oh poo poo, I posted that in the wrong place". I felt bad at first until I realized I had actually responded to something in this thread. Have a map:  Also, do yourselves a favor and pick up this book. It's really good. Clicky for Amazon link. 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:It always strikes me as mildly amusing that when people who've migrated here from the north to work in lovely jobs because they are shithead idiots who thought to get an education in house building in a semi-literal wilderness are always also the biggest "nigers teik my job" hitlers. Yeah, they should be mad at Estonians!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:This is kind of amazing. When I posted that I thought I was in the GBS America vs. Europe thunderdome, then I came to the maps thread and thought "oh poo poo, I posted that in the wrong place". I felt bad at first until I realized I had actually responded to something in this thread. I've seen this in book stores. Right off the bat I think: why only 12 maps? I want more.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Also, do yourselves a favor and pick up this book. It's really good. Clicky for Amazon link. Man they mispronted my name after all the trouble I went to copy-pasting a book from this thread 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Not the only mispront then, eh? He discusses way more than 12 maps in the actual text in relation to the 12 maps chosen to represent the theme of each chapter. Two sections of the book are glossy and filled with pictures of various maps, there are plenty of illustrations in the text too. I really cannot do the book justice in my own words, it's not just history. It's about what maps mean to us and how this relationship developed throughout history, how our conception of what a map is and it's purpose changed, the scientific and political breakthroughs that led to those changes, the evolving art and craft of accurate mapmaking. It gets philosophical and political and cultural and spiritual at times. Just read it, I promise it's worth it. I would say that book captured the very essence of this thread. Edited for more clarity and info. SaltyJesus fucked around with this message at 17:01 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Didn't the north actually start the war over primarily economic concerns? Even Lincoln wasn't all that jazzed about freeing the blacks and mostly did it to keep the country together. Probably off topic but the South actually started the war. South Carolina seceded from the union before Lincoln was even inaugurated
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Probably off topic but the South actually started the war. South Carolina seceded from the union before Lincoln was even inaugurated They seceded during Buchanan's term but the war didn't start until the Fort Sumter crisis, in which President Lincoln was a primary actor.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
esquilax posted:They seceded during Buchanan's term but the war didn't start until the Fort Sumter crisis, in which President Lincoln was a primary actor. Buchanan was also a primary actor in the Fort Sumter crisis, notably making it loads worse before throwing his hands up, going gently caress it and leaving it to Lincoln to solve.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Buchanan was also a primary actor in the Fort Sumter crisis, notably making it loads worse before throwing his hands up, going gently caress it and leaving it to Lincoln to solve. I'm not trying to place blame or make value judgements, I think the important point in the discussion is that war was not inevitable when Lincoln took office. Had Lincoln capitulated and allowed the slave states to secede, the civil war would not have occurred. Instead, he acted because he wanted to save the union.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Oh God, I have inadvertently started civil-warchat.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Riso posted:Reminder: if people in the North had known the civil war would free the blacks they'd have stayed at home. This has a degree of truth - if you imagine that the entire war was fought in 1861 and no changes in public opinion occurred subsequently. After the failures of 1861 and 1862, and with Union troops having been increasingly personally exposed to slavery - support for emancipation grew rapidly both as a war measure to ensure victory and as a moral necessity. In addition, the action of slaves themselves in fleeing the South to Union lines en masse and later signing up in huge numbers for the Union army helped transform the war from a conservative war of unionism to a revolutionary war. Lincoln and the Republicans in 1864 ran on a platform that explicitly linked the war to emancipation and the death of slavery against a Democratic campaign that ran on a platform of a war solely for the Union and won a decisive victory, including huge majorities in the soldier vote. Raskolnikov38 posted:lol no. Abolition had wide support in the north since they had been trying to end slavery since 1776. The end of slavery in the North did not mean that abolitionism had "wide support" in the North; abolitionism was a small fringe movement that advocated for immediate emancipation and racial equality, and was always a minority in the North, though it did expand in support in the mid-late 1860s. Abolitionists in the North were often blamed for sectionalism and attacked by mobs. Anti-slavery/free labor ideology, however, was a majority opinion in the North by the late 1850s and formed the basis of the Republican Party - against the expansion of slavery into the territories or into future conquests in Central America or the Caribbean, opposition to the "slave power" in Congress, and support for "free labor" - while still remaining virulently racist. Many northwestern states actually banned any blacks from entering the state.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Abolition was probably the wrong word to use, but ending slavery did have wide support in the North even if only a couple percent of the population were hardcore abolitionists.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
I don't doubt many were in favour of abolition, but they wouldn't have shed blood for it. The war was clearly started and fought to keep the Union together. To claim its main purpose was to free the slaves is a historical revisionism. It is a positive side effect, but it was clearly not the main goal. All you have to read is Lincoln various statements that he didn't care one way or the other as long as he wins.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Not the only mispront then, eh? Good enough for me! This is by far my favorite thread on SA.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Riso posted:I don't doubt many were in favour of abolition, but they wouldn't have shed blood for it. Again, what was true in 1861 was not necessarily true in 1864 - the North, the Republican Party, and Lincoln all came around to incorporating emancipation into the war and the Union's war goals by 1864 were explicitly the reunification of the country and the abolition of slavery. The justifications for it varied - one of the more popular ones in that period was that emancipation was necessary to prevent another war from breaking out - but it is absolutely not in dispute that that by 1863 and 1864 emancipation had become a primary war goal of the Union.  Lincoln's 1864 victory running on a platform of Union and emancipation (The results in LA/TN aren't really representative of anything besides the weird situation they were in with regards to reconstruction). Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 18:06 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Riso posted:All you have to read is Lincoln various statements that he didn't care one way or the other as long as he wins. Lincoln viewed it as his duty as President to save the Union. Personally he wanted slavery destroyed but did not see it as being the duty of the President to do so, especially when doing so would probably drive the border states into the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln posted:I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution.... If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Oh God, I have inadvertently started civil-warchat. --Arch Duke Ferdinand's last words
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:Again, what was true in 1861 was not necessarily true in 1864 What attitudes were years after the war started is hardly relevant to its beginnings.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:--Arch Duke Ferdinand's last words 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:--Arch Duke Ferdinand's last words Funnily enough I'm Serbian and my name is Gavrilo. E: What happened to the big blob of Germans next to Székely land? Are they still there? SaltyJesus fucked around with this message at 18:28 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Riso posted:What attitudes were years after the war started is hardly relevant to its beginnings. Northerners generally still wanted to end slavery, it just wasn't viewed as possible when the Confederacy is kicking your rear end up and down where-ever McClellan was currently blundering.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Funnily enough I'm Serbian and my name is Gavrilo. Weren't they all pretty much expelled after WWII?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:Funnily enough I'm Serbian and my name is Gavrilo. There were still cca 600,000 Saxons in Romania by the fall of Ceaucescu's regime, but virtually all of them emigrated to Germany post 1989
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Weren't they all pretty much expelled after WWII? No idea. I'm asking because I knew about the Székelys but not that there were a bunch of Germans parked right next to them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:E: What happened to the big blob of Germans next to Székely land? Are they still there? Most of them got literally sold by the communists to West Germany, and the rest ran away after '89. It's a pretty big shame as they had lived here for 900 years, and now Transylvania is full of empty old german villages. Kinda related, the communists also sold the romanian jews (who had miraculously escaped WW2 mostly unharmed) to Israel for cash dollars, they were enterprising folks them communists.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I'm not trying to place blame or make value judgements, I think the important point in the discussion is that war was not inevitable when Lincoln took office. Had Lincoln capitulated and allowed the slave states to secede, the civil war would not have occurred. Instead, he acted because he wanted to save the union. This is a ludicrously disingenuous thing to say. Yes, there would have been no war if one side decided they weren't going to fight, but that's true of all wars. Lincoln had a constitutional duty to defend the integrity of the union, everybody (including those in the South) expected him to do so, and that's what he did.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:18
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Ya that bunk line of southern apology can be summarized as, "Why couldn't Lincoln ignore his oaths of office after a legal and open election and just let us be traitors (who by the way are seceding so we can retain the right to own humans) in peace?"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:This is a ludicrously disingenuous thing to say. Yes, there would have been no war if one side decided they weren't going to fight, but that's true of all wars. Lincoln had a constitutional duty to defend the integrity of the union, everybody (including those in the South) expected him to do so, and that's what he did. I don't see why it's disingenuous to say that Lincoln had a choice between a civil war and allowing the union to split, considering he did. Some support the ability of states to secede in general, others don't, most think Lincoln made the right choice there, I wasn't making any value judgments. Or do I need to end every post with "PS the confederacy was bad" to make a point without causing a knee-jerk reaction? I mean if Kurdistan or Scotland or Catalonia or South Sudan votes to secede, the rest of their countries also have a choice between war and allowing secession. esquilax fucked around with this message at 19:29 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:25
|
|