|
Or at least tried to. A big problem the planters faced is that slave-based agriculture can only become so efficient. You can't miniaturize slaves like an industrial machine; i.e. the only way to make your slaves work harder is to whip them more, but there's a finite limit on the number of slaves working per acre. So slavery has to expand into new territories and the planter class, governors, newspaper editors, were greedily eyeing the Spanish Empire's ex-colonies and few remaining holdouts.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 10:18 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 18:15 |
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:Some of you seem to know a lot more about this than I do, let me ask a question: the correct term is The War Between the States
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 10:22 |
|
Looks like Cherno's all shook up re. the firing of the Mooch and being intimidated by a person who is arguably the Platonic ideal of a nerd.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 11:03 |
|
At best, the Confederacy would be a Third World country til they discovered oil, and then you'd have a more local Saudi Arabia style theocratic petrostate at best.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 11:28 |
|
*checks in to PACER* Andrew Anglin still hiding from the SPLC; still hasn't filed a defense in the U.S. District Court of Montana. But he has until Sept. 15 so he's fine for now.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 13:29 |
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:Had the Confederacy won the war they would have created a slave empire stretching from Florida through the Caribbean into Venezuela/Colombia, Central America and probably a big chunk of Mexico. They would have tried. Emphasis on tried. Their lovely constitution made the economic development that was essential for them to even try major expansion, unlikely.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 13:29 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:They would have tried. Emphasis on tried. Their lovely constitution made the economic development that was essential for them to even try major expansion, unlikely. This. The different states had differing currencies, could opt out of drafts, could refuse federal (or confederate whatevs) troops permission to move through states, and all sorts of other dumb poo poo that would have made any major offensive action an abject failure.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 13:41 |
|
Agean90 posted:This. The different states had differing currencies, could opt out of drafts, could refuse federal (or confederate whatevs) troops permission to move through states, and all sorts of other dumb poo poo that would have made any major offensive action an abject failure. While it's always dangerous to start engaging in counterfactuals, I've always thought that if the war had somehow continued through 1865 you would have seen Confederate troops moved in to control states like Georgia that defied the national government on various things (which Governor Joe Brown had done more than once) and leadership progressively transferred from the civilian government to a pseudodictatorship under Lee vaguely similar to what happened in Germany in the last couple years of WWI.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 13:53 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:While it's always dangerous to start engaging in counterfactuals, I've always thought that if the war had somehow continued through 1865 you would have seen Confederate troops moved in to control states like Georgia that defied the national government on various things (which Governor Joe Brown had done more than once) and leadership progressively transferred from the civilian government to a pseudodictatorship under Lee vaguely similar to what happened in Germany in the last couple years of WWI. counter factual are fun as hell so long as you acknowledge their ridiculousness. the trouble come when somebody asks for the likely historical ramifications of hitler being a gay black man then gets upset when people start making things up
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 14:21 |
|
spacetoaster posted:Wasn't the south producing cotton/tobacco/sugar for the north? Or were they exporting it? It worked like this. The south had three original export crops, in three separate growing areas: tobacco (Virginia), rice (Carolina littoral), sugar cane (Louisiana)--though bear in mind that Louisiana remained European-controlled until the early 19th century. These commodities were shipped from the South's two primary ports, New Orleans and Charleston SC, to the big transatlantic shipping centers of the American eastern seaboard: mainly New York, but also Boston and Baltimore. Banks in those northern cities offered loans to the Southern planters, providing capital that they could turn into slaves and, in the case of sugar cane, the fairly complex system of milling and boiling that turns raw cane into grain sugar. Merchant houses in those northern cities then handled the shipment of the slave-produced agricultural commodities to European markets. The main economic story of the American 18th century was how this symbiotic relationship relationship enriched the elites of both north and south, but with discordant note in the final decades: it looked like slave-agriculture as a system was on its way out. The tobacco did very well for the first century+ after colonization, but tobacco's hard on the soil it's grown in and one of the persistent issues with the planters was that they were too busy hunting, dueling, loving their cousins and/or slaves, etc. to practice sustainable agricultural practices like crop rotation. By the end of the 18th century the soil of the main commercial growing areas of Virginia was practically worked to death, and the net volume of tobacco crops was declining each year. The rice and sugar cane cultivation systems didn't face that issue, but were tightly constrained by geography; there's only so many places in the American southeast where either could grow, and those were already in full production. With tobacco failing, it looked as though there would be no economic niche for slavery outside of the Carolina littoral and Louisiana in the American landscape within a few decades of independence. In the north actual slavery was already relegated to household servants for the wealthy, as it never proved economical in agriculture intended for domestic consumption. The practice was abolished in most of the northern states in the late 18th/early 19th, simply because it was an irrelevance to their economies, and there was considerable expectation in the 1790s that the practice would soon be gone for good. Enter cotton; more specifically, enter British textile manufacturing. The Industrial Revolution finally really got underway in Britain after the Napoleonic Wars, and the end of the blockade the British government maintained on Napoleonic Europe through most of the 19th century's first decade and a half. The first capitalist textile mills, operating water- and steam-powered equipment, created an unparalleled demand for raw cotton almost overnight. Cotton's not nearly as hard on the soil as tobacco, and unlike rice or sugarcane it grew wonderfully throughout the southeast. The same financiers who'd made such bank offering agricultural loans to the planters soon had vast new fields of slave-worked export agriculture to invest in, while the shipping concerns had commensurately vast new cargoes of cotton to export to the British mills. The Brits tried to clamp down hard on their new industrial technologies, but with a little help from British immigrants smuggling out schematics northern elites were able to diversify from finance and shipping into actual production facilities, all processing slave-picked cotton, and still largely shipping their textile products to European ports. Elites in north and south continue to get richer, and as American expansion moved westward Southern settlers established huge new growing areas along the Mississippi and beyond. This symbiotic relationship between northern capitalists and southern planter aristocrats only began to fray in the later 19th century, due to two contributing factors: 1) new export-driven cotton production schemes in Egypt and India driving the commodity's overall price down; and 2) the beginning of the American railroad boom opening whole new fields of investment for the same financial and industrial concerns that had previously made most of their money from southern ag exports. The capital generated by the transatlantic cotton trade diversified into new forms of industrial production in the early-mid 19th century, based in and around the big northern cities and staffed by immigrants fresh off the boats from Europe. Extension of rail lines into the relatively recently settled American northwest offered excellent return on investments, and those same lines allowed northern manufacturers to begin selling cheap mass-produced tools and early steam-powered farm machinery to the settlers of places like Ohio and Michigan--all paid for with agricultural loans from the same banks that had made their fortunes financing the southern plantations. With the profitability of the planters' produce diminishing by the year, the northern tycoons needed the southern aristocrats less and less, while the planters felt the rough political parity they'd held with those tycoons slipping away. The planters grew ever more paranoid over a political possibility that seemed impossible in the salad years of the cotton industry: national abolition, as the northern elites lost their material interest in protecting slavery from northern anti-slavery activists. Tension mounted from the 1840s onward, accompanied by increasingly acrimonious Congressional gridlock quite familiar to 21st century Americans, till the proverbial kettle boiled over when Abraham Lincoln, an openly anti-slavery Republican candidate, won the 1860 presidential election. Some assholes in Charleston lit up Ft. Sumter, the slaveholding states declared secession, and the rest is history.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:04 |
|
safely sodomized posted:the correct term is The War Between the States the term is the War of Southern Agression
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:15 |
|
StashAugustine posted:the term is the War of Southern Agression War of the Slavers Revolt
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:17 |
|
StashAugustine posted:the term is the War of Southern Agression War of Southern Capitulation
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:21 |
|
Can someone quote me the worst, craziest thing Scott Adams has ever said? Every time my GF listens to an episode of Tim Ferris's podcast with a loon like Adams or Sam Harris in it she always comes back to me with "this guy isn't as crazy as you made him sound, you should listen to the interview", and apparently "he literally believes in The Secret" wasn't enough. I sometimes wonder if Ferris isn't low-key one of these guys himself, but I can't find anything on him besides the fact that he has people like Adams and Harris on and the inherent insanity that comes with being a Silicon Valley bro.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:27 |
|
Deified Data posted:Can someone quote me the worst, craziest thing Scott Adams has ever said? MRA Dilbert wouldn't be a bad place to start. It's literally just Scott Adam's quotes edited onto Dilbert comics.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:35 |
Agean90 posted:counter factual are fun as hell so long as you acknowledge their ridiculousness. the trouble come when somebody asks for the likely historical ramifications of hitler being a gay black man then gets upset when people start making things up Agreed, and in the spirit of embracing ridiculousness, I would posit that if the South had somehow fought the North to a standstill and got a negotiated peace with independence, that they likely would not have remained a united country for long and would instead Balkanize once the impending threat of Northern military action was over.
|
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:43 |
|
zeal posted:It worked like this. The south had three original export crops, in three separate growing areas: tobacco (Virginia), rice (Carolina littoral), sugar cane (Louisiana)--though bear in mind that Louisiana remained European-controlled until the early 19th century. These commodities were shipped from the South's two primary ports, New Orleans and Charleston SC, to the big transatlantic shipping centers of the American eastern seaboard: mainly New York, but also Boston and Baltimore. Banks in those northern cities offered loans to the Southern planters, providing capital that they could turn into slaves and, in the case of sugar cane, the fairly complex system of milling and boiling that turns raw cane into grain sugar. Merchant houses in those northern cities then handled the shipment of the slave-produced agricultural commodities to European markets. The main economic story of the American 18th century was how this symbiotic relationship relationship enriched the elites of both north and south, but with discordant note in the final decades: it looked like slave-agriculture as a system was on its way out.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 16:56 |
|
exactly
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 17:02 |
|
Deified Data posted:Can someone quote me the worst, craziest thing Scott Adams has ever said? I dunno about worst, but his grating 1950's era sexism is on display in this blog post: https://archive.is/M3Fpt . The election seemed to really get his gears turning, though, and revealed he's just kinda dumb, which seems to drive his sexism: https://archive.is/DrTgL
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 17:18 |
|
Deified Data posted:Can someone quote me the worst, craziest thing Scott Adams has ever said? I think it's the one where he said Obama would declare martial law and cancel the election but you'll have to find it yourself; it was some time in the last year or so if it hasn't been erased from the Internet
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 17:34 |
|
Deified Data posted:Can someone quote me the worst, craziest thing Scott Adams has ever said? Tim Ferris is literally Mike Cernovich without the obvious reactionary politics
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 18:07 |
|
https://twitter.com/iD4RO/status/892423515487567872
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 18:16 |
|
oh i did a google trends thing for "alt-right" which ain't exactly scientific but it would've been a better guide to who would win the 2016 presidential election so suck my balls i'm going with it well anyways alt-right is like... nothing. it's tiny as poo poo -- specifically that term. but the biggest results were in canada and norway.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 18:18 |
|
lancemantis posted:Tim Ferris is literally Mike Cernovich without the obvious reactionary politics Can you expand on this? As far as I've been able to tell he's a bland self-help "I did it and so can you" sort of guy, no real signs of gargling gorilla cum. I see he's got an interview with Rubin where he discusses the "groupthink of Silicon Valley" which sounds telling but I don't know if I have the patience for that. Mermaid Autopsy posted:I think it's the one where he said Obama would declare martial law and cancel the election but you'll have to find it yourself; it was some time in the last year or so if it hasn't been erased from the Internet It's impossible to nail down Adams on anything concrete unless the person you're trying to convince is 75% there already because he couches literally everything he says in mealy-mouthed "Now I'm not saying it's X but I've known Y to indicate X before and I'm terribly clever so maybe beware of X" poo poo. Even this screed you're referring to is nothing but "Now I'm not saying martial law is coming but it could happen!". Deified Data has issued a correction as of 18:29 on Aug 1, 2017 |
# ? Aug 1, 2017 18:22 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:While it's always dangerous to start engaging in counterfactuals, I've always thought that if the war had somehow continued through 1865 you would have seen Confederate troops moved in to control states like Georgia that defied the national government on various things (which Governor Joe Brown had done more than once) and leadership progressively transferred from the civilian government to a pseudodictatorship under Lee vaguely similar to what happened in Germany in the last couple years of WWI. I could see that. but the place would still be hosed. They won't be discovering oil for a long time, and there main export is losing. I could see them becoming a effective colony of the brits, but even their victory in the war wouldn't end liberalism from expanding in the UK, so that would reate long term problems. I imagine the place getting annexed within ten years of oil being discovered by the USA.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 18:25 |
|
The Confederacy was ran entirely by the planters, and any barriers to imperial expansion would have been immediately overthrown.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 18:35 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:I could see that. but the place would still be hosed. They won't be discovering oil for a long time, and there main export is losing. I could see them becoming a effective colony of the brits, but even their victory in the war wouldn't end liberalism from expanding in the UK, so that would reate long term problems. I imagine the place getting annexed within ten years of oil being discovered by the USA. Well yeah that's the other problem. The south was both economically and ideologically wedded to the plantation economy and even if the blockade went away somehow they'd at best had a much smaller share of the overall cotton market. One other possibility I toss around when daydreaming this stuff is the potential for the much-feared wide-scale slave uprising, potentially fostered and financed by the North, particularly with southern white manpower so diminished and exhausted by the war.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 18:45 |
|
The Civil War was the very first imperialist "humanitarian intervention" the United States did, and just like the Iraq War it we left the region worse than we found it and full of extremists after early abandonment of rebuilding efforts. That's my take, and yes it's hot.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 18:50 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Well yeah that's the other problem. The south was both economically and ideologically wedded to the plantation economy and even if the blockade went away somehow they'd at best had a much smaller share of the overall cotton market. The South had been organized around preventing any sort of large scale slave uprising since the Haitian Revolution. The ban on teaching slaves how to read was an immediate reaction to Nat Turner being able to read the bible and identify with the Jews in Egypt. Slave patrols constantly marched along the major roads, and any white man could be pressed into the militia at any time. All of the most successful slave revolts in the South were merely mass escapes.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 18:52 |
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:The Civil War was the very first imperialist "humanitarian intervention" the United States did, and just like the Iraq War it we left the region worse than we found it and full of extremists after early abandonment of rebuilding efforts. That's my take, and yes it's hot.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 18:53 |
|
Deified Data posted:Can someone quote me the worst, craziest thing Scott Adams has ever said? The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles. -Scott Adams
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 19:22 |
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The South had been organized around preventing any sort of large scale slave uprising since the Haitian Revolution. The ban on teaching slaves how to read was an immediate reaction to Nat Turner being able to read the bible and identify with the Jews in Egypt. Slave patrols constantly marched along the major roads, and any white man could be pressed into the militia at any time. All of the most successful slave revolts in the South were merely mass escapes. Yeah, I know, and in time of peace that was fine, but the slave patrols were significantly diminished in number by how many men had been called away to the army, especially late in the war (which many rich planters who had evaded the draft via the twenty negro law were increasingly alarmed at). My bullshit counterfactual runs along the lines of if the war continued past 1865, what are the odds the enslaved population of the South would begin to at least act more aggressively to emancipate themselves, perhaps even rising in open revolt, particularly if we add in elements of outside assistance from Union saboteurs running guns to the slaves (yes I know white Northerners weren't that much keener on arming the slaves themselves shut up we're what-ifing).
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 19:53 |
|
Deified Data posted:Can you expand on this? As far as I've been able to tell he's a bland self-help "I did it and so can you" sort of guy, no real signs of gargling gorilla cum. he made his money (well, he's probably from an upper/upper-middle class background anyway) selling nootropics and other supplement woo online, wrote a bunch of books that are a mix of the obvious, entitled clueless-ness, and typical self-help BS being a business book personality cult mixes well with VC work and that gave him the profile he enjoys today
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 20:17 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Yeah, I know, and in time of peace that was fine, but the slave patrols were significantly diminished in number by how many men had been called away to the army, especially late in the war (which many rich planters who had evaded the draft via the twenty negro law were increasingly alarmed at). My bullshit counterfactual runs along the lines of if the war continued past 1865, what are the odds the enslaved population of the South would begin to at least act more aggressively to emancipate themselves, perhaps even rising in open revolt, particularly if we add in elements of outside assistance from Union saboteurs running guns to the slaves (yes I know white Northerners weren't that much keener on arming the slaves themselves shut up we're what-ifing). there's also the factor of heavily pro-union areas in the mountains. Half of Tennessee was under martial law due to pro union sentiment after it tried to break off
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 20:50 |
|
Agean90 posted:there's also the factor of heavily pro-union areas in the mountains. Half of Tennessee was under martial law due to pro union sentiment after it tried to break off galaxy brain: we would have been better off long-term if we kept VA intact
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 20:52 |
|
zegermans posted:galaxy brain: we would have been better off long-term if we kept VA intact brain incompassing the whole universe: John Brown go on chapo
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 20:55 |
|
Agean90 posted:there's also the factor of heavily pro-union areas in the mountains. Half of Tennessee was under martial law due to pro union sentiment after it tried to break off I assure you that east tennessee has fully converted to the rebel cause if there's one thing you can say about appalachia, it's that we insist on being on the losing side of anything
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 20:56 |
|
It certainly doesn't help when those who did try to be on the right side got hanged by George Pickett in the early days of the war.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 21:00 |
|
can someone explain to me why is it that "Gamer" has become synonymous with Reactionary Nerd? What exactly IS IT that makes "Good at Video Games" correlate to "Horrifyingly stupid opinions on women and minorities"? YouTube is just un-loving-belivable at this point is it GamerGate? is that the reason?
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 21:06 |
|
|
# ? May 16, 2024 18:15 |
|
gamers were always bad, always https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt-rY1FY54k
|
# ? Aug 1, 2017 21:07 |