1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

(Realistically) "Re-Fighting" The Civil War; Long-Overdue

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Mr. Shaman, Apr 20, 2009.

  1. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's DO THIS, BigRob!!!!!

    It's my contention that...our Civil War was all-about the Corporate/Industrialized North vs. the Agricultural South.

    Up, until The Civil War, most, local political-power was held by farmers/land-owners....who had the products everyone needed; thereby giving them a little-larger voice in local (i.e. political)-issues.

    That all ended when the Corporate/Indutrialized North realized they had the economic-power....and, bigger-GUNS....to go NATIONWIDE!!! (...and, take all the power & influence from the Agricultural-Boy$....a battle that still exists.).

    Our Civil War spawned CORPORATE AMERIKA!!!!

    (.....and, the eventual-Death of the family-farm.)​
     
  2. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Mr ShamMan's post without all the weird colors and formatting so people can actually read it (Is this a first? Mr. ShamMan actually posts something worth reading?):

    ------------------------------------------------

    "The Civil War began 148 years ago this month with the assault on Fort Sumter and ended when rebel forces surrendered in 1865, but the battle over how to teach the conflict to new generations of Americans has never stopped.

    Ask Northerners the cause of the war, and the answer often is a single word: slavery. In many places in the South, the answers can vary: states' rights, freedom, political and economic power.

    As students across the region begin springtime Civil War lessons, historians say the election of Barack Obama as the first African American president offers an unprecedented opportunity to break through stereotypes and view the era in broader ways.

    "His election means we can be more honest. We can stop giving one-word answers," said Edward L. Ayers, a Civil War scholar who is president of the University of Richmond, in the city that became the capital of the Confederacy.

    [Les] Albers said he is a living example of the regional mentalities over the war.

    He grew up in New York, where, he said, he learned "the Northern philosophy" of the war, which was: "The war didn't hit us. We won the war, so get over it. . . . Northerners don't really think about it. There's a monument here or there, but that's about it."

    Then he joined the Army and trained in the South, where he got a whole different perspective: "The South lost and was occupied. The entire economic system was turned upside down. That gets to the point about how the war was about political power."

    Let's DO THIS, BigRob!!!!!

    It's my contention that...our Civil War was all-about the Corporate/Industrialized North vs. the Agricultural South.

    Up, until The Civil War, most, local political-power was held by farmers/land-owners....who had the products everyone needed; thereby giving them a little-larger voice in local (i.e. political)-issues.

    That all ended when the Corporate/Indutrialized North realized they had the economic-power....and, bigger-GUNS....to go NATIONWIDE!!! (...and, take all the power & influence from the Agricultural-Boy$....a battle that still exists.).

    Our Civil War spawned CORPORATE AMERIKA!!!!

    (.....and, the eventual-Death of the family-farm.)

    -------------------------------------------------

    The two main causes of the Civil War were slavery and economic abuse of the South by the North. In that order.

    Slavery we all know about. And the main "state's right" the South fought for was, of course, the "right" of states to permit black slavery.

    If there had been no other issues, Slavery was more than enough reason to fighte the Civili War.

    But there was another issue. For years before the CW, Congress had passed increasingly oppressive tariffs and duties on Southern goods. Technically, all those tariffs applied equally to all states, not just the Southern ones. But in fact, taxes on exports of farm goods (tobacco, wheat, rice, cotton etc.) hit the South far harder than the North, since the South exported huge amounts while the North exported very little of those things. Most of the South's economy consisted of massive farming, and exporting its products to the North and to other countries, and using the money to buy machinery, clothing, and most hard goods, which were not made in the South.

    And when the Federal taxes rose to 50% of the cargo's value (OR MORE), it was practically a death sentence to many southern farms and plantations, making it impossible for them to compete with European farmers. Even if there had been no slavery, it is possible that a war would have been fought over these economic-oppression issues alone, if they had continued.

    These tariffs were passed by a House that had far more Northern representatives than Southern; and a Senate which had equal numbers of Nothern and Southern senators... but usually had vice-presidential tie-breakers who were picked by their (northern) Presidents for their Norther sympathies despite often being from the South themselves. So Northern legislatures were usually able to steamroller the South and ram through highly oppressive taxes and tariffs... while simultaneously passing spending plans favorable to the North.

    And even these legislative travesties, while technically having nothing to do with slavery, were often passed with ringing declarations that the South deserved to be punished due to its tradition of slaveholding; and so the one-sided burdens imposed on the South were OK.

    The two main causes of the Civil War were slavery and economic oppression of the South. Slavery was the main cause, but economic oppression was a very significant factor too.
     
  3. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA


    Why did you mention me specifically in this thread exactly?​
     
  4. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    'Cause I'm thinkin'...... this is a position (of mine) you couldn't logically argue-against.....but, I wanted to hear it, from you.

    Easy, there.....don't go wilting, on me, now.​
     
  5. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Why would I argue against the position that slavery was not the sole cause of the Civil War? I never thought that it was.

    I think your notion that the Civil War resulted in "Corporate America" is somewhat of an odd notion however.
     
  6. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There ya' go......

    Explain.

    "...odd notion..." suggests you've never given it much thought.

    My contention is that it was corporate-America, in it's infancy, that launched The War.​
     
  7. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Oh well, his opening post was worthwhile, anyway.

    The South yammered loud and long over "states' rights". But at the same time, they were serving as the poster child for the truism that if you abuse your "rights" badly enough and long enough, sooner or later a stern parent will step in, spank you, and take those rights away, whether justly or not. And they will run things themselves, often to everybody's detriment (compared to independence and freedom).

    The South did exactly that with slavery. It was a horrible abuse of the "right" of states to determine their own destiny, and the North stepped in and beat it out of them. The North also abused the South in various ways supposedly unconnected with slavery, but they used the South's slavery as a justification for it (tariffs etc.). And we are all worse off for it having happened, with a larger Federal govt taking over things that were formerly left to the states.

    The South still whines about "States' rights", especially when they get sufficiently likkered up, and points to the very real abuses the North committed against them long before the War. But if they hadn't thrown away their own "States' rights" with both hands, by dreadfully abusing their black population and concocting bizarre lies like "They aren't people, they're only property", very little of it would have happened at all, and they'd have a lot more "States' rights today. And so would the rest of us.
     
  8. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Do you know what a corporation is? It's a group of people that make jobs and provide products. Why exactly is this bad?
     
  9. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When they encourage War, to boost their bottom-line....I'd consider that bad.

    :rolleyes:
     
  10. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :confused:
    I see....


    So in Sham world.... The reason the left hates Wal-mart so much is because they are part of the 'Military-Industrial Complex' that Eisenhower spoke of in 1961...

    Yeah I can see how selling window air conditioners for $25 less than Mejiers, is a major military cash cow. I see how selling Bissel sweepers for $5 less than anyone else, is huge military-industrial complex event.

    I suppose GM and AIG, are both part of the Military Industrial Complex too. Selling sub-prime mortgages and Geo Metros, could be considered a form of urban warfare depending on how you look at it.

    It's ironic that you cite this speech. First, even the page title is miss-leading. "Military-Industrial Complex Speech" is a little off given only one section of the speech was about it. Even then, the Eisenhower stated clearly:

    So Eisenhower himself was clearly in favor of a strong military.

    But you still seem to miss the point. Corporations are US. As in they are simply the people of America, building products and selling them. That's all there is too it.

    Do you even know how a corporation is formed? It's formed by other people wanting to support an existing business. Let's say someday you want to make widgets and sell them. You have a small business with 20 people, all making and selling widgets. In the process you realize you need money to grow your business. To raise that money, you need investors. So you incorporate, and sell shares of the business. Investors see your good product, and your good management of the business, and deiced to buy shares in your company.

    That's all being a corporation is. Now, again... why is that so bad? What's so awful about this?
     
  11. samsara15

    samsara15 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Moonbase 2B
    I once saw a monument in Camden, Maine, a memorial to those who lost thier lives in the 'Great Rebellion'.

    I also once saw a monument in Georgia, a memorial to those who lost their lives in "The War of Northern Aggression'.

    I also once saw a plaque, in Quebec, a memorial to the courage and valiance of the brave hero Benedict Arnold, who ably defended the city in 1778 or so, the exact year, I forget).

    The point? In a war, someone's good is someone else's evil. Even someone's traitor is someone else's hero. Right and wrong is often lost.
     
  12. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    Figures that Canada would have some memorial to benedict arnold
    and in quebec no less.

    HA
     
  13. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I have not given it much thought.

    You assert that the war was a result of the Northern corporations realizing they had "bigger guns." I think this overlooks the notion that the North had has "bigger guns" for years and yet no war was fought. In addition, the United States has "bigger guns" than most everyone in the entire world, and yet war remains relatively small. I am not sure there is a causal relationship between the two, at least not one that can be documented conclusively.

    Now, I have to ask, which side are you blaming the cause of the war on? And are you going to classify plantations as "corporations?"
     
  14. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Side?

    The "third"-side, I guess......Corporate Greed.​

    Small-businesses, maybe.​
     
  15. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Benedict Arnold was one of George Washington's most able, loyal generals; and helped win some terrific victories for the American side. He deserved the accolades he got for doing those things.

    Then he decided to turn traitor, and give the British secrets about the layout of the fort at West Point and other such things. For that, he deserves the vilification and deepest contempt of the American people. He would have been stood up against a wall and shot (appropriately so) if he hadn't escaped to the British at the last minute. But the British never trusted him after that, either.

    In the long view of history, "Benedict Arnold" will always be synonymous with "turncoat" and "traitor", not with "brilliant general", though he was both at different times. But that long view is the only one he deserves now.
     

Share This Page