Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

ISuck

Lincoln, the Civil War, and the start of big gov.

Recommended Posts

ISuck

Over the past year or so, I have become a staunch supporter of the Confederacy. Ive been called Neo-Nazi, Neo-Confederate, pro-slavery, racist, bigot, slavery apologist, "civil war denier", and a Holocaust denier, none of which are true. I champion liberty over all and that's why I back the Confederacy in the seemingly never ending debate between North and South. So before you jump all over me, let me debunk some common myths about the most misunderstood topic in American history

 

The War for Southern Independence was fought over slavery.

 

False, while it can be considered that slavery was a sort of catalyst, in was just a pawn of an issue in a much bigger game. The real reason for the War for Southern Independence was tariffs. Taxes started our secession from Britian, they caused South Carolina to secede, so why is it so hard to believe they the cause for the South's secession?

 

At the time, America had very scarce taxes. The tariff, however, was an overused method used by northern politicians to create their own monopoly on industry. Here's how it worked. Tariffs provided 95% of the federal revenue. The South was paying 87% of these tariffs. So basically, the South is paying for the federal government. Because of these tariffs which had gotten out of hand since Hamilton, the South had been crushed economically. The South was forced to sell their goods cheap to northern businesses. In turn, because of the new inudstrial revolution in the North, they could manufacture goods and sell them back to the South for outrageous prices. The price system had been manipulated by government interventionism and the result was a state sponsored monopoly in favor of northern businesses.

 

Now, why didn't the Southerners just fight this through politics? Again, the South was rural and did not have the population to put up a fight in Congress. They were highly outnumbered in the House, but they were fighting for the Senate. Remember, the Senate accepts 2 members from every state regardless of population. The north had a slight edge over the south in the Senate. But there was new ground. The new territories being accepted into the Union as states. Both sides saw this and fought for political control over the new states for years. Northern politicians wanted to outlaw slavery in the new territory, this would attract business and inudstry and would, in turn, make the state into another Northern siding state, giving them an even higher edge in the the federal government. The South wanted to allow slavery to attract farmers and agriculture of the such, in turn, this would make the state into a southern state and gain ground for the South in the Senate.

 

But don't think that these Northern politicians were egalitarians saving the slaves for humanitarianism. The fight over slavery was not over humanitarianism, it was over power. While abolitionists as humanitarians did exist at the time, it certainly didn't exist in Congress. Here is one article which demonstrates Thomas Jefferson confirming this attitude:

 

 

Thomas Jefferson commented that the Missouri question had awakened him 'like a firebell in the night,' and that he believed it was 'at once the knell of the Union.' Writing to William Short on August 22, 1820, Jefferson commented: 'This is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.' Writing to Albert Gallatin in the same year, Jefferson also commented that he perceived the Missouri solution had negated the old political separations and 'devised a new one, of slave-holding, and non-slave-holding states, which, while it had semblance of being Moral, was at the same time Geographical, and calculated to give them ascendancy by debauching their old opponents to a coalition with them.'

 

Jefferson considered the attack upon slavery to be a means by which the old federalists could sway men who would otherwise oppose them to their side of the political spectrum. For it stands to reason that if one advocates an expanded role for the federal government in the first place, one gives himself the power to do something about slavery as a result. Opposition to Southern political aims now became synonymous with opposition to slavery, and with this merger the consolidationists found a winning combination in their war for control of the central government. The issue of slavery as one of morality was, to Jefferson, 'dust' thrown 'into the eyes of the people...to fanaticize them.' With the political hosts thus arrayed against one another on geographical terms, George Washington's nightmare had come to pass and, again, quoting Jefferson to Albert Gallatin: '...it gave a geographical and preponderant line of the Potomac and Ohio, throwing twelve States to the North and East, and ten to the South and West. With these therefore [the Northern majority of states] it is merely a question of power: but with this geographical minority it is a question of existence.'

http://www.patriotist.com/miscarch/rh20020805.htm

 

So now let's fast forward to Lincoln and slavery. Lincoln was a bigot, as demonstrated by the Douglas-Lincoln debates. Lincoln would be the first to tell you the War was not over slavery. He was also a lifelong supporter of colonization of blacks. Here's some Lincoln quotes to consider and hopefully put a dent in Lincoln's faux suit of moral superiority:

 

 

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"
-Letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862

 

 

'Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go up North, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most-cruel slave masters. When the Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution...'
Lincoln-Douglas debate August 21, 1858

 

 

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." And, "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals."
Lincoln-Douglas debate August 21, 1858

 

Note also that Lincoln supported the original 13th amendment, the one that actually would have protected slavery as a constitutional amendment. The bill had passed the House and the Senate and had been signed by Buchanan. Lincoln would have signed it and with the ratification of 3/4ths of the states, it would have become law. A common question would be "Then why didn't the South stay in the Union?". For the South to have stayed in the Union to help ratify this amendment would have been the best idea, if the fight was over slavery. But it wasn't. The South ignored their chance to constitutionally protect slavery and favored secession from an oppressive overtaxing government because they felt secession was the only way to escape the state sponsored monopoly.

 

Now let's go foward a bit more, to the South's secession. Lincoln had been elected without a single electoral vote from the South. This only confirmed the South's belief that they were extremely unrepresented in the federal government. The reason Lincoln was such a hated man in the South was because of his support for the Morrill Tariff Act, a plan to double already out of control tariffs. In Lincoln's inaugural address, Lincoln promises to protect slavery:

 

 

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

 

Lincoln promises to protect slavery, but in the rest of the speech, he vowed to attack any state that failed pay federal revenue. Note that the reasoning for the blockade of Southern ports was to regain lost federal revenue.

 

 

I have much more on this topic but, sadly, I don't have time to write it all out right now. Have a nice day everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

(continued)

 

The Myth of the War for Southern Independence being fought over slavery

 

...On top of all of the evidence against the misconception of true catalyst of the War for Southern Independence, there the issue of the soldiers themselves. Surely, better than anyone, the soldiers knew what they were fighting for. The southern soldiers were comprised of blacks and whites. How did blacks get into a fight that was supposedly to enslave themselves? Some were conscripted, and some were given their freedom in exchange for serving (Even this is contradictory to the belief of the cause of the war being slavery, why would Southerners voluntarily give up their slaves in a fight they were supposedly fighting to keep their slaves?), some were free black men volunteering. Blacks fought in both the Confederate Army and the Confederate Navy. Many confederate generals found slaves to be more than an ample fighting force. Lee stressed the importance of needing blacks in the Confederate Army.

 

Frederick Douglas commented on the blacks in the Confederate Army

 

There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down ... and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government.

 

Southerners were more than willing to give up their slaves. Later in the war, there was a plan for complete emancipation of the slaves in exchange for European support. Europe, for the most part, were supporters of the Confederacy. The two problems that stopped Europe from intervening was their fear of the economic blacklash of a powerfully protectionist economy like the US, and because of the South's slaves. Europe was ahead of America in terms of humanitarianism and had banned slavery long before. A petition was also created by southern general Patrick Cleburne that asked for the enrollment of slaves in the Confederate Army. In part, it read:

 

 

As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter---give up the Negro slaves rather than become a slave himself

 

The petition was suppressed but brought back to life by Lee through a new movement which eventually passed. Make no mistake, black confederates did exist and did fight voluntarily for the South. This is inconsitant with the notion of the fight being one for the protection of slavery. Obviously, black confederates would not volunteer for something they believed was for enslavement of themselves and obviously, southerners would not give up their slaves if that's what they were fighting for.

 

Now, onto the Union troops. The Union army did not believe it was fighting in a crusade against slavery. They believed they were fighting to keep the Union intact. Remember, there were still four slave states in the North that fought on part of the Union. The Union army suffered a desertion problem after Lincolon issued the emancipation proclomation. Evidently, Union troops were willing to fight for American unity, just not too much unity with blacks. Northerners were not innocent of the race issue. For years, the South has been the scapegoat of America. Racism, intolerance, and prejudice has been unfairly attributed to the South, but leaving the North with a squeeky clean record of civil rights. But here's some things to consider that tarnish the North's image

 

-The North introduced slavery into America and brought slavery to the South

-The North did hold slaves during the Civil War

-Even some Northern states, like Delaware, refused to ratify the 13th amendment

-After certain Northern states banned slavery, they replaced the institution with equally harsh black codes that stripped blacks of most rights and their citizenship.

-The most famous of these black codes were in none other than the "Land of Lincoln".(Lincoln was a staunch supporter of Black Codes)

-Some testify that racism was worse in the North than in the South, such as the famous writer Alexis De Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America. He wrote the following:

 

"[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known."

 

For more information on Northern racism:

http://www.slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm

 

 

Northerners were not to happy with blacks at all. To the immigrant population, they were job competition and in the famous New York City draft riots, blacks were the primary target. Blacks were mercilessly lynched, a black orphanage was burned, and numerous others were killed in the week of riots

 

 

...to be continued....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

Lol, I get yelled at for my one liners but if I write anything longer, nobody responds. lol.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jheath
Lol, I get yelled at for my one liners but if I write anything longer, nobody responds. lol.gif

Patience, mon ami...

 

Just as it takes longer to write something that's actually supported and reasoned out instead of a one-line flamebait, so it takes longer to respond to it. I'll get around to posting a reply when I return from my wonderfully relaxing vacation. smile.gif

 

I for one appreciate the effort you put into this argument much, much more than all the rest of your posts. It doesn't make your position any more correct, but it does make it much more interesting to read and consider.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck
Lol, I get yelled at for my one liners but if I write anything longer, nobody responds. lol.gif

Patience, mon ami...

 

Just as it takes longer to write something that's actually supported and reasoned out instead of a one-line flamebait, so it takes longer to respond to it. I'll get around to posting a reply when I return from my wonderfully relaxing vacation. smile.gif

 

I for one appreciate the effort you put into this argument much, much more than all the rest of your posts. It doesn't make your position any more correct, but it does make it much more interesting to read and consider.

Dont let my post interupt your vacation. Politics and vacation are two things that shouldn't mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

Im going to quit answering other posts and focus on writing this, if anybody wants to respond, be free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

Because one liners are generally unappreciated if they're so vague as to argue "The EU is Socialist" without justification.

 

And the reason I've not read or posted here is that I know virtually nothing about this topic whatsoever, and American history doesn't interest me in the slightest, no offence.

 

Also, I'd appreciate a reply in the European topic where we were discussing totalitarianism with regards to political ideologies.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

Because one liners are generally unappreciated if they're so vague as to argue "The EU is Socialist" without justification.

 

And the reason I've not read or posted here is that I know virtually nothing about this topic whatsoever, and American history doesn't interest me in the slightest, no offence.

 

Also, I'd appreciate a reply in the European topic where we were discussing totalitarianism with regards to political ideologies.

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

Im going to quit answering other posts and focus on writing this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

Yes, I am capable of reading.

 

Are you capable of spending time on these forums in more than one topic? Perhaps just long enough to return to the discussion we were having so Svip and I can finish ripping apart your distorted political beliefs and proving them... dare I say it... incorrect...? confused.gif Hmmm...?

 

And it's not as though the discussion in this topic is exactly flowing at record speeds is it... sigh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

Yes, I am capable of reading.

 

Evidently not. Either that or you just have a harder time comprehending it.

 

 

Are you capable of spending time on these forums in more than one topic?

 

Well, Im not on all day, and the time I do spend here I want to focus writing on the topic everyone is ignoring right now.

 

 

Perhaps just long enough to return to the discussion we were having so Svip and I can finish ripping apart your distorted political beliefs and proving them... dare I say it... incorrect...? confused.gif Hmmm...?

 

Oh I wouldn't describe it like that, you've gained no ground, but feel free to think and post what you want on that topic. "We owned him lolerz" or whatever, it won't bother me.

 

 

And it's not as though the discussion in this topic is exactly flowing at record speeds is it... sigh.gif

 

I know, it is a little old for this group but I have hopes.

 

You guys got pissed at me for going off topic slightly but I'm a bit more tolerant, so please argue the topic or leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

Myth 2: The myth of Lincoln as a modern day Republican.

 

Many Republicans believe that Lincoln was a great man merely due to his tag as a "Republican". However, the Republican Party today believes in a smaller government(whether they actually show this in their legislature or not is of no importance). The party of Barry Goldwater and Calvin Coolidge is NOT the party of Lincoln. Lincoln was the founder of big government in America.

 

Lincoln was a very strong advocate of the American System. This was the model of Hamilton and Clay for America. It was a federalist view and was the largest debate in the early years of our country. The American System called for centralization of the government. Hamilton even believed that the President should be a lifelong job and given more power. The American System wished to strip the rights of states away and make everything a federal issue. It also advocated a strict protectionist economy.

 

The protectionist economy of the American System is what you would know today as "corporate welfare". The government would give money to corporations to do things like build railroads, canals, or other services. A protectionist economy also called for extremely high tariffs to "protect" companies here from foreign competition. This is a pivotal part of the protectionist economy as it restricts free trade.

 

Lincoln was a seasoned advocate of both these economic stances. In his early political years, he urged corporate handouts in Illinois. As expected, the handouts failed as most companies failed to finish jobs appointed and the State was merely left in an enormous debt. Lincoln also was strong supporter of tariffs, and his support of the Morrill Tariff Act is what prompted the South to secede.

 

...to be continued

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BenMillard

Is that the sound of a dead horse being flogged? tounge.gif

 

Frequent double-posting and bumping of a topic for which there is no interest is very poor form in any area - let alone one as specialised as D&D. Obviously nobody here cares much about the subject, so try a different forum. I'm sure there are acedemics and history enthusiasts who would be willing to discuss your ideas on forums run by them.

 

As it is, this topic is just inconveniencing members because you are bumping it with frequent double-posts.

Edited by Cerbera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

Is that the sound of a dead horse being flogged? tounge.gif

 

Frequent double-posting and bumping of a topic for which there is no interest is very poor form in any area - let alone one as specialised as D&D.  Obviously nobody here cares much about the subject, so try a different forum.  I'm sure there are acedemics and history enthusiasts who would be willing to discuss your ideas on forums run by them.

 

As it is, this topic is just inconveniencing members because you are bumping it with frequent double-posts.

 

You guys got pissed at me for going off topic slightly but I'm a bit more tolerant, so please argue the topic or leave.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StewMitch

You are preaching to a very small choir, my friend. That is, if the choir is made up of sane individuals who aren't draped in white cloth and titled "Grand Magi" and like to burn crosses yet recognize the bullsh*t that was the Union government.

 

This whole emphasis on the Civil War being a war against slavery hasn't helped race relations in the slightest, it only makes poor whites bitter because they paid for it when Sherman decided to let his boys rape the land and women south the Mason-Dixon line. Meh, the Union won. Blacks got freedom, which they had deserved long before (thank you Europe for exporting your practices over here) but it was at the cost of the entire economy of the American south. Now, it can be argued that the Southern economy was gonna implode anyway because of progress in textile productions, but can having what little you had in infrastructure being blown away help either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck
You are preaching to a very small choir, my friend. That is, if the choir is made up of sane individuals who aren't draped in white cloth and titled "Grand Magi" and like to burn crosses yet recognize the bullsh*t that was the Union government.

 

This whole emphasis on the Civil War being a war against slavery hasn't helped race relations in the slightest, it only makes poor whites bitter because they paid for it when Sherman decided to let his boys rape the land and women south the Mason-Dixon line. Meh, the Union won. Blacks got freedom, which they had deserved long before (thank you Europe for exporting your practices over here) but it was at the cost of the entire economy of the American south. Now, it can be argued that the Southern economy was gonna implode anyway because of progress in textile productions, but can having what little you had in infrastructure being blown away help either?

The southern economy was already in terrible condition due to mercantilist tariffs.

 

Yay for government intervention!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.