you have a time machine, now what?

[Hasty8]

Originally posted by mag-hatter


its called catching them, tracing them to bin laden, and STILL kicking his butt....whats so hard about that? do you need 3000 of our own people to die before you take action?

Obviously we do MAg, because it's not like OBL just poped up over night. He's been around since the war in Afghanistan (the one against the Soviets). We've known about him for a damn long time but it took the attacks for us to wake up.

People are sheep for the most part. How else do you explain boy-bands?

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Hasty8
Obviously we do MAg, because it's not like OBL just poped up over night. He's been around since the war in Afghanistan (the one against the Soviets). We've known about him for a damn long time but it took the attacks for us to wake up.

My favorite story involving OBL is an appearence Hillary Clinton had on Larry King some months ago.

In that appearance she stated that Bill Clinton was going to deal with with OBL but because of Ken Starr he was too distracted and OBL was never dealt with because of the politics of personal destruction.

I almost pooped in my pants when i heard that!

[aaron_mag]

Re: Civil War-Part Duex?

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
I will say though that the Civil War was the ultimate test of Federal Supremacy over the states. It was not illegal, nor immoral. Slavery was just a side bar to it that people try to make into the main issue.

Fine you asked for it. No you begged for it.

Many intelligent and logical people somehow make the mistake that the civil war was not about slavery. They will chant the nonsense that it was about state's rights versus the federal government. This is because they don't want to admit that southerners were fighting for the right to own their fellow man which was the back bone of the economy of the south. Please don't tell me it was for anything else. To say that so many men on both sides died simply to test the high minded theory of state versus federal control is just plain ridiculous.

I will concede that there was plenty of racism in the north. If you read biographies on John Adams and Benjamin Franklin you see some shocking racism in their younger years. As both were learned and intelligent men they changed their opinion as they got older. Franklin observes at one point that he was amazed to discover that a class full of black children is as animated and inquisitive as one with whites. Abigail Adams once commented after seeing Othello that "my whole soul shuddered whenever I saw the sooty heritic Moor touch the fair Desdemona". Yet she later gets really upset when black children get kicked out of a local school and makes sure the get back in. Many of the founding fathers were of the plan that the slaves should be shipped back to Africa. They could not envision a positive role the slaves would play in the future of the U.S.

What was bringing the whole thing to a head after all was the expansion of the "stain of the republic" to the western states. So it WAS about slavery. Finally the south better thank god that it was won by the north. They would probably be a third world country by now if they had their way!

[Hasty8]

Originally posted by mag-hatter


the southern lifestyle? you mean slavery dont you....wow. you are amazingly frightening. how can you say such a thing? have you seen any slavery videos? what those people went through? thats a pretty ****ty comment.

southern justice....hmmm lets see, you mean lynching and hanging slaves?sounds like a plan, duke of hazard

how about shaking the yankee's hands for keeping the nation together, and making it so slavery doesnt exist today. that would be a better idea.

Well, seeing as how video image recording was not around during the Civil war I would say that it is pretty unlikely that anyone has seen a slavery video.

As for the concept of slavery, you need to read your history a bit better Mag. The North was not opposed to slavery as an issue of humanity but as an issue of economics.

First off, the Constitution supports slavery. Article 4, section 2 of the U.S. Constutition states that "No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Basicaly this states that any slaves running from a state that has slavery into a state that does not have slavery shall be returned to the original state.

Second, the Continental Congress agreed to hold discussion of the slavery issue for 50 years so as to ensure the ratification of the Constitution.

The North wanted to do away with slavery because the industrial revolution did away with the need for them but in the South the invention of the cotton gin demanded a much greater need for slave labor.

All that aside, let's remember that a Civil War is a war fought against our brethren and is one of the worst attrocities a people can visit upon themselves. Pres. Abraham Lincoln understood that and this was the direct reason that he forbade any punitive actions to be taken against the South.

The imagery of lynchings and other attrocities do not represent the mentality of the entire South.

[1stdeadeye]

Re: Re: Civil War-Part Duex?

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Fine you asked for it. No you begged for it.

Many intelligent and logical people somehow make the mistake that the civil war was not about slavery. They will chant the nonsense that it was about state's rights versus the federal government. This is because they don't want to admit that southerners were fighting for the right to own their fellow man which was the back bone of the economy of the south. Please don't tell me it was for anything else. To say that so many men on both sides died simply to test the high minded theory of state versus federal control is just plain ridiculous.

I must say that we need to agree to disagree. In my years of study (minor in US History), the Civil War was ultimately the States Rights versus the Federalists. Slavery was the issue that brought it to a head. That was the straw that borke the camel's back. If Slavery was the main reason, why did the Emancipation Proclemation apply only to the states in open rebellion and not the entire country? Answer that and you'll have your reason for the war. It was all about domination.

Now all this being said, the South never stood a chance. The Southern Agregarian Society was no match for the Northern Industrial Society. The North had manpower, technological, military, and financial advantages. The only reason the South lasted as long as they did was the South initially had better Generals. Then Grant, Sherman, et al.. came along and wiped the mat with the Southerners.

As for high minded theory leading to wars, look at your history books my friend. Most wars are over high minded concepts. After all it is the high minded leaders that drag us into war and the little guy just fights in them.

[aaron_mag]

Re: Re: Re: Civil War-Part Duex?

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
I must say that we need to agree to disagree.

Wouldn't be the first time

If Slavery was the main reason, why did the Emancipation Proclemation apply only to the states in open rebellion and not the entire country? Answer that and you'll have your reason for the war. It was all about domination.

I never said that slavery wasn't a tar baby that no politician wanted to touch. To be perfectly honest if I was a southern plantation owner (born and raised) I probably wouldn't have given up my "assests" willingly. I'd love to believe that I would have had moral sense and courage but the truth is I proably would have been far too complacent to make any dramatic changes. Lincoln did not want to alienate the border states just like you said. The war was actually a VERY near thing. Lincoln was DESPERATE for victories prior to his reelection otherwise he might have lost (and we may have sued for peace). Many northerners were wondering just what the heck we were doing fighting the south. Screw them and let them live their "backwards" ways was the attitude.

If the argument was about state's rights let me ask you why the geographic boundary? Are northerners just more inclined to love the Feds while southerners just more inclined to love the institution of the state? No? Then they must have been fighting because they had a huge economic stake in the institution of slavery, correct?

[Albinonewt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil War-Part Duex?

Originally posted by aaron_mag
If the argument was about state's rights let me ask you why the geographic boundary? Are northerners just more inclined to love the Feds while southerners just more inclined to love the institution of the state? No? Then they must have been fighting because they had a huge economic stake in the institution of slavery, correct?

::sigh::

No.

The cultures were entirly different then, as they are now. Because of the more mobile societies in the North, and of the cramped cities there was more a feeling that the world was smaller then it was (much the way air travel and phones do that today). In the south that sense wasn't there, as things were more spread out. There weren't as many functions of day to day life that the government participated in so there was more of a self determination feeling to their lives. In New York the government was everywhere, sewers, lighting, etc. In the more urban areas people tend to see the larger version of the government more and thus associate with it more then the rural person.

Yes, the economies were completely different. Yes, most southerners wanted to keep their slaves. No, the war was not the North yelling "Free them slaves" and the South replying "Never, you'll have to defeat us first!"

[1stdeadeye]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil War-Part Duex?

Originally posted by aaron_mag

If the argument was about state's rights let me ask you why the geographic boundary? Are northerners just more inclined to love the Feds while southerners just more inclined to love the institution of the state? No? Then they must have been fighting because they had a huge economic stake in the institution of slavery, correct?

Actually you are wrong. The geographic boundaries are very much a part of why each group felt differently about the Federal Government. The North needed a strong Federal Gov't to provide high tarriffs on manufactured items to protect Northern Industry from foreign competition. The South needed a weak Federal Gov't to not have high tarriffs as they exported overseas. The South faced retaliatory tarriffs on their exports of agricultural products to Europe due to American Tarriffs on European products. It was more regional self-interest that caused the split as each side needed something different from the Federal Gov't.

If Slavery was the moral issue that led to the CW, Lincoln should have freed all the slaves, not just the ones in the CSA! Because Federal Power was more important, Lincoln compromised the morals to ensure border state loyalty!!

BANG!!! How you like that?!?!?!!?!?!?!

[Konigballer]

I never should have used the words "time machine" in my open line for this thing. This is my fault, that "time machine" line cinched it. Never would have guessed this would turn into some stupid "why the Civil War happened" arguement. Personally, I dont care, it happened over a 140? years ago. Its over. My side lost. My family lost a lot of sons in that war under Lee. However, I think the North, South, black, white need to move on. Everyone in war fights for his own reasons since the beginning of time. Whether for personel or monitery gain, faith, love, national pride, adventure, sense of honor, duty , comradship, revenge, or just plain boredom. Blanketing a group of people together under a single banner is just an easier way for politicians and writers to give a "unifying" reason for taking up arms. "you fight for slavery, we fight for freedom", "you fight for fascism, we fight for democracy", "you fight for evil, we fight for good". And peoples reasons for going to war can change dramatically after experiencing war up close. My grandfather fought with the 3rd Armored Div. all over Europe. If you think he did it for God, America and hot apple pie, he'll say you got another thing coming. Silly idealism usually falls by the wayside when you get blood on your hands. On a current note, I think thats one of the problems with our current administration. So much simple idealism, because G.W.Bush has never seed his buddy decapitated by a land mine or heard bullets snap through the air and slice through human flesh. Oh well, if I ever have to serve in a war like every other generation of my family I hope some politician or writer far away from the fighting doesnt try to sum up why I fought with a simple tagline.

[aaron_mag]

Oh my god please!!!! First off Konigballer is correct in saying that why individual soldiers fight is different. Almost every male on my side fought on the northern side and it was simply because they wanted to get off the darn farm! The fathers were besides themselves trying to keep the sons out of the war while the sons were bored to death with being on the farm!

Here is a quote from John Adams biography

Indeed, Adams had become sufficiently confident in their "ancient goodwill" to broach the subject of slavery. In 1819, with Congress in debate over whether to admit Missouri into the union as a slave state, Adams had expressed the hope to Jefferson that the issue might "follow the other waves under the ship and do no harm." Yet he worried. "I know it is high treason to express a doubt of the perpetual duration of our vast American empire," but a struggle between the states over slavery "might rend this mighty fabric in twain".

There you have it. The Civil War predicted by Adams and all over SLAVERY. Please do not debate with a founding father!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
There you have it. The Civil War predicted by Adams and all over SLAVERY. Please do not debate with a founding father!

It was all about the $!!!

Look into it. More specifically look into the trade and tarriff issues. Slavery was window-dressing, the moral justification, but the bottom line was the almighty dollar!!

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Please do not debate with a founding father!

Well, the bulk of the founding fathers thought it was ok to own slaves, so can we go back to that?

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

Well, the bulk of the founding fathers thought it was ok to own slaves, so can we go back to that?

FOUL!!!!! You can't invoke the founding fathers for your cause. I already called them. Next thing you will be telling me people invoke god on both sides of a battle line as moral justification!!!!

Alright we have beaten it to death. I think you guys are totally wrong but I just don't think we are going to prove it to each other without getting kicked off of AO for being plain imbeciles....

[WicKeD_WaYz]

Originally posted by gam-e
damn this is why i hate yankess. you are a moron. not everone had slaves, and since you don't seem to realize, slavery wasn't exactly booming in the south anyway, it was going to die out eventually, whats another 50 years in retrospect to the countless lives lost in that war.

and im certain that the only people who got "lynched" were negro slaves. jackass, you are what gives yankees a bad name. the idea of southern justice is quite simple, kill or rape someone and you got hung. wow did that just blow your mind?

so go ahead and value your slave videos as fact, because the way they were released by the union caused undue strain on them and many of them died because of INADEQUATE SHELTER AND LACK OF FOOD! and lets consider another thing. im not conding the idea, but its how it was with some people. slaves were property, valued more than a good horse, they were work animals, you probably dont know a damn thing about horses because your ignorant but they were exteremely valuable then. Why then if you had something that was more expensive than a good horse would you beat the crap out of it untill it couldnt work anymore - it doesn't make sense son, which is why thats yankee propaganda.

and its not a *****y comment man, its how we lived, different, but not any worse than yall did, act like yall didn't call them darkies or turn them away when they needed help.

there is an old saying that im gonna have to say about the south that i have heard from countless old men.

a black man goes to a house in new york and asks for food and the man says get the hell out of my yard.
a black man goes to a house in new jersey and asks for food and the man says get the hell out of my yard.
and a black man goes to a house in alabama and asks for food and a man says come around back and we'll by god feed you.

thats the difference between the north and the south basically. just apply that to about all situations and you will find out that we are more giving and generally just more friendly.

shut up if you dont know what you are talking about
Dion

wow I cant believe you just compared humans to horses. Stop being a ****ing racist, or just dont post your retarded comments.

Maybe someone oughta throw a rope around your neck and tell you to pull a wagon. You make it sound like horses have it made.

O and your little ramark "and im certain that the only people who got "lynched" were negro slaves. "
-so that makes it ok right? Ya you rebels definately sound "more friendly"

"many of them died because of INADEQUATE SHELTER AND LACK OF FOOD! "

hey smart@$$ where do you think the lack of shelter/food came from? Maybe their owners? Ya one more reason slavery needed to be abolished.

[Konigballer]

Just for the record, as a southern man, I have never condoned state sanctioned slavery for profit. Furthermore, I have been a leader in the "dont allow Texans to open their mouths" anti free speech movement. Game-e DOES NOT speak for the south, Texas is "a whole 'nother country", in more ways than one. Just like the commercials say!

And game-e, I must say, what a great way to evoke the compassion and spirit of the old south for our yankee friends by comparing the owning of black slaves to the owning of work animals. Its so simple, I mean, sense they had it so good why did they ever want to be free? Silly Yankees. And lets not forget your longing for the chivalrous days of old southern justice. Trial by court and concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" are so overated. Give me mob justice by a bunch of white illiterates any day! Oh well, I guess we all have some lesons to learn from the "lonestar state".