RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US bods...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 12:38:47 AM

ezzler

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline

Have to agree Judge. It is a marvelous book. Look it up on amazon but for a UK resident who wants to know about the Civil War this is the one.
I have just today finished his Drawn with the Sword which has some great essays.

(in reply to Frido1207)

Post #: 31

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 1:39:12 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Actually it had a lot to do with slavery. It was just disguised as other things like states rights. The south wanted the right to "individual" slavery, whereas the Yanks wanted total slavery of the people. (just look at the issues of today on another thread here). Once the south was under controlled the Yanks turned their attention to the INDIAN Nations. Enslaved them and killed half of them in the process.

_____________________________

WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! ;) and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?

(in reply to Frido1207)

Post #: 32

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 1:48:59 AM

Sarge

Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Actually it had a lot to do with slavery. It was just disguised as other things like states rights. The south wanted the right to "individual" slavery, whereas the Yanks wanted total slavery of the people. (just look at the issues of today on another thread here). Once the south was under controlled the Yanks turned their attention to the INDIAN Nations. Enslaved them and killed half of them in the process.

Ranthood is really off the meds this week ,this is getting more entertaining every post .

_____________________________

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 33

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 3:05:18 AM

jwarrenw13

Posts: 1897
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Louisiana, USA
Status: offline

I think there are immediate causes and longterm causes. I think it is a complex issue. I think it is disengenious to deny the leading role of slavery as the major cause of the war and a gross oversimplificaiton to say it was the only cause. There have been a lot of good points made already above regardiing this complex issue, but I still think slavery was the one issue overshadowing all, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. One can certainly look at the election of Lincoln and the perceived threat to the institution of slavery as an immediate cause of secession of the states of the lower South. But then one can look back at the earlier secession crisis during Jackson's presidency to see that state's rights was a major issue. Days of Defiance by Maury Klein is a good book that looks at the country in the months leading up to Ft. Sumter. So those who say slavery was not the cause are just wrong, as are those who say slavery was the cause. In my view the inability to settle the slavery issue was one of several causes and the most important one.

(in reply to Frido1207)

Post #: 34

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 3:27:21 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

It's best to not take things at face value when analyzing history and their causes. There are always underlying issues that are confidential and/or secret or top secret when it comes to reasons and causes. That's what I believe anyways.

_____________________________

(in reply to jwarrenw13)

Post #: 35

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 4:26:05 AM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

As luck would have it, I waded into this controversy a few years back. Rather than hash over the yes-it-was-no-it-wasn't argument, I tried to put something together using the words of the actual people of the time: their speechers, letters, newspaper editorials, etc. The result was a PowerPoint "slideshow" (which could be turned into a screensaver). Though I say it who shouldn't, the end product gives a nice overview of the rising tensions from event to event. Since Churchill already used the phrase "The Gathering Storm", I titled it "The Approaching Storm". For those who don't have PowerPoint, freeware viewers are fairly easy to obtain.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to jwarrenw13)

Post #: 36

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 5:01:13 AM

Doggie

Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline

The North had their own slaves - they were called "Irish immigrants". And unlike slaves, they weren't required to be fed, clothed, or housed. The Civil War was not as simple as 'freeing the slaves". Slavery was already on it's way out.

_____________________________

Visit the New, Improved Mad Dog's Drive Thru

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 37

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 5:51:22 AM

jnier

Posts: 402
Joined: 2/18/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie

The North had their own slaves - they were called "Irish immigrants".� And unlike slaves, they weren't required to be fed, clothed, or housed.� The Civil War was not as simple as 'freeing the slaves".� Slavery was already on it's way out.

It's quite true that that the civil war was not as simple as freeing the slaves. But your other two statements are absurd. Slavery was not "on its way out." Its true that mechanization would eventually make slavery obselete, but this would not have happened for decades. And to equate the situation of slaves with Irish immigrants - who granted, worked under truly deplorable conditions - is ridiculous.

(in reply to Doggie)

Post #: 38

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 5:51:55 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

I do not think that anybody is infallible but according to the Constitution the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law in the US. So either you believe in the Constitution or you do not. It seems you agree with it when it is convenient and abandon it when it says something you do not like.

According to the constitution, they are the arbiter in certain cases, not in others. They assumed power in those 'other cases' with the madison vs marbury decision.

I believe in the constitution and not necessarily in a robed man's opinion of the constitution.

quote:

Again I come to the decision of some guy one a message board|The United States Constitution and the Supreme Court. I go with the Constitution.

I also go with the constitution which is why I don't always side with the supreme court.

I guess you're the type that would have agreed with the dredd scott decision of the supreme court given your argument above. The decision ruled that all blacks, slaves or free, could never become citizens of the US. I think the decision was wrong and was not constitutional. Oh well, given your line above: guy on message board|Supreme court and the constitution, I guess you would have just sided with the supreme court and the constitution.

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

< Message edited by Reiryc -- 1/13/2008 6:00:21 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ORANGE)

Post #: 39

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 9:19:29 AM

cdbeck

Posts: 1374
Joined: 8/16/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline

JD,

I submit, a bit to the side of the previous posters, that the American Civil War occurs as part of a general movement in Western history. Sure, there are issues of State's Rights and Slavery at stake, but I would say... and people will probably disagree, that the ACW comes as part of transition in structures of power we see after the advent of Liberalism, L'aissez Faire economics and industrialization. The switch is from old power bases of local, rural, agricultural "plantation" (sort of an early modern "factory farm") groups to long distance, urban, industrial based power. You see this switch, which occurs after the 1st wave of the Industrial revolution in the late 1700s and then moreso as the IR expands in the early-mid 1800s, all over the Western world, with similar effects. I find it very telling that the ACW occurs after 1848, when the early industrialized European nations are forced to "deal" with the problem of liberalism (funny enough, most of Europe succeeds in holding on to agricultural "gentry" based power - particularly your United Kingdom - longer than the US).

I put the ACW along the same sort of trend as the Peterloo riots/massacres, the 1848 revolutions, the Chartist movement, the Anti-Corn League, etc. Slavery is often a huge issue with the Industrial (bourgeois, if you will) class, similar to how it is in England. There is a marked movement for substituting slavery for wage-pay among these urban factory folks (note that early modern wages are little better than wage slavery).

What makes America distinct, is that America's particularly open form of suffrage and the old, somewhat unanswered, question of Federalism, allow the ACW to grow much larger than the 1848 revolutions (basically you can think of this as the old aristocratic southern "gentry," agricultural-power class was "revolting" against the industrial North, who wanted a society wide "social contract" enforced by a powerful Federal government).

In all actuality, slavery in America was soon to be dead letter. Advances in agriculture, particularly the cotton gin, was going to make human labor mostly obsolete. With the UK promoting abolition, forcing some South American counries to abolish slavery and ending their own slave-trade about 20 years earlier, the United States was going to be harder and harder pressed to continue the slave business without fiding some alternative (Imperialism... for instance). Attention was being pointed West, further weakening the Southern Aristocrat's hold on "landed power."

I would say the ACW was inevitable, and call it the "birth pangs" of Industrial, urban, Liberal power in America (note: this is not "liberal" like today's democrats). It is funny, because the ACW pretty much destroyed the landed gentry class that had spearheaded the American Revolution a little over 100 years earlier.

SoM

_____________________________

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)

-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 40

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 12:39:40 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Thx for the replies.

KG, That book is about �15 shipped. I may well get it. My wifes a bit like "Why do you buy books when you canget them from the library" and generally I agree (I hope my wife's view doesn't conflict with ravinhoods, otherwise she could end up on his ever growing list of ignored people), but when it comes to Histroical Reference books, I like to have my own copy.

Thx to all else for the replies. Mostly, it seems that the underlying issue was more than slavery, but it seems that oppression, peoples rights, slavery, political power...the souths resentment to the norths over zealous "sticking in of the preverbial nose"...seems it wasn't simply a case of slavery.

I had received this idea from an American I used to work with. When I said to him about the Civil War being about the abolition of Slavery, I think he wanted to hit me. It seems not being educated in the civil war has narrowed my view of it's causes.

So, now that it's over, what do people think about the US now? Does it seem that the Civial War was a "necessity" to get the US to where it is now? Are there still issues? Resentment? Is it a case that the North and South have benefited mutualy from the outcome? What if the outcome had been different? What if the South won it's right to independence?

I know these questions lead to speculation, but I'd be interested to know all your views.

I'd like to thank you all for not getting into the "he did it...no he did it" argument. I know it's still a touchy subject and can flare up...As I said, I'm playing a ACW game at the moment and wanted some background to the war.

It's been very focused and informative.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to cdbeck)

Post #: 41

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 1:53:26 PM

Sarge

Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

What if the South won it's right to independence?

I know these questions lead to speculation, but I'd be interested to know all your views.

It would still be legal for Southern municipalities to have nativity scenes

_____________________________

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 42

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 2:13:40 PM

jkBluesman

Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline

Another issue was the question wheather slavery should be allowed in territories that would become new states, see "Bloody Kansas". If slavery could not be expanded, then the slave states would lose political power they needed to keep the institution.
I believe that there was not only one reason but different ones. And by the way it is another matter what the people fought for. Custer fighting for the Union does not mean that keeping the Union was the main issue. Lincoln used it because it was the label under which he tried to unite the North for the war effort.

_____________________________

"War is the field of chance."
Carl von Clausewitz

(in reply to Sarge)

Post #: 43

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 2:19:58 PM

jkBluesman

Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline

It is very likely that there would have been another war or at least diplomatic attempts to re-unite both countries. After all the economic relations would have remained strong although Britain would have gained a huge profit and probably enlarged her influence in North America.

_____________________________

"War is the field of chance."
Carl von Clausewitz

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 44

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 2:43:52 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

The war was fought because of economics and the view by the south that the North was taking away their life style. ( note this view would be that of the rich powerful whites in the south).

However the specific "economic" problem was the fear that slavery would be outlawed eventually. Read the articles of succession by the different States most of them specifically state their grievance was the preceived threat to slavery.

The war was fought over States rights, but the specific RIGHT in jeopardy was Slavery.

The argument the war was not about slavery is a red herring, an attempt to pretty up the brave out numbered principled Southerners fighting against the tyranical Northern impersonal bad guys. Makes a much better read then admitting the southern cause was to ensure slaves were around to run the Southern economy.

The rich slave holders manipulated the rest of the southern population by couching the argument as a States rights issue. And it continues today. Yes it WAS about States rights.... but the specific right was slavery.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 45

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 3:14:00 PM

Rooster

Posts: 706
Joined: 1/9/2001
Status: offline

Hi - Have not read What This Cruel War Was Over, but listend to the podcast (link below) of the author giving a talk. The book is a rather scholarly look at thousands of letters of the soldiers and why they believe they fought. If, like me, you don't have time to read a lot but you have a long commute, these podcasts are really really good.

http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/events/2007-10-20-CivilWarSaturday.jsp

_____________________________

(in reply to Frido1207)

Post #: 46

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 4:44:43 PM

ORANGE

Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

quote:

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

I do not think that anybody is infallible but according to the Constitution the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law in the US. So either you believe in the Constitution or you do not. It seems you agree with it when it is convenient and abandon it when it says something you do not like.

According to the constitution, they are the arbiter in certain cases, not in others. They assumed power in those 'other cases' with the madison vs marbury decision.

I believe in the constitution and not necessarily in a robed man's opinion of the constitution.

quote:

Again I come to the decision of some guy one a message board|The United States Constitution and the Supreme Court. I go with the Constitution.

I also go with the constitution which is why I don't always side with the supreme court.

I guess you're the type that would have agreed with the dredd scott decision of the supreme court given your argument above. The decision ruled that all blacks, slaves or free, could never become citizens of the US. I think the decision was wrong and was not constitutional. Oh well, given your line above: guy on message board|Supreme court and the constitution, I guess you would have just sided with the supreme court and the constitution.

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

As I have stated I do not always agree with every decision the court makes. A notable recent decision would be the recent eminent domain decision. But I am mature enough to understand that I may not like all of the decisions of everyone. This includes my closest friends. I do not stop being friends with people I disagree with. I do not label them evil. With the Government I do not hate it because I do not agree with everything they do or how they do it. It is still the best government out there and if people do not like they are certainly welcome to leave. But they do not.

Now for the Dred Scott decision. I feel it was the correct decision at the time. The Supreme Court decided the case based on what the Constitution stated. Then it was up to Congress to change the law. The 13th and 14th Amendments did not overturn the courts decision but changed the Constitution itself. That is the way it should work according to the Constitution.

_____________________________

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 47

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 4:51:01 PM

ORANGE

Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie

The North had their own slaves - they were called "Irish immigrants".� And unlike slaves, they weren't required to be fed, clothed, or housed.� The Civil War was not as simple as 'freeing the slaves".� Slavery was already on it's way out.

Your sig suits you well.

_____________________________

(in reply to Doggie)

Post #: 48

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 5:53:58 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
As I have stated I do not always agree with every decision the court makes. A notable recent decision would be the recent eminent domain decision. But I am mature enough to understand that I may not like all of the decisions of everyone. This includes my closest friends. I do not stop being friends with people I disagree with. I do not label them evil. With the Government I do not hate it because I do not agree with everything they do or how they do it. It is still the best government out there and if people do not like they are certainly welcome to leave. But they do not.

Ah yes, the tired love it or leave it refrain...

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." -- Thomas Paine

You mean you don't always agree with every decision the supreme court makes? Oh my... so suddenly, you, the guy on a message board and the supreme court are at odds. I guess you'll need to side with the supreme court in those areas you disagree with, because hey, using your earlier logic, 'guy on message board|supreme court - constitution' you'll go with the supreme court - constitution.

quote:

Now for the Dred Scott decision. I feel it was the correct decision at the time. The Supreme Court decided the case based on what the Constitution stated.

Care to show me where the constitution stated black people could not ever be citizens?

quote:

Then it was up to Congress to change the law. The 13th and 14th Amendments did not overturn the courts decision but changed the Constitution itself. That is the way it should work according to the Constitution.

No, it wasn't the way it should work according to the constition, it worked according to the way taney wanted it to work.

< Message edited by Reiryc -- 1/13/2008 6:01:36 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ORANGE)

Post #: 49

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 6:01:09 PM

ORANGE

Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

quote:

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
As I have stated I do not always agree with every decision the court makes. A notable recent decision would be the recent eminent domain decision. But I am mature enough to understand that I may not like all of the decisions of everyone. This includes my closest friends. I do not stop being friends with people I disagree with. I do not label them evil. With the Government I do not hate it because I do not agree with everything they do or how they do it. It is still the best government out there and if people do not like they are certainly welcome to leave. But they do not.

Ah yes, the tired love it or leave it refrain...

You mean you don't always agree with every decision the supreme court makes? Oh my... so suddenly, you, the guy on a message board and the supreme court are at odds. I guess you'll need to side with the supreme court in those areas you disagree with, because hey, using your earlier logic, 'guy on message board|supreme court - constitution' you'll go with the supreme court - constitution.

quote:

Now for the Dred Scott decision. I feel it was the correct decision at the time. The Supreme Court decided the case based on what the Constitution stated.

Care to show me where the constitution stated black people could not ever be citizens?

quote:

Then it was up to Congress to change the law. The 13th and 14th Amendments did not overturn the courts decision but changed the Constitution itself. That is the way it should work according to the Constitution.

No, it wasn't the way it should work according to the constition, it worked according to the way taney wanted it to work.

The case law is there and available. I certainly cannot explain it better than the Supreme Court. I could post information on this but you will ignore it anyway. I do not have time to deal with bitter, angry people. There are a lot around that have a good and mature head on their shoulders to deal with and they are usually more fun than some whiney failure anyway.

_____________________________

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 50

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 6:05:41 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

The case law is there and available. I certainly cannot explain it better than the Supreme Court. I could post information on this but you will ignore it anyway. I do not have time to deal with bitter, angry people. There are a lot around that have a good and mature head on their shoulders to deal with and they are usually more fun than some whiney failure anyway.

Agreed with dealing with more mature folks than those who think the dredd scott case was appropritely decided due to the constitution of the time. The case law surrounding the decision has been widely criticized as well as taney and rightly so.

Maybe next time you try to have a discussion with others, you can do so without resorting to strawmen and childish remarks throughout.

_____________________________

(in reply to ORANGE)

Post #: 51

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 6:09:03 PM

ORANGE

Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

quote:

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

The case law is there and available. I certainly cannot explain it better than the Supreme Court. I could post information on this but you will ignore it anyway. I do not have time to deal with bitter, angry people. There are a lot around that have a good and mature head on their shoulders to deal with and they are usually more fun than some whiney failure anyway.

Agreed with dealing with more mature folks than those who think the dredd scott case was appropritely decided due to the constitution of the time. The case law surrounding the decision has been widely criticized as well as taney and rightly so.

Maybe next time you try to have a discussion with others, you can do so without resorting to strawmen and childish remarks throughout.

I found those to be your tactics. But I believe to expect more from you may be unfair. You made several clear statements that you later tried to twist.

Have a good life. Maybe it will get better for you when you learn how to play with others and you will not blame everyone else for your failures.

_____________________________

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 52

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 6:13:54 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
I found those to be your tactics. But I believe to expect more from you may be unfair. You made several clear statements that you later tried to twist.

Have a good life. Maybe it will get better for you when you learn how to play with others and you will not blame everyone else for your failures.

You were caught twice with your strawmen arguments (that I recall offhand) in which you had to admit your wrong doing.

It's a shame that instead of having a discussion, you instead had to resort to strawmen and childish antics such as 'love it or leave it' and other such non-sense.

Oh well, given your childish responses to others as well as to myself, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

_____________________________

(in reply to ORANGE)

Post #: 53

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 6:39:52 PM

ORANGE

Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

quote:

ORIGINAL: ORANGE
I found those to be your tactics. But I believe to expect more from you may be unfair. You made several clear statements that you later tried to twist.

Have a good life. Maybe it will get better for you when you learn how to play with others and you will not blame everyone else for your failures.

You were caught twice with your strawmen arguments (that I recall offhand) in which you had to admit your wrong doing.

It's a shame that instead of having a discussion, you instead had to resort to strawmen and childish antics such as 'love it or leave it' and other such non-sense.

Oh well, given your childish responses to others as well as to myself, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

I was not caught twice. I thought you said a few southern states and you did not. You said a few states. You have still only posted a couple of states and not a a few. Then you stated the below:

Nah... I hate the government (for among other reasons) because it has the monopoly on force. Disagree with the credit card company's final decision on an issue involving you and you can go to court over the issue to seek a remedy. Disagree with the government's final decision on an issue involving you and you will go to jail, then you can try to remedy the issue in court.

Which I pointed out was not true. You may go to jail but it is not a 1005 certainty that you try to portray.

_____________________________

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 54

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 6:52:59 PM

jwarrenw13

Posts: 1897
Joined: 8/12/2000
From: Louisiana, USA
Status: offline

I've never seen a discussion of the causes of the Civil War that ended well.

(in reply to ORANGE)

Post #: 55

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 7:02:39 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ORANGE

I was not caught twice.

Sure you were. Southern states comment and then said I feared the government which I don't. You misrepresented my position on my views towards the government and then proceeded to make an argument against that false charge of fear. I said I hated the government, not feared it. Thus the second strawman.

quote:

You have still only posted a couple of states and not a a few.

Yep, because I also said that I was interested in a conversation, not a debate and that if you wanted to look it up, you're more than welcome to enjoy the learning experience.

quote:

Which I pointed out was not true. You may go to jail but it is not a 1005 certainty that you try to portray.

And that's why I pointed out that you were wrong and that when the final verdict comes in, if you do not abide by the final verdict, a warrant for your arrest will be issued. This of course does not happen with a credit card company when they make a final verdict on a dispute with you unlike the government.

_____________________________

(in reply to ORANGE)

Post #: 56

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 7:03:07 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

I've never seen a discussion of the causes of the Civil War that ended well.

True... I think I will bow out with orange now.

_____________________________

(in reply to jwarrenw13)

Post #: 57

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 7:15:40 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

I've never seen a discussion of the causes of the Civil War that ended well.

That's generally because it will end with one blaming another or perceiving his/her view to be more practical/importnat than his/her opponents.

However, I hoped, being an outsider to the US and my very personal and sincere request for it to steer away from the "you did it...no you did it" arguments that it might get somewhere. It seems for the most part sensible discussion which I hoped for...I wanted to hear both sides, not judge them.

And, to be fair to all here, I think Reiryc and Orange are carrying over some fight from another thread.

The rest is very informative and helpful.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to jwarrenw13)

Post #: 58

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 7:26:01 PM

junk2drive

Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline

Thanks to those who posted informative observations and opinions. Twas enlightening.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 59

RE: I think I have an interesting question for you US b... - 1/13/2008 8:04:41 PM

Doggie

Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier

It's quite true that that the civil war was not as simple as freeing the slaves. But your other two statements are absurd. Slavery was not "on its way out." Its true that mechanization would eventually make slavery obselete,

Read what you wrote. Slavery was on it's way out, with or without a Civil War. Women's sufferage and child labor laws were also enacted without resorting to war, even though both concepts were not popular in the North.

quote:

but this would not have happened for decades. And to equate the situation of slaves with Irish immigrants - who granted, worked under truly deplorable conditions - is ridiculous.

It cost several thousand dollars to buy a slave. Irish immigrants were cheap and plentifull. If one got killed in coal mines or building railroads, the northern industrialist simply hired another one and he wasn't out any money. The only difference between an indentured servant and a slave is indentured servants had to figure out some way to feed and house themselves while they worked for nothing.

_____________________________

Visit the New, Improved Mad Dog's Drive Thru

(in reply to jnier)

Post #: 60