Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Man Born in 1846 Talks About the 1860s and Fighting in the Civil War - Restored Audio..sounds like today IMO
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="joegrizzy" data-source="post: 3841433" data-attributes="member: 45524"><p>I think it's to be noted the *goals* of the war, if we could truly know them 150 years later.</p><p> </p><p>for those asking "would you have preferred if the CSA had won the war?" i think there are contrasting views on what exactly that would result in. for instance: saying the war for "over slavery" or that the "south was fighting for slavery" is not always the same thing, especially considering the outcomes. </p><p></p><p>let me explain this way:</p><p></p><p>are you suggesting that if the CSA had won, that the laws *of the CSA* would be applied to the North as well? </p><p></p><p>had the northern states been incorporated into the Confederacy, (which itself is likely a foolish endeavor; if the CSA had won there's no reason the Union wouldn't have re-united the same at it did after CSA lost) are you suggesting they wouldn't be subject to the same protection of rights under the union that other states were? are you suggesting the South would have been imperialist in expansion and also legislation? </p><p></p><p>i think if one takes their constitutions at their words, it would be more suffice to think had the CSA won, the USA would have re-united under a more EU model wherein states functioned more like individual sovereign nations, but with some shared laws and currency (this is a maybe considering no fed bank or anything). this is far different than saying the south would *project* it's laws onto the North and/or any future westward expansion. </p><p></p><p>it's a matter of phrasing, but also considering the different responses to each possible way you phrase the question. </p><p></p><p>>was the North fighting to end slavery in the South?</p><p>>was the South fighting for slavery to exist *also in the North*?</p><p>>was the South fighting for slavery to exist *at all anywhere?*</p><p></p><p>if the goal was slavery at any cost, surely you would think even one state or territory wherein slavery were legal would be suffice. and you could easily argue this was the case, as we all know slavery was still legal AND practiced in places like pre statehood Oklahoma Indian Territory since the Proclamation meant jack diddly to the Tribes. So if the goal was slavery at any cost, you'd argue presumably the CSA *did* win, at least accomplish a goal. </p><p></p><p>if you think they were fighting for slavery to exist *anywhere in the world* they rightly won as well because we all know places, namely northern africa, where you can buy people. not to mention the human trafficking in america, namely by democrats. oddly enough, the *same* democrats, down *to the families* who brought the black people here on their boats and lobbied for slavery, to the point of funding the South. weird huh?</p><p></p><p>i think it's more obvious this *wasn't* the goal and it a poorly represented idea of the "cause" of the fighting. </p><p></p><p>either way, win or lose, north or south, the america of the 1850-1880's might as well have been a completely foreign nation because it has essentially nothing to do with the america zombie corpse of today. talking about the results of these battles is somewhat meaningless because whatever nation arose following that war was likely to lose to the same silent enemy that killed the former USA. </p><p></p><p>you know, those slave owners. you really think they lost?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="joegrizzy, post: 3841433, member: 45524"] I think it's to be noted the *goals* of the war, if we could truly know them 150 years later. for those asking "would you have preferred if the CSA had won the war?" i think there are contrasting views on what exactly that would result in. for instance: saying the war for "over slavery" or that the "south was fighting for slavery" is not always the same thing, especially considering the outcomes. let me explain this way: are you suggesting that if the CSA had won, that the laws *of the CSA* would be applied to the North as well? had the northern states been incorporated into the Confederacy, (which itself is likely a foolish endeavor; if the CSA had won there's no reason the Union wouldn't have re-united the same at it did after CSA lost) are you suggesting they wouldn't be subject to the same protection of rights under the union that other states were? are you suggesting the South would have been imperialist in expansion and also legislation? i think if one takes their constitutions at their words, it would be more suffice to think had the CSA won, the USA would have re-united under a more EU model wherein states functioned more like individual sovereign nations, but with some shared laws and currency (this is a maybe considering no fed bank or anything). this is far different than saying the south would *project* it's laws onto the North and/or any future westward expansion. it's a matter of phrasing, but also considering the different responses to each possible way you phrase the question. >was the North fighting to end slavery in the South? >was the South fighting for slavery to exist *also in the North*? >was the South fighting for slavery to exist *at all anywhere?* if the goal was slavery at any cost, surely you would think even one state or territory wherein slavery were legal would be suffice. and you could easily argue this was the case, as we all know slavery was still legal AND practiced in places like pre statehood Oklahoma Indian Territory since the Proclamation meant jack diddly to the Tribes. So if the goal was slavery at any cost, you'd argue presumably the CSA *did* win, at least accomplish a goal. if you think they were fighting for slavery to exist *anywhere in the world* they rightly won as well because we all know places, namely northern africa, where you can buy people. not to mention the human trafficking in america, namely by democrats. oddly enough, the *same* democrats, down *to the families* who brought the black people here on their boats and lobbied for slavery, to the point of funding the South. weird huh? i think it's more obvious this *wasn't* the goal and it a poorly represented idea of the "cause" of the fighting. either way, win or lose, north or south, the america of the 1850-1880's might as well have been a completely foreign nation because it has essentially nothing to do with the america zombie corpse of today. talking about the results of these battles is somewhat meaningless because whatever nation arose following that war was likely to lose to the same silent enemy that killed the former USA. you know, those slave owners. you really think they lost? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Man Born in 1846 Talks About the 1860s and Fighting in the Civil War - Restored Audio..sounds like today IMO
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom