Were the Confederates as bad as ISIS?

[Phoenix86]

Thoughts?

You are still a complete idiot.

 

[Aharami]

Can someone decipher this for me?

 

[Schmide]

Thank you for your post and contribution to this thread.

Could you please explain to us your experience, training or education on this subject?

Stop attacking the messengers and argue the subject.

Or at the very least admit your racism.

 

[Phoenix86]

I'm not a history expert. I asked a legitimate question based on what I know regarding this subject and I admit I'm fairly ignorant of the subject. I posted the thread so that I could learn about different perspectives.

Is that ok?

That's not what you did, at all.

You made a number of statements, which strongly underline your ignorance. You know you're ignorant, but you're still forming opinions. Asking questions when you are ignorant is fine, but let's not pretend that's what you are doing.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Then again, it might be that he's just a moron? :hmm:

:biggrin:

This

 

[rudeguy]

Stop attacking the messengers and argue the subject.

Or at the very least admit your racism.

Yes, I am a racist.


Just yesterday I was at the grocery store and I interrupted a black guy checking out. I told him I needed to use the self scan machine and didn't wait for him to be done.



Never mind that guy was a good friend I hadn't seen in years and the look on his face when I just butted in was worth the risk knowing that he's a cop and was guaranteed to be carrying.

 

[TechBoyJK]

That's not what you did, at all.

You made a number of statements, which strongly underline your ignorance. You know you're ignorant, but you're still forming opinions. Asking questions when you are ignorant is fine, but let's not pretend that's what you are doing.

Ok. Do you have anything constructive to add? Or do you just need this as a punching bag?

 

[Schmide]

Again @rudeguy. Refuses to argue the points. Continues to divert.

Divert Divert Divert

 

[waggy]

Yes, I am a racist.


Just yesterday I was at the grocery store and I interrupted a black guy checking out. I told him I needed to use the self scan machine and didn't wait for him to be done.



Never mind that guy was a good friend I hadn't seen in years and the look on his face when I just butted in was worth the risk knowing that he's a cop and was guaranteed to be carrying.

you fucking racist. he shoulda shot you!

ps come back!

 

[Possessed Freak]

Let's keep it simple concerning the civil war.

Simply imagine a USA divided and weakened going into WW1, WW2 and so on. How powerful would the USA be today?

A divided USA might of been one of the biggest reasons to back the North. Agreed?

Oh pish, if anything the South would have to actually industrialize to the point of the North in the 20th century. One could argue that keeping all the states together allowed for the Southern states to rely on the Northern ones for manufactured goods.

But my guess is that no different than EU, or Italy, or even the US in the revolution, that by the mid 1900's we probably would have joined up again.

Slavery was going to be abolished anyway even if the South was separate, economic sanctions and other political pressure would have pressed the issue.

 

[nageov3t]

Some Muslims told me that they wish the confederates won because the USA might not be as powerful as it is now. A divided USA would of played into the hands of many foreign Countries.

As far as I am concerned I hate their flag and what it stands for.

I read a half-decent book series about that once...

the north and south fought each other to a stand-still and ended as two separate, wary neighbors. the end result was that the Kaiser built nukes and turned Europe into a nuclear wasteland.

 

[rudeguy]

Again @rudeguy. Refuses to argue the points. Continues to divert.

Divert Divert Divert

What points?

I'm supposed to argue against a pot head who can't type out a coherent argument? Or the other one who types out whole paragraphs that you need a decoder ring to decipher?

 

[rudeguy]

Oh pish, if anything the South would have to actually industrialize to the point of the North in the 20th century. One could argue that keeping all the states together allowed for the Southern states to rely on the Northern ones for manufactured goods.

But my guess is that no different than EU, or Italy, or even the US in the revolution, that by the mid 1900's we probably would have joined up again.

Slavery was going to be abolished anyway even if the South was separate, economic sanctions and other political pressure would have pressed the issue.

If the south had broken away, the states and their citizens would have failed within a generation. Look at those states today. Even with all the opportunities they have, poverty is rampant. Those states continue to feed off the northern states.

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

I don't think they would have joined up again. Southern pride wouldn't allow that. They would just revert back to the swamps and mountains they were previously.

 

[mmntech]

I think from the Southern perspective, the civil was was far less about ideology and more about politics and economics. The main issues at stake were states' rights and federal power. Something that had been bubbling up for awhile. Slavery was just the catalyst in a series of long standing disputes that would have likely come to blows.

The South hadn't really benefited from the industrial revolution up to that point. Around this time period, Britain was turning to its colonies in India and Egypt to supply the cotton mills. Since cotton growing is labour intensive, the South required a steady supply of cheap labour in order to stay competitive. That meant hanging on to slavery.

Which meant a lot of head butting with the pro-abolitionist North, who was growing in power economically and politically thanks to industrialization. The South was losing power as the north expanded and worried, correctly, that the Northern controlled Federal Government would start throwing its authority around.

Things came to blow after the popular sovereignty clause was added to the Nebraska-Kansas act. Free soilers believed, correctly, that wealthy slave owners would try to turn this into a land and power grab. Hostilities eventually broke out, which precipitated Southern succession and the war.

While Southern slave owners were most certainly racist before the war, violence was rare. The war itself was largely fought "honourably", if there is such a thing in war.

Strong anti-black sentiment didn't really appear until the Reconstruction period. That's when you saw the rise of Jim Crow, violence, white supremacy movements, and the fist Ku Klux Klan. Southerners blamed their former slaves for the loss, and worried they'd retaliate afterwards unless kept in check. By the 20th century, it had become culturally ingrained. Especially with the rise of Social Darwinist movements that helped to justified their actions.

Islamic State on the other hand is driven primarily by religious ideology. The US war in Iraq left a gaping power vacuum in the region, which Islamic fundamentalists quickly too advantage of. When the US army pulled out, it basically gave Al Qaeda affiliated rebels free reign. Ironically, Saddam and Al-Assad's oppressive regimes were the only thing keeping terrorism from gaining a foothold in Iraq and the Levant.

The violence there is somewhat closer to The Troubles in Ireland than it is the US Civil War.

 

[Drako]

What points?

I'm supposed to argue against a pot head who can't type out a coherent argument? Or the other one who types out whole paragraphs that you need a decoder ring to decipher?

RACIST!

j/k

 

[Schmide]

What points?

I'm supposed to argue against a pot head who can't type out a coherent argument? Or the other one who types out whole paragraphs that you need a decoder ring to decipher?

You seem to be passionate about this, so it's simple. Educate him on the issues or GTFO!!!

 

[norseamd]

The South hadn't really benefited from the industrial revolution up to that point.

Bullshit.

The cotton gin was huge in Southern America.

 

[NuclearNed]

Were the *Federals* as bad as ISIS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hinson

 

[TechBoyJK]

I blocked Rudeguy for a reason. He's kind of a dick.

 

[ControlD]

I think from the Southern perspective, the civil was was far less about ideology and more about politics and economics. The main issues at stake were states' rights and federal power. Something that had been bubbling up for awhile. Slavery was just the catalyst in a series of long standing disputes that would have likely come to blows.

<---- snipped for brevity ---->

I believe the above post should pretty well settle this issue. Nicely done.

 

[Markbnj]

The poorly written OP aside, there were elements on both sides of the war between the states that acted as badly as modern terrorists. Read up on Bloody Kansas. Much of that story occurred right before the war actually broke out, but the worst elements from the undeclared conflict became the worst elements in the declared one pretty quickly.

You could also say the same thing about the war for independence.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I honestly haven't heard the word Antebellum since high school. I'll check it out.

Lady Antebellum?

 

[Markbnj]

Bullshit.

The cotton gin was huge in Southern America.

Yes, but it was still in every way an agrarian, feudal society built on slave labor. The south was extremely vulnerable and just too proud and insulated to see it.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I think from the Southern perspective, the civil was was far less about ideology and more about politics and economics. The main issues at stake were states' rights and federal power. Something that had been bubbling up for awhile. Slavery was just the catalyst in a series of long standing disputes that would have likely come to blows.

The South hadn't really benefited from the industrial revolution up to that point. Around this time period, Britain was turning to its colonies in India and Egypt to supply the cotton mills. Since cotton growing is labour intensive, the South required a steady supply of cheap labour in order to stay competitive. That meant hanging on to slavery.

Which meant a lot of head butting with the pro-abolitionist North, who was growing in power economically and politically thanks to industrialization. The South was losing power as the north expanded and worried, correctly, that the Northern controlled Federal Government would start throwing its authority around.

Things came to blow after the popular sovereignty clause was added to the Nebraska-Kansas act. Free soilers believed, correctly, that wealthy slave owners would try to turn this into a land and power grab. Hostilities eventually broke out, which precipitated Southern succession and the war.

While Southern slave owners were most certainly racist before the war, violence was rare. The war itself was largely fought "honourably", if there is such a thing in war.

Strong anti-black sentiment didn't really appear until the Reconstruction period. That's when you saw the rise of Jim Crow, violence, white supremacy movements, and the fist Ku Klux Klan. Southerners blamed their former slaves for the loss, and worried they'd retaliate afterwards unless kept in check. By the 20th century, it had become culturally ingrained. Especially with the rise of Social Darwinist movements that helped to justified their actions.

Islamic State on the other hand is driven primarily by religious ideology. The US war in Iraq left a gaping power vacuum in the region, which Islamic fundamentalists quickly too advantage of. When the US army pulled out, it basically gave Al Qaeda affiliated rebels free reign. Ironically, Saddam and Al-Assad's oppressive regimes were the only thing keeping terrorism from gaining a foothold in Iraq and the Levant.

The violence there is somewhat closer to The Troubles in Ireland than it is the US Civil War.

Thanks. This is kind of what I was looking for.

 

[rudeguy]

The poorly written OP aside, there were elements on both sides of the war between the states that acted as badly as modern terrorists. Read up on Bloody Kansas. Much of that story occurred right before the war actually broke out, but the worst elements from the undeclared conflict became the worst elements in the declared one pretty quickly.

You could also say the same thing about the war for independence.

Whiskey Rebellion, Battle of Blair Mountain, plenty of others battles would be considered domestic terrorism now. Back in those days, you did what you thought was right and you fought for what was right.

However none of those battles including the Civil War were anything close to what ISIS is and is doing.