Were the Confederates as bad as ISIS?

[werepossum]

the two clearly have nothing in common.

If I remember correctly, the south simply resisted reform and seceded due to a political decision.

The IS wants to impose an ideology all over the world and actively attacks third parties to achieve that goal.

The confederates were more like the taliban if anything, wanting to run it their own way in their own little world, except that it wasn't about religion so it's still a stupid comparison, also nobody would have launched anti-black terror attacks from the confederation unlike Bin Laden.

Both states wanted to enforce an ideology that doesn't respect human rights, but then we can say that the IS and the soviet union or the nazis are the same thing, it's a damn stupid comparison that doesn't serve any purpose.
If the differences are too big, the comparison is useless.

That's a valid point. Suffice it to say that both are evil and further comparisons are at the least, strained and artificial.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Do you often form opinions on subjects you admit you're ignorant on before you resolve that ignorance, or did you read up significantly between these two posts? :hmm:

It does nothing for this forum or the readers to make comments like this. I never claimed I was an expert so what are you getting at?

 

[Blanky]

ISIS just blew up another mosque, 25 dead. Also just killed 120 people in Syria. Enslaving young girls as sex slaves.

It's important to see things in historical context, too. It's easier to judge a society by modern standards than ones that were there at the time, and we tend to be progressive with human rights, so most civilizations have worse ones than they used to.

 

[Phoenix86]

It does nothing for this forum or the readers to make comments like this. I never claimed I was an expert so what are you getting at?

Alright, I'll play nice. I shouldn't but whatever.

If you are coming from a position of ignorance, which is perfectly fine, you should ask questions and seek understanding before you form an opinion.

Right out of the gate you failed to do that. You make statements, pass judgment, draw hilariously ignorant comparisons, etc. Hell, you're opening question already draws a fairly silly comparison, because you're ignorant.

You could have started with "what are the similarities and differences between the confederate states and ISIS?". List a few things you notice that are similar, and different, while stating you're ignorant on the subject to kick off a discussion.

Instead, you try to justify the comparison. When you say you're ignorant.

Now, I don't pretend to be an expert in American history but...

"Hey guys I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm going to do it anyways" is how you come off.

This isn't new for you.

edit: What it can do for the forum is show people it's smarter to ask questions and seek understanding when you're ignorant. Something you fail to see, because you're choosing to remain ignorant. You know what intentional ignorance is? Stupidity.

There's a difference between not knowing, and choosing to not know.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Alright, I'll play nice. I shouldn't but whatever.

If you are coming from a position of ignorance, which is perfectly fine, you should ask questions and seek understanding before you form an opinion.

Right out of the gate you failed to do that. You make statements, pass judgment, draw hilariously ignorant comparisons, etc. Hell, you're opening question already draws a fairly silly comparison, because you're ignorant.

You could have started with "what are the similarities and differences between the confederate states and ISIS?". List a few things you notice that are similar, and different, while stating you're ignorant on the subject to kick off a discussion.

Instead, you try to justify the comparison. When you say you're ignorant.



"Hey guys I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm going to do it anyways" is how you come off.

This isn't new for you.

edit: What it can do for the forum is show people it's smarter to ask questions and seek understanding when you're ignorant. Something you fail to see, because you're choosing to remain ignorant. You know what intentional ignorance is? Stupidity.

There's a difference between not knowing, and choosing to not know.

Why are you wasting your time on me then? What's up? Why take the time to deride me? What's the point? Either post stuff that's helpful and would add to the discussion or back away. You're nitpicking the messenger instead of the question.

 

[dainthomas]

He also wanted to kill women and children and it was approved. I still won't compare him to ISIS though.

Gen. Sherman in a June 21, 1864, letter to Lincoln's Sec. of War, Edwin Station wrote, "There is a class of people men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." Stanton replied, "Your letter of the 21st of June has just reached me and meets my approval."

Good. If they didn't want to put their families in danger, they shouldn't have been traitors. War sucks and the quickest way to win it is to not hold back. The "nice" way we try to fight now just drags it out ad infinitum and probably kills more people in the end.

 

[MetalMat]

Why are you wasting your time on me then? What's up? Why take the time to deride me? What's the point? Either post stuff that's helpful and would add to the discussion or back away. You're nitpicking the messenger instead of the question.

I think what's going on is that you are trying to make a discussion out of an issue, which imo is just flat out wrong, and by your original post it seems that you have made up your mind while moving back the goal posts on any contrary posts brought up (which seems to be the majority).

In the context of what you posted a vast number of civilizations & countries in history *could* be compared to ISIS when in reality its more of a slap in the face to simply label them as a terrorist organization like ISIS.

 

[Schmide]

Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever. I'll be generous to the OP and acknowledge his admitted claim of ignorance. So to the OP, I'll simply say that there is no relevant parallel between the antebellum south and ISIS.

But to the person that I've just quoted, you're an effing moron. Here's a little history lesson for you. Evil straight white European male seldom went stomping through sub Saharan Africa kidnapping sweet innocent native African tribes-people. Warring tribes took slaves and hauled them to coastal towns and sold them. And by the way as often as not, the ones doing the capturing and enslaving were Muslim converts. Slavery has been part of the world culture for millennia. Doesn't make it right, it's merely a statement of fact. It didn't become evil when white men did it. And it's still going on today, in no small part due to certain Muslim grougs.

Yes, there were some nasty slave owners in the south. But there were others that took good care of their slaves, even allowing them to form their own church. And btw, there were BLACK slave owners in the south. Yes, some of them purchases slaves to protect them, but there were others who were every bit as nasty to there slaves as some of the worst of the white slave owners.

As others have stated the Civil War was far more c.omplex than just slavery. I'm glad slavery was abolished. I'm glad some of my ancestors fought for the North and some were part of the underground railroad.

But you, Schmide, are an idiot for even trying to draw a comparison between the South (at that time) and ISIS.

Fine I'll poke your buttons a bit more. The parallels are there if you want to look for them. Your little scapegoats, aka where the slaves came from, do little to detract the from the larger narrative. The periods are certainly different and it is really sad that 17-19th century type conflicts are happening 21st century Middle East.

In all great conflicts the first thing that happens is Brittan comes in and screws up the place.

Then one or more religious sects split their ideology. Lesser sects become overly oppressed. At the same time period the US North and South split, the Ottoman Empire fell back from its aggression into Eastern Europe.

Ironically the fall of the Ottoman Empire lead to a much more progressive period in the Middle East than the rest of the world. This and the major world wars probably pushed back the Middle East conflicts until this time. They never had a revolution to hash out their problems.

While there was still influence in the Middle East, (cough cough Brittan, France, Russia) The Baath party became popular. Many now declare it as the major problem the area. (Saddam was Baath) It was originally a relatively inclusive party drawing both Sunni and Shiite and Arab and Persian.

Other external influences, US and Brittan install the Shah of Iran, things break down, we back Iraq, 8 year war, hundreds of thousand die. This would be akin to the US battle for independence. Except it never really ended. (Although some still say the south shall rise again)

Then little wars happen. Kuwait, Kurd, etc. Akin to War 1812, Indian oppressions.

This is where things differ. We destable the area, push out the Baathists, install a puppet government and expect things to be hunky dory. Well they aren't.

One could argue that the Sunni and Shiite split is unresolvable but I'm sure many said the same thing about the North and South back in the day.

In this pseudo post war time, one could declare ISIS treatment of others as similar to the Jim Crow of the south. Yes ISIS is a bit more extreme, but the US has always been a bit passive aggressive.

 

[werepossum]

ISIS just blew up another mosque, 25 dead. Also just killed 120 people in Syria. Enslaving young girls as sex slaves.

It's important to see things in historical context, too. It's easier to judge a society by modern standards than ones that were there at the time, and we tend to be progressive with human rights, so most civilizations have worse ones than they used to.

That's true but the Confederacy was dedicated to keeping enslaved literally tens of millions of people. And as far as judging both by modern standards that's true, but that's actually doing the Confederacy a favor as it was twelfth century in the nineteenth whereas ISIS is seventh century in the twenty-first.

 

[dainthomas]

He also wanted to kill women and children and it was approved. I still won't compare him to ISIS though.

Gen. Sherman in a June 21, 1864, letter to Lincoln's Sec. of War, Edwin Station wrote, "There is a class of people men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." Stanton replied, "Your letter of the 21st of June has just reached me and meets my approval."

Good. If they didn't want to put their families in danger, they shouldn't have been traitors. War sucks and the quickest way to win it is to not hold back. The "nice" way we try to fight now just drags it out ad infinitum and probably kills more people in the end.

 

[Phoenix86]

Why are you wasting your time on me then? What's up? Why take the time to deride me? What's the point? Either post stuff that's helpful and would add to the discussion or back away. You're nitpicking the messenger instead of the question.

You ask for a helpful reply, then question why I'm trying to be helpful without addressing any of the helpful things I said.

OK, chief. You're still choosing to be ignorant.

Your OP, and this entire discussion is not helpful. You are trying to pose a "question" when in fact you have already arrived at a conclusion.

Of course I'm blaming the "messenger", you are delivering an ignorant message, which is coming from their own mouth (hint, that makes your NOT a messenger).

I should have stuck with my original reply.

Thoughts?

You are still a complete idiot.

 

[CU]

It's a measure of the morality of slavery that its tolerance was based almost completely on slaves' utility. Thus the North, with a poorer growing season, gravitated toward manufacturing, for which slavery is counter-productive compared to the profit motive of free workers. In much the same way, middle and western Tennessee, with their flatter ground and huge plantations, supported the Confederacy, whereas rocky, hilly eastern Tennessee, composed mostly of smallholdings, supported the Union. An area needed a compelling economic reason to make slavery attractive before expending the energy finding ways to justify it.

Agreed that is one reason why I don't cut the North much slack when talking about slavery. It was only useful to them in limited cases, so there were only a limit number of slaves. The South could use them and they did. Both the North and South were wrong for doing it. Financial it would hurt the South more to end slaver, so they split when they saw change coming. You could argue money was the reason for the civil war. Money is actually the root cause of a lot of wars when you dig down through all the political talk.

Not to mention the Northern slaves were not freed until after the South's were.
"The Proclamation applied in the ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, and thus did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states.

"With the exception of cases of peonage, beyond the period of Reconstruction, the federal government took almost no action to enforce the 13th Amendment until December 1941 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt summoned his attorney general."

 

[TechBoyJK]

You ask for a helpful reply, then question why I'm trying to be helpful without addressing any of the helpful things I said.

OK, chief. You're still choosing to be ignorant.

Your OP, and this entire discussion is not helpful. You are trying to pose a "question" when in fact you have already arrived at a conclusion.

Of course I'm blaming the "messenger", you are delivering an ignorant message, which is coming from their own mouth (hint, that makes your NOT a messenger).

I should have stuck with my original reply.



You are still a complete idiot.

You're a complete jerk and you're not being helpful. Everything you've said is lacking relevant substance and seems to exist only to point out personal flaws in my posts and attack me personally.

What you need is a punching bag.

 

[CU]

Good. If they didn't want to put their families in danger, they shouldn't have been traitors. War sucks and the quickest way to win it is to not hold back. The "nice" way we try to fight now just drags it out ad infinitum and probably kills more people in the end.

You do realize the desire to eradicate a class of people is genocide. I am not sure who here sees genocide as the correct way to fight a war, but I certainly don't.

 

[werepossum]

Agreed that is one reason why I don't cut the North much slack when talking about slavery. It was only useful to them in limited cases, so there were only a limit number of slaves. The South could use them and they did. Both the North and South were wrong for doing it. Financial it would hurt the South more to end slaver, so they split when they saw change coming. You could argue money was the reason for the civil war. Money is actually the root cause of a lot of wars when you dig down through all the political talk.

Not to mention the Northern slaves were not freed until after the South's were.
"The Proclamation applied in the ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, and thus did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states.

"With the exception of cases of peonage, beyond the period of Reconstruction, the federal government took almost no action to enforce the 13th Amendment until December 1941 when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt summoned his attorney general."

I agree.

You do realize the desire to eradicate a class of people is genocide. I am not sure who here sees genocide as the correct way to fight a war, but I certainly don't.

Agreed.

I think far too often we look at Sherman's brutality (which granted was extreme even for the time) without examining his genius. At a time when the Confederate Army desperately wanted time to rebuild and better arm, his drive consistently threatened two or more things which the Confederates had to defend, thus forcing Lee to commit, divide his forces, and be defeated in detail. Most other generals would have pursued the Confederate Army, which then would have been able to choose the time and place to do battle even if hard-pressed. Sherman's brutality forced the Confederate Army to do battle on his terms, and his military acumen ensured that the South could never bring to bear its whole strength until near the end, when the South had been bled white (pun intended) and the North was seeing increased recruitment and higher morale. I'm a diehard Southerner, but Sherman helped bring to a quick close one of our most embarrassing, divisive and evil historical periods.

 

[davmat787]

Considering confederate soldiers fought mainly to maintain slavery is it directly related.

Imagine someone in this country supporting ISIS. They would be jailed even if they never harmed anyone.

I'm sure Nazi soldiers fought bravely even thought most of them never gassed anyone. Does that mean they get statues erected in their honor?

How do you feel about all the black slave owners? And what of the role of fellow blacks in Africa who were the ones rounding up fellow Africans to sell as slaves?

I am not trying to minimize any aspect of the slavery atrocities btw. I just think it's a shame that many think the issue is nothing more than south bad, north good.

 

[Phoenix86]

You're a complete jerk and you're not being helpful. Everything you've said is lacking relevant substance and seems to exist only to point out personal flaws in my posts and attack me personally.

What you need is a punching bag.

While I'm being a jerk about it, what I'm saying is extremely helpful. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

1. Ignorance.
2. Education.
3. Form an opinion.

Try it in the correct order sometime, or anytime really.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

How do you feel about all the black slave owners? And what of the role of fellow blacks in Africa who were the ones rounding up fellow Africans to sell as slaves?

I am not trying to minimize any aspect of the slavery atrocities btw. I just think it's a shame that many think the issue is nothing more than south bad, north good.

Oh, we're strongly pro-black-slave-owner here. It's only the white slave owners that upset us.

What are you, fucking retarded?

 

[blastingcap]

Liberal retards like to beat up on the West for admitting its failures when they should be looking at the horrifically repressive Middle East among other places, first. Did you know that slavery wasn't legally prohibited in Saudi Arabia until 1962, and that today they still basically have slavery by importing and abusing guest workers from around the world?

As bad as the Confeds were, they've got nothing on the Death Cult of Personality that should have died along with the cult founder. Most Muslims are good people; but they are good DESPITE their religion, not because of it. I feel bad for people who grew up in Muslim families who would like to leave but feel social pressure and often state pressure to not go atheist or convert. Beatings, fines, killings... that's what happens to children of cult members who try to leave the cult, in more than a few majority-Muslim countries.

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3b2gmi/muslims_denying_that_isis_really_exists/

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3b06w4/islamic_snake_oil_for_the_gullible/

 

[davmat787]

Oh, we're strongly pro-black-slave-owner here. It's only the white slave owners that upset us.

What are you, fucking retarded?

No not fucking retarded exactly. Do you agree or disagree that slavery in the U.S. is far more nuanced and tricky than is presented today typically?

I even mentioned that I was in no way attempting to minimize any aspect of the atrocities of slavery you know.

 

[werepossum]

How do you feel about all the black slave owners? And what of the role of fellow blacks in Africa who were the ones rounding up fellow Africans to sell as slaves?

I am not trying to minimize any aspect of the slavery atrocities btw. I just think it's a shame that many think the issue is nothing more than south bad, north good.

I agree that it's a shame that many think the issue is nothing more than south bad, north good. I also agree that comparing the Confederacy to ISIS is likely a murder too far, that many blacks in Africa (and a relative few in America) were complicit in slavery, and that the Civil War was not 100% about slavery. However, none of that changes the fact that in some ways, the Confederacy was similar to ISIS, at the very least in its level of evil. At least ISIS allows the Muslims it does not immediately kill to convert to the "correct" sect. A black slave could not become free by converting to the correct color or ethic background (except for the occasional escapee who could set up a fake background as Portuguese.)

It's certainly an inexact comparison, but enslaving a race in the name of cheap labor is not exactly head and shoulders above enslaving a region in the name of a religion.

Liberal retards like to beat up on the West for admitting its failures when they should be looking at the horrifically repressive Middle East among other places, first. Did you know that slavery wasn't legally prohibited in Saudi Arabia until 1962, and that today they still basically have slavery by importing and abusing guest workers from around the world?

As bad as the Confeds were, they've got nothing on the Death Cult of Personality that should have died along with the cult founder. Most Muslims are good people; but they are good DESPITE their religion, not because of it. I feel bad for people who grew up in Muslim families who would like to leave but feel social pressure and often state pressure to not go atheist or convert. Beatings, fines, killings... that's what happens to children of cult members who try to leave the cult, in more than a few majority-Muslim countries.

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3b2gmi/muslims_denying_that_isis_really_exists/

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/3b06w4/islamic_snake_oil_for_the_gullible/

I agree with a lot of what you say, but it's worth pointing out that in Africa it's often the Christian nuts doing the killing and the Muslims actually helping those (Christians and animists too) being persecuted. I'm no fan of Islam, but I believe there are many Muslims who pick the better tenants of their religion and thereby make themselves better people. In the end, religion is as much what an individual makes of it as it is what a society makes of it.

 

[HomerJS]

How do you feel about all the black slave owners? And what of the role of fellow blacks in Africa who were the ones rounding up fellow Africans to sell as slaves?

I am not trying to minimize any aspect of the slavery atrocities btw. I just think it's a shame that many think the issue is nothing more than south bad, north good.

I would have the same attitude towards blacks in Africa who rounded up fellow blacks to send here. But I don't see any flags/statues being erected honoring them

 

[pcgeek11]

However what slave owners did to black people in the South is very similar to what ISIS did and confederate soldiers fought to maintain that.

BS.

 

[Victorian Gray]

BS.

I call BS on your BS.

Here's a "kind" master:

"How the Negro slaves were treated may be gauged by the diary of the aforementioned William Byrd II, who felt himself to be a kindly master and often inveighed against “brutes who mistreat their slaves.” Typical examples of this kindly treatment were entered in his diary:

2-8-09: Jenny and Eugene were whipped.
5-13-09: Mrs. Byrd whips the nurse.
6-10-09: Eugene (a child) was whipped for running away and had the bit put on him.
11-30-09: Jenny and Eugene were whipped.
12-16-09: Eugene was whipped for doing nothing yesterday.
4-17-10: Byrd helped to investigate slaves tried for “High Treason”; two were hanged.
7-1-10: The Negro woman ran away again with the bit in her mouth.
7-15-10: My wife, against my will, caused little Jenny to be burned with a hot iron.
8-22-10: I had a severe quarrel with little Jenny and beat her too much for which I was sorry.
1-22-11: A slave “pretends to be sick.” I put a branding iron on the place he claimed of and put the bit on him.
​

It is pointless to criticize such passages as only selected instances of cruel treatment, counterbalanced by acts of kindness by Byrd and other planters toward their slaves. For the point is not only that the slave system was one where such acts could take place; the point is that threats of brutality underlay the whole relationship. For the essence of slavery is that human beings, with their inherent freedom of will, with individual desires and convictions and purposes, are used as capital, as tools for the benefit of their master. The slave is therefore habitually forced into types and degrees of work that he would not have freely undertaken; by necessity, therefore, the bit and the lash become the motor of the slave system. The myth of the kindly master camouflages the inherent brutality and savagery of the slave system."


https://mises.org/library/brutality-slavery

 

[MongGrel]

You're a complete jerk and you're not being helpful. Everything you've said is lacking relevant substance and seems to exist only to point out personal flaws in my posts and attack me personally.

What you need is a punching bag.

While I'm being a jerk about it, what I'm saying is extremely helpful. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

1. Ignorance.
2. Education.
3. Form an opinion.

Try it in the correct order sometime, or anytime really.

Pheonix is right, you know.