O/T The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany vs. The American Confederacy

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Oh, so it would have been ok if the Germans would have spread out their murder then...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? I said no such thing. In fact, it was your 'trivializing' of the number that the Nazi killed that I responded to. You attempted to say the Nazi were rather slow in killing. I just showed that they were in fact more efficient.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seriously though, the duration and exact numbers of killed (some people don't think 6 million Jewish people were killed in the Jewish Holocaust) is irrelavent.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amd generally they are Holocaust disbelievers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even if just 10 million Africans over a period of 1000 years were killed directly through the slave trade it would still be a dreadful holocaust.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd wager as many, if not more, Europeans were killed as slaves as any Africans.

BTW, what years are your 1,000 years covering? 800s to 1800s?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Actually, the Western slavers took a REALLY acurate count of those who died during the slave voyages alone, and this number is astounding. Most slaves were worked to death during the first few hundred years of African slavery in the New World, and it wasn't until England blocaded African slave trading in the Atlantic that the Slavers decided to breed their own slaves instead of importing new ones.

PS. What makes you do you doubt this number anyway?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because I have neither heard of it before and you haven't provided any info/resources as to where it came from.

Cav

------------------

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

-Bertrand Russell

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." -D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[Strat]

The war with the Axis countries cannot be compared to the Civil War in the US. There is no correlation.

The root of the cause of the Civil War was the issue of succession and the root of succession was the issue of government taxation of the citizens and states. Abraham Lincoln reenstated the income tax. One of the primary causes of the Revolutionary War was over the issue of British taxes. The issues concerning the Revolutionary War were still fresh in the minds of most citizens in the early to mid 1800's and was a definite motivational factor in the Civil War. Most of the confederates, late in the war, fought with rags for clotes and no shoes. They mixed sawdust in their food because there was not enough to go around. They were motivated by american history, i.e., Revolutionary War.

The Confederacy depended on the theft of Union supply trains and the pillage of cities and towns. One union general was dubbed 'The Commissary' by the confederates under Stonewall Jackson. Because the union general's supplies were under constant raids by confederates. Union General Meade's army destroyed railways, burned and pillaged the southern cities.

One of the bloodiest battles of the war was fought when Lee's army went into Gettysburg to pillage a shoe factory.

Lee's raid of the North was plagued with numerous tactical errors. It was an attempt to get a victory in the North for recognition of the Confederacy by foriegn countries. The confederate calavary commander, Jeb Stuart, made the error of not watching the union army. Stonewall Jackson wasn't present to scout and direct matters.

Strat

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Strat:

The root of the cause of the Civil War was the issue of succession and the root of succession was the issue of government taxation of the citizens and states.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? The Civil War had nothing to do with "taxes".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Abraham Lincoln reenstated the income tax. One of the primary causes of the Revolutionary War was over the issue of British taxes. The issues concerning the Revolutionary War were still fresh in the minds of most citizens in the early to mid 1800's and was a definite motivational factor in the Civil War.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where'd you 'learn' that?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Most of the confederates, late in the war, fought with rags for clotes and no shoes. They mixed sawdust in their food because there was not enough to go around. They were motivated by american history, i.e., Revolutionary War.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were motivated by Southern pride and the percieved 'invasion' of their home.

Cav

[Strat]

The confederacy started the Civil War by attacking and capturing Fort Sumter. They were the initial aggressor. Succession was caused by factors of the Industrial Revolution and eventual government taxation. Issues that caused the Revolutionary War were also inherent in the causes of the Civil War.

Strat

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Strat:

The Confederacy depended on the theft of Union supply trains and the pillage of cities and towns...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Government depots were fair game, but could you please name one town or city pillaged by Confederates?

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 08-27-2000).]

[Strat]

There was only one known photograph of confederate soldiers on the march. Which means to me that the towns they passed through brought a sense of fear to the townsfolk. As for a specific town, unknown, but every town they went through I am sure they acquired whatever they could. Probably not in the high profile way that the union soldiers pillaged.

Strat

[Formerly Babra]

Thought not.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

To slip OT just once more, some clarification is needed. A "Civil War" is by definition a war for control of a state, two factions fighting a war for control of the government of a single nation.

This does not describe the American Civil War. The South did not want to control the North; they wanted to be removed from it. A number of other names have been proposed for it, but I prefer Héros von Borcke's "War for Southern Independence" as hitting closest to the mark.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blah. It depends on who's doing the naming. From the Southern view, you'd be correct. From the Northern, they fought to do exactly what your definition says. They won and hence they choose the name. Civil War.

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Gauchi,

As far as the right to secede, our Constitution does not prohibit it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then anything not specifically prohibited in the Constitution is cool to do? I like this idea. Think I'll go out and do whatever I want then. You'll come be my defense lawyer after I get arrested, right? =)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

those states would never have joined the union if they thought they couldn't leave.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know this?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As to those evil Southerners oppressing the poor black people, how does that explain the oppressed in Chicago, New York, LA, Detroit, etc.?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are these oppressed people?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Northerners and the Union didn't give a fig about the blacks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So there were no abolitionists then? No people wanting to see more rights for blacks? Yeah, ok. Whatever you say, General Ization. =)

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty:

Blah. It depends on who's doing the naming. From the Southern view, you'd be correct. From the Northern, they fought to do exactly what your definition says. They won and hence they choose the name. Civil War.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so. A war of aggression aimed at defeating a foreign government and reclaiming lost territory does not even remotely fit the definition. Northern political institutions were never threatened.

Now, as for secession and its practice, New Englanders had no problem with it in 1814 when they weren't happy with the way the war with Britain was going. I guess it's a double standard.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty:

So there were no abolitionists then? No people wanting to see more rights for blacks? Yeah, ok. Whatever you say...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly there were. Why do you assume they were all Northerners?

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Certainly there were. Why do you assume they were all Northerners?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL Why do you assume I'm assuming that? =)

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Not so. A war of aggression aimed at defeating a foreign government and reclaiming lost territory does not even remotely fit the definition.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does too does too does too. States were a part of the union, hence the United States, hence one country. Just because the states that seceeded declared they were now a new country doesn't mean they were. =P

[Formerly Babra]

This is more fun than my Civil War (sic) club.

For a very scholarly and unbiased discussion of the causes, check out this site:

The Glorious Principles of 1776

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty:

LOL Why do you assume I'm assuming that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because that's what most people assume. The only difference between abolitionists in the north and in the south is that in the north there were more of them, they held political clout, and were thus more vocal.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Because that's what most people assume. The only difference between abolitionists in the north and in the south is that in the north there were more of them, they held political clout, and were thus more vocal.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure that most people do assume that, I don't however. Was just responding to General Ization's comment about North not caring, etc. =)

Thanks for the link in your previous post. I'll go check it out. =)

[Guest Mirage2k]

Okay, well, this is just what I learned in history class, so feel free to shoot it down if you wish...

The Civil War was fought primarily over state's rights, but the "rights" in question were primarily the right to the preservation of slavery. Numerous compromises in Congress (Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850) had preserved a fragile union.

Republicans were interested in stopping the spread of slavery in the territories. If slavery was not allowed to spread, they believed that it would eventually die out completely. So, IMHO, they did want to see slavery vanquished, but most were not willing to take radical steps to make it so.

Southern Democrats were feeling more and more victimized by the North. Northern abolitionists held more voice and political clout than their small numbers might have otherwise suggested, and several radicals made attempts to take matters into their own hands (there's a famous name here that I know I should remember, but can't...damn). The election of Abraham Lincoln pushed the South over the edge. Even though the Democrats still controlled Congress, the South felt that it had lost its say in the government.

BTW there is somewhat of a precedent in the question of secession. In the Nullification Crisis (of 1824?), Vice President Calhoun declared that an individual state could render a federal law nullified in that state. IIRC South Carolina made a test case of it in regards to the "Tariff of Abominations" and Jackson sent naval forces to Charleston to force SC back in line.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Theron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Strat:

The war with the Axis countries cannot be compared to the Civil War in the US. There is no correlation.

The root of the cause of the Civil War was the issue of succession and the root of succession was the issue of government taxation of the citizens and states. Abraham Lincoln reenstated the income tax. One of the primary causes of the Revolutionary War was over the issue of British taxes. The issues concerning the Revolutionary War were still fresh in the minds of most citizens in the early to mid 1800's and was a definite motivational factor in the Civil War. Most of the confederates, late in the war, fought with rags for clotes and no shoes. They mixed sawdust in their food because there was not enough to go around. They were motivated by american history, i.e., Revolutionary War.

The Confederacy depended on the theft of Union supply trains and the pillage of cities and towns. One union general was dubbed 'The Commissary' by the confederates under Stonewall Jackson. Because the union general's supplies were under constant raids by confederates. Union General Meade's army destroyed railways, burned and pillaged the southern cities.

One of the bloodiest battles of the war was fought when Lee's army went into Gettysburg to pillage a shoe factory.

Lee's raid of the North was plagued with numerous tactical errors. It was an attempt to get a victory in the North for recognition of the Confederacy by foriegn countries. The confederate calavary commander, Jeb Stuart, made the error of not watching the union army. Stonewall Jackson wasn't present to scout and direct matters.

Strat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to say that from what I know about the causes of the civil war and reconstruction that Strat is right. The initial issue of what started the civil war had more to with taxes than with slavery. The most important thing that a "free and democratic" government can do is tax it's citizens. The important question is how it does it. This is of course deeply linked with states rights and soveriegnty i.e. who has the right to tax what, see the issue of South Carolina and nullification. Slavery did become an issue latter in the war, which allowed the North to claim the moral high ground.

On the issue of large scale looting and pillaging. Neither side did it until late in the war i.e. after Gettysburg. The Union generals such as Sherman decided it was needed to end the war quickly. It was considered in bad taste, which is why they didn't do it at the begining of the war. If the Southern Armies were in the position to do the same to the North at this point in the war I'm sure that they would have done the same. The south only made two significant advances North into Maryland and Pennsylvania. They didn't want to loot and pillage in Maryland, because there were a lot of Southern sympathisers in the state. Maryland came close to joining the South early in the war.

Theron

[Theron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

This is more fun than my Civil War (sic) club.

For a very scholarly and unbiased discussion of the causes, check out this site:

The Glorious Principles of 1776

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a good read and reminds me of some of the things I had forgotten. The discussion in the thread has largely become a debate more about the American Civil War and less about the original topic. I suggest that further arguements as to the cause of the civil war refer to this document, since it has a much more reasoned arguement than those presented here. Including my own.

As far as the topic is concerned I think it is comparing apples and oranges. The two topics have nothing to do with each other, except that they were large multiple year comflicts in which lots of people died. This could be said about a lot of wars. The principles behind the South and Nazi Germany two were totally different. The reasons why they fought were also totally different. Please read the link to refresh your memory about the reasons for the ACW.

Theron

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Theron:

I would like to say that from what I know about the causes of the civil war and reconstruction that Strat is right. The initial issue of what started the civil war had more to with taxes than with slavery.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would suggest reading the State Declarations of Causes for Secession. Just reading their own documents will show it was SLAVERY not taxes.

South Carolina

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

Mississippi

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

"It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."

"It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The most important thing that a "free and democratic" government can do is tax it's citizens. The important question is how it does it. This is of course deeply linked with states rights and soveriegnty i.e. who has the right to tax what, see the issue of South Carolina and nullification. Slavery did become an issue latter in the war, which allowed the North to claim the moral high ground.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, read the documents of Secession issued by the Seceding States. It wasn't taxes, it was slavery.

CavScout

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

Southern Democrats were feeling more and more victimized by the North. Northern abolitionists held more voice and political clout than their small numbers might have otherwise suggested, and several radicals made attempts to take matters into their own hands (there's a famous name here that I know I should remember, but can't...damn).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just remembered the name: John Brown. Okay, I'm done.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Sorry, read the documents of Secession issued by the Seceding States. It wasn't taxes, it was slavery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was it? My reading of the Ordinances of Secession indicate Constitutional issues (relating to slavery obviously).

"Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution"

So is secession about slavery, or is it about States' Rights to keep slaves? The issue had been in the forefront of North-South relations since the Louisiana Purchase.

I'm just having fun with you and playing Devil's Advocate here.

Actually, my personal belief is that Southerners were railroaded into secession by the slaveholding aristocracy. In six of the eleven seceding states, the ordinances of secession were not put to popular vote, and in those states in which it was, counties known to be pro-union were not even polled.

So, to sum up: Do people have the right to self-determination? Yes. Should they be ASKED first? Well, duh...

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Actually, my personal belief is that Southerners were railroaded into secession by the slaveholding aristocracy. In six of the eleven seceding states, the ordinances of secession were not put to popular vote, and in those states in which it was, counties known to be pro-union were not even polled.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you may be on to something with that.

Cav

[Aacooper]

There are two points in any ACW discussion that are usually missed, ignored, or glossed over by friends of the Confederacy (or however you'd like to describe 'em):

1) States Rights has only been a large issue in the South twice. The first was when the "right to enslave humans" was at stake, the second was in the 50's & 60's when the "right to treat certain citizens as second-class citizens" was at stake. There was no great hubbub when federal actions pushed the drinking age to 21 or the speed limit to 55, for example. Does anyone see a pattern to this?

Side note: Granted, states rights is ALWAYS a valid point when considering any new federal law, and the balance of government should always be considered. For example, the Supreme Court struck down several laws passed in the last couple years because they tried to expand the power of federal government in places it didn't belong (remember that Congress is dominated by a party that claims to be for less federal power).

2) The second thing lost in the clamor for "state's rights" is HUMAN rights. Which right is more important? Southerners wanted the right to live like they wanted, but what about the human rights of the slaves? The vast majority of Northerners volunteered to fight not because of slavery, but to restore the Union, but the central cause of secession was slavery. As a result, I will argue that the ACW was the first war fought for human rights.

One question I have that has no bearing on the argument is: when will "fans of Southern heritage" find a symbol that is less divisive than the Rebel flag? Is the Civil War the only reason to be proud of being a Southerner? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

[guachi]

Before going further, I'd like to say that this discussion has been a positive for me - I've spent the weekend reading my ACW books.

Mirage2K wrote in his post dated 8-27-00 11:18 AM almost exactly what I wanted to say. I will add, though, that many NORTHERNERS were feeling blackmailed by the South over threats of secession. It was definitely a two way street of antagonism.

The issue of slavery brought Congress to fisticuffs, dissolved a major political party, and split two religions in half (Methodist and Baptist) - and this was BEFORE the war started.

Babra - my comments about the contents of the Constitutional Amendment appear to be incorrect. I found no mention that the Amendment would have barred slavery in future states. Sorry for the misinformation. The Amendment APPEARS to have been passed to mollify Southerners that the Federal government had NO desire to end slavery where it was currently legal (a position repeatedly taken by Lincoln)

The vote, however, does not appear to be hypocritical. The voting pattern was roughly: 60% Republicans against, 40% Republicans for, 100% Democrats for. Presumably, the 40% Republicans for were like Lincoln - keep it legal where it already is, but attempt to prevent its spread.

Jason