American Revolution

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm not sure what I voted for before or why, but I changed my vote to Unsure.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='24 February 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1267072436' post='2062733']
He was trying to preserve his loot. The South was being slapped with the palm and the backhand, by the tariffs. The tariffs were jacked right before the war, after a few years of relatively tolerable tariffs after they had already been slapped with tariffs of over 50% in the 1830's. The South was literally forced to sell its cotton to the North, when it could get a much better deal sending it to Britain. The South was also literally (through the violence of the tariff) forced to buy its machinery from the North, while it could again get better deals working with Europe. The North was effectively keeping the South as nice, big slave. A milk cow. Immediately after the South began preparations to defend itself from Northern aggression, the first words that crossed Lincoln's lips were not, "They'll not get away with seceding while they have all those poor enslaved blacks, those scoundrels!" No, the first words on his lips were "What will become of my tariff?"

Charles Dickens's newspaper properly pegged it: [font="Georgia"][size="2"]"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." [url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html"]http://www.lewrockwe...g2/miller1.html[/url]

Historical revisionism is when you go back to try to alter the reality of what happened. That happened during and immediately after the war, continuing well into the 1980's. That it was all about trying to free the slaves. The victor always writes the history. But people are beginning to realize they're not winners if they believe lies.

~Sternhauser
[/size][/font]
[/quote]


I know he wasn't trying to end slavery. What I said was true; he was trying to preserve the Union. Sure, his motivations were fiscal. He was still trying to preserve it. Anyway I have no problem with states seceeding from the Union, even nowadays. The Constitution is supposed to ensure voluntary membership.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='25 February 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1267084765' post='2062803']
I know he wasn't trying to end slavery. What I said was true; he was trying to preserve the Union. Sure, his motivations were fiscal. He was still trying to preserve it. Anyway I have no problem with states seceeding from the Union, even nowadays. The Constitution is supposed to ensure voluntary membership.
[/quote]

"Is supposed to ensure voluntary membership?" No, no, no. "[i]Was[/i] supposed to," perhaps. Didn't you hear what Scalia said? "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, 'one Nation, indivisible.')"

You see, the legal and Constitutional question of secession was "answered" by the application of overwhelming [i]violence,[/i] Scalia says. Might makes right. Scalia rightly points out the ultimate "reasoning process" of men in power. "You no do what I say? Me [i]smash[/i]!"

~Sternhauser

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='24 February 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1267057911' post='2062657']
You really ought to review US History.
If the war was not about slavery, explain these quotes:

[/quote]


I am familiar with the revisionist argument for a Marxist interpretation of the Civil War. I reject it.

Where the Civil War is concerned, what I am most interested in these days is the question of why the residents of the former Confederate states have such a proclivity for re-enacting a war they lost ... e.g., "Lost Cause" psychologically, behavior patterns of defeated civilizations, etc ...

[Winchester]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 February 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1267121738' post='2062899']
I am familiar with the revisionist argument for a Marxist interpretation of the Civil War. I reject it.

Where the Civil War is concerned, what I am most interested in these days is the question of why the residents of the former Confederate states have such a proclivity for re-enacting a war they lost ... e.g., "Lost Cause" psychologically, behavior patterns of defeated civilizations, etc ...
[/quote]
Hating Bubba: Still OK.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 February 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1267121738' post='2062899']
I am familiar with the revisionist argument for a Marxist interpretation of the Civil War. I reject it.

Where the Civil War is concerned, what I am most interested in these days is the question of why the residents of the former Confederate states have such a proclivity for re-enacting a war they lost ... e.g., "Lost Cause" psychologically, behavior patterns of defeated civilizations, etc ...
[/quote]
I would like to hear what basis you reject that opinion on. It sounds pretty solid to me, and I can't figure out why it's Marxist.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Winchester' date='25 February 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1267125264' post='2062914']
Hating Bubba: Still OK.
[/quote]

Who is Bubba.

The stereotypical redneck?

"Lost Cause" psychology is not unique to the "Old South."

For example, I have occasionally heard romanticized re-tellings of Vietnam. These would be more prevalent if our defeat in that war had meant the loss of the American "way of life."

Rehearsing the defeat again and again ... this is a form of social healing.

It happens in individuals too.

This is an interesting explaination from [url="http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200702/champions-the-lost-cause"]Psychology Today[/url]

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 February 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1267126670' post='2062919']
I would like to hear what basis you reject that opinion on. It sounds pretty solid to me, and I can't figure out why it's Marxist.
[/quote]

Marxist theory explains historical incidents, like war, as by-products of the capitalist system. For example, the idea that Lincoln fought the Civil War because he was "trying to preserve his loot" or his motives were "fiscal," is a Marxist one. The Marxist explanation for the American Revolution is the business class becoming annoyed at taxes on their "loot."

IOW, materialism ($$$) is the driving force of history.


I am not drinking that kool-aide.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Lilllabettt

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 February 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1267128155' post='2062930']
Marxist theory explains historical incidents, like war, as by-products of the capitalist system. For example, the idea that Lincoln fought the Civil War because he was "trying to preserve his loot" or his motives were "fiscal," is a Marxist one. The Marxist explanation for the American Revolution is the business class becoming annoyed at taxes on their "loot."

IOW, materialism ($$$) is the driving force of history.


I am not drinking that kool-aide.
[/quote]
In my opinion, "preserving the union" and "preserving his loot" are synonymous to Sternhauser.
Do you also believe that the "preserving the union" explanation is revisionist?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 February 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1267128155' post='2062930']
Marxist theory explains historical incidents, like war, as by-products of the capitalist system. For example, the idea that Lincoln fought the Civil War because he was "trying to preserve his loot" or his motives were "fiscal," is a Marxist one. The Marxist explanation for the American Revolution is the business class becoming annoyed at taxes on their "loot."

IOW, materialism ($$$) is the driving force of history.


I am not drinking that kool-aide.
[/quote]

its revisionist thinking that the war was fought over slavery. its revisionist thinking that makes Lincoln out to be this hero for all black men and its revisionist thinking that makes it look like the north had only noble motives in this war. the fact is, as shown in previous posts, this war was not fought over slavery. it was fought over secession. the end to slavery did come about at the end of the war and that was a great thing to come out of the war but it was by no means the intended goal of the war. america is not always right. its revisonist thinking that makes america (excluding veitnam- the war we lost) out to be this morally right country all the time. that is not the case always. this being a perfect example.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 February 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1267128627' post='2062937']
In my opinion, "preserving the union" and "preserving his loot" are synonymous to Sternhauser.
Do you also believe that the "preserving the union" explanation is revisionist?
[/quote]

Like you said, it really depends on what is meant by "preserving the union." What was his motive for preserving the Union?

Lincoln had a lot of motives. He didn't want his legacy to be the loss of the South. He thought it would weaken the international position of the United States. He thought letting the South go would set a bad precedent which might endanger the American experiment. He was morally opposed to slavery. Mix it all together and what-do-ya-got, biggity-boppity-boo: a cause for war.

The North was well-populated, industrializing, and relatively wealthy. The South was rural, relatively poor, and economically incapable of mounting a sustained war effort.

Maybe money worked in there somewhere.

But the case for $$$ as [u]the[/u] motivating factor just doesn't cut it for me.

[Nihil Obstat]

I like this. It's like reality vs. revisionism vs. revised revisionism vs. re-revised revisionism.

If you can say that whole phrase five times quickly you win seven and three quarters internetz.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[havok579257]

as it pertains to the american revolution, no, i don't think it met just war condition. america had not exhausted all of its option to gain the rights they wanted. sure they told the king what they wanted but i think people are kidding themselfs to think america had no other option but the start a war. its the same as iran right now. america has not exhausted all of their options with iran yet, so to start a war not would not make it just.

also not having to house soilders, soilders who were fighting to protect american's is not a fundamental right.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 February 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1267128155' post='2062930']
Marxist theory explains historical incidents, like war, as by-products of the capitalist system. For example, the idea that Lincoln fought the Civil War because he was "trying to preserve his loot" or his motives were "fiscal," is a Marxist one. The Marxist explanation for the American Revolution is the business class becoming annoyed at taxes on their "loot."

IOW, materialism ($$$) is the driving force of history.


I am not drinking that kool-aide.
[/quote]
I wish I was still naïve enough to believe that Lincoln was the saint that Northerners make him out to be, and that he was fighting for some greater good.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='24 February 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1267060882' post='2062674']
The American Revolution. One of the only time periods in which a few men, supported by 33% of the population, overthrowing the rule of a monarchy, are somehow considered "legitimate authority" by many modern Catholics. Nice.

Some of the Northern states threatened secession due to the War of 1812. The governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut both told Congress to bug off, because they weren't sending their militias to invade Canada. They correctly pointed out that invading Canada with the militia was unconstitutional: it was not using the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress an insurrection or repel an invasion. It was an unabashed land grab, and they would take no part in it. Thankfully, this type of respect for the Constitution and recognition of the legitimate purposes of war was done away with by the time of the Mexican-American War. Yay, Polk!

This type of "unreliability" of militias is why, in great part, the State instituted the draft. The militia have real jobs on the side. They fight when they truly need to protect their homes and families, then go home. A standing army, constantly on the State payroll, do not have jobs on the side. They are paid to fight, and they'll fight for pay. The difference between the stranding army and the militia is just a simple and inescapable economic truth. The militia refused to fight in wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement. The State can't have that.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Again, this is another surprising point-of-view on things. And we got the impression that Manifest Destiny was desired across the board.

[quote name='Didacus' date='24 February 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1267061177' post='2062676']
Urrghhh...




Quebec needs its own thread.







An 'independant' thread.












That was lame...

[/quote]
Lawl. Maybe you should start one. I'd be interested in shootin' the breeze there.