Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Zeus
Wasn't that because they were slaves?
If you are implying that most southern citizens were wage-slaves, sharecroppers, or just generally poor, then yes.
If you are implying that most southerners were African slaves, then you are wrong. By a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana
Yeah we get it. Only the ones that owned slaves deserved punishment. Not the ones supporting the Confederecah. They were killed by a war mongering president simply because they disliked taxes.
How much punishment does one deserve for "supporting" slavery indirectly? For instance, how much punishment is due to the North itself, for buying the products produced by slaves. The English, for being one of, if not the biggest importer of slave-picked cotton? How much punishment for anyone that bought
anything manufactured on the backs of the slaves? Anybody who wore clothing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Closed
What's the difference. The south tried fight a war over slavery and the north fought it to keep the union. The fact that the north finally decided to stop compromising on the issue of slavery makes it awesome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana
You think people that supported slavery (to the point of busting out a new army uniform and taking to arms) but because they didn't actually own slaves just deserve a slap on the wrist?
What did the conscripts into the Nazi army deserve for their share of blame in the holocaust?
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana
Some didn't. They didn't need to fight either.oh really?
I think when they start an army and attack federal bases to ensure the preservation of slavery it's a good point to say punishment is deserved whether they owned slaves or not. But, unless I'm mistaken here, your position seems to be that even the guy who just ran the auctions is in the clear. He didn't own slaves. The cashier at the auctions? The bank that knowingly takes the transactions? The lawyers that help people get out of human traffic charges today? IT's all good because they didn't actually own people.
See my earlier reply about blame. And, are you implying that anyone who is currently in the military supports the war/s that are going on now? Or, let's go even more indirect than that: What share of blame for global warming does each person who buys gasoline deserve? Each person who uses their computer/dishwasher/stove etc?
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana
protecting his homeland lol
when an army shows up in town and literally slashes/burns/destroys/kills everything in it's path, it's not ok to resist? if the local swat team started burning down peoples houses and destroying their businesses, raping, killing, and making prisoners of the local civilians, you would be ok with it because they wear badges? because they work for the government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana
Yes. The idea that the non-slave owners were just fighting to preserve their homeland is lol. Unless you actually mean they were defending the culture of their homeland in which we are back to them supporting slavery or the rights of other people to own slaves.
see the above reply. in a lot of instances, they were literally fighting to save their homeland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana
Sure some may have been fighting for other reasons but the majority that fought knew well enough that the reason for the war was because they seceded for reasons involving slavery and the preservation of it.
Like, if they hate slavery and are mad at the north for coming down and bustin' heads why are they fighting along side the slave owners who caused the north to have to come down and bust heads in the first place?
by this logic, why did the northern troops fight side-by-side with troops from the south in the war of 1812? in the revolution?
you are trying to make all of these issues far too black/white, without looking at any of the gray areas.