And I've explained that slavery was not purely economic, either. Even a cursory reading of antebellum history will confirm this.

If I said they created it, obviously that's wrong, but it's more they allowed and permitted and protected it and warped the marketplace by doing this.

It was solved (although with a lot of collateral damage, a lot still visible to this day), but that doesn't mean there weren't alternatives. It may have been the best alternative that worked. But it doesn't mean it was the only option.

Sure, it's not purely economic- there were motivations to keep the poor whites in line and feeling superior. But the slaveowners are much more easily swayed by economic arguments than Hitler and the Jews.

Those arguments are entirely valid for WWII. Also, we didn't go to war to "save the Jews".

Also, if you were so invested in losing arguments about the Confederacy on the internet that you do it every like 3 months in this forum....

lol

like it matters who squeezed the trigger first.

USA #1 SCOREBOARD BITCHES!!!!!! YEAH

I'm sure he has it all written up on his computer. Just lost the file or something.

But wartime statistics, positive or negative, fail to tell the full story of the Civil Wars impact on Northern industrialism. Perhaps the primary economic effect of this period of upheaval was to prepare the U.S. for an intense industrialization in the decades following 1865. The conflict helped do away with industry-stifling government regulation; nationalized the regional market system of antebellum years; created a generation of war-weary young men motivated by the acquisitive ethic; reduced the energy-sapping political strife that had adversely affected industrialism prior to 1861; and brought to long-term power a political party that favored business growth. Thus, regardless of the immediacy of its effects, the war contributed much to the long-term economic climate that made a reunited America the industrial giant of the 20th century. - http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarindustry.htm

OK, so just to be clear, whose fault are the 700,000 dead people? Who killed them?

Why are you posting in this thread? Ron Paul said something factually incorrect and morally horrific. But that's like, Ron Paul's schtick. Paul D made fun of him for it, so whatever. He asked Ron Paulites to defend it, and you did.

So you chimed in to...

I'm not arguing "for the confederacy" at all. Like I said earlier, in the real world it's possible for grown-ups to recognize that sometimes when there's a fight, both parties are morally bankrupt scumbags.

that's your imaginary friend you're talking to.

I'd respond if you asked me.

This whole civil war obsession is creepy and weird.

I love how polarizing this thread is though.

Either you support freedom from an oppressive government or you hate blacks.

Oh sweet, revisionist history and results oriented thinking. Just like Iraq II the people in charge had no idea what they were getting into when they got into the civil war. Both sides thought it would be over in a couple of months.

It comes up because it's a great "gotcha" thread, especially for those who think everything in life is Good vs. Evil, or at least those who think they can smear others in the minds of people who only see Good vs. Evil.

I asked you several times in that thread for what it is worth. But I can ask again. From my memory it was something along the line of: why did the south shoot first and start the civil war?

This is a good argument, except the people in charge likely had some idea what they were getting into, they just knew it couldn't be sold that way.

But you are right, result-oriented thinking cannot be used to judge the actors at the time. But it certainly can be used to reevaluate everything (even if we "ran bad" in the cost and deaths).

Why did Han Solo shoot Greedo first?

Yea I know. I'll see if I can sort it out:

FlyWF: The libertarians against you support the idea of secession, not the idea of slavery.

PVN: U Mad?

"Colonel Dick Taylor 1 Lincoln agreed to try this solution and printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes."

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/websit...1?OpenDocument

From this link at least another $3 billion was spent

Lincoln could have paid $1000 a slave (or $200 plus $800 retribution) and probably saved money compared to war. Money back then was real gold backed money, and took a long time to pay off but they did.

"The same act proceeded to assess incomes between $600 and $5,000 at 5 percent, those between $5,000 and $10,000 at 7.5 percent, and established a maximum rate of 10 percent. Despite protest by certain legislators regarding the unfairness of graduated rates, the 1864 act affirmed this method of taxing income according to "ability to pay." lol lol lol lol

LIES ITT

Or RP fanboys simply cannot handle that Ron Paul's logic is nonsensical and can run contrary to what he espouses.

Yeah, I know. And that's what makes people entirely justified when they hurt your delicate flower feelings by pointing out that you're spouting neo-confederate horse****.

The North could maybe have avoided the war by paying millions and millions of dollars(hard earned taxpayer dollars!) to Southerners so they'd free their slaves without violence.

The South could've not started the war.

When you try to be like "both sides are morally bankrupt", people see through that. Because some people, crazy as they are, might see starting a war to keep your slaves as a little worse than winning that war and then freeing the slaves. Shades of grey and all that.

So LOL at you and TC trying to cast this as nuance. You guys have this NEED to cast both sides as "morally bankrupt", and God forbid anyone try to draw a line between them.

anyone?

anyone?

Who are "they"? You mean the powerful men of the era who created the governments which protected the institutions from which they derived their wealth? Do you think whatever institutions that would have filled the void if they never formed a "govt" would have somehow miraculously rid society of slavery in spite of these powerful interests? Of course not.

Slavery was never a "govt" problem--it was a problem caused by the fact that exploiting one's fellow man was and remains a profitable business. "Govt" shared in this shame, but isn't the root of it. Mankind is the root of it. And as it often does, mankind has used collective institutions like representative govt to rid itself of its most cruel tendencies by imposing a minimum set of standards at the point of a gun, because sometimes collective force is better than the violence produced in its absence. This doesn't mean it always gets it right--far from it. But again, these issues aren't "govt" problems, and when you nonchalantly write off in an entire era of greed and cruelty as a "govt mess", then you have learned nothing from history. You are a puppet of your own propaganda. And you continue to think simple slogans will solve complex problems. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that. What allowed, permitted, and warped the marketplace by way of promoting slavery was the influence of powerful men with powerful self interests. Representative govt is one institution, flawed as it is, that at least gives some power to the masses to curb such abuses, albeit imperfectly.

Well, maybe, or they could have just, you know, not put a bunch of troops inside CSA territory and said "k guys bye".

1. Ron Paul is anti-war.

2. He believes that almost all the wars we're involved with are needless.

3. Slavery ended in many countries without a civil war killing 100s of thousands of people.

4. The civil war cost over six billion dollars: http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm

5. That more than 60 times the cost of freeing the slaves that you find unacceptable.

6. Lincoln didn't start the war because he cared about slaves.

Have you not read his words:
Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”