He was a Know Nothing. He was likely as much motivated by the mass influx of Irish as anything else.
They’re responsible for the North deciding that the South didn’t get to secede?
The Right and White Nationalism - An annoying cancer
- Thread starter Bacle
- Start date
Yes, because they are the ones who decided to try to leave and take Federal property with them.
Which directly led to Ft. Sumpter and the rest.
The CSA and it's leadership bear sole blame for the ACW coming to pass, all to protect their ability to enslave their fellow man, because they wanted more slave states out west, and because they were angry Lincoln won without even needing the Southern vote.
good point. We will probably see that repeated again.
Lincoln wasn't fucking retarded. He grew up in a Border State. He had seen slavery first hand. He'd worked extensively with fellow Southern Whigs for much of his time in Congress. One of his friends when he was Southern Whig was Alexander Stephens who became the Vice President of the Confederacy. The same person he discussed terms with in the Hampton Roads Conference and one of the architects of the 'Lost Cause Narrative' that you continually misrepresent here and in other threads endlessly. Lincoln damn well knew the Southern ideology and that it wasn't going to magically wave away in a fortnite. No one thought that.
Seriously, you're making him sound out like a manchild with your absolutely asinine statements. Like do you realize how full of yourself your post makes you sound? The reason there was a seeming lack of security is because that's how Lincoln rolled and that's just how Chief Executive security actually was until like the 60's. There's recently been a book written recently called Lincoln on the Verge: Thirteen Days to Washington which is about how Lincoln after being elected in 1861 and barely changed his habits as he made his train ride to Washington DC and all of the stops he made along the way including passing through Baltimore where there was yet another conspiracy to assassinate him and his main tactic was to just be low profile and be protected by TWO armed guards.
Or you can recall the story of Lincoln at Fort Stevens in 1864 and he was just casually gawking at the battle over the edge of the battlements, well within sharpshooter range. Or how lax the security in the White House almost perpetually was with the lines of petitioners literally out the Front Door daily right up until the end. They weren't exactly doing full body cavity searches and having magnetometers installed at the frontdoor. Lincoln didn't give a fuck and his security was probably tighter (but certainly nothing like it is nowadays) then previous Presidents but still far from anything exceptional. And this is all to point towards the nonsensical point you made, which is that somehow Fords Theater is exceptional as a security event or that it's somehow a lapse in judgement.
The supposedly "lax" security certainly shouldn't be made as an argument like your trying to make it, implying Lincoln having some sort of imbecilic nature when it came to understanding people, politics or ideologies and the threats thereof. Your trying to find a historical fact to fit into your argument about 150 years after the facts were already settled.
This is what is known as a 'Sunk Cost Fallacy.' Your initial fallacy is stating this:
You literally made a statement and now are circling about trying to find a way to rationalize it as somehow being responsible for Lincoln being assassinated within the same month as the Surrender of Appomattox. Actually not just the same month... the same week. The CSA Leadership isn't responsible for Lincoln's Assassination. Lincoln wasn't a fucking retard who somehow "didn't truly get how deeply ingrained slavery was in the CSA culture" or that the they were not "truly broken as an ideology."
Indeed there's very little we know about Lincoln's mindset immediately after the Surrender at Appomattox, because 19th Century Tom Cruise blew his brains out (in a conspiracy independent of Confederate leadership or the military) less then a week later. But no... please... with citations... tell me how you support the statement quoted above.
This is as asinine as blaming Eugene Debs or Andrew Carnegie for the Assassination of McKinley because one was a socialist/labor leader and the other an anti-Imperialist.
I never said Lincoln was an imbecile or retard, I said he underestimated the CSA and it's supporters.
It's the same way the legacy of the CSA has been continually underestimated by parts of this nation. Because admitting we botched things till the Civil Rights Act, or admitting we were not harsh enough on CSA leaders after Lincoln's death, means examining a legacy of mistakes and missteps by the US gov over nearly 100 years.
It means admitting we aren't a shining city on the hill, and never were; something that so many in the US on the Right are loath to do.
Not an expert on France but IIRC there are memorials and the like to French Colonial Troops from the First World War. I read a book about Senegalese troops in the Great War (not a particularly happy story mind you, the French apparently treated African-American troops a lot more nicely then their own Black troops ironically enough) but they did throw up several monuments to their contributions during the Great War. Some of the most famous were the connected trio of monuments. One in Bamako, Mali one in Senegal, and one in Reims France... which was destroyed by Nazi Assholes because they're Nazi assholes. There's also Demba and Dupont also located in Senegal which was put up in 1923 but apparently meant to symbolize their contributions in both world Wars. There was also the Grand Mosque of Paris which was built partially to recognize the sacrifice of Muslim troops in defense of France. But there is also a lot of 'repatriated' Great War monuments, from Algeria especially, that are just hanging out in France now because they were shipped out of North Africa during the War of Independence there to prevent them from being defaced or destroyed.
World War Two was actually far less commemorated but there's a few from way back when but there's more recently being pondered or already built apparently. But yeah it is odd how there seems to be dramatically less memorialization of African troops in World War Two then in the Great War. Perhaps it can be partly explained by how France was at war for four years straight in WW1 while in WW2 it was knocked out right away and then a sort of rump state had to deal with things afterwards until they got liberated again. But that would only be a partial explanation.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I accept your correction, but must issue my own that it's wrong to say "they were kept" when you agree they were disbanded. I think the thrust of my post stands.
At the outset of the Civil War, Ohio and Pennsylvania were border states (prior to WV breaking off). If WV had been a state prior to the Civil War, we can only speculate as to whether slavery would have been abolished, but there is at least a good chance of it, I think. (It did abolish slavery in 1865, before the war ended, on top of ratifying the 13th amendment which would soon do the same for the whole union.) In any case, I think saying "all border states were slave states" is questionable no matter which way you count WV, as it both started as part of Virginia and also abolished slavery during the war.
There is also Kansas which was a free state although I suppose it didn't directly border any Confederate states, only the Indian and Oklahoma territories.
Depending on what that phrase means to people, we actually might be; but some of those candelas are from the dumpster fires.
They were disbanded, reinstated, then disbanded along with all militiamen of New Orleans when the confederacy abandoned it.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Yes, so, what I am saying is that "they were disbanded" and "they were kept" are contradictory statements, in my mind, yet you said them both as if they were not. I counted that as an error, but if you can justify it please go ahead. (The first disbandment.)
They were disbanded under what you said, whites only, then made an exception to that rule, reinstated, then along with all other militia in New Orleans of any races they were disbanded due to circumstances that did not have to do with race but instead with strategic withdrawal from New Orleans. It’s more intricate and more detailed and there’s more to it than “disbanded because they were black.” There are interesting things that happened afterwards that make it a more nuanced and detailed piece of history.
Huh, I guess this maybe shows why an honest discussion of Jews may be necessary. Because otherwise you get raving paranoid crazy talk which sees Nazis as the source of all Jew hate, both forward and back. Because if you don't have an honest discussion, all you have is craziness like that, where Hitler caused the Christians, Muslims, Communists, and ancient Romans to all have issues with the Jews, for absolutely no reason at all.
That seems to be the level Barcle is dealing with this situation. That the reason:
1) The Arabs don't respect black people
2) Chinese don't respect black people
3) Europeans didn't respect black people
4) Anti Slavery advocates generally did not support actually living with black people
5) People who had previously fought in the civil war in the North instituted Segregation if significant numbers of black people show up
6) White flight, from cities filled with people who voted for the politicians who voted for Civil rights,
7) The institution of apartheid in South America
8) All the racial hierarchies in South America
9) The continuing problems black nations and peoples have.
Was because those dasterly CSAs spread their "ideology" that, with no basis at all, there were problems integrating black people, and spread this ideology forward and backwards in time. Because the other option, there's a problem with black people. Because the black side of the racism against black people is, it seems, unthinkable to him. Leaving only crazy talk.
Just as refusing to see the Jewish side of Antisemitism leaves one only with crazy paranoid delusions about time traveling Nazi bigotry, rather than the much simpler potential answer to why it happens being:
1) Jews Tend to be successful
2) They tend not to integrate
Or, even baring that, instead of seeing CSA as this strange time traveling villian, deranging ones view of the world, one could just also accept what is said on the wiki page on Racial Segregation:
"Wherever multiracial communities have existed, racial segregation has also been practiced."
In which case, the CSA was not some sort of strange, aberration of evil bringing racism to the world. But a normal multiracial country in historical terms. And, hell, probably from what I've heard of, possibly not even the most racist. But, the self aggrandizing moral superiority and pushing this great crusade to destroy every trace of the CSA loses some of its luster if your merely criticizing the south for behaving like a normal multi ethnic country, instead of as this fountain of all Racism.
I mean, this is what even the Critical Race theorists believe. Now, they believe it because they want to use it as a tool to destroy all western countries, because every western country has practiced some of what the CSA did, because, well, "wherever multiracial communities have existed, racial segregation has also been practiced".
That is partly why this idea that it "will stop with the CSA" is so ridiculous. Because what the CSA is criticized for isn't, well, anything special. Its fairly regular stuff that has happened all over the world, over and over again.
That seems to be the level Barcle is dealing with this situation. That the reason:
1) The Arabs don't respect black people
2) Chinese don't respect black people
3) Europeans didn't respect black people
4) Anti Slavery advocates generally did not support actually living with black people
5) People who had previously fought in the civil war in the North instituted Segregation if significant numbers of black people show up
6) White flight, from cities filled with people who voted for the politicians who voted for Civil rights,
7) The institution of apartheid in South America
8) All the racial hierarchies in South America
9) The continuing problems black nations and peoples have.
Was because those dasterly CSAs spread their "ideology" that, with no basis at all, there were problems integrating black people, and spread this ideology forward and backwards in time. Because the other option, there's a problem with black people. Because the black side of the racism against black people is, it seems, unthinkable to him. Leaving only crazy talk.
Just as refusing to see the Jewish side of Antisemitism leaves one only with crazy paranoid delusions about time traveling Nazi bigotry, rather than the much simpler potential answer to why it happens being:
1) Jews Tend to be successful
2) They tend not to integrate
Or, even baring that, instead of seeing CSA as this strange time traveling villian, deranging ones view of the world, one could just also accept what is said on the wiki page on Racial Segregation:
"Wherever multiracial communities have existed, racial segregation has also been practiced."
In which case, the CSA was not some sort of strange, aberration of evil bringing racism to the world. But a normal multiracial country in historical terms. And, hell, probably from what I've heard of, possibly not even the most racist. But, the self aggrandizing moral superiority and pushing this great crusade to destroy every trace of the CSA loses some of its luster if your merely criticizing the south for behaving like a normal multi ethnic country, instead of as this fountain of all Racism.
I mean, this is what even the Critical Race theorists believe. Now, they believe it because they want to use it as a tool to destroy all western countries, because every western country has practiced some of what the CSA did, because, well, "wherever multiracial communities have existed, racial segregation has also been practiced".
That is partly why this idea that it "will stop with the CSA" is so ridiculous. Because what the CSA is criticized for isn't, well, anything special. Its fairly regular stuff that has happened all over the world, over and over again.
Navarro
Well-known member
Look bruh, people don't dislike the CSA for segregation, they dislike it for being founded to maintain an extraordinarily cruel and brutal system of ethnic-based slavery against ... a President who was firmly against said system of slavery being expanded to the Mid- and South-West. Literally, that's what it took for them to start their rebellion; not being allowed to spread their system of slavery (which BTW had turned the Southeast into the poorest and most economically moribund area of the country while enhancing the personal profit of the planters to obscene levels) to the rest of the country. The North at the time largely saw slavery as an unfortunate necessity and the abolitionists were seen as potentially-dangerous cranks.
Last edited:
You would be correct in the past.
As far as current outrages about CSA go, counterpoint - ask the same people who are most passionate about this stuff about their opinion of Apartheid era South Africa.
And then ask them about their opinion of current day Israeli-Palestinian relations for bonus points.
Yeah, that's about accurate of the views back in the times of ACW and after it. But not post-awokening returned obsession about the topic.
Have you read Barcle?
Navarro
Well-known member
Yes, he's acting a bit crazy. "Nuremberging" Robert E. Lee would have done nothing more than convince the rest of the Confederate military to fight on to the end; while they couldn't win they could certainly have killed a lot more Union soldiers and dragged the war on pointlessly a fair bit longer.
Largo
Well-known member
That they didn't own slaves doesn't mean anything. I don't own a gun. I would still freak the fuck out if the Democrats repealed the Second Amendment tomorrow and decided to just straight up confiscate every gun in the country.
So you would fight back? Because you are basically being told how to live your Life?
Largo
Well-known member
If you want to argue that the South fought for the state's rights to own slaves rather than for slavery persay, I'm not going to stop you.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
knowing then what I know now, I've even less certain of who I would fight for. Lincoln whether he intended to or not, basically declared America an empire with the states being little more than provinces. States rights were essentially shot in the head with literally the present day being the most we've state autonomy being practiced in well over a century. That being said apparently the south also had their plans to federalize and expand west as well so essentially the Civil War was less about "By the people for the people" and more "by the elites for the elites."
It was essentially an economic loins measuring contest disguised as a question of morality and personal rights.
You're not entirely wrong, in fact, the Confederate Constitution, which was modelled on the US Constitution, included things that guaranteed a much stronger central government in the long term, while also effectively institutionalizing slavery in a way that it never was in pretty much any other country. Do not make a mistake, there WERE serious moral aspects in play in the US Civil War, though it wasn't quite as black and white as many like to make it out to be (the methods the Union used to prevent the south from seceding crossed many lines both morally and Constitutionally... and the Confederates took many immoral actions as well beyond merely the support of slavery, especially in the western theater of the war). Heck, every state technically seceded for different reasons, and the broad stroke of "the south was pissed is lost a presidential election" isn't entirely accurate. That really only was the first wave of southern states that seceded. Others seceded at later times with the final wave coming AFTER Fort Sumpter. It's actually really interesting to look at Virginia's secession because it actually had TWO votes for secession, one around the same time as South Carolina as part of the temper tantrum over the 1860 election... that LOST. As such, Virginia quite explicitly did not secede due to losing a Presidential election, it had the opportunity to and decided that "nah, losing some Presidential elections is just part of the game". What really ended up driving Virginia to secede was Lincoln gearing up to militarily suppress the states that DID secede... without Congressional Authorization and attempting to federalize State Militias while no declaration of war had been issued. There was actually a lot of back and forth between Richmond and DC in the time between the initial wave of secession and Sumpter (remember, they were already geographically close, and had a telegraph line between them, so communication was quite quick, not quite to modern standards but we're talking same day communications going back and forth quite regularly). In the end though Lincoln couldn't give Virginia what they wanted to keep them in the Union especially after Fort Sumpter (as there was functionally a wave of "Southern nationalism" that swept the south after that that drove the second secession vote in Virginia.
Note: what Virginia WANTED Lincoln really, legitimately could not grant them... they wanted him to basically let the southern states go... and barring that they wanted it that any state that did not want to participate in the ongoing matter would not have their militia federalized, nor be required to allow Federal troops to pass through their borders, effectively creating a neutral zone of the border states. Considering that basically would have meant that Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky would be "impassible" territory, it would have made prosecuting a war against the Confederacy impossible... hence why the demands were, in effect, impossible for Lincoln to grant.
So, yeah, they weren't really negotiating in full good faith, but it does leave open the strange "what if" potential for "what if Virginia (somehow) hadn't seceded"...