Another confederate statue removed

The so-called 'Civil War' wasn't (a civil war). I was a War of Secession.

A civil war is where two or more factions vie for control of the government. The South wanted to leave the Union, not take it over. At the time the War started, the South had become it's own independent nation. Like any nation, it decided to defend itself. There is no treason in that!

Slaves were a real issue. It's a big part of the reason that Lincoln was elected President to begin with. He wanted to end slavery (a good thing!). He just went about it the wrong way (a bad thing!). You are correct in pointing out that the movement to end slavery has components that would simply leave the existing slave States alone, but there were also those within that movement (including Lincoln himself) that wanted to outlaw it every, even in the slave States.

But slaves were property, bought and paid for. This property was being seized by the federal government, with NO compensation to the owners of that property. This violates the 4th and 5th amendments. Today, it also would violate the 14th amendment (which wasn't in force at the time).

Why the slaves were used in the economy of the South is certainly factors in causing the War of Secession. You are quite right about that.

This property was being seized by the federal government, with NO compensation to the owners of that property.

A human being is it's own property. You just made the argument for reparations. Human beings being held captive in slavery should have been compensated and their decendents thereafter.
 
Racism is a fallacy. It is a compositional error fallacy where the class is people and the property is a genetic trait. People in the South weren't fighting to keep slavery. Most didn't even own slaves. There were free men both black and white. There were slaves both black and white. There were slave owners both black and white.

The Southerners were fighting to protect their property and to protect the South from invasion, not to keep slavery or racism.

What a crock of bullshit.

Blacks did not own slaves in white america. Is this what the racist white man teaches in the schools you heathens attend?

BLACK BODIES ARE STILL NOT FREE TODAY!!!!
 
The so-called 'Civil War' wasn't (a civil war). I was a War of Secession.

A civil war is where two or more factions vie for control of the government. The South wanted to leave the Union, not take it over. At the time the War started, the South had become it's own independent nation. Like any nation, it decided to defend itself. There is no treason in that!

Slaves were a real issue. It's a big part of the reason that Lincoln was elected President to begin with. He wanted to end slavery (a good thing!). He just went about it the wrong way (a bad thing!). You are correct in pointing out that the movement to end slavery has components that would simply leave the existing slave States alone, but there were also those within that movement (including Lincoln himself) that wanted to outlaw it every, even in the slave States.

But slaves were property, bought and paid for. This property was being seized by the federal government, with NO compensation to the owners of that property. This violates the 4th and 5th amendments. Today, it also would violate the 14th amendment (which wasn't in force at the time).

Why the slaves were used in the economy of the South is certainly factors in causing the War of Secession. You are quite right about that.

It didn't need to become a war at all. If the CSA hadn't been so retarded as to attack America, it could have remained a separate entity until its economy collapsed.
 
Racism is a fallacy. It is a compositional error fallacy where the class is people and the property is a genetic trait. People in the South weren't fighting to keep slavery. Most didn't even own slaves. There were free men both black and white. There were slaves both black and white. There were slave owners both black and white.

The Southerners were fighting to protect their property and to protect the South from invasion, not to keep slavery or racism.

I sincerely believe that slavery would have eventually disappeared. The primary reason the South owned slaves (and for the most part the North did not) was strictly economic in nature. The South was the agricultural center of the Union. It derived the vast bulk of its wealth from growing cotton and tobacco. Both of these are highly labor intensive. They also presented a moral dilemma for many in both the North and the South. I believe that progress in labor saving farm machinery would eventually have spelled the end of using human beings to do the work of machines. Machines would have proven (as they have) to be far more efficient than slavery and plantation owners would have switched. Yes, it would have taken time but it would not have meant the deaths of over 400,000 citizens. It would not have lead to the destruction of plantations, leaving the South in ruins and I believe if slaves were freed by their owners rather than stolen by the Federal government race relations would be far better today.
 
I sincerely believe that slavery would have eventually disappeared. The primary reason the South owned slaves (and for the most part the North did not) was strictly economic in nature. The South was the agricultural center of the Union. It derived the vast bulk of its wealth from growing cotton and tobacco. Both of these are highly labor intensive. They also presented a moral dilemma for many in both the North and the South. I believe that progress in labor saving farm machinery would eventually have spelled the end of using human beings to do the work of machines. Machines would have proven (as they have) to be far more efficient than slavery and plantation owners would have switched. Yes, it would have taken time but it would not have meant the deaths of over 400,000 citizens. It would not have lead to the destruction of plantations, leaving the South in ruins and I believe if slaves were freed by their owners rather than stolen by the Federal government race relations would be far better today.

Interestingly enough it was a machine that increased slavery in this country. The cotton gin.

"The Effects of the Cotton Gin

After the invention of the cotton gin, the yield of raw cotton doubled each decade after 1800. Demand was fueled by other inventions of the Industrial Revolution, such as the machines to spin and weave it and the steamboat to transport it. By midcentury America was growing three-quarters of the world's supply of cotton, most of it shipped to England or New England where it was manufactured into cloth. During this time tobacco fell in value, rice exports at best stayed steady, and sugar began to thrive, but only in Louisiana. At midcentury the South provided three-fifths of America's exports -- most of it in cotton.

However, like many inventors, Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave.

Because of the cotton gin, slaves now labored on ever-larger plantations where work was more regimented and relentless. As large plantations spread into the Southwest, the price of slaves and land inhibited the growth of cities and industries. In the 1850s seven-eighths of all immigrants settled in the North, where they found 72% of the nation's manufacturing capacity. The growth of the "peculiar institution" was affecting many aspects of Southern life."

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent
 
Seems "nightingale" is again dwelling on semantics attempting to convey his views as authoritative, you could make the case for "civil war," "war between the States," "war of succession," or a half dozen other terms, what difference does it make?
Quite a bit of difference. Apparently conflating these many terms as the same is a big problem for you.
You going to tell us next WWII wasn't a world war because every nation in the world wasn't involved in it?
Every continent was involved in it. That makes it a world war.
Whether a State has the "right" to succeed is irrelevant,
It is completely relevant. Argument of the stone fallacy.
the eleven States that booked might have thought of it that way,
They did.
but the remaining twenty didn't,
Compositional error fallacy. Some did, some didn't. It is irrelevant just the same.
as I said, irrelevant to the total picture of the conflict
Secession isn't war. Redefinition fallacy.
And slavery wasn't the main motivator that led the South to leave, I supposed some semblance of States rights was, I'm sure many Southerns weren't quite sure what that meant either, however slavery was the factor behind it, that the belief that the Federal Gov't was going to make those States give up slave labor.
Paradox. Which is it, dude?
Majority of southerns did not own slaves, but they were manipulated by the power centers that did, who portrayed the conflict as more than just over them maintaining their free labor, the ruse was quickly realized, the Confederacy suffered from high a high desertion throughout the war
They are not 'manipulated' by anyone.
What I learned in school about the Civil War was correct
Nope. The United States has never had a civil war.
 
I've noticed that Into the Night calls everything it can't explain "a fallacy".

Compositional error fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (logic<->void).

Since you deny logic, mathematics, science, and philosophy, and history, the problem is with YOU. You are illiterate. A product of liberalism.
 
Yeah, if you google it, you can get an extended listing of all types of fallacies, and the funny part is that he still often uses them incorrectly

Fallacies are not a list anywhere. A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in mathematics.

All you are showing is that you have no understanding of logic.
 
This property was being seized by the federal government, with NO compensation to the owners of that property.

A human being is it's own property. You just made the argument for reparations. Human beings being held captive in slavery should have been compensated and their decendents thereafter.

A human being is not it's own property. You didn't buy yourself!

As far as reparations is concerned, that's already happened.

Descendants to not need to be compensated. They were never slaves.
 
What a crock of bullshit.

Blacks did not own slaves in white america.
Yes they did. America isn't white. America is also a proper noun. It is capitalized.
Is this what the racist white man teaches in the schools you heathens attend?
Racism.
BLACK BODIES ARE STILL NOT FREE TODAY!!!!
Black bodies all radiate the same way, according to their emissivity and temperature. No freedom involved.
 
Interestingly enough it was a machine that increased slavery in this country. The cotton gin.

"The Effects of the Cotton Gin

After the invention of the cotton gin, the yield of raw cotton doubled each decade after 1800. Demand was fueled by other inventions of the Industrial Revolution, such as the machines to spin and weave it and the steamboat to transport it. By midcentury America was growing three-quarters of the world's supply of cotton, most of it shipped to England or New England where it was manufactured into cloth. During this time tobacco fell in value, rice exports at best stayed steady, and sugar began to thrive, but only in Louisiana. At midcentury the South provided three-fifths of America's exports -- most of it in cotton.

However, like many inventors, Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave.

Because of the cotton gin, slaves now labored on ever-larger plantations where work was more regimented and relentless. As large plantations spread into the Southwest, the price of slaves and land inhibited the growth of cities and industries. In the 1850s seven-eighths of all immigrants settled in the North, where they found 72% of the nation's manufacturing capacity. The growth of the "peculiar institution" was affecting many aspects of Southern life."

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent
Do you really believe that progress stopped with the invention of the cotton gin?
 
Back
Top