Comments on Profile Post by AureliusofPhoenix

  1. AureliusofPhoenix
    AureliusofPhoenix
    Like even the Romans knew it was degrading. I’m not saying it was right, but they were honest about it. The Democrats acted like slavery as an institution was beneficial for all parties involved.
    Nov 7, 2018
  2. zegh8578
    zegh8578
    Everybody has always known, it's like with war, even early records will point out so many obvious observations. I even read some anecdotal mention of ancient Egyptian thinkers explaining how the pharaoh-system was an artifice to control the public. I can't source this now, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that wise people have always been aware
    Nov 7, 2018
    AureliusofPhoenix and Squadcar like this.
  3. zegh8578
    zegh8578
    It is both comforting to know (in the sense that humans have always been keenly aware of how humans function), as well as horrifying (in the sense that "the masses" are manipulated with the same ease - for the past 20 milennia at least. It does not bode well for the notion of "let's evolve past that!")
    Nov 7, 2018
    Squadcar and AureliusofPhoenix like this.
  4. Walpknut
    Walpknut
    At one point the parties switcheroo'd their beliefs.
    Nov 7, 2018
  5. Cliffy McEdgeface
    Cliffy McEdgeface
    Slavery is generally bad business. Regarding the South, however, they were lagging behind on reaping the benefits of the Industrial Revolution which would have outmoded slavery in entirety
    Nov 7, 2018
  6. Cliffy McEdgeface
    Cliffy McEdgeface
    Now, you might ask WHY they were lagging behind. Well, there were certainly some morons who were ok with slavery being there in perpetuity, but there's the fact that the North was taxing the South to the absolute breaking point to consider as well
    Nov 7, 2018
    AureliusofPhoenix likes this.
  7. Cliffy McEdgeface
    Cliffy McEdgeface
    So new farm equipment to replace slaves becomes that much harder to acquire, as there are already people who refuse to do business with you as slaveholding states
    Nov 7, 2018
  8. Cliffy McEdgeface
    Cliffy McEdgeface
    That being said, the South actually could have KEPT their slaves for quite a while if they had never seceded. The North wasn't going to declare war over slavery, but over secession? Lincoln made no bones about what he thought of that
    Nov 7, 2018
  9. Walpknut
    Walpknut
    Leave it to Pariah Dog to come to the defense of Slavery.
    Nov 7, 2018
  10. AureliusofPhoenix
    AureliusofPhoenix
    @Walpknut he’s not defending slavery he’s providing actual background to the ACW
    @zegh8578 can’t agree with you enough man. The smartest among us have always seen the black marks against our society; yet we do nothing. Not a comforting thought.
    Nov 7, 2018
    zegh8578 likes this.
  11. Walpknut
    Walpknut
    Except the tariffs and taxes on them where the lowest they had been when secession talks started, with just the Northern States intending to up them until after Lincoln was elected, and the Tariffs only increased until after the Southern States all gave up the seats in the senate in 1861.
    Nov 7, 2018
  12. Cliffy McEdgeface
    Cliffy McEdgeface
    Is that what he's accusing me of? Impressively stupid. Anyway, there were people the NORTH still holding slaves post-Emancipation Proclamation because the EP specifically targeted SOUTHERN slaveholders. This is because the EP was economic warfare against the rebelling South first and foremost, and a "noble cause" a very distant second.
    Nov 7, 2018
  13. Cliffy McEdgeface
    Cliffy McEdgeface
    Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

    Funny thing for a "diehard abolitionist" to say, no?
    Nov 7, 2018
    AureliusofPhoenix likes this.
  14. Walpknut
    Walpknut
    The Southern States decided not to recognize a democratic election on account of Slavery being in danger of being abolished by Northeners who sought to also stop the expansion of territory by slave states down Center America. They had control of the Senate and were a strong economy. Slavery was the key factor, historical revisionism not withstanding.
    Nov 7, 2018
  15. Walpknut
    Walpknut
    The PE only targeted southern states but it was followed the next year by the 13th amendment which did end Slavery all across the country. So kind of a moot point, and an incrogruency to claim Lincoln didn't care to end Slavery when he in fact did end it.
    Nov 7, 2018
  16. AureliusofPhoenix
    AureliusofPhoenix
    @Walpknut you may think it’s a moot point, but the fact of the matter is that Lincoln initially couldn’t give half a dick about emancipation; and whether he freed the slaves or not, that doesn’t change his viewpoint. It’s not “revising history” to say that Lincoln had bigger concerns, namely the loss of his damned country. Tl,dr; his viewpoint isn’t changed by the end result of emancipation.
    Nov 7, 2018
  17. Walpknut
    Walpknut
    Well, just like the modern Democrats, Lincoln's idea of compromise seemed to be to just give them whatever they wanted that wasn't illegal until the conflict escalated into violence did he stop worrying about propelling his plataform.
    Nov 7, 2018
  18. AureliusofPhoenix
    AureliusofPhoenix
    Also as for what you said earlier about parties flip flopping, they didn’t flip flop so much as the Southern Dems jumped ship and tarnished the Republican Party when Lyndon B. Johnson signed a bill outlawing segregation
    Nov 7, 2018
  19. Cliffy McEdgeface
    Cliffy McEdgeface
    The worst part of it was that the secession of the South wasn't even really an existential threat to the United States as an entity. Any way you spin it the secession was a GOOD thing - UNLESS you really wanted to keep those damn Sudners in line and pumping money into your coffers.
    Nov 7, 2018
  20. Walpknut
    Walpknut
    Nov 7, 2018
  21. Cliffy McEdgeface
    Cliffy McEdgeface
    Either the South was a bunch of shitbags, and them seceding removes a problem, or they weren't shitbags and the secession was completely justifiable as an act of rebellion against federal encroachment on states' rights (and we're talking stuff well beyond slavery).
    Nov 7, 2018
    AureliusofPhoenix likes this.