Potential for Violence

Oh come on you're better than this garbage.

First of all, the confederacy declared war on the north.

Secondly, the confederacy repeatedly stated that they seceded and declared war on the north over slavery. Bleeding Kansas and the Compromise of 1850 had been going on for years before the civil war started. Secessionists didn't make Northern tariffs an issue, instead they made Lincoln's anti-slavery victory in 1860 an issue.

Now go read a damn history book. It's a common confederate apologist tactic to try and steer the conversation away from slavery and talk about how the poor innocent South was being oppressed by the evil North. Another common tactic is to act like the South weren't the ones who started the war. Don't do that.

Just because it's an apologist tactic doesn't make the issue wholly irrelevant. You're doing the reverse- Just completely disregarding anything that adds more information or nuance.

No one denies that Japan invaded and brutally colonized. At the same time the fact that such acts were the norm across the world and the Washington Naval Treaty and the sudden end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance are factors one has to acknowledge that partially explain their behavior.

Just because it's an apologist tactic doesn't make the issue wholly irrelevant. You're doing the reverse- Just completely disregarding anything that adds more information or nuance.

No one denies that Japan invaded and brutally colonized. At the same time the fact that such acts were the norm across the world and the Washington Naval Treaty and the sudden end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance are factors one has to acknowledge that partially explain their behavior.

You know, there is a thing called  a moral voice.  And this isn't it.  In fact, it is quite the opposite, and shame on you for voicing it.  Their acts were NOT THE NORM across the world, unless you think Leopold in the Congo was the norm--which no one except DMT does.

The Washington Naval Treaty  =  The Rape of Nanking?  You are a full of it!  For those of you who don't know, the Washington Naval Treaty gave Japan some kind of balance compared to the western countries, not a right to attack China and perform acts of sadism and brutality that are unequaled in the twentieth century  outside what the Germans did to the Jews.

Literally, the Japanese in China in the late 30s raped grandmothers literally dozens one after another.  Just to be brutal. They played soccer with children's heads, scoring goals only after the head came off the body.  No sensible person can say that the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance excuses this behavior, but DeMartino is saying EXACTLY that!

And then he suggests that Westerners are also culpable.  Were there crimes committed by American soldiers in WWII?  Sure.  And some needed to be criminalized, which a lot of them were.  But mostly, they were like say, Dachau, when soldiers saw unbelievable depredations and couldn't stop themselves from killing the horrible bastards who did it.  Hard to blame them.  But DeMartino wants us us to see them as the same as the rapists and soccer child's head footballers. 

Partially explain their behavior, indeed!

Why revisionism? The South was clearly morally wrong. Slavery was, is and always will be reprehensible. Also, it's pretty clear that the South instigated the conflict. These things aren't debatable among reasonable people.

   My point was that while the North was pretty firmly pro-abolishment, the South had strong economic reasons for being anti-abolishment. When the South seceded, they did so not because owning slaves was awesome, or because that was the natural order of things (although I'm sure a number of them thought that as well), but because they believed that without slavery, their entire economy would essentially collapse. Tariffs, and the strong pro-abolishment feeling in the North promised economic ruin, which drove the South to do what it did.


I didn't say that the South was oppressed by the North, and certainly not that the North attacked the South and I'm honestly a bit confused how that could be read into my comments. 

It's revisionism to say the war was about tariffs rather than slavery. The South's economy was based on slavery and that's what they went to war for.

It's revisionism to say the war was about tariffs rather than slavery. The South's economy was based on slavery and that's what they went to war for.

That's not what he said. It's not his fault you have a hard time with nuance and tend to disregard qualifiers when reading.

His point was that there are reasons why they supported slavery beyond white supremacy and there were economic factors as well that were adjacent or underlying motivations.

Here is a parallel- The Iraq War was about WMDs and terror. However there were various other motives alongside it by various parties. Some had visions of mass reform across the region. Others no doubt were thinking of oil. Meanwhile Saddam fought for whatever reason, but it was not WMDs, Terror, oil, and only somewhat over Mideast reform.

While I do think the Civil War was much more about its core cause and the gusts of popular feeling that led to the war reflected that, that doesn't mean the powerful weren't looking at their pocketbooks, as they always do.

You know, there is a thing called  a moral voice.  And this isn't it.  In fact, it is quite the opposite, and shame on you for voicing it.  Their acts were NOT THE NORM across the world, unless you think Leopold in the Congo was the norm--which no one except DMT does.

This warrants a separate reply.

I don't study history with the objective of judging things through the lens of my 20th-21st century morals and to look for people and countries to declare as good guys and bad guys, and which should have been supported.

I think that is a terrible way to study history and will cause you to not pay attention to facts and begin to craft things to fit a narrative. Once your mind decides certain parties were "good" or "bad" you will disregard anything that doesn't fit that filter one way or the other.

It seems you view history through some sort of grand moral or narrative arc and that above all you use the moral filter to interpret it. That's fine in some ways, but it is dangerous when it comes to factual understanding.

Their acts were NOT THE NORM across the world, unless you think Leopold in the Congo was the norm--which no one except DMT does.

They weren't that far off. In establishing their various empires the other nations had certainly done some things. The British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese had collectively mass depopulated two continents, and repeatedly broken treaties in doing so. They also used biological warfare. They also used race-based slavery in doing so. They also colonized pretty much everyone else and would have no qualms about doing so.

In the 1930s Their peoples and their leaders were overtly racist and even had the supremacy of white people enshrined by law. They had seen Armritsar and Stalin and the Indian Wars.

That is the world they lived in- The world of 1932 and the history that had preceded it. A world where the "nice guys" ruled across the glove and the others had Jim Crow. You have to put their actions into context which is the world they lived in and how it did business.

The Washington Naval Treaty  =  The Rape of Nanking?  You are a full of it!  For those of you who don't know, the Washington Naval Treaty gave Japan some kind of balance compared to the western countries, not a right to attack China and perform acts of sadism and brutality that are unequaled in the twentieth century  outside what the Germans did to the Jews.

Japan felt it needed 70% to achieve Naval parity. They were given 60%. It also saw their ally outright disregard them in favor of a cultural and racial brother. They now had far less incentive to play by international norms. These promises of order and friendship would look hollow. What appeared to matter was power and every nation being out for themselves.

Were they some noble lot who weren't also playing the game themselves? Of course not, but the system and its norms now looked like mere tools for power rather than a genuine attempt at a brotherhood of nations. The message was, as interpretes by them- "We have the rights to empire and the benefits, you do not."

And what did they expect to happen with the next round of treaties?

Literally, the Japanese in China in the late 30s raped grandmothers literally dozens one after another.  Just to be brutal. They played soccer with children's heads, scoring goals only after the head came off the body.  No sensible person can say that the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance excuses this behavior, but DeMartino is saying EXACTLY that!

And then he suggests that Westerners are also culpable.  Were there crimes committed by American soldiers in WWII?  Sure.  And some needed to be criminalized, which a lot of them were.  But mostly, they were like say, Dachau, when soldiers saw unbelievable depredations and couldn't stop themselves from killing the horrible bastards who did it.  Hard to blame them.  But DeMartino wants us us to see them as the same as the rapists and soccer child's head footballers. 

That was NOT what I said and you don't seem to be understanding my point. You are hallucinating what I said.

That was NOT what I said and you don't seem to be understanding my point. You are hallucinating what I said.

"I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion." --said by DeMartino fifty bazillion times in this forum.

Literally, the Japanese in China in the late 30s raped grandmothers literally dozens one after another.  Just to be brutal. They played soccer with children's heads, scoring goals only after the head came off the body.

Also, those two examples you listed I would look at with a skeptical eye. If you can't read that and strongly detect the high probability of bullsh*t and exaggeration in that story, then you are a sap. Do those stories really pass the sniff test?

Where exactly is this company or battalion of Japanese soldiers that is being organized as some sort of industrial granny rape assembly line? How are these soldiers getting it up for this? Is there just a line of soldiers who decided that the with the run of the city, the best thing they could do was industrial rape 60-80 year old snatch?

And how are these soldiers playing soccer with heads attached to 40 lb. children bodies? Oh that's right every 120 lb. Japanese soldier knows Ninja-Fu and can kick 40 lbs. around like they're Kevin DeBruyne.

You realize in WWI there were claims that German soldiers were eating Belgian babies, right? I'm not saying the Rape of Nanking didn't happen or that it wasn't horrific, just that you don't have to believe some of the more outlandish claims and you should probably refrain from using them if you want to make a serious point.

"I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion." --said by DeMartino fifty bazillion times in this forum.

That wasn't the logical conclusion of my argument.

Also, it's pretty clear that the South instigated the conflict.

Then why did you say "From what I've read, slavery was actually only a proxy excuse for casus belli." Maybe what you meant was that the preservation of slavery was a proxy excuse for a casus belli, because it was the South that started the war. Which you knew. Obviously.

And yes, the Civil War was about economic issues, namely slavery. And it was about economic oppression by the North, because the North wanted to end slavery, which was the only way the South thought it could survive economically. And it was about state's rights, namely the false state right to own slaves.

When the South seceded, they did so not because owning slaves was awesome, or because that was the natural order of things

You're not from America, are you? Because any American high schooler who pays attention in class is taught with clear evidence that this was actually the whole basis of the Confederacy. You really seem attached to blatant revisionism and maybe as a non-American you don't realize this. I'm pretty sure you're not the kind of right-winger who convinces themself that racism doesn't exist because they can't admit that institutional racism is real and powerful.

Didn't think I'd see Kyndo making excuses for slavery or proud Korean DeMartino making excuses for the Rape of Nanking. You guys have problems. Read a book, kyndo. As for Martin:

That's a heck of a lot of neo-Confederate blather. 

And yes, the Civil War was about economic issues, namely slavery. And it was about economic oppression by the North, because the North wanted to end slavery, which was the only way the South thought it could survive economically. And it was about state's rights, namely the false state right to own slaves.

Imagine having the kind of brain that views an entire nation/region of 25 million as a singular monolith driven by a single purpose. Slavery was the cause. That is different from what individual's goals and motives were. Do you understand the differences between these things or are you unable to do so and instead just lump them all together because trying to understand that is too difficult?

You're not from America, are you? Because any American high schooler who pays attention in class is taught with clear evidence that this was actually the whole basis of the Confederacy. You really seem attached to blatant revisionism and maybe as a non-American you don't realize this. I'm pretty sure you're not the kind of right-winger who convinces themself that racism doesn't exist because they can't admit that institutional racism is real and powerful.

Or maybe, and I know this is a real hard concept for you to grasp- Maybe YOU didn't understand the point he was making and overlooked the nuance of his argument.

You know, it is possible for YOU MayorHaggar to make a mistake. Do you accept that as a possibility?

Didn't think I'd see Kyndo making excuses for slavery or proud Korean DeMartino making excuses for the Rape of Nanking. You guys have problems. Read a book, kyndo. As for Martin:

Thankfully neither of us did such a thing.

The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical,[1] negationist ideology that advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one. This ideology has furthered the belief that slavery was just and moral, because the enslaved were happy, even grateful, and it also brought economic prosperity. The notion was used to perpetuate racism and racist power structures during the Jim Crow era in the American South.[2] It emphasizes the supposed chivalric virtues of the antebellum South. It thus views the war as a struggle primarily waged to save the Southern way of life[3] and to protect "states' rights", especially the right to secede from the Union. It casts that attempt as faced with "overwhelming Northern aggression". At the same time, it minimizes or completely denies the central role of slavery and white supremacy in the build-up to, and outbreak of, the war.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

You know how I often say that white supremacy is allowed to sneak in here over and over again? And now Kyndo is perpetuating it.

Skip the personal insults guys.

Attack the ideas, not the person.

South Carolina secession statement:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

Mississippi secession statement:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin

Louisiana:

The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

Texas:

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.

Martin:

"See what they actually meant was..."

South Carolina secession statement:

Mississippi secession statement:

Louisiana:

Texas:

Martin:

"See what they actually meant was..."

All of that is true. None of that contradicts the point we were making.

For like the 10th time: Slavery was the cause of the war. That doesn't mean that there weren't other reasons, motives and goals for other parties. It also doesn't address why INDIVIDUALS fought. Their reasons are often less political.

You are arguing a point no one is trying to make.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

You know how I often say that white supremacy is allowed to sneak in here over and over again? And now Kyndo is perpetuating it.

"While the causes of the Vietnam War were Vietnamese unity and American engagement against Communism, some people had other motives. Some wanted to see American weapon systems used and for arm sales. Also, the Kennedys and later LBJ were deeply concerned about past appeasement that led to WWII."

"You're supporting American Supremacy!"

Just because additional factors have been used by SOME for nefarious purposes does not mean that every mention of additional factors is in service of white supremacy.

Individuals don't use terms like casus belli or secession statement. Nobody was talking about individuals. In any case if you look at individual quotes by Southern generals, politicians and soldiers, you'd overwhelmingly see them stating over and over again that they fought to preserve slavery. But you're not going to do that because you're a contrarian defending the indefensible.

All of that is true. None of that contradicts the point we were making.

For like the 10th time: Slavery was the cause of the war. That doesn't mean that there weren't other reasons, motives and goals for other parties. It also doesn't address why INDIVIDUALS fought. Their reasons are often less political.

Their reasons are NOT often less political, and you have done NOTHING to show otherwise.  You just keep saying it without an iota of evidence. You don't even list any of these theoretical reasons, you just say that there are.  You just say things like "Any war will have a mish-mash of causes and motives". 

Of course and obviously that's true--someone might join because his big brother did, for example.  And maybe 10% were conscripted.  But to make your point that the VAST MAJORITY didn't join for the reasons everyone else and the consensus of all Civil War historians agrees (slavery)  you need literally 50,000 diary entries from CSA stating specific non-slavery-related/non-political reasons for fighting.  You really really need that, otherwise you're pissing in the wind. 

And I realize this is a bar you can't hurdle, because your statement is BS.

Indeed, practically everything you've written in this thread is BS, and some of it so shameful, anti-historical and blatantly immoral that I have had to remove your quote about how good I am from my .sig line, that's how disgusting your arguments have become.  I don't want to be associated with you.  Seriously.  You need to stop and have a look in the mirror.