The Second Civil War of the US

Post Reply New Topic

I think Naturalplastic gave a succinct answer.
Your take on the facts is very one sided, if not wrong. So what if it was just eleven states that sited slavery as a reason for secession? That's still a huge percentage of the rebelling states. And even in those deferring Confederate states, I'm willing to bet most of the white population supporting the Confederacy were fighting for slavery and white supremacy.
As for rounding up troops unwilling to fight, it was the south that was the first to institute a draft, forcing poor white men to fight, many of whom realized this was a war started by the wealthy elites, but fought by poormen. That was initially the reason why Newton Knight turned against the Confederate cause, before he developed a truly humane conscience that embraced both poor whites and blacks. Besides, it was the south that had a manpower issue, not the north, which negates your argument for black enlistment.
I already conceded that Lincoln shared many of the prejudices of his day. But to say that he did not grow as a human being in regard to race relations is extremely one sided. Why is it that you're so down on Lincoln, but give the Confederates a free pass? It must be noted that Lee and Jefferson Davis had instituted the policy of executing all black soldiers wearing Union uniforms. When the matter of prisoner exchanges came up, Lincoln made it clear that this abhorrent policy had to end, Lee and Davis refused to relent.
The fact of the matter was, even if the southern cause had had a moral leg to stand on, slavery would have remained legal within their borders. A northern victory vanquished slavery, and thus the right side won.
By the way, in my part of the country, the Pacific Northwest, we have an abysmal history of the way Native Americans were forced into reservations (which might as well have been concentration camps) after subjecting them to genocidal war. Asians, most often Chinese, were brought in for their labor, only to face violence and racial hatred, before being told they couldn't stay in America. But absolutely no one in my part of the country, who I know of, tries defending any of this.

It was th get the south to surrender faster or the more land the north took the more slaves would be free

It wasn't illegal to secede until after the war. The constitution was a contract entered by independent states who held the right to withdraw from said contract when they wanted to. Something people today can't understand. But parts of that are still around today. People still identify as montanians for example instead of Americans. A Chl from Oregon isn't accepted in Oregon, did I cross into another nation? Are my national rights not valid in California or are we all one nation and Americans?

Anyways back then each state(independent) raised their own troops and paid for them. This was worse in the revolution. Why should Virginia send ITS troops to fight for New York and vice versia. It wasn't really until ww2 that most people identified as Americans instead of their individual states.

So, expect slavery in the second US Civil War?

No, just wage slavery.

Might as well go all the way, considering how many people here don't regard it as all that bad.

Didn't see anyone say it not bad.

War not about slavery =\= slavery not bad.

But maybe your intention was to frame us as racist to devalidate our opinions and arguments.
My history teacher and lots of documentaries tell the war as it was not from a prodpgranda post war point of view
History is a dirty gray not black and white

The future where 75% of the us population is considered useless due to automation is concerning for me. They are able to replace lawyers currently and working on therapy bots for consoluling. No job is really safe.
If a robot can put cars together it will eventually be able to repair and diagnose cars without the need of mechanics. Just pull your car in and plug the robot into the cars computer and it takes over.
Will the wealthy keep us around when we no longer make them money but solely cost them money?

Either they'll have to provide us with a guaranteed earned income, or risk the rest of us lynching them in their mansions and country clubs.

They're wealthy because they sell stuff to us normal folks. Who would buy their stuff if they didn't keep us around?

If people promote propaganda from racist sources, such as those who claim the Civil War was not about defending slavery, then they have already framed themselves as racists. Don't blame me for pointing to it.

And that's why people hate leftist.
You make your own enemies by labeling anyone with different opinions as racists then wonder why half the nation voted trump and make fun of leftist calling them snowflakes.

world war followed by a mass causality disease outbreak would wipe most the worlds population. The rest would either serve as soldiers or servants or be wiped out. CDC has tons of deadly diseases as part of making drugs so do many companies. The rich of course would be given cures. Look how much people on social security and welfare are demonized do you really think it'd get better with 75% of the population demanding a living wage to be paid for by the rich? I don't think they'd go along with it they'd rather remove us before we catch on to our usefulness running out.

They already have most the money at the point of 75% automation they'd have pretty much all of it. They wouldn't need to sell stuff

The right wing labels people as snowflakes, liberals, commies, trigglypuffs and marxists.

Then they complain about being labelled