The people of the South had been slowly made to be hostile towards abolition for decades before, and it all started peacefully…
Even today, there are those who buy into and repeat the foolish propaganda that led hundreds of thousands of Southern soldiers to fight and die for the purses of the rich. The true cause of the departure of the Slave State is apparent, and the reasons are clearly outlined in historical documents penned by the slave-mongers themselves.
There is no excuse for defending the Slave States, and those who died defending slavery (whether they knew that’s why they were dying or not) are no less ethically bankrupt than those who enlist today and shoot Muslims because they think they’re fighting terrorism (when in fact it’s about empire and resources).
But I wouldn’t expect anyone here at SE to change their minds, nor do I want them to (it’s not like anyone listens to any of us anyway, so our opinions amount to nil). Besides, there’s nothing like watching anarchists defend not only a government, but one which used violent means to literally enslave people.
Anarchism looks less appealing every day…
This post makes no sense at all. What exactly are you criticizing? Do you even know?
ReplyDeleteThere is no excuse for defending the Slave States
There is no excuse for defending the regime of murderous dictator Saddam Hussein. Did you oppose George W. Bush's war of Iraqi liberation? If you were opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, why did you defend the dictator nation of Iraq, Bret?
Besides, there’s nothing like watching anarchists defend not only a government, but one which used violent means to literally enslave people.
It's not defending a government, any more than opposing the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was/is defending Saddam and the Taliban.
Violent means? Surely you're not being serious, if you support what the Union forces did to preserve Federal control of the South. Or do you only oppose violent means when it suits you?
And since as an anarchist I want less government, and Lincoln's war gave us more by concentrating power in a central government in Washington, and destroying state's rights and the original U.S. Constitution that limited Federal power, it is certainly consistent with my principles to take the side of those, whatever their motives, who fought against that outcome.
Anarchism looks less appealing every day…
A complete and idiotic non sequitur. Anarchism means without rulers and is opposed to all coercion, and is against any form of slavery.
It's obvious you don't think much while you're typing.
Did you oppose George W. Bush's war of Iraqi liberation? If you were opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, why did you defend the dictator nation of Iraq, Bret?
ReplyDeleteIraq did not attack a US target. In fact, there was no reason to go into Iraq at all, nor was there a reason to stay there for several years. It's pathetic that you want to compare Iraq to US Slave States who broke away from the nation and attacked American citizens because a president they didn't like got elected.
It's not defending a government, any more than opposing the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was/is defending Saddam and the Taliban.
Why would you conflate the Taliban and Saddam as being comparable? Bush much? There was basically no one who opposed going into Afghanistan, considering we wanted to get the guy who planned an attack on US soil. The reason Afghanistan is a mess is because we failed to achieve any goal (or formulate a goal, really) and never left, a completely different reason to oppose the continued war there than the war in Iraq or against the Slave States.
And I'm not supporting Iraq or Afghanistan, nor do I support what goes on in their countries. I don't hold allegiance to them or glorify what they do, nor do I wave Iraqi or Afghani flags around like people who support the Slave States. You put the Slave States up on a pedestal, and it's disgusting. If you could just say, "Yes, the Slave States were wrong," this argument would be over. You can't, though, because you're biased and fawning over a state you love.
Saddam was a horrible dictator and the Taliban harbored terrorists... see how easy that is? That doesn't mean the people in those countries deserve what happened to them, any more than people in the South deserved what happened to them, but you can't even make take the first step in admitting that slavery and the Slave States' defence of it was a mistake, nor can you even acknowledge that the war was started by the Slave States (which is was).
Violent means? Surely you're not being serious, if you support what the Union forces did to preserve Federal control of the South. Or do you only oppose violent means when it suits you?
Find me one quote where I ever defended anything related to the North or Lincoln. You can't, because I don't, though that doesn't keep Slave State sympathizers from putting those words in my mouth to try to convince themselves I'm somehow as biased as they are. Get it through your thick skull: this is only about me trying to get Slave State supporters who claim to be anarchists to stop glorifying a nation formed for the sole purpose of protecting slavery.
And unlike you, I believe governments should exist, even if they are imperfect, so there is no hypocrisy in me supporting the North like there is among anarchists who love the Slave States.
A complete and idiotic non sequitur. Anarchism means without rulers and is opposed to all coercion, and is against any form of slavery.
Anarchism sounds downright terrifying after I see all these anarchists kissing the ass of the Slave States. It makes me wonder what the ulterior motives of anarchists are, especially since it's clear none of the anarchists here actually want no rulers, they just want different ones who support their ideas (and apparently slavery). You take a ridiculous stance, that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and therefore go about defending anyone who opposes the federal government... even if they are bigger tyrants.
It's obvious you don't think much while you're typing.
I'm not sure you think much, typing or otherwise. You do a lot of video watching and you seem to just buy into any bullshit that seems remotely out of the ordinary, and it results in you holding some of the most stupid ideas, including the violent support of slavery by the state.
That's honestly all you have to say for yourself on your support of slavery?
That's honestly all you have to say for yourself on your support of slavery?
ReplyDeleteFirst you say you're not accusing me or others of being pro-slavery, then you repeat the absurd accusation.
The war was not started to abolish slavery. Slavery would have ended anyway. Lincoln was responsible for the massive death, destruction and suffering that result from his decision to violate the constitution and refuse to lead the Confederate states secede.
Iraq did not attack a US target. In fact, there was no reason to go into Iraq at all, nor was there a reason to stay there for several years. It's pathetic that you want to compare Iraq to US Slave States who broke away from the nation and attacked American citizens because a president they didn't like got elected.
The South posed no ultimate threat to the North (except its loss of tax revenue, a real motivation for the North to go to war), it just wanted to leave the Union, that's all. There would have been no war if Lincoln had let the South have its independence.
Find me one quote where I ever defended anything related to the North or Lincoln.
You have no coherent position on the Civil War, then. You seem to be under the impression that it was a real Civil War with both sides fighting for control of the entire nation, when in fact the North invaded the South to conquer it and the goal of the South Independence from the North.
If you don't defend what Lincoln and the North did, are you against their war to restore the Union by force? Or do you think, like all the other war-mongers on the right and left, that the deaths of hundreds of thousands is a price worth paying.
Come on, this can end if you just admit you support mass killing and all the horrors of war, and that you're really not anti-war at all.
And unlike you, I believe governments should exist, even if they are imperfect, so there is no hypocrisy in me supporting the North like there is among anarchists who love the Slave States.
There is no point in responding to you, because you ignore (or don't read to begin with) what I actually say.
Now go back to kissing Lincoln's lying, war-mongering, hypocritical ass, statist!
You're just bitter because you lost and you can't own someone. You can't say you oppose slavery while glorifying the Slave States and not be called out on how bullshit that is.
ReplyDeleteAnd my stance on the Civil War is very coherent: war is stupid, and the Slave States were stupid for starting it. They acted violently before ever even engaging Lincoln in a peaceful discussion of the issues. That is not something to glorify, and you ought to be ashamed of advocating that.
And while I'm not a huge fan, I would rather be called a Lincoln lover than be on the side of slavers. Eisenhower was a racist, but I'd pick him over Hitler any day.
The Confederacy seceded, and the moment they began to do so, Lincoln was the one committed to going to war to force them back into the control of the Federal government in Washington. No aggression on the part of the North, no war. It's simple, really.
ReplyDelete