150year anniversary of the South's declaration of secession

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Andy (or Mike, or anybody),

Can you enlighten me about the infringements on "States Rights" that lead to the secession of the Confederacy, and that do not directly relate to the Southern practice of slave ownership? It would be much appreciated.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Andy (or Mike, or anybody),

Can you enlighten me about the infringements on "States Rights" that lead to the secession of the Confederacy, and that do not directly relate to the Southern practice of slave ownership? It would be much appreciated.

Don

To be fair, there were some tax issues that greatly upset the south and threatened prosperity. For example, the federal government imposted import duties on finished European manufactured products (to protect norhtern industries) which in turn caused European countries to impose their own import taxes on cotton, thus leading to lower volumes of trade and less profit for Southern planters. Southerner's argued that the federal government did not have the abilty to impose these import taxes. The idea of nullification played a large part in this regional dispute.

These issues are indirectly related to slavery (through cotton of course) but would have effected southerner's regardless of what sort of labor system was used.

I generally believe Slavery was the overhwhelming and dominant cause for the Civil war (based on reading the primary evidence in Southerner's own words).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Another way to look at it:
You have a group of people that kill puppies. Everyone is making money. Part of the group is less successful at making money on it, so they do it less and eventually quit and find other ways to make money. Other parts of the group are very successfull at it and make lots of money. A portion of which that is shared among the group.

Suddenly, those that weren't very good at making money killing puppies say, "Killing puppies is bad. No one should do it anymore. No one in the group will be allowed to do it, and new members won't even have the option."

Even if they're correct, isn't that still hypocritical?

Yes, it would be. It would be much more justifiable if the less-successful puppy killers found ways of doing business so they didn't have to kill many (if any) puppies. Then when they announced that it was bad (which it is) and told everyone it was banned they would be far less hypocritical.

Which, of course, is what happened.

You said it yourself,

Quote

the less-successful puppy killers

They didn't change because they thought it was wrong, they changed because they just weren't as good at it.

and GeorgiaDon:
The reason I used puppy killers in the analogy was strictly to come up with something just as bad or worse than slavery. No more, no less.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

and GeorgiaDon:
The reason I used puppy killers in the analogy was strictly to come up with something just as bad or worse than slavery. No more, no less.

Wow, dude, you really thinking killing puppies is as bad as holding human beings in chattel slavery? Man, I just got to say, that's messed up.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

...abolishing slavery would have destroyed the economy of the southern states.

Unlikely. The South was, at the time, economically based on the production of one product, cotton, which was sold to industries in Northern States for processing into finished products. The demand for cotton was strong, and no alternatives were available, so there still would have been a market for cotton even at the higher prices that would have been necessary without slave labor.

So if their raw material cotton prices went up, that would have caused prices for finished cotton products in the North to go up. Causing inflation for both economies.

So it could be argued that another motivation of seceeding was simply as an inflation control measure for both sides.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

and GeorgiaDon:
The reason I used puppy killers in the analogy was strictly to come up with something just as bad or worse than slavery. No more, no less.

Wow, dude, you really thinking killing puppies is as bad as holding human beings in chattel slavery? Man, I just got to say, that's messed up.

I didn't say it was my opinion, but in many people's eyes, yes, it probably is.

Think PETA.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

Quote

and GeorgiaDon:
The reason I used puppy killers in the analogy was strictly to come up with something just as bad or worse than slavery. No more, no less.

Wow, dude, you really thinking killing puppies is as bad as holding human beings in chattel slavery? Man, I just got to say, that's messed up.

I didn't say it was my opinion, but in many people's eyes, yes, it probably is.

Think PETA.

You're not arguing with PETA.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

and GeorgiaDon:
The reason I used puppy killers in the analogy was strictly to come up with something just as bad or worse than slavery. No more, no less.

Wow, dude, you really thinking killing puppies is as bad as holding human beings in chattel slavery? Man, I just got to say, that's messed up.

Bolas - Dude - there is no way you can win an argument with an opinion. His opinion will ever change that it doesn't coincide with admitting that there are worse things.

Perhaps you could equate Nuclear Bomb droppers to slave owners - I bet he still finds slave owners to be worse.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

So if their raw material cotton prices went up, that would have caused prices for finished cotton products in the North to go up. Causing inflation for both economies.

So it could be argued that another motivation of seceeding was simply as an inflation control measure for both sides.

I suppose that could be argued, but only by those who:
1. Believe that paying an extra few pennies (or a couple of $ in today's money) for a shirt is a greater moral outrage than denying the most basic of human rights to many thousands of human beings, and/or
2. Believe that paying a few extra pennies for a shirt is is a greater moral outrage than risking (and ultimately fighting) a war that cost over 600,000 lives, and destroyed the economy of a large chunk of the country, and/or
3. Are just complete fucking self-centered morons. Choose any or all that you think might apply.
I'll see your and raise you

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Perhaps you could equate Nuclear Bomb droppers to slave owners - I bet he still finds slave owners to be worse.

Nuclear bomb droppers = soldiers fighting to end a war they didn't start (at least all the "nuclear bomb droppers" to date).
Slave owners = individuals (or societies) willing to deny the most basic of freedoms to human beings, to enhance their own economic position.
Doesn't seem like a fair contest to me. Care to explain why you consider US soldiers to be worse criminals than slave owners?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

So if their raw material cotton prices went up, that would have caused prices for finished cotton products in the North to go up. Causing inflation for both economies.

So it could be argued

Quote

that another motivation of seceeding was simply as an inflation control measure for both sides.

I suppose that could be argu[email]ed, but only by those who:
1. Believe that paying an extra few pennies (or a couple of $ in today's money) for a shirt is a greater moral outrage than denying the most basic of human rights to many thousands of human beings, and/or
2. Believe that paying a few extra pennies for a shirt is is a greater moral outrage than risking (and ultimately fighting) a war that cost over 600,000 lives, and destroyed the economy of a large chunk of the country, and/or
3. Are just complete fucking self-centered morons. Choose any or all that you think might apply.
I'll see your and raise you

Don

So you don't buy anything from overseas?

China and the Middle East definitely qualify within your first two points. Many other countries too. Some just on a different scale.
Three is simply subjective.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Bolas - Dude - there is no way you can win an argument with an opinion. His opinion will ever change that it doesn't coincide with admitting that there are worse things.

Sure there are worse things, but are you actually saying that puppies > people?

Quote

Perhaps you could equate Nuclear Bomb droppers to slave owners - I bet he still finds slave owners to be worse.

Well, who exactly are you referring to, Truman, or the crews of Enola Gay and Bockscar?

I'd have thought you'd have a different opinion on that subject.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...abolishing slavery would have destroyed the economy of the southern states.

Unlikely. The South was, at the time, economically based on the production of one product, cotton, which was sold to industries in Northern States for processing into finished products. The demand for cotton was strong, and no alternatives were available, so there still would have been a market for cotton even at the higher prices that would have been necessary without slave labor.

So if their raw material cotton prices went up, that would have caused prices for finished cotton products in the North to go up. Causing inflation for both economies.

So it could be argued that another motivation of seceeding was simply as an inflation control measure for both sides.

I'm not sure that a price, based on the theft of labor, that is raised because that labor is now compensated, can be considered "inflation". Likewise, if the price of a car can be lowered by forcing the autoworkers into mandatory, uncompensated labor, can that be considered a "deflation"? Maybe the north liked the price of cotton shirts and didn't ask whether any human suffering was involved in the manufacturing process. (Don't ask, Don't tell; the 3 monkeys; etc.). Kinda like the way we are consuming cheap goods from some countries where labor is "cheap" (for some "unknown" reason) - so to speak. If I was a widget outlet store and I was allowed by my government to steal my inventory I could drive my competitor (who is dumb enough to actually pay for his inventory) out of business. If stealing widgets suddenly became illegal and the widget end user now had to buy from the guy who bought his inventory, that wouldn't be considered inflation. ...would it?

[billvon 3,112]

>They didn't change because they thought it was wrong, they changed
>because they just weren't as good at it.

Or, more accurately, they learned better ways of supporting themselves.

Greed and ignorance have often been used to support things like slavery - "we'll lose too much money!" "We don't know how else to make money!" Fortunately, we don't buy them as excuses very often.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Bolas - Dude - there is no way you can win an argument with an opinion. His opinion will ever change that it doesn't coincide with admitting that there are worse things.

Sure there are worse things, but are you actually saying that puppies > people?

Quote

Perhaps you could equate Nuclear Bomb droppers to slave owners - I bet he still finds slave owners to be worse.

Well, who exactly are you referring to, Truman, or the crews of Enola Gay and Bockscar?

I'd have thought you'd have a different opinion on that subject.

See.

Thanks for confirming my point.

Just because you believe that your life is more valuable than a puppy's, it doesn't mean that all people do.

That makes your view an opinion and emotionally charged, not a fact.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>They didn't change because they thought it was wrong, they changed
>because they just weren't as good at it.

Or, more accurately, they learned better ways of supporting themselves.

Noone is arguing that, the argument is their motivation to do so. It was was not moral, it was economical or moreso the lack of direct economic impact.

Quote

Greed and ignorance have often been used to support things like slavery - "we'll lose too much money!" "We don't know how else to make money!" Fortunately, we don't buy them as excuses very often.

At the same time some of the loudest proponents of things used to support and profit off of them.

Let's go back the puppy killing analogy. If part of the group that was making good money at it, walked away while still able to make money at it but chose to stop anyways, then started to say puppy killing was wrong and should be banned for all that'd be far less hypocritical.

Of course one could also argue that they made their money off it so didn't need it anymore.

Anytime someone or a group has a change of heart and suddenly finds morals, one should look into their motivation for this change and their personal impact if changed.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I'm not sure that a price, based on the theft of labor, that is raised because that labor is now compensated, can be considered "inflation". Likewise, if the price of a car can be lowered by forcing the autoworkers into mandatory, uncompensated labor, can that be considered a "deflation"? Maybe the north liked the price of cotton shirts and didn't ask whether any human suffering was involved in the manufacturing process. (Don't ask, Don't tell; the 3 monkeys; etc.). Kinda like the way we are consuming cheap goods from some countries where labor is "cheap" (for some "unknown" reason) - so to speak. If I was a widget outlet store and I was allowed by my government to steal my inventory I could drive my competitor (who is dumb enough to actually pay for his inventory) out of business. If stealing widgets suddenly became illegal and the widget end user now had to buy from the guy who bought his inventory, that wouldn't be considered inflation. ...would it?

Let's just complicate matters even more. Slave labor was not free. There were considerable costs involved in acquiring (especially after the ban on further importation) providing shelter for, supervising, and feeding slaves. There were some Northern abolitionists who crafted an economic argument against slavery. This did not prove to be very compelling to the Southerners, perhaps not because of the strenght of the underlying argument but because of the transition costs that moving from a slave-labor society to a free-labor society would have entailed.

Let's further complicate things. Let's not pretend that Northerern's opposed Southern slavery only because they found it immoral. Certainly some did but questions of motive are often tricky. Many Northerner's sought to limit slavery's expansion into the west because it was a threat to economic opportunity of northern free labor. The ability of free labor to expand westward served quite a few purposes--including economic growth and as a social safety valve.

Let's look back a little further. One of Thomas Jefferson's only phrases that was eliminated in the editing of the Declaration of Independence was where he blamed King George III for foisting slavery onto the colonies. In this he was oppossed by voters from New England and from the Deep South--the states in the middle were more than willing to go along--remember slavery was legal everywhere and slaves were held in all of the colonies at this time. The North did not outlaw slavery (and largely fail to adopt it on anywhere near the same scale as the south to begin with because they were more moral but because their land and climate was not suitable to the growing of large cash crops for export. Tobacco and later cotton prospered in the South and were large, labor intensive crops cultivated mainly for export back to Europe. Both were not really feasible crops in the North. Northern slaves were predominantly domestic servants, not field hands, although they were used in every capacity both in the north and in the south (just in different proportions).

In the Constitutional Convention (slavery beginning to be outlawed in northern states) the delegates of the mid-atlantic states (Maryland and VA prominent slave holding socieites at the time) wanted to outlaw further importation. Why? The price of their slaves were very low because of large supply and their own ability to gainfully employ slaves on their land was dimished as the tobacco had largely removed the fertility from the soil that was neede to grow large cash crops and VA farmers were mostly planting wheat, which is much, much less labor intensive and much less profitable. VA farmers, including Jefferson, would have loved to ban importation so they could fetch a higher price for their slaves by selling them to Western settlers. These mid-atlantic states were opposed by the states further south and west--which still had productive soils to use slaves in and wanted to keep prices low--and by the New England states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island--which had enormous interests in serving as shippers of slave across the Atlantic.

My point--of course slavery is immoral--but if you are looking at either the North or the South and arguing that they were acting morally or immorally based on our understanding of slavery today you are undoubtedly missing a huge part of the history and the mixed motives on which people acted. You are anachronistically imposing our cultural, moral standards on people that did not share them (both Northerners and Southerners). Both sides acted largely on their economic self-interest as they perceived it. Morality was often used as the justification and rhetorical rallying point but was only one part of a larger and more complex decision making process.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 3,112]

>It was was not moral, it was economical or moreso the lack of direct
>economic impact.

It was certainly moral; that's what garnered the popular support to make emancipation possible. The lack of significant economic impact is what made it possible.

That's true of a great many things. Once we industrialized enough that a man did not need a wife and 5 kids to run the farm (or make the shoes) we saw women's rights blossom and saw people passing child welfare laws. Some vestiges of that time remain (i.e. summer vacation from school.) Does that mean that the people working for women's rights did it because economics forced them to, and that they had no morals concerning women's rights? No. Instead, economics changed enough that the pain of passing women's rights was bearable - and the more moral people out there were willing to bear it.

>Let's go back the puppy killing analogy. If part of the group that was
>making good money at it, walked away while still able to make money at
>it but chose to stop anyways, then started to say puppy killing was wrong
>and should be banned for all that'd be far less hypocritical.

That's what happened. Indeed, a big issue as the Northern states ended slavery was how to compensate slaveowners for their losses. This wasn't because they were evil - it's because they felt it was a moral imperative to end slavery, but did not want to destroy the economy when they did so.

>Anytime someone or a group has a change of heart and suddenly finds
>morals . . .

Since most Northern states abolished slavery between 1790-1800, the word "suddenly" seems inappropriate.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Greed and ignorance have often been used to support things like slavery - "we'll lose too much money!" "We don't know how else to make money!" Fortunately, we don't buy them as excuses very often.

true, statements like "we can't AFFORD tax cuts now, it's reckless spending" are pretty much disregarded by the left and the right as just silly when we have huge programs that can be cut unstead

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Just because you believe that your life is more valuable than a puppy's, it doesn't mean that all people do.

That makes your view an opinion and emotionally charged, not a fact.

Wow. When you people find a new buzzword you really do like to grind that fucker into the dust, don't you?

I'd almost be tempted to use those criteria to call you on an 'emotional argument' every time you post one, if it wasn't for the fact it'd get incredibly boring after about the 20th one each week.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Just because you believe that your life is more valuable than a puppy's, it doesn't mean that all people do.

That makes your view an opinion and emotionally charged, not a fact.

Wow. When you people find a new buzzword you really do like to grind that fucker into the dust, don't you?

I'd almost be tempted to use those criteria to call you on an 'emotional argument' every time you post one, if it wasn't for the fact it'd get incredibly boring after about the 20th one each week.

The fix is simple - You should post facts instead of emotion.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Of course, in the context of Speaker's Corner, "facts" are only of value in that they either support or refute an argument, and according to you it now seems every statement regarding human rights, history, or anything of interest is an "opinion". And now, you can pretend any opinion you don't like is "emotionally charged", whereas your opinion will by comparison be dispassionate and logical (where's that "barf" emoticon when you need it). You just go ahead and post some "facts", without any value judgment, context, or "opinion" to clutter things up, and see where the discussion goes.

"Taxes are too high, dammit!" = emotionally charged opinion
"Government should mind it's own business, dammit!" = emotionally charged opinion
"We pay taxes to fund government spending" = boring fact. So what?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just because you believe that your life is more valuable than a puppy's, it doesn't mean that all people do.

That makes your view an opinion and emotionally charged, not a fact.

Wow. When you people find a new buzzword you really do like to grind that fucker into the dust, don't you?

I'd almost be tempted to use those criteria to call you on an 'emotional argument' every time you post one, if it wasn't for the fact it'd get incredibly boring after about the 20th one each week.

The fix is simple - You should post facts instead of emotion.

Y'know, despite it all I actually do have some sympathy for you. It must be incredibly frustrating to know that you can't even come up with your own insults and topic dodges, and all that you can manage is to mindlessly parrot someone else's.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 4]

Quote

Since most Northern states abolished slavery between 1790-1800, the word "suddenly" seems inappropriate.

bill, you do have to remember that for some people in the south, 150 years ago is just like yesterday, so to them 65 years may, in fact, be sudden.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Of course,.....the discussion goes.

Thanks for your opinion, Don.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239