Article

2006-08-16 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Snease Shaiting3550 2006-08-16 00:44|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 And this is news?

Posted by ed 2006-08-16 07:15|| 2006-08-16 07:15|| Front Page Top

#2 They're Muslims. They don't want democracy or freedom; their "god" told them all to be good little slaves.

They want slavery.

We fought our bloodiest war ever to settle the question of whether slavery is compatible with our ideals. The result was, no, it isn't. So Islam, "submission" as in "submit to the will of your master, slave", is not compatible with our ideals.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-08-16 07:27|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-08-16 07:27|| Front Page Top

#3 We fought our bloodiest war ever to settle the question ~~of slavery~~

....of secession. The war began in 1861. Lincoln's famous Emancipation Proclamation came in Jan 1, 1863. More revisionist history. Slavery is evil and still is, no arguing that point.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-08-16 08:04|| 2006-08-16 08:04|| Front Page Top

#4 And why did the souther states seceed?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-16 08:15|| 2006-08-16 08:15|| Front Page Top

#5 To large a topic for this forum NS. If you've not already, recommend you have a look at some of the late Shelby Foote's writings. You may remember him from the Ken Burns' 1990 "Civil War" series.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-08-16 08:22|| 2006-08-16 08:22|| Front Page Top

#6 Riiiiight. We can handle the Global War on Terror but not the War of Southern Rebellion.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-16 08:33|| 2006-08-16 08:33|| Front Page Top

#7 I'd also recommend Battle Cry of Freedom by James M. McPherson, which has the best discussion of pre-war secession politics I've seen anywhere--and yes, there would have been no secession movement if it weren't for slavery, so Rob and Nimble are right.

For the story of the war itself, Foote and MacPherson are good, but I prefer Bruce Catton. Catton's books are the King James Version of Civil War history--some of the prettiest writing you'll ever read.

Posted by Mike 2006-08-16 08:48|| 2006-08-16 08:48|| Front Page Top

#8 Slavery was the necessary condition for the Civil War, but not the sole cause

Posted by E. Brown 2006-08-16 09:22|| 2006-08-16 09:22|| Front Page Top

#9 While Lincoln may not have been much of an abolitionist, his party was full of them. The South was faced with an increasingly abolitionist Congress, a rapidly growing Northern population and a swiftly declining economic influence.

Even if we go through the exercise of saying that the South seceded over states' rights, then which of those rights were being violated by the Federal government? Taxation without representation? Were the state militias being suppressed? No. If we look at South Carolina's declaration of secession, there is only one state's right that they are carping about -- slavery. To summarize this document, the mean Northerners won't return our runaway slaves, they don't like slavery, and they just elected a man "hostile to slavery." You can romanticize the "War of Northern Agression" all you want, but the documentary evidence supports the conclusion that it was over slavery.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-08-16 09:23|| 2006-08-16 09:23|| Front Page Top

#10 Big deal. we have people in the U.S. who don't believe in democracy and 'have negative feelings' towards Jews and Christians. Most of them aren't Muslim.

Posted by Pappy 2006-08-16 09:26|| 2006-08-16 09:26|| Front Page Top

#11
The war began in 1861. Lincoln's famous Emancipation Proclamation came in Jan 1, 1863.

The secession was about slavery (not about trade taxes like the communist historians tried to brainwash their pupils).

And the war was not merely about secession but also about democracy one of whose fundamental postulates being that when you have lost the elections you don't riot or secede but smile, congratulate the victor and prepare the next election. The theme of defending "our magnificent form of government" is in that famous letter to his wife of a Union officer killed at first Bull Run (or first Manassas) but also in countless other private documents from Union soldiers.

About Lincoln we know what he said not what he thought: in 1861 he couldn't set abolition of slavery because that would have alienated key states of the High South who had they seceeded would have ensured the success of the Rebels (Linoln said: "I hope God is in our side but still better to have Kentucky), decreased the influx of volunteers many of them indifferent to the problem of slavery and pushed into the rebel side a number of officers of Southern origin whose loyalty towards the Union was key to final victory (eg Farragut)

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-08-16 09:41|| 2006-08-16 09:41|| Front Page Top

#12 Yeah, and the timing of the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution were just a coincidence. Which by the way, were required by those states in rebellion to ratify before they could regain full status into federal system.

Just remember this discussion the next time someone posts about the Japanese not acknowledging their behavior in WWII in China, the Philippines, etc. Why should they admit anything from 60 years ago when there are those in this country who cant acknowledge events from 146 years ago.

Posted by Hupoth Throling8981 2006-08-16 09:47|| 2006-08-16 09:47|| Front Page Top

#13 Ok let me jump in with my 2 cents, the north fought over slavery the south fought over what was thought as federal govt taking over states rights. I says this because I read a book that had all these letters from common soldiers from the north and south. The northern soldiers was always talking about how slavery was bad and that was why he was fighting. The southern soldier hardly talk about slavery they would say the federal govt. had no right to tell the states what to do. I wish I can remember the name of the book, but it was so many years ago.

Posted by djohn66 2006-08-16 10:23|| 2006-08-16 10:23|| Front Page Top

#14 None of this is to the point:

Muslims are willing slaves to Allah. Slavery is incompatible with freedom. Therefore, Islam is incompatible with freedom.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-08-16 10:32|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-08-16 10:32|| Front Page Top

#15 The southern soldier hardly talk about slavery they would say the federal govt. had no right to tell the states what to do.

Any chance they really didn't want to admit what they were fighting for? It took us a long time to finish that war, but I think pretty much everybody now agrees it was a good thing to end slavery.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-16 10:35|| 2006-08-16 10:35|| Front Page Top

#16 The solution to much of the Turk's heartburn is for them to give up on the notion that they are European.

If instead of the EU, they were to embrace a "common market" with Kurdistan and Iraq, the three nations would be to the Middle East what Germany and France are to the EU.

Right now they are a powerful nation and economy that is on the outside looking in--and will remain so. This is terribly frustrating to them, as they know they can be much, much more if they just had economic partnership with other nations.

The Europeans and Americans are too culturally different, but the Turks would at least understand the Iraqis, Kurds, Egyptians, and Jordanians. All are proto-democracies. All are Islamic. And instead of each distrusting the others and trying to tear them down, they could become mutually supportive.

A Middle East Union.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-08-16 10:49|| 2006-08-16 10:49|| Front Page Top

#17 The only 'State's Right' that the South wanted to defend was slavery. They had no problem with the Federal Government going into the northern states to recover fugitive slaves. They had no problem with the federal courts nullifying Congressional acts involving slavery in the territories. They had no problem with their state governments opening the US mail looking for anti-slavery literature.

I have some sympathy for their position. Slavery was a big part of their economy. It was their current answer to race relations. They couldn't avoid the issue like Northern states did. When they got rid of slavery, most blacks were sold south before the deadline. Not practical for a quarter of the population of the state.

But its been almost 150 years. We don't have to distort history to save face anymore.

Posted by Oldcat 2006-08-16 11:09|| 2006-08-16 11:09|| Front Page Top

#18 A ~~Middle East Union~~ Caliphate.

There. Fixed it for you.

Posted by Thoth 2006-08-16 11:20|| 2006-08-16 11:20|| Front Page Top

#19 The military occupation of the sessioned South began in Virginia in 1861. I suppose one could safely say the scourge of slavery officially ended with Lee's surrender at Appomattox in 1865. Federal occupation of the South did not end until 1877, some 12 years later. If my math is correct, thats a total of 16 years of Federal oversight or attempted oversight of states rights of which only 4 involved the practice of slavery. I suspect it was more about session, than slavery. Neither Sherman nor Grant kept statistics or gave a wit about liberated slaves. Had Davis freed them all by proclamation in 1862 as some had urged, the war would have gone on still. Lincoln was an astute politician, he needed a cause to bolster his failing wartime position, he needed "evil doers." He found the cause and the justification lives on, rightly or wrongly, as do most justifications for conflict from the winning side. Just my opinion.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-08-16 12:19|| 2006-08-16 12:19|| Front Page Top

#20 Three point plan for Mid East Peace. (1) Turks guarantee the existance and security of Israel and semi-autonomy for the Kurds. (2) Turks keep the oil flowing. (3) Turks can have the bulk of the Ottoman empire back.

This is plan B. I still think we should give Democracy a chance but if we have to walk away...

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-08-16 12:52|| 2006-08-16 12:52|| Front Page Top

#21 Hang on....saying the civil war was about slavery is revisionist? I thought it was Common Wisdom?

" I suspect it was more about session, than slavery."

Um... what issue made the (slave) states want to leave the union? Taxes? Military policy? Preference for Grits over potatoes? IIRC, the main argument was whether new states were to be free or slave.

"Slavery was the necessary condition for the Civil War, but not the sole cause"

However, it was also the proximate cause.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-08-16 13:05|| 2006-08-16 13:05|| Front Page Top

#22
"Slavery was the necessary condition for the Civil War, but not the sole cause"

Slavery was a not the sole cause forv secession. It was just 99,99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of it. Just look at secessionist press and speeches and see how many times is slavery mentionned versus every other grief put together.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-08-16 13:53|| 2006-08-16 13:53|| Front Page Top

#23 My father gave me Bruce Catton's "This Hallowed Ground" when I was in the seventh grade. Catton is a wonderful writer and historian.

Posted by Sgt. D.T. 2006-08-16 13:59|| 2006-08-16 13:59|| Front Page Top

#24 Regarding Turkey: Things have become much worse since Erdogan became PM. He is guiding Turkey into becoming a violently anti-West nation. We have to get prepared for a major shift in Turkish policy.

Regarding the Civil War. Slavery was an indirect cause of the war. The problem was that Southern society depended on keeping Blacks down. Southern society was divided into an English upper class and a Scotts-Irish lower class. The best way to keep the Scotts-Irish in line was keep the Blacks as boogie-men/pariahs.

As one Southern Senator (Calhoun?) said: "The main benefit of slavery is it keeps the poor White off the bottom."

From the North's perspective, the main disadvantage of slavery was that is froze the South in place economically and politically, and that was hurting the entire Union.

P.S. Lincoln was a moderate on slavery, which is why emancipation took so long.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al">Frozen Al 2006-08-16 14:55|| 2006-08-16 14:55|| Front Page Top

#25 Slavery was a not the sole cause forv secession. It was just 99,99999999999999999999999999999999999999% of it. Just look at secessionist press and speeches and see how many times is slavery mentionned versus every other grief put together.
Posted by: JFM 2006-08-16 13:53

A statistical summary that parallels the donks condemnation of George Bush on any given issue. In 150 years, will that view be accepted as well?

Posted by Besoeker 2006-08-16 15:00|| 2006-08-16 15:00|| Front Page Top

#26 P.S. Lincoln was a moderate on slavery, which is why emancipation took so long.

Lincold had NOT free hands. Had he tied to abolish slavery in 1861 the Union would have lost the war (cf analysis in my first post in this tgread) and slavery would have continued...

Most of the time the people who are very vocal for a cause delay its victory/cause its defeat.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-08-16 15:14|| 2006-08-16 15:14|| Front Page Top

#27 Well I hate their government for not turning over the family that robbed Nokia and Motorola of billions and billons of dollars.

Those two companies are too moral. They should have let contracts.

Posted by 3dc 2006-08-16 17:01|| 2006-08-16 17:01|| Front Page Top

#28 And this is news?

Word, ed.

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-16 20:03|| 2006-08-16 20:03|| Front Page Top

#29 I personally liked the book "founding brothers." It goes into some of the "roots" of slavery on the continent and the compromise of 1788 which put a moratorium on the issue until about 1808. (The name that should not be named in the halls of congress at the time.) This was done in order to get S.C. & GA to enter the union in the first place. Unfortunately for all of the infinite good our founders did the issue of slavery got passed along to be resolved by future Americans. IMHO, slavery was the main condition of the war but not the sole condition. IIRC, the average southern soldier didn't own any slaves so hence you get the attitude of states rights vs. too much fed gov't intervention from them. I have seen much sentiments in this respect from what I've studied. It was not a "civil" war per se as the south was not trying to take over the gov't in D.C.. It was a war of secession. Personally, I am damn glad the south lost as slavery is a heinous institution totally incompatible w/our founding principles. Pragmatically speaking, if the south had won we would not be the super power we are today and I believe we may have fought that war over again at a later date.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-08-16 21:03|| 2006-08-16 21:03|| Front Page Top

#30 We had our founding principles, but it was more important to create the US. They were the sacrificial lamb so we could try and be born.

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-08-16 23:02|| 2006-08-16 23:02|| Front Page Top

23:54 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:52 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:49 PBMcL
23:41 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:37 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:36 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:36 3dc
23:35 RWV
23:20 RWV
23:17 RWV
23:13 Brett
23:08 3dc
23:04 3dc
23:02 anonymous2u
23:00 Danking70
22:58 Steve White
22:50 Old Patriot
22:46 Mike
22:45 Barbara Skolaut
22:44 DMFD
22:44 tu3031
22:40 DMFD
22:34 Frank G
22:33 borgboy