blackmarket wrote:I don't think anyone really cares. The institutions these men were fighting to uphold no doubt paled in comparison to what was going on in those camps. Perhaps getting a taste of one's own medicine?War Crimes? Nah...Look at what they were fighting for. We can do whatever we want to them. Totally fine.

No shit. Bitch at place for being welfare state while ignoring that you waged a war against them less than two hundred years ago.

blackmarket wrote:I wouldn't personally say it is totally fine. Others might. War crimes are terrible. But we have to prioritize. For myself this ranks pretty low on my List of Things to Care About.War crimes? Eh, not that high on my list of things to care about...You're going to be a hero to a lot of kids.

blackmarket wrote:The U.S. has been at war more or less continuously for most of its existence. How many times have we officially declared it?blackmarket wrote:Yes, The Great War of Northern Aggression, and all that. I've heard it before. Still bullshit.I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who apparently has been brainwashed by Southern mythology more less since birth.Points out that US has "declared" war a bunch of times without actually doing so. Right after doing so, explains that there's no damn way this could have happened during The Civil War.

Without picking a side...The Great Chicago Fire happened six years after The Civil War. In addition to most everyone being able to tell you about it, there are a shitload of fire hydrants all over the city.That fire was not set intentionally.This was done on purpose at roughly the same time, and almost no one can tell you about it. Hell, people say "Just get over it." Better yet, they call the folks who were imprisoned there "Loser babies".http://www.wbez.org/series/curious-city/chicagos-forgotten-civil-war-prison-camp-111688

Steve V. wrote:Maybe they have pride in the courage it took their ancestors to stand up to a force they saw as oppressive by what they felt was inconsiderate governing. Whether it was right or wrong depends from person-to-person.Slavery was/is a pretty oppressive force. I agree in that there is a certain pride in people had the courage to fight against it.

Yeah. Dopa doesn't have clue. The disagreement on whether a state should be allowed to slave humans is written all over sucession declarations. It is explicitly talked about and is given as a prominent reason for leaving the Union.Here is South Carolina:Avalon.law.yale.edu/19th\_century/csa\_scarsec.aspMississippi: avalon.law.yale.edu/19th\_century/csa\_missec.aspWe have to expect Southern revisionism. Laugh it off.

ldopa\_chicago wrote:The Civil War was not started over the right to own slaves. That part came later.I don't know. The Cornerstone Address was given a few weeks prior to the start of the war and VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, stated pretty clearly why the South was succeeding."Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."EDIT: Felt that I should mention that I agree with a lot of what you said about modern day racism and the South-bashing, but just not on the "that part came later" thing.

Interesting stuff. I've always been interested in the "States' Rights" verses/blended with "We want to keep owning other people"I'm sad to say every time I come to the South, every horrible cliche gets dangled in front of me. Also the polar opposite... To me the South seems a sea of shit with little islands of rational people that band together in places like Austin (I know Texas is not technically "The South") East Village Atlanta, Decatur etc... But I've seen "it all" again this trip, Confederate Flags, the neighbour trying to lend me the Lost Behind dvd pack and a book called The Islamic Antichrist, the white flight horror of Seaside... big list.Luckily most Americans are normal, regular folks, just seems a few very very loud loonies fuck it up for everyone else...

ldopa\_chicago wrote:Southern revisionism? You misunderstand. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that slavery had nothing to do with the South's decision to succeed. I'm saying that it had little to nothing to do with the North's intentions with regard to the Civil War. My interest is in undermining the Northern sense of moral superiority, not in excusing the perpetuation of slavery or "southern revisionism".The North's/Lincoln's stated objective was to keep the Union together, sure. Focusing on this irrelevant point isn't that useful since ultimately the reason the war happened is still clear. It's weird how contemporaries debate what the underlining causes were, and second guess the intensions of that time. It's completely unambiguous to anyone in charge or talking about it during that era. If people in the rest of the country were totally cool with slavery, there wouldn't have been succession, or a war.