Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > Scrolls of Lore > Halls of Lordaeron

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #54851  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:03 PM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,011

Orb of Lightning

I'm not particularly sympathetic to the 'filthy traitors' argument. America was founded on treason.

The South was reprehensible because of its acceptance and endorsement of the slave trade. That's it. And that was more than enough.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #54852  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:09 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,015

Default

Mutters? PJ? A relevant quote comes to mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
It's not a matter of agreement, it's a fact. You can't disagree about facts, that's called being wrong.
So you don't like to talk about the Nullification Crisis. How about the Hartford Convention?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention

Those are both myths that have been disproven countless times. Yeah?
Reply With Quote
  #54853  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:13 PM
Marthen Marthen is offline

Eternal
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Gone...
Posts: 4,735

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anansi View Post
I'm not particularly sympathetic to the 'filthy traitors' argument. America was founded on treason.

The South was reprehensible because of its acceptance and endorsement of the slave trade. That's it. And that was more than enough.
Would you be supportive of the Confederacy if the said moral crime hadn't been present?
__________________
Project on hiatus...
Reply With Quote
  #54854  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:14 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anansi View Post
I'm not particularly sympathetic to the 'filthy traitors' argument. America was founded on treason.

The South was reprehensible because of its acceptance and endorsement of the slave trade. That's it. And that was more than enough.
It was treason against being a British colony though. We didn't have a voice in the British government. The south did and simply lost an election. Lincoln was a strong abolitionist but they still had legal means to contest him and even if they failed I think they should have accepted the results for the sake of the constitution. Breaking off from the union is pretty reprehensible. That was the closest anything has came to destroying our country. Rebellion isn't good for the sake of rebellion. It is a last resort and when the British didn't offer any peaceful means to change course it became the only option. Revolutions are often very messy.

The US didn't go on a crusade to end slavery or else we would have invaded South America(and maybe the Arab world eventually). There are in fact more slaves today than there has ever been and while combating human trafficking is a goal of US foreign policy we don't invade nations over it.
Reply With Quote
  #54855  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:16 PM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,116

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
Mutters? PJ? A relevant quote comes to mind.



So you don't like to talk about the Nullification Crisis. How about the Hartford Convention?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention

Those are both myths that have been disproven countless times. Yeah?
What point are you trying to make with the convention? That sectional or state tensions exist before the Civil War? No one's denying that, but the civil war itself was unequivocally about slavery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anansi View Post
I'm not particularly sympathetic to the 'filthy traitors' argument. America was founded on treason.

The South was reprehensible because of its acceptance and endorsement of the slave trade. That's it. And that was more than enough.
The American Revolution is a conversation all its own, but what bothers me about the confederates is that they rejected Democracy, they lost an election and so they threw a fit and tried to tear the country in half so they could keep their vile slave bullshit based on greed and hate.

Fuck the confederates.
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #54856  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:22 PM
Marthen Marthen is offline

Eternal
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Gone...
Posts: 4,735

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
It was treason against being a British colony though. We didn't have a voice in the British government. The south did and simply lost an election. Lincoln was a strong abolitionist but they still had legal means to contest him and even if they failed I think they should have accepted the results for the sake of the constitution. Breaking off from the union is pretty reprehensible. That was the closest anything has came to destroying our country. Rebellion isn't good for the sake of rebellion. It is a last resort and when the British didn't offer any peaceful means to change course it became the only option. Revolutions are often very messy.

The US didn't go on a crusade to end slavery or else we would have invaded South America(and maybe the Arab world eventually). There are in fact more slaves today than there has ever been and while combating human trafficking is a goal of US foreign policy we don't invade nations over it.
Would you say that a country breaking away from the European Union to pursue its own ends instead of continuing in the internal political discourse is reprehensible?
__________________
Project on hiatus...
Reply With Quote
  #54857  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:24 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
Would you say that a country breaking away from the European Union to pursue its own ends instead of continuing in the internal political discourse is reprehensible?
Nope.
Reply With Quote
  #54858  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:27 PM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,116

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
Would you say that a country breaking away from the European Union to pursue its own ends instead of continuing in the internal political discourse is reprehensible?
False equivalence.

Better comparison is if Brittany wanted to separate from France, or if Alberta wanted to separate from Canada.
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #54859  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:33 PM
Marthen Marthen is offline

Eternal
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Gone...
Posts: 4,735

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
Nope.
And where do you draw the difference? Why is acceptable for one entity to leave an union when it finds any future coexistence unrealistic, yet unacceptable for another one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
False equivalence.

Better comparison is if Brittany wanted to separate from France, or if Alberta wanted to separate from Canada.
You are free to elaborate why do you feel that way.
__________________
Project on hiatus...
Reply With Quote
  #54860  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:42 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,015

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
What point are you trying to make with the convention? That sectional or state tensions exist before the Civil War? No one's denying that, but the civil war itself was unequivocally about slavery.
Unequivocally? Sure. Solely? Nope. Virtually every nation in the world had slavery but ended it without a civil war between state governments.

States' rights is the reason why secession followed the lines of state governments (besides West Virginia), and why the Nullification Crisis threatened secession before.

Sectionalism is why the seceding states (and slavery itself) concentrated in the south, and why the Hartford Convention threatened to bring New England out before then.

Anti-federalism was a root that was never fully stamped out even after the Constitution, and it was why the legal question of secession remained viable until the Civil War. The southern state governments looked back on U.S. history to validate their actions - they found legal arguments and examples.

All of this was wrapped around slavery, yes yes yes. But it all existed too. And it's why our nation had to end slavery the way it did, unlike any other nation of the world. That's all part of our Civil War.
Reply With Quote
  #54861  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:42 PM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,116

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
And where do you draw the difference? Why is acceptable for one entity to leave an union when it finds any future coexistence unrealistic, yet unacceptable for another one?



You are free to elaborate why do you feel that way.
A group of nations meeting together to determine policy for international relations is not the same as constituent parts of a nation conferring with one another to determine how they should run policy internally, and then one of them quitting because they don't like how a decision turned out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
Virtually every nation in the world had slavery but ended it without a civil war between state governments.

States' rights is the reason why secession followed the lines of state governments (besides West Virginia), and why the Nullification Crisis threatened secession before.

Sectionalism is why the seceding states (and slavery itself) concentrated in the south, and why the Hartford Convention threatened to bring New England out before then.

Anti-federalism was a root that was never fully stamped out even after the Constitution, and it was why the legal question of secession remained viable until the Civil War. The southern state governments looked back on U.S. history to validate their actions - they found legal arguments and examples.

All of this was wrapped around slavery, yes yes yes. But it all existed too. And it's why our nation had to end slavery the way it did, unlike any other nation of the world. That's all part of our Civil War.
So what?

It influenced things but it's not why they fought. None of the southern states separated because of taxes or states rights, except as they related -to slavery-.

Sectionalism gave shape to the war but had little to no impact on the CAUSE. You can see it in the reasons states gave for seceding, it's all slavery.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/artic...herners-fought
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/

Last edited by Mutterscrawl; 06-10-2017 at 01:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54862  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:49 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,121

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
Would you be supportive of the Confederacy if the said moral crime hadn't been present?
Honestly, if it weren't for the CSA mostly existing because of slavery, I don't know. Their complaints that weren't directly related to slavery were understandable. Probably not worth seceding over, though.
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #54863  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:54 PM
Marthen Marthen is offline

Eternal
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Gone...
Posts: 4,735

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
A group of nations meeting together to determine policy for international relations is not the same as constituent parts of a nation conferring with one another to determine how they should run policy internally, and then one of them quitting because they don't like how a decision turned out.
But the European Union is no longer that, nor has its aim ever been to be only that. Or does the line you draw here lie with nationalism? Would you say that Texas was already a constituent part of a nation this early on, despite its rather different historical and ethnical backround? Furthermore, what if a certain segment of a nation decides it no longer wishes to be a part of the nation? Isn't that how the US began in its original form?
__________________
Project on hiatus...
Reply With Quote
  #54864  
Old 06-10-2017, 01:59 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marthen View Post
And where do you draw the difference? Why is acceptable for one entity to leave an union when it finds any future coexistence unrealistic, yet unacceptable for another one?
I am willing to fight for what the US Constitution stands for. Not the EU.
Reply With Quote
  #54865  
Old 06-10-2017, 02:03 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,015

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
A group of nations meeting together to determine policy for international relations is not the same as constituent parts of a nation conferring with one another to determine how they should run policy internally, and then one of them quitting because they don't like how a decision turned out.




So what?

It influenced things but it's not why they fought. None of the southern states separated because of taxes or states rights, except as they related -to slavery-.

Sectionalism gave shape to the war but had little to no impact on the CAUSE. You can see it in the reasons states gave for seceding, it's all slavery.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/artic...herners-fought
You can keep that mindframe if you're talking about "Why did the American Civil War happen?"

But if you try instead to answer, "Why did slavery in the U.S. end with a civil war between state governments concentrated in distinct geographic regions, whereas no other nation in the world had slavery end in such a way?"

Then you'll need a better answer than "because slavery".
Reply With Quote
  #54866  
Old 06-10-2017, 02:08 PM
Kakwakas Kakwakas is offline

Elune
Kakwakas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 8,121

Darkmoon Card: Elementals

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
You can keep that mindframe if you're talking about "Why did the American Civil War happen?"

But if you try instead to answer, "Why did slavery in the U.S. end with a civil war between state governments concentrated in distinct geographic regions, whereas no other nation in the world had slavery end in such a way?"

Then you'll need a better answer than "because slavery".
Because the South refused to accept a gradual abolishment of slavery over time like Lincoln wanted.
__________________
Member #14
Reply With Quote
  #54867  
Old 06-10-2017, 02:20 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,015

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakwakas View Post
Because the South refused to accept a gradual abolishment of slavery over time like Lincoln wanted.
Good start.

Who is "the South"? Did the resistance gravitate on large slaveholders/businesses, or was it often more aligned to state governments?

Why was secession the option taken? Was there any legal or historical precedent in southern minds, for secession?

This didn't happen in, say, Brazil. There must be a reason (s).
Reply With Quote
  #54868  
Old 06-10-2017, 03:20 PM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,116

Default

Southern slaveowners sold poor whites on the notion that as long as they were above slaves that it didn't matter that slavery made them uncompetitive in the labor market and enabled wealthy folks to abuse them

Southern gentry saw themselves as above and apart from the rest of the nation
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #54869  
Old 06-10-2017, 03:39 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,015

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
Southern slaveowners sold poor whites on the notion that as long as they were above slaves that it didn't matter that slavery made them uncompetitive in the labor market and enabled wealthy folks to abuse them

Southern gentry saw themselves as above and apart from the rest of the nation
Surely that would've happened everywhere in the world that had a slave class.
Reply With Quote
  #54870  
Old 06-10-2017, 04:14 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
Surely that would've happened everywhere in the world that had a slave class.
People don't always have to be rational. The south seceded, attacked a US base, and then beaten by the economically superior and more determined north.
Reply With Quote
  #54871  
Old 06-10-2017, 04:16 PM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,116

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
Surely that would've happened everywhere in the world that had a slave class.
Just because Brazil didn't have a civil war doesn't mean there wasn't violence and turmoil preceding abolitionism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver...f_Abolitionism

You're making a very strange distinction in my mind. Just because it wasn't an out-and-out civil war doesn't mean other nations didn't have their own shit to deal with.

What's your POINT grackle? Because I don't understand what you're getting at, you don't seem to be disagreeing that the Confederacy was a disgusting pile of shit so what gives?
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #54872  
Old 06-10-2017, 04:49 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,015

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
Just because Brazil didn't have a civil war doesn't mean there wasn't violence and turmoil preceding abolitionism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver...f_Abolitionism

You're making a very strange distinction in my mind. Just because it wasn't an out-and-out civil war doesn't mean other nations didn't have their own shit to deal with.

What's your POINT grackle? Because I don't understand what you're getting at, you don't seem to be disagreeing that the Confederacy was a disgusting pile of shit so what gives?
My point is that slavery, sectionalism, states' rightism, legal precedent for national separation... all of these were part of the dance that was the American Civil War.

Remove all those factors except slavery, and the Civil War wouldn't happen. Something like Brazil manumission happens instead.
Reply With Quote
  #54873  
Old 06-10-2017, 04:54 PM
Mutterscrawl Mutterscrawl is offline

World Builder
Mutterscrawl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 32,116

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
My point is that slavery, sectionalism, states' rightism, legal precedent for national separation... all of these were part of the dance that was the American Civil War.

Remove all those factors except slavery, and the Civil War wouldn't happen. Something like Brazil manumission happens instead.
That feels like nitpicking, it doesn't change that the confederacy was terrible or caused by slavery, it feels like saying "Well it wasn't JUST slavery, otherwise it'd have been a different KIND of disgusting political turmoil to try and keep slavery".

In summation: Confederate monuments ought to be knocked down and ground up.
__________________
Brought to you by Sanguine Enterprises.

My Worldbuilding:
http://bloodinkworlds.tumblr.com/
Reply With Quote
  #54874  
Old 06-10-2017, 04:58 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterscrawl View Post
In summation: Confederate monuments ought to be knocked down and ground up.
Why? They serve a historical purpose and a reminder of a bad decision.

We don't need to dishonor Confederate soldiers either. They may have fought for a bad cause but I never felt that kind of hatred for the soldiers of our enemies. Terrorist groups sure but a uniformed personnel fighting against me is more of an unfortunate consequence of war.
Reply With Quote
  #54875  
Old 06-10-2017, 05:19 PM
Arashi Arashi is offline

Eternal
Arashi's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,795

Default

Seriously people these days have no respect for the dead.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
politics, serious business, sylvanas for president

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.