3 ms·

> Six hundred thousand people died in the Civil War, a shocking figure which doesn't really capture the toll that this sort of violence took on the country at l

> Six hundred thousand people died in the Civil War, a shocking figure which doesn't really capture the toll that this sort of violence took on the country at large. And yet when I think about the Civil War I don't feel sad at all. To be honest, I feel positively fucking giddy. Why did you redirect this conversation into a debate about the origins of the American Civil War? And now we're arguing about whether 600,000 people dying is sad or not (for the record, I think we can say that we're basically in agreement that 600,000 people dying is sad, while liberating slaves is good)?

rat87 10y ago
> think any reasonable person can agree that many people did not need to die It's not about whether it was sad or not. It's about whether the war was avoidable and whether it was regrettable. I don't think it was easily avoidable and despite the loss of lives when considering the alternative and what it achieved, slavery->freedom->Tenant Farmers under Jim Crow and the unity of our nation, I can't say it was regrettable.
rat87 10y ago
Note this civil war reply is on a separate sub-thread try going back to the main post and searching for my username, I think you may have confused my Germany/Japan reply with it. --- As for the civil war reply even though you mentioned it as an aside and trying not to go there because I saw some things I strongly disagreed with so I responded. Also the Civil War is a fascinating case of the the Losers writing history. After the war the need to reconcile the (white) north and south led to the end of reconstruction and any effort to enforce civil rights laws as well as a historical view that was pro-southern. Some of it was only taught in the south but much of it gained acceptance in the north. The war was about states rights not slavery, the confederacy was a noble but doomed effort to maintain a souther way of life. Reconstruction was a corrupt effort to elevate black people above white people. But after the civil rights era these views started unraveling. Historians now think that it was about slavery. Or rather the south succeeded due to slavery and the south shot first. Reconstruction included a bold effort to give freed slaves civil rights they wouldn't have a chance to get for 100 years and if it was at times bungling and corrupt its not like "regular" southern politics afterwards was better. And something else that you said got to me. > and I think any reasonable person can agree that many people did not need to die, whether it be to preserve the union or defend the civil rights of African Americans (England freed their slaves with no war) -- another tragedy of American history that should be learned from to never happen again, not upheld as an example of excellence. It was excellence. I wouldn't like to fight a civil war again but despite a few faults Lincoln is probably the best president we ever had, he kept the union strong and determined, and won the war and freed the slaves. Yes if there had been a way to do it without violence it would have been preferable (Lincoln himself introduced a compensated emancipation bill for slaves) but due to Southern determination to hold on to slavery (rebelling when a man who promised to lead to the eventual abolition of slavery got elected) it wasn't possible.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Well I still don't know exactly why you focused on this tangent. I do understand your idea that it is an example of the losers writing history, however you didn't initially put it forth as such, and it seems like this much debate on this topic is out of place. We'll just have to agree to disagree about 600,000 dying because the south was deplorable in its unwillingness to give up slavery. The north also had a pattern of subjugating the south which clearly played a part, but I'm not going to get into this tangential debate nor do I even have a firm stance on the state's rights vs slavery debate, but I think it's crazy to ignore the facts, and tend to write opinions. You wrote earlier 'America engaged in some light imperialism.' Stop opining, the fact is America sailed in with a bunch of war ships, said play along with our economic scheme (Mercantilism, what economists call 'economic wafare' and Japan knew that, they saw what happened to China). When they said no, Perry shelled a building, and they said Ok stop, fine. They didn't have a choice, really. Those are the facts. That's what I've been writing. You have been writing a lot of the opinions and I don't appreciate that you did that while saying what I wrote is 'revisionism.' If it is factually wrong, then point to a source and show that. What you've done are mostly write opinions - you did lay down some correct history, but nothing which supported your conclusions. I'd appreciate it next time if you did less opining and stuck to the facts, especially if you wish to write deriding remarks.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  >Note this civil war reply is on a separate sub-thread try going back to the main post and searching for my username, I think you may have confused my Germany/Japan reply with it. Can't edit my other post: You were right about that, sorry

rat87 10y ago

> think any reasonable person can agree that many people did not need to die It's not about whether it was sad or not. It's about whether the war was avoidable and whether it was regrettable. I don't think it was easily avoidable and despite the loss of lives when considering the alternative and what it achieved, slavery->freedom->Tenant Farmers under Jim Crow and the unity of our nation, I can't say it was regrettable.

rat87 10y ago

Note this civil war reply is on a separate sub-thread try going back to the main post and searching for my username, I think you may have confused my Germany/Japan reply with it. --- As for the civil war reply even though you mentioned it as an aside and trying not to go there because I saw some things I strongly disagreed with so I responded. Also the Civil War is a fascinating case of the the Losers writing history. After the war the need to reconcile the (white) north and south led to the end of reconstruction and any effort to enforce civil rights laws as well as a historical view that was pro-southern. Some of it was only taught in the south but much of it gained acceptance in the north. The war was about states rights not slavery, the confederacy was a noble but doomed effort to maintain a souther way of life. Reconstruction was a corrupt effort to elevate black people above white people. But after the civil rights era these views started unraveling. Historians now think that it was about slavery. Or rather the south succeeded due to slavery and the south shot first. Reconstruction included a bold effort to give freed slaves civil rights they wouldn't have a chance to get for 100 years and if it was at times bungling and corrupt its not like "regular" southern politics afterwards was better. And something else that you said got to me. > and I think any reasonable person can agree that many people did not need to die, whether it be to preserve the union or defend the civil rights of African Americans (England freed their slaves with no war) -- another tragedy of American history that should be learned from to never happen again, not upheld as an example of excellence. It was excellence. I wouldn't like to fight a civil war again but despite a few faults Lincoln is probably the best president we ever had, he kept the union strong and determined, and won the war and freed the slaves. Yes if there had been a way to do it without violence it would have been preferable (Lincoln himself introduced a compensated emancipation bill for slaves) but due to Southern determination to hold on to slavery (rebelling when a man who promised to lead to the eventual abolition of slavery got elected) it wasn't possible.

wallace_f 10y ago
Well I still don't know exactly why you focused on this tangent. I do understand your idea that it is an example of the losers writing history, however you didn't initially put it forth as such, and it seems like this much debate on this topic is out of place. We'll just have to agree to disagree about 600,000 dying because the south was deplorable in its unwillingness to give up slavery. The north also had a pattern of subjugating the south which clearly played a part, but I'm not going to get into this tangential debate nor do I even have a firm stance on the state's rights vs slavery debate, but I think it's crazy to ignore the facts, and tend to write opinions. You wrote earlier 'America engaged in some light imperialism.' Stop opining, the fact is America sailed in with a bunch of war ships, said play along with our economic scheme (Mercantilism, what economists call 'economic wafare' and Japan knew that, they saw what happened to China). When they said no, Perry shelled a building, and they said Ok stop, fine. They didn't have a choice, really. Those are the facts. That's what I've been writing. You have been writing a lot of the opinions and I don't appreciate that you did that while saying what I wrote is 'revisionism.' If it is factually wrong, then point to a source and show that. What you've done are mostly write opinions - you did lay down some correct history, but nothing which supported your conclusions. I'd appreciate it next time if you did less opining and stuck to the facts, especially if you wish to write deriding remarks.
wallace_f 10y ago
>Note this civil war reply is on a separate sub-thread try going back to the main post and searching for my username, I think you may have confused my Germany/Japan reply with it. Can't edit my other post: You were right about that, sorry