Author Topic: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south  (Read 6382 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Village Idiot

  • Banned
  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 54
  • Reputation: +96/-15
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2009, 10:17:57 PM »
I once tried to write a story where the south had seceded and the two nations finally had a war in the 1920's, neither had taken part in WW1 in my story so technology was a bit backward and weird. I had Cuba as part of the Confederacy. I had US troops and coaling stations operating in the Philippines and such.

Offline GOBUCKS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24186
  • Reputation: +1812/-339
  • All in all, not bad, not bad at all
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2009, 10:31:40 PM »
I once tried to write a story where the south had seceded and the two nations finally had a war in the 1920's, neither had taken part in WW1 in my story so technology was a bit backward and weird. I had Cuba as part of the Confederacy. I had US troops and coaling stations operating in the Philippines and such.
I think somehow you're gonna need to work in some paranormal sex crimes.

Offline The Village Idiot

  • Banned
  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 54
  • Reputation: +96/-15
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2009, 10:36:07 PM »
I think somehow you're gonna need to work in some paranormal sex crimes.

Maybe some rogue, time traveling, dimension-crossing paranormal sex crimes?

Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1710/-151
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2009, 07:20:43 AM »
No doubt.  The USA industrial age ushered out the need to have slaves.  Besides, slavery was ending all over the world.  The USA was the only significant nation that went to war with that as part of the issue.  If the railroads had been run into the South like they had done so in the North the whole war might have been avoided, the economic and political reasons behind all of that being an interesting study.  But that's a whole other topic I don't care to start getting into a fuss over with anyone.

.

Railroads ran where commerce supported them, only the transcontinental routes were really decisions of the central government because of the tremendous strategic and commercial value of it.  The South was hardly the nation's breadbasket, the two things it supplied that were in great demand were cotton and tobacco, and their leadership greatly overestimated how important they really were.  The reason the South had fewer railroads is simply because it had a lot less commerce.

There is a lot of misplaced nostalgia for Southern aristocracy, but their oligarchic self-interested hold on power prolonged slavery and held the entire region back economically, which set up both the eventual clash of arms and the outcome of it.  Of course like all modern wars, the populace paid the price for it much more heavily than the power elite that brought it down on them.  A lot of magical thinking went into the whole nullification and secession idea, and a lot of magical thinking still goes into post mortems about the rectitude and viability of the South.
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline diesel driver

  • Creepy Ass Cracker and Smart-Ass White Boy!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9130
  • Reputation: +609/-55
  • Enhancing My Carbon Footprint!
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2009, 07:39:43 AM »
I was waiting for someone to say none exist.  :-)

None exist.

"Hot DUmmie" rates up with "Government Inteligence" as the all time perfect oxymoron....   :rotf:
Murphy's 3rd Law:  "You can't make anything 'idiot DUmmie proof'.  The world will just create a better idiot DUmmie."

Liberals are like Slinkys.  Basically useless, but they do bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs...
 
Global warming supporters believe that a few hundred million tons of CO2 has more control over our climate than a million mile in diameter, unshielded thermo-nuclear fusion reactor at the middle of the solar system.

"A dead enemy is a peaceful enemy.  Blessed be the peacemakers". - U.S. Marine Corp

You can't fix stupid, but you can vote it out of office.

Offline JohnnyReb

  • In Memoriam
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32063
  • Reputation: +1998/-134
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2009, 08:31:54 AM »
Railroads:....ummmm....the first steam powered railroad in the US was in South Carolina. Charleston SC was one of the major seaports on the east coast. Construction of a railroad from Charleston SC to Cincinatti Ohio had started and that would have made it quicker and cheaper to ship midwest products thru the port of Charleston than thru the ports of the North.

While it's not in any histroy books, this story is past around by some southerners as being the major cause of the war. Remember, taxes at that time were placed on exports and imports with the south paying the major portion of all federal taxes....70 to 80%.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."  Stalin

Offline The Village Idiot

  • Banned
  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 54
  • Reputation: +96/-15
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2009, 02:34:38 PM »

While it's not in any histroy books, this story is past around by some southerners as being the major cause of the war. Remember, taxes at that time were placed on exports and imports with the south paying the major portion of all federal taxes....70 to 80%.

Having a small minority of the population paying the vast majority of taxes to the benefit of others is a good reason for a rebellion. (of course they didn't have welfare and junk in those days, if they did this war would have been sooner)

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23553
  • Reputation: +2479/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2009, 02:44:09 PM »
The whiskey distillers thought their share of the tax burden was unjust but President Washington "reassured" them that an excise tax was within federal purview. Now, if tax rates for the same activity were of one rate for certain states and another rate for other states they might have had a case but that was addressable through appeal to the SCOTUS (the same that had rendered Dred Scott no less) but if the tax rate for a given activity were equally applied to all states then that excuse falls flat.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline The Village Idiot

  • Banned
  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 54
  • Reputation: +96/-15
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2009, 03:52:19 PM »
The whiskey distillers thought their share of the tax burden was unjust but President Washington "reassured" them that an excise tax was within federal purview. Now, if tax rates for the same activity were of one rate for certain states and another rate for other states they might have had a case but that was addressable through appeal to the SCOTUS (the same that had rendered Dred Scott no less) but if the tax rate for a given activity were equally applied to all states then that excuse falls flat.

The Whiskey Rebellion was a show. Afterwards they did cut the excise tax from what I understand. They made an example of a guy and then quietly made concessions later.

Offline SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23553
  • Reputation: +2479/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2009, 04:03:18 PM »
The Whiskey Rebellion was a show. Afterwards they did cut the excise tax from what I understand. They made an example of a guy and then quietly made concessions later.
That's politicking which has nothing to do with the fact that Washington himself road out to suppress a rebellion. Unlike the founders, the whiskey rebels did have representation and recourse but just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you can exempt yourself. Otherwise, every jackhole with a half-assed excuse could challenge civil society.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1710/-151
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2009, 05:40:44 PM »
Railroads:....ummmm....the first steam powered railroad in the US was in South Carolina. Charleston SC was one of the major seaports on the east coast. Construction of a railroad from Charleston SC to Cincinatti Ohio had started and that would have made it quicker and cheaper to ship midwest products thru the port of Charleston than thru the ports of the North.

While it's not in any histroy books, this story is past around by some southerners as being the major cause of the war. Remember, taxes at that time were placed on exports and imports with the south paying the major portion of all federal taxes....70 to 80%.

It's an interesting idea, I guess I'd want to see some real data on cargo analysis before buying too large a piece of it though.  I'm not sure how important Midwestern cargo was to the MidAtlantic ports prior to 1860 though, which would be my major reservation about it.

I've always been kind of a railroad buff, and the war itself had a truly huge technological impact on it.  There was the unifying work of the whole USMRR under General Haupt on organization, rolling stock rationalization, and supporting civil engineering; also shortly afterward and based on a lot of wartime issues the adoption of a single Standard Gauge (1869 I believe).  Also the completion of the first of the four major transcontinental routes shortly after the war.  Together these created an explosion of rail capacity, traffic and commerce in rail-transported goods and commodities, with more developments like Bessemer steel rail slightly later.  1860-era rolling stock was not up to the kind of traffic that 1875-1980 and later era cars were by any means, I'm not sure that except for a handful of visionaries the impact of such a route would have been really foreseeable as a vital goods route (As opposed to its value for passengers, which would have been clear) in 1860.  The whole railway picture changed as drastically between 1860 and 1875 and air transport did between 1940 and 1960.   
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline GOBUCKS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24186
  • Reputation: +1812/-339
  • All in all, not bad, not bad at all
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2009, 06:03:37 PM »
These stupid Civil War threads are as obnoxious as an invasion of ronbots.

Offline USA4ME

  • Evil Capitalist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14835
  • Reputation: +2476/-76
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2009, 07:42:18 AM »
Railroads ran where commerce supported them, only the transcontinental routes were really decisions of the central government because of the tremendous strategic and commercial value of it.  The South was hardly the nation's breadbasket, the two things it supplied that were in great demand were cotton and tobacco, and their leadership greatly overestimated how important they really were.  The reason the South had fewer railroads is simply because it had a lot less commerce.

Once again, I'm not going to get deep into it because there's books and other various information explaining these things, but allowing the South to have slaves was of great benefit to quite a few Northern families and other various industries.  The railways remained disconnected in the South for a reason, much of it having to do with these monied interests wanting to keep control.  There was not a small amount of desire by interests in the North to simply reclaim the Confederacy back into the USA and continue to permit slavery.  They just wanted things back the way they were before things got out of hand and these States seceded because before that happened they were make el mucho cash.  And it was a lot more than tobacco and cotton coming out of the South.

.
Because third world peasant labor is a good thing.

Offline DumbAss Tanker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28493
  • Reputation: +1710/-151
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2009, 08:47:11 AM »
These stupid Civil War threads are as obnoxious as an invasion of ronbots.

I agree, this is turning into a boring waste of time.  The issue was settled in 1865, arguing on the internetz about it is basically pointless.  I'm out.
Go and tell the Spartans, O traveler passing by
That here, obedient to their law, we lie.

Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting at least twice.

Offline USA4ME

  • Evil Capitalist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14835
  • Reputation: +2476/-76
Re: gritty primitive proposes new civil war; defends the south
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2009, 09:45:47 AM »
I agree, this is turning into a boring waste of time.  The issue was settled in 1865, arguing on the internetz about it is basically pointless.  I'm out.

I do enjoy the historical perspective of it all, but in the same manner these squabbles don't amount to much.  I'm with you.

.
Because third world peasant labor is a good thing.