$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 56.77

4,127 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
26% of Goal | 29 Days Left

Support:

Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
I started a thread in "Wargames", "General" to ask the question, "Could the South have won the ACW?"

Within 7 replies it was highjacked into a discussion of "Was it legal for the South the Sucessede?"

I was told that this will happen to every thread about the ACW here at BGG, and that I might do better by going to some other Board/site.

I wondered why this is so? Why do people have to do this?

The answer I have come up with is --

I have noticed that for the most part the people doing it are Libertarians. They believe in a theory of natural rights that the rest of us don't agree with.

Namely, that all humans have the "natural right" to only be held to voluntary agreements and to associate with [or not with] whomever they please. This natural right is a higher right than every other thing [but God].

What this means is 1] that taxes are illegal, because they are not voluntary. So, is a draft.

2] Sucession is always OK. So, if your town wants to it can leave the US and the state it is in, and become a new nation and join the UN.

3] The South had a right to leave the Union.

4] The slaves of the South had a right to rebel and set themselves free, if they could. I was told this here in this thread above.

5] The Fed. Gov. [if it survives every little town leaving] should just provide for national defense; police, criminal courts, & prisons; and civil courts to enforce voluntary contracts. All other services that your community needs will have to be provided by private companies working for a profit.
. . Roads and sidewalks are maintained by the tolls charged. Schools are paid for by the parents of the students. Etc. No welfare for the poor children and orphans. No medical care except what you can pay for. No FDA to be sure the drugs you take will not kill you, if they do you can always sue them from the grave.

Libertarians want this theory to be accepted by America so much that they invade every thread they can to spread to "Good word".

........................................................................
I have thought about their basic claim. That all people have these natural rights. I majored in Anthropology for 2 years back in the 70s. I learned about the evolution of human cultures.

The theory was that humans started out as hunter-gatherers. We lived like that for a very long time. Then we needed to increase to food supply so we began to plant plants. We became gardeners. Soon we added some domestic animals to the mix.
. . This change required people to stay where they had planted their crops to defend and harvest them and then store the 'many months worth' of food until the next harvest. This required us to defend our stored food.
. . This meant that the old ways had to change. The old way was a lot like what the Libertarians see as "natural". That is, if you didn't like the way the "headman" ran the band you could always leave and join another band that contained a different relative of yours or your wife's.
. . But, with gardening and food storage, you could NOT so easily leave. And the valley was full of other people who had no room for you anyway. So, you had to stay there and find a way to live with the "headman's" rules. This is why Libertarians are wrong. Humanity has tried this for a very long time. Every way to make it work has been tried many times. The old ways just will not work if you are not a hunter-gatherer.

It only got worse when Chiefdoms evolved. And then worse again when "States" evolved. By this time most people were serfs, but not slaves* [as we in America understand the word]. It was only much later that Western Civilization began to evolve toward democracy. Which led to our current form of Gov.

So, I contend that while it may seem reasonable to accept the Libertarians natural rights position, in practice it just can't be made to work in a modern civilized society.


. * . The modern form of slavery can't exist without iron chain [or guns]. Copper is too soft and bronze is too rare and expensive. There needs to be unbreakable chains to control masses of workers with nothing to lose and still let them work. The workers can't work with their hands tied behind their backs. All pre-iron age uses of the word "slave" are mistranslations and should be rendered as serfs or some other softer word. To do otherwise is to confuse the modern readers. The Pyramids were not built by slaves. No Egyptologist will tell you that they were.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The libertarians will just accuse you of being the three worst things in their vocab. a liberal, a statist and a Hiliary supporter , if they are feeling clever tey will accuse you of all three?

Why do you hate liberty so?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
growlley wrote:
The libertarians will just accuse you of being the three worst things in their vocab. a liberal, a statist and a Hiliary supporter , if they are feeling clever tey will accuse you of all three?

Why do you hate liberty so?
You left out SJW (which in a way the ACW was about, social justice).

I am not going to say what libertarian think, only what I see them fighting for all the time.

It is the rich and powerful shafting the little guy. It seems they always seem to be fighting for the right to act like a total tosser and give a shit about no one. They seem to be little different form my anarchist mates I used to argue the toss with all the time, people who want a world where they can do what the fuck they like.

Thus I think the ACW represents the beginning of the end for individual rights, the creation of a state. They see it as the last great revolution for freedom.

Problem is there are far more people for whom it was a real war for freedom, genuine freedom and not just the right to use the word Nigger.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
growlley wrote:
The libertarians will just accuse you of being the three worst things in their vocab. a liberal, a statist and a Hiliary supporter , if they are feeling clever tey will accuse you of all three?

Why do you hate liberty so?

where in the world did you get the idea that I wrote all that aiming it at Libertarians? I was aiming at everyone else.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
An interesting take on it, similar to my own take, but with a few key differences.

1)I think you are romanticizing the freedom of movement hunter gatherers likely had. Leaving your tribe was a big risk. Blood and marriage were the only garuntees of safety. It is far more likely splintering occured when a tribe grew large enough to divide into two self sustaining entities rather than any individual saying 'F this I am out.'

2)The changing relationship was not only between individual and headman, but also individuals themselves. Lacking blood ties to everyone in a growing population center another tie was needed. Shared Religion and code of laws filled in these gaps. Society won't work if you don't have some general indication of the behavior patterns of all the strangers you meet.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Shadrach wrote:
An interesting take on it, similar to my own take, but with a few key differences.

1)I think you are romanticizing the freedom of movement hunter gatherers likely had. Leaving your tribe was a big risk. Blood and marriage were the only garuntees of safety. It is far more likely splintering occured when a tribe grew large enough to divide into two self sustaining entities rather than any individual saying 'F this I am out.'

2)The changing relationship was not only between individual and headman, but also individuals themselves. Lacking blood ties to everyone in a growing population center another tie was needed. Shared Religion and code of laws filled in these gaps. Society won't work if you don't have some general indication of the behavior patterns of all the strangers you meet.

During the hunter-gatherer phase the tribe is the group of people who share a common language and probably culture. It is made up of several to many bands. Individuals can change bands fairly easily.

To leave the tribe is a death sentence, except a woman getting married out of the tribe. This brings new "blood" into the tribe which is good. However, she will find it hard to adjust to new language and customs.

At the gardener level almost all of the people you will meet in your lifetime you will know fairly well.

By the time we get to states, yes, meeting strangers is much more common.

Now [in the USA] we meet a stranger pretty much every single day. Some more and some less, but 365 a year seems quite likely.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
I wondered why this is so? Why do people have to do this?


If I recall, you started the thread with some nonsense about Lincoln fighting to free the slaves which is what we learn in 2nd grade.We later learn that Lincoln was not primarily motivated to free the slaves but rather force the South into federal compliance.

When you come out swinging like that, you will need to get shot down.

Your view of what Libertarians want is also no better then that of a 2nd grader. With that in mind, I will help explain it to you as I would a child.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
jeremycobert wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
I wondered why this is so? Why do people have to do this?


If I recall, you started the thread with some nonsense about Lincoln fighting to free the slaves which is what we learn in 2nd grade.We later learn that Lincoln was not primarily motivated to free the slaves but rather force the South into federal compliance.

When you come out swinging like that, you will need to get shot down.

Your view of what Libertarians want is also no better then that of a 2nd grader. With that in mind, I will help explain it to you as I would a child.

Well you recall all wrong. All wrong.

I asked if the South could have won the ACW and outlined the idea of attacking across Kentucky and Indiana to reach the Great Lakes and cut the North in half.

I never said that Lincoln decided to fight to free the slaves.

I catagoracly deny that.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd be more interested in discussing that original question than some of the others that come up over and over again. I contend that once the North conceived of itself as the party wronged due to the firing on Ft. Sumter, that nothing that South could have done militarily would have won the war.

EDIT:
This assumes that the South did not have the means to conquer the North in the manner that the North conquered the South.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
I'd be more interested in discussing that original question than some of the others that come up over and over again. I contend that once the North conceived of itself as the party wronged due to the firing on Ft. Sumter, that nothing that South could have done militarily would have won the war.

EDIT:
This assumes that the South did not have the means to conquer the North in the manner that the North conquered the South.
Actually three was, one good victory may have led to European intervention on behalf of the south.

Also there was a peace party in the north, silenced by Vicksburg, a Southern victory there might have led to a negotiated peace. (and the fall of Lincoln)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
whac3 wrote:
I'd be more interested in discussing that original question than some of the others that come up over and over again. I contend that once the North conceived of itself as the party wronged due to the firing on Ft. Sumter, that nothing that South could have done militarily would have won the war.

EDIT:
This assumes that the South did not have the means to conquer the North in the manner that the North conquered the South.
Actually three was, one good victory may have led to European intervention on behalf of the south.

The South hoped so but it was a pipe dream. Look at the comments of Queen Victoria at the time.
Quote:
Also there was a peace party in the north, silenced by Vicksburg, a Southern victory there might have led to a negotiated peace. (and the fall of Lincoln)

Again yes there was but Ft. Sumter silenced all but a few and the rest were silenced relatively quickly. They were as influential and the people who opposed the first gulf war.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
whac3 wrote:
I'd be more interested in discussing that original question than some of the others that come up over and over again. I contend that once the North conceived of itself as the party wronged due to the firing on Ft. Sumter, that nothing that South could have done militarily would have won the war.

EDIT:
This assumes that the South did not have the means to conquer the North in the manner that the North conquered the South.
Actually three was, one good victory may have led to European intervention on behalf of the south.

The South hoped so but it was a pipe dream. Look at the comments of Queen Victoria at the time.
Quote:
Also there was a peace party in the north, silenced by Vicksburg, a Southern victory there might have led to a negotiated peace. (and the fall of Lincoln)

Again yes there was but Ft. Sumter silenced all but a few and the rest were silenced relatively quickly. They were as influential and the people who opposed the first gulf war.
Largely due to the Souths failure I would argue, A victory at Gettysburg might well have led to European (and the UK is not the only European nation) intervention. I also think that if it looked like the south might win Britain would have adopted armed neutrality and forced the Souths ports open.

Your example of the gulf war is a good one, and looked what hap[pened with GW 2 once it looked like a long drawn out costly war, support evaporated.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you underestimate how much Europeans had come to loathe slavery. I think they were extremely hypocritical about it but that only made their attitudes stronger.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Two "food for thought" items:

1. The Libertarian National Convention was whiter than the RNC. I watched a documentary on it and did not see ONE SINGLE person of color at the entire convention.

2. When Gary Johnson said at the Libertarian debate that he would have signed the Civil Rights Act into law, he was BOOED by his own party.



7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
I think you underestimate how much Europeans had come to loathe slavery. I think they were extremely hypocritical about it but that only made their attitudes stronger.


In support of this, anyone supporting the South would have given their hungry neighbors all the Casus Belli needed to stir up things on the home front. That's not worth poking your nose in halfway around the world(at the time)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
I think you underestimate how much Europeans had come to loathe slavery. I think they were extremely hypocritical about it but that only made their attitudes stronger.
I think you underestimate the degree to which mercantile interests run the British Empire.

Much in the same way Robert E Lee managed to salve his conscience over slavery I think Britain and France wouild have too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
mbmbmbmbmb
Hijacking the tread is natural. There really isn't much to discuss, there is no way the south could have won. Most of the discussions on the topic will drift to this type of thread because all but a few (agenda driven) people would agree that the south had much of a chance at all. It's akin to saying that Japan could have defeated the US in WWII... impossible. The only variable would be how long could it have taken to defeat the south.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
rcbevco wrote:
Hijacking the tread is natural. There really isn't much to discuss, there is no way the south could have won. Most of the discussions on the topic will drift to this type of thread because all but a few (agenda driven) people would agree that the south had much of a chance at all. It's akin to saying that Japan could have defeated the US in WWII... impossible. The only variable would be how long could it have taken to defeat the south.


Depends what you mean by defeat. Could the South have invaded and held the North? No, of course not.

But I think if the South had won a few more major battles or stopped some of the Northern offenses, both of which are at least conceivably possible, they could have fought the North to a stalemate and signed a truce.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
whac3 wrote:
I think you underestimate how much Europeans had come to loathe slavery. I think they were extremely hypocritical about it but that only made their attitudes stronger.
I think you underestimate the degree to which mercantile interests run the British Empire.

Much in the same way Robert E Lee managed to salve his conscience over slavery I think Britain and France would have too.

Except that there were mercantile elements who were keen on the Empire producing its own cotton. The South had nothing else we wanted except a diminishing amount of bullion.
Robert E Lee did not have a conscience about slavery: He had learnt from childhood that it was the natural order. The British Empire had abolished slavery using state money to pay for the slaves. The abolitionist movement was the norm in Britain by the 1860s.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
rcbevco wrote:
Hijacking the tread is natural. There really isn't much to discuss, there is no way the south could have won. Most of the discussions on the topic will drift to this type of thread because all but a few (agenda driven) people would agree that the south had much of a chance at all. It's akin to saying that Japan could have defeated the US in WWII... impossible. The only variable would be how long could it have taken to defeat the south.


Depends what you mean by defeat. Could the South have invaded and held the North? No, of course not.

But I think if the South had won a few more major battles or stopped some of the Northern offenses, both of which are at least conceivably possible, they could have fought the North to a stalemate and signed a truce.

See that's the mistake most people make about wars. They think a truce will be offered. It wouldn't have been. People in wars like that don't offer them. Did the First world war end lie that? The Second? Mass wars end in victory.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
whac3 wrote:
I think you underestimate how much Europeans had come to loathe slavery. I think they were extremely hypocritical about it but that only made their attitudes stronger.
I think you underestimate the degree to which mercantile interests run the British Empire.

Much in the same way Robert E Lee managed to salve his conscience over slavery I think Britain and France would have too.

Except that there were mercantile elements who were keen on the Empire producing its own cotton. The South had nothing else we wanted except a diminishing amount of bullion.
Robert E Lee did not have a conscience about slavery: He had learnt from childhood that it was the natural order. The British Empire had abolished slavery using state money to pay for the slaves. The abolitionist movement was the norm in Britain by the 1860s.
Which is why we did give some aid and sympathy to the South.

There was a very schizophrenic attitude towards the South, on the one hand we had sympathy for their plight and abhorred the reason for it. Hence why I say we wouild not have declared war, we would just have protected British shipping entering Southern ports.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidDearlove wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
rcbevco wrote:
Hijacking the tread is natural. There really isn't much to discuss, there is no way the south could have won. Most of the discussions on the topic will drift to this type of thread because all but a few (agenda driven) people would agree that the south had much of a chance at all. It's akin to saying that Japan could have defeated the US in WWII... impossible. The only variable would be how long could it have taken to defeat the south.


Depends what you mean by defeat. Could the South have invaded and held the North? No, of course not.

But I think if the South had won a few more major battles or stopped some of the Northern offenses, both of which are at least conceivably possible, they could have fought the North to a stalemate and signed a truce.

See that's the mistake most people make about wars. They think a truce will be offered. It wouldn't have been. People in wars like that don't offer them. Did the First world war end lie that? The Second? Mass wars end in victory.


Plenty of wars ended in stalemates or truces. Know your history.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
whac3 wrote:
I think you underestimate how much Europeans had come to loathe slavery. I think they were extremely hypocritical about it but that only made their attitudes stronger.
I think you underestimate the degree to which mercantile interests run the British Empire.

Much in the same way Robert E Lee managed to salve his conscience over slavery I think Britain and France would have too.

Except that there were mercantile elements who were keen on the Empire producing its own cotton. The South had nothing else we wanted except a diminishing amount of bullion.
Robert E Lee did not have a conscience about slavery: He had learnt from childhood that it was the natural order. The British Empire had abolished slavery using state money to pay for the slaves. The abolitionist movement was the norm in Britain by the 1860s.
Which is why we did give some aid and sympathy to the South.

There was a very schizophrenic attitude towards the South, on the one hand we had sympathy for their plight and abhorred the reason for it. Hence why I say we wouild not have declared war, we would just have protected British shipping entering Southern ports.

When you say "we" had sympathy, a small number of people seem to have expressed sympathy. Of course business interests built ships and sold guns for cash, but the Government would not have funded the war you suggest. The cost of defending Canada would have been prohibitive.
You can't break a blockade without fighting, and that means war.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
rcbevco wrote:
Hijacking the tread is natural. There really isn't much to discuss, there is no way the south could have won. Most of the discussions on the topic will drift to this type of thread because all but a few (agenda driven) people would agree that the south had much of a chance at all. It's akin to saying that Japan could have defeated the US in WWII... impossible. The only variable would be how long could it have taken to defeat the south.


Depends what you mean by defeat. Could the South have invaded and held the North? No, of course not.

But I think if the South had won a few more major battles or stopped some of the Northern offenses, both of which are at least conceivably possible, they could have fought the North to a stalemate and signed a truce.


You be right to call it a win IF that was the outcome.

People don't like to loose (look at the Trumpofiles). Early southern victories might have lengthened the war but I feel that by that point in history the "lose a battle then settle" mentality was over. The room for concessions was almost non-existent. This wasn't the Napoleonic Wars after all. The CW was a struggle for survival (both sides). Unless the populous of the north was convinced that the south 'had a point' then it would have gone on until ultimately there was a clear winner. Compromise could have lead to the whole nation falling apart even the north. This is my opinion of course.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
rcbevco wrote:
Hijacking the tread is natural. There really isn't much to discuss, there is no way the south could have won. Most of the discussions on the topic will drift to this type of thread because all but a few (agenda driven) people would agree that the south had much of a chance at all. It's akin to saying that Japan could have defeated the US in WWII... impossible. The only variable would be how long could it have taken to defeat the south.


Depends what you mean by defeat. Could the South have invaded and held the North? No, of course not.

But I think if the South had won a few more major battles or stopped some of the Northern offenses, both of which are at least conceivably possible, they could have fought the North to a stalemate and signed a truce.

See that's the mistake most people make about wars. They think a truce will be offered. It wouldn't have been. People in wars like that don't offer them. Did the First world war end lie that? The Second? Mass wars end in victory.


Plenty of wars ended in stalemates or truces. Know your history.


If only there was some sort of historical precedence for a small portion of a nation breaking off from it's militarily-stronger father-nation, that father-nation invading to prevent the rebellion, and the rebellion resisting the stronger military power long enough to make it economically infeasible for the father-nation to continue the war and thus sign a peace treaty. Even if the rebellion had no chance at all of invading and conquering the father-nation.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.