Ted Nugent wonders if U.S. would be better 'had the South won the Civil War'

Yeah, I don't think Ted knows what he is talking about. I personally don't think the U.S. would be better off if the south had won the war. I think either way, the U.S. would still be screwed up just as bad as it is now. What do you guys think?

For starters, 600,000+ american citizens would not have been murdered in order for lincoln to ensure the tycoons of transportation in NY got rich off it...

The knee jerk, ignorant comments that some people make regarding the Old South are ridiculous. There seems to be a huge misconception that everyone in the South owned slaves.
Usually in these kinds of threads, when I tell people im from Texas, they automatically assume that my ancestors owned slaves.
When I tell them that one half of my family were sharecroppers and the other half came from Germany, they usually just say whatever or call me a liar.
A very small percentage of Southerners owned slaves, since slaves were very expensive, only large plantation owners or the otherwise very wealthy were the only ones that could afford them.

No one can say what would have happened in the long run had the South won. Every outcome leads to an infinite amount of potential future paths all determined by minute things no one would ever think of. Some "alternate histories" where the South won might indeed have led to better futures. Some would not. One speculative exercise involving this idea led to Germany winning World War I (due to Non U.S. involvement) which led to a peaceful future for Europe. Hitler and the Nazis never would have come to power. Given the fact that tons of oil and natural gas are located in the Gulf South and Southwest, reunification in the 20th Century would have been likely regardless.

As to the cause of the Civil War, one thing it most certainly was NOT about was the morality of slavery or ending it. Sugarcane plantation owners were strongly against secession until it was inevitable. This is because their market was domestic, like the Northern industrialists and opposed to the cotton growers who exported. Like all wars, the Civil War was based in money and resource control.

The spread of slavery was at issue, not because it was an immoral institution, but because the balance of power in Congress (and economic policy) was at stake. It was also important to the "Free Soil" movement to make sure that the Western territories and states remained free for white men to settle and farm. The last thing many of them wanted was a bunch of freed slaves to compete with. The only faction that did see slavery as a morality issue was by far the smallest, the abolitionists. And they were not similar to liberal civil rights advocates as many portray them in revisionist tellings. Most were far right Christians, a close antecedent to today's Right to Life movement.

The war was about 1 section of the country, with different economic needs, telling another section what to do and that other section reacting and the 1st section reacting to that reaction and so on and so forth. In some ways it was about States Rights, but that can be a difficult tack to take when one acknowledges that the Southern "Fire-eaters" wanted to federally enforce slavery on the West regardless of what the majority of citizens in that state desired.

At the end of the day, it was a very complex affair. Slavery was at issue, just not in the way that modern propaganda suggests. There were many factions within both regions, all of whom had different interests, values, and concerns.

When it comes to race in America,though, it could be argued that Reconstruction shaped that more than slavery or the war.

Here are Hank Jr's thoughts on the matter, BTW:

reply to post by sageofmonticello


well seeing as how the south enforced segregation and institutionalized racism well into the 60s exactly when do u think racism/slavery would have ended had the south won the war? yeah knowing a little bit about history helps?

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

well seeing as how the south enforced segregation and institutionalized racism well into the 60s exactly when do u think racism/slavery would have ended had the south won the war?

yeah knowing a little bit about history helps?

A lot of people believe the blacks in the south were treated better before the war than after. Maybe having their lives destroyed by an invading Northern army caused some resentment that led to the poor treatment, and if the Civil War had never happened, slavery would have ended on its own without the resentment?

If I throw 3 violent dogs into my backyard and walk away, the fight only lasts a few seconds, but if I keep going out there and separating them, they will fight and fight and fight until they are seriously hurt or killed. Sometimes intruding into a situation only makes it worse. The things that happened after the civil war might be a direct result of the war itself, rather than what would have happened organically without the war of northern aggression.

reply to post by getreadyalready


so ur basically making the same arguement the germans did about the jews pre ww2? defense mechanisms kick in much?

Im still surprised no one understands it was about taxes. Oh you beleive the myth there were no taxes before the civil war. What a joke. There was a tax called the flat tax. A tax collected by the states on every person living in a State or Territory. And that was the problem. The Mormons under Bringham Young in Utah refused to count any extra wifes or any of ther children. The Utah Territory placed people in charge according to there place in the Mormon church. They played the game of tax cheat by not counting people. Then you had the South with slaves. They did not want to count slaves as people so they would not have to pay taxes on them. Who would be responsible for a slaves taxes? But slaves were supposed to work for free. A tax on them would mean they would have to be paid in order to pay there taxes. A fort was placed in Northern Utah 50 miles from the Mormon head quarters. And Bringham Young was forced to remove church memebers from seats of power in the Utah government that army stayed there until July of 1861 watching and standing guard waiting for a war with the Mormons. In July of 1861 they were called to the South to fight the South because they would not give in to the taxes on slaves. Aug 1861 they pass the first income tax making sure every body pays taxes. 1862 the income tax was changed again. 1894 they then tried the tariff deal. 1895 they began with the supreme courts fighting taxes. By 1913 they began the income tax we know today.

So when you hear people talking about a flat tax. You will notice that it is the states in the South. And if they changed to a flat tax again you would have the same history all over again. They would not count what they call illegal aliens living in thier states and would dodge the taxes. All over again. People who don't know the history are doomed to repeat it. Yes slaves played a big part in the Civil War. But that was not all it was about. It was federal taxes on slaves that played the biggest role. The federal government demanding states and territories pay there taxes. And when its a flat tax per person. In the eyes of the federal government slaves were taxable people to. The rich slave owners felt they should not have to pay taxes for owning a person. The civil war? The rich refused to pay taxes!!!

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

well seeing as how the south enforced segregation and institutionalized racism well into the 60s exactly when do u think racism/slavery would have ended had the south won the war?

yeah knowing a little bit about history helps?

Sure it does. I'm assuming you are aware of Radical Reconstruction policy then. While federal troops occupied Southern states, the harassing of citizens was generally done by federally controlled state militias. Federally controlled militias were majority black. White federal officers generally ordered black soldiers to bully and intimidate former Confederates and even women and children.

Also, the Radical Republicans up North ensured that Southern populations would not be able to have self government. They established former slaves as Representatives and Senators despite the fact that these freedmen couldn't read or write. They then manipulated and used them to enact harsher laws on the white citizenry of the South. It was great fun for the Yankee Republicans to exact vengeance on their enemies, but as with all things, there were consequences. Similar to how the harsh reparations and conditions imposed on Post WW1 Germany created the Nazis, Reconstruction ensured the implementation of Jim Crow once the federal troops left and some measure of sovereignty was restored to the rebel states.

And like the Nazis example, it certainly does not exonerate or belittle the evil of Jim Crow. It is simply acknowledging the fact that reconstruction is directly responsible for the treatment of blacks after the North left them to their fate. The Republicans used Southern blacks like a sick kid would use a mouse to torment a cat in a cage and then let the cat out to do what it will with the mouse after he got tired of abusing both.

While the war raged, Congressmen from the loyalist slave states weighed in on the potential of abolition, suggesting that should abolition be adopted, a resettling plan be implemented, settling freedmen all over the country. The Northern Congressmen would have none of it. The very last thing they would ever want or tolerate was black people in their midst. Not exactly a haven of liberal diversity and tolerance.

and the racism lasted 100 years? to this day folks in the south are not the most racially tolerant if you catch my drift. no wonder there was a black diaspora to the northern states before during and after the civil war. no wonder a black teenager named emmit til was killed for whistling at a white woman nearly 100 years after the civil war. i guess them southerners really know how to hold a grudge.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Every Northerner who migrates South becomes the most vile of racists. Far far worse than Southern natives. They come down judging Southerners with all their prejudice, preconceived notions, and intolerant attitudes (see above post) and become intense racists within a year. Just something I've picked up on over the years.
Not sure why that phenomenon occurs.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Do you think racism is confined to the South? Racism will never be completely gone as long as there are competing cultures existing in the same geographical location. You've veered way off the original topic about whether or not it would have been better if the South would've won. If you just want to look at competing cultures, why not look at Sunnis and Shiates, or Ireland, Scotland, and the UK, or any other locale where different cultures co-exist. This issue will never go away, but it isn't really pertinent to the thread is it? In fact, if the South would have won, chances are, we would ALL HAVE MORE FREEDOMS! Blacks and Whites in the US, and Libyans, Sunnis, Shiates, etc. If the Union would not have won the war of northern aggression, then perhaps lots of places in the world would not have felt the impact of the US Federal Government?

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

Every Northerner who migrates South becomes the most vile of racists. Far far worse than Southern natives. They come down judging Southerners with all their prejudice, preconceived notions, and intolerant attitudes (see above post) and become intense racists within a year. Just something I've picked up on over the years.
Not sure why that phenomenon occurs.

Oh and if youre a Southerner, dont even think about moving up north and being treated fairly. Something Ive witnessed first hand.

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

Every Northerner who migrates South becomes the most vile of racists. Far far worse than Southern natives. They come down judging Southerners with all their prejudice, preconceived notions, and intolerant attitudes (see above post) and become intense racists within a year. Just something I've picked up on over the years.
Not sure why that phenomenon occurs.

Because there is a misconception that racism is the result of naivety, when really it is the result of negative experiences. People are not truly racist until they are immersed in the other culture and have negative experiences with it. Sure, there might be some inappropriate jokes, or some misunderstandings, but people from areas with no black population are not really racist. They become racist after they move to an area where the black culture is dominant.

I'm not saying it is ok, but that is the reason. You can't really be racist until you've had ample opportunity to develop some hate.

But staying on topic. If the South would have won. The United States would have fell apart and never existed the way it is today. Most areas were Territories like Puerto Rico is today. Utah would have expanded the riches of the Mormon church and created the superstate they were trying for. A Vatican like country in the middle of what is now the United States. They would have carried on with the taxing of goods crossing from one side of Utah to the other. The South would have remained slave labor cotton fields or any other crops they would have eventually grown. The northern states really the north eastern states would have been the only United States if they could of held together with the loss of gold from the west at the time and not even counting the crops from the south they would have to bargan for. Taxes were destroying the United States. Yes the United States is the Federal Government. And the taxes were not destroying it but the lack of states and territories paying taxes was destroying it. Most southern states would probly be retaken by Mexico at this time. Utah Mormon Vatican Superstate would probly be bigger than Utah is today.

It would be a strange place to live.

CSA?

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

Every Northerner who migrates South becomes the most vile of racists. Far far worse than Southern natives. They come down judging Southerners with all their prejudice, preconceived notions, and intolerant attitudes (see above post) and become intense racists within a year. Just something I've picked up on over the years.
Not sure why that phenomenon occurs.

sounds like the excuse the southerners used to rape ned beaty in deliverance. lol

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Let the hatred, ignorance, prejudice, and intolerance show.

reply to post by JBA2848


There could be many different outcomes. I tend to doubt either region would have become a bastion of individual liberty based on where all Western nations were headed going into the 20th century.
1 thing to keep in mind is that Texas and Louisiana, and their waters, are chock full of oil and gas. That would become a game changer in the 20th Century, especially if they were incorporating or doing business with the Western territories or your Mormon Superstate.

reply to post by habitforming


Let's start from the beginning.

Look one more time at my initial response (with correction):
I think focusing on this one piece of speculative (i.e. "had the South won the Civil War") consideration at the exclusion of all else Nugent wrote arrogates his thesis with a sort of irrational juxtapositioning. Besides that the context of his opinion piece doesn't imply endorsement of slavery, but a movement away from expansive government power over individual choices. But, you know, whatever.

Your response:
Opine is a verb.
Ted is an idiot no matter how many 50 cent words are misused.

My response:
The grammatical error notwithstanding, I'm assured by your response that my point has not been undermined.

So I acknowledge that I misused opine. Oh my goodness. Let's see how far we can bury this guy based on one mistake. That's awesome. Very charitable. But why was I assured by your response that my point had not been undermined? It's very simple: you didn't respond to any point I'd made, but rather noted that I'd misused opine and then declared that Ted is an idiot no matter how many 50 cent words are misused. And if you want to be logical then make an argument to support that proposition. So ... I mean your complaint against me is a reflection of missteps you've made up to this point. And what's ironic here is that you'd assumed your point in relation to my response by ignoring every point I made. It's ironic because it coincides with my observation that some people were arrogating Nugent's position by pointing straight to slavery. In your case you ignored the substance of my post and described Nugent as an idiot regardless how many 50 cent words are used. Besides this I can't account why you think I was standing up for Nugent. My whole point is a response to a question that the OP poses in relation to one comment: "had the South won the war." That comment happened to be controversial, but when weighed against everything else Nugent had not implied that he endorsed slavery.

I don't know what else say, HF. If you can get over the error in syntax & address the substance of my initial post then possibly we have something to talk about. Otherwise I'm sure you recognize that these exchanges are pointless. Possibly that is your whole point? I don't know.

You have a good weekend (expressed very sincerely),
Kov