IMDB comments
POSTED BY: Fireflythemovie
UPDATED: Sunday, February 8, 2004 06:28
VIEWED: 26013
PAGE 4 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by Firefly0helped0me0pass0the0bar:
I just want to say to all those people who told me that Firefly was a good series...you were WRONG...it is a GREAT series. I am studying for the NY bar, and it has gotten me this far...unfortunately, I have no more episodes to watch.
Maybe you can find something to sue FOX over as far as Firefly....
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I would just like to point out that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war weren't fighting to keep slavery but for what they considered State's Rights.
I covered that. Stopping at the phrase "States Rights" allows for a linguistic grey area which does not, in fact, exist.
Quote:
Slavery was always an issue but it has always somehow buried the rest of the issues for why the war fought.
Name them. And then describe how the removal of the economic base- Chattel Slavery- didn't directly affect them.
Quote:
Another thing was that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war never owned a slave, would never own a slave, and had come from farms they worked themselves.
Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you don't agree that people should be allowed to. Clearly the low caste whites were too stupid to realise that their own situations weren't too far above those of the blacks whose bondage they were willing to kill and die to maintain. Either that or they just agreed.
Quote:
I would also like to point out that a lot of the Confederacy's greatest Generals were also against the institution of slavery but saw the infringement of the State's Rights as a greater and more deadlier evil than slavery at the time.
Making them either liars or hypocrites or both. Bravo, gentlemen.
Quote:
And many Confederates fought because there homes were being invaded by what they considered a foreign army.
Shouldn't have seceded then, I guess. Declaring war tends to make people shoot at you.
Quote:
I would also like to remind you all that the Union fought the war to 'Preserve the Union' not end slavery.
No reminder necessary. You're absolutely right. But to discuss the Civil War and its ramifications without placing Slavery dead center is to miss the issue completely. Either willfully or through ignorance.
Quote:
In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the States that were in rebellion and that was done to hurt the South's economy but lost Lincoln a lot of support in the North which led to the draft and then later the draft riots, some violent (ie. New York City as seen in 'Gangs of New York' at the end').
There were heroes and villians on both sides and each side had its own good points and evil.
I grant you that there were villians on both sides. I defy you to name one good thing about the Confederacy which wasn't supported entirely on the backs of enslaved human beings.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Make no mistake, the Civil War wasn't a war to end slavery. The southerners just didn't like the direction the government was headed towards: a society where freedom is forgotten, where the ideas of our founding fathers are past. Looking at our nation today, it seems their fears were not wrong.
-Steve
I can, because I read the actual articles of Secession. Sadly, the reason why the South rebelled, according to the Southerners at the time, was to pre-empt the Federal Government, (led by a political party that had formed out of the anti-slavery movement) from outlawing slavery.
Look, I got at least two ancestors that fought for the south. One died in a Union POW camp of smallpox. But all the talk about state's rights and such, was just to hide the fact that they were fighting for the preservation of slavery.
At the time of the Revolution, and when the Constitution was written, an accomidation with the slave holding south was required. But slavery was and still is, fundamentally contrary to the American Ideal as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Maybe the war was what was needed to correct such a grave hypocracy.
There is a lot of flowery prose in those Southern Declaration of Secession, but as one example, South Carolina's first complaint is that the Northern states are not returning escaped slaves and those aiding and abetting them. For a war that was not about slavery, this is completely at odds, especially so when you consider this is their first complaint, from the first state to secede.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
Yeah. Them poor Rebs was wicked misunderstood.
But not by me.
But I think you are ignoring a very important event. Note the various others are arguing about how the war was NOT about slavery. They are trying to harken back to the founding fathers, and the concepts of individual liberty. Even in the face of government opposition.
But in making the argument they are, they are recognizing that slavery was a fundamental hypocracy in America's founding. That slavery was, and still is, an evil that should be stamped out. What was disagreed about at this stage of the game was how exactly to convert the economy of the south into a free system, without doing so much damage that you would end up with rebellion and loss of life that both sides were trying to avoid. (However imperfectly)
What makes a person, or a system evil is what it does, and what the consequences of those actions are. And in that respect, I think everyone is agreeing that slavery was evil, for the effects it created on the slaves first and foremost, but also in the denial of freedom required by the slave holders to maintain the slave system.
[It had been noted elsewhere that most of the pre-Civil War gun control regulations came from the South, in order to prevent slave rebellions. And those southern courts had decided in favor of such anti-second amendment legislation, because they did not want to get killed.]
Most folks, myself included, hate to think that our ancestors died in a less than noble pursuit. So fictions about the true causes of the war constantly get floated about. But in recognizing the simple fact that they are agreeing with you that slavery was evil, I think is itself a victory.
Besides which, todays southern rebel ain't all that much like his 19th century forebearers. He may take a more watchful eye toward Washington, and it has been noted that southerns are over represented in the US military.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
I would just like to point out that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war weren't fighting to keep slavery but for what they considered State's Rights.
I covered that. Stopping at the phrase "States Rights" allows for a linguistic grey area which does not, in fact, exist..
Would that be the same "grey area" that the Union's "freedom for slaves" gave them when they invaded the South to keep control of the South? The same "grey area" they used to justify their actions when states in the North passed legislature making it illegal for freed slaves to move into their states?
Quote:
Slavery was always an issue but it has always somehow buried the rest of the issues for why the war fought.
Name them. And then describe how the removal of the economic base- Chattel Slavery- didn't directly affect them..
I think anyone with a soul can say that slavery is wrong, and that it deserved to be ended, but do the ends justify the means? Guess they do if you are the victor and write the history books. Funny that the North, who purchased those slave w/ rum and sold them in the South, South America, and the Caribbean, who passed laws to keep blacks out of their states, whose officers held slaves more than 3 years past the Emancipation Proclomation were so concerned w/ freeing the very people they helped to enslave.
Quote:
Another thing was that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war never owned a slave, would never own a slave, and had come from farms they worked themselves.
Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you don't agree that people should be allowed to. Clearly the low caste whites were too stupid to realise that their own situations weren't too far above those of the blacks whose bondage they were willing to kill and die to maintain. Either that or they just agreed.
So you have proof that these "low caste stupid" whites were in favor of slavery and that is what they fought for during the War? I sure would be interested in seeing those facts.
Quote:
I would also like to point out that a lot of the Confederacy's greatest Generals were also against the institution of slavery but saw the infringement of the State's Rights as a greater and more deadlier evil than slavery at the time.
Making them either liars or hypocrites or both. Bravo, gentlemen..
So, a man who, years before the war, frees all of his slaves, then takes up his sword to defend his state and his fellow countrymen from an armed invader is a liar or hypocrite?
By that logic, you can sign up all the Founding Fathers, and me and nearly everyone I know. I would defend my state against any invader. There are ways to resolve differences without armed violence.
Quote:
And many Confederates fought because there homes were being invaded by what they considered a foreign army.
Shouldn't have seceded then, I guess. Declaring war tends to make people shoot at you..
Sounds pretty much like what I am sure England & King George said about the colonies. Guess the only difference here really is that England lost, so they did not get to villianize their opponent.
Quote:
I would also like to remind you all that the Union fought the war to 'Preserve the Union' not end slavery.
No reminder necessary. You're absolutely right. But to discuss the Civil War and its ramifications without placing Slavery dead center is to miss the issue completely. Either willfully or through ignorance.
Nobody is saying that slavery was not an issue, only that it was not the pivotal one. The North and Lincoln fought to bring the South back into the Union, not free slaves. The Emancipation Proclomation and slavery were not the rally cry until 1863, two years after the war started. Lincoln and Washington were more interested in revenues than any race in bondage.
Quote:
In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the States that were in rebellioNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Ok, now we've switched arguments from plain slavery to "racially inferior".
Not at all. They are part of the same evil. You can't discuss the one without coming to the other in short order. Well. You can try but people will tend to notice.
hmmm... doesn't matter to me. But I think you had pointed out earlier that they were different things... They are both excuses for economic judgements at the *ruling* level - and taken as factual judgements by the *sheeps* - then again further exploited at the top. Bummer. Unless we all get smart and learn how us sheeps are always being led around and exploited, we will never get out of this mudball.
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
Every "race" has a favorite "others" to pick on.
Well, isn't that a comfortable fiction? Not every group even adhered to the concept of Race until Europeans introduced it across the globe. Indeed, not every group adhered AFTER they had it inflicted upon them. This is partly because it has no basis in biology but is merely a social construct. It's not something that ALL human societies came up with independantly and, in fact, most of our time on Earth, we've done without it.
This is a carved in stone fact. Don't take my word for it. Delve.
Alright, I wanna learn show me. Let's not talk about "race" (I did quote it, meaning that it was a concept, meaning that every group of people had some concept of us; whether it's invented biologically or not) Every group had their favorites "others" to pick on. *They* speak differently. *They* wear different clothese. *They * don't use spoons and forks. *They* wear funny and unnecessary decorations. Oh, and *They* don't believe in our God. Let's slaughter them. *They* don't fit to eat or work with us. How often has that happened? These are not recent or renaissance inventions. I suggest that we had people who thought differently and started writing these things down in that aspect rather than "We are the righteous and we were triumphant over evil and we casted those bottom dwellers back to the hell that they deserve". Instead we started to recoginize that those base instincts of ours (not to hate, but to classify things into different buckets according to traits, and to fear the unknown and new) have always been exploited by the upper echelon to promote their economic cause.
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
I don't disagree that Americans brand of slavery took a twist in the populate media. But to say that all types of slavery aren't racially motivated prior to the new World is .... hmmmm
It's accurate. The concept of "race" didn't even exist until the Renaissance. Tribes aren't analogs for race.
No "tribes" are not "race" exactly. But it is the same type of invented concept that a people would use to call the "us" and further to keep the "them" away from "us". If there is an "us", then we can go and fight, enslave, and kill of the "them". Oh and conveniently take over their water sources, their land, their wives, and all of their possessions - there's no more them, so why not use what they had (Unless, of course, if it represented their "evil", then we will have to burn it in a big pyre and dance around it chanting and stuff)
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
I am saying that we are no better Joes than any of those slobs as far as knowing what is right and wrong.
Crap. Many of us are loads better. We have their disgusting example as another signpost of what not to do and where not to go. Your moral relativist pose is another facile dodge and allows you to avoid having to put your feet down on this.
If we- and by we I mean intelligent people who get their history from someplace other than Hollywood distillations– weren't any better there'd be something wrong with us. Humans survive by learning from past mistakeNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, as you all have proven, the American Civil War is all gray and there isn't black and white for either side.
Slavery is wrong. I am also a Unionist or would have been back in those days.
But not everyone in the South were fighting for slavery or against the Union. There were many more issues. Many of these men were fighting to defend their homes from what they considered a foreign army. We have to remember at this time that These United States (it didn't become the The United States until after the war) resembled more of what we see in the European Union today. Many people in American didn't call themselves Americans but Virginians or New Yorkers. Much of the South was against the strong central government and wanted to keep it sort of what we see the European Union like today. Lincoln was very vocal in his opinion in having a strong central government as well as his party. That is why the South seceded when Lincoln won the Electorial College for President (Lincoln lost the popular vote just as Bush did in 2000) and that is why they seceded because they saw no way to protect their State's Rights or State's Sovereignty with those that controlled the Federal Government. Then it came to the point where Lincoln would not surrender Fort Sumter over to South Carolina and the South saw this as an infringement of their sovereignty and fired on Fort Sumter. The North saw this as an act of war against the Union and the destruction of the Union. And then it goes on from there with Lincoln calling up voluteers to quell the South and then Virginia and the last of the other states seceded from the Union.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
But I think you are ignoring a very important event. Note the various others are arguing about how the war was NOT about slavery. They are trying to harken back to the founding fathers, and the concepts of individual liberty. Even in the face of government opposition.
This is a joke.
1) The founding fathers were a bunch of hypocrites. Well, most. Adams and a few others got it right.
The issue of hypocrisy vis a vis slavery was raised at the Continental Congress and was shot down by the southerns states who refused to be part of a union if it required them to free their slaves. Fact. Not disputed.
2) You are proposing that the southern states, whose economy and society was completely supported by slavery and which had enjoyed that support for centuries, was going to willingly "phase it out" if only the North could provide them with a plan?
Pathetic.
And not in line with the facts.
Re: RKLENSETH
The "grey area" only exists because so many Americans subsequent to the event want to soft pedal the evil that was done by other Americans with whom they apparently sympathize more than with the other Americans who were treated like livestock and worse.
Quote:
But in making the argument they are, they are recognizing that slavery was a fundamental hypocracy in America's founding.
You might be. I'm not seeing that anywhere else.
Quote:
That slavery was, and still is, an evil that should be stamped out.
Slavery in the rest of the world is not germain to this discussion and is only invoked to minimize the culpability of those who participaited in it here.
Remember: No other country in the world has a founding document that asserts the fundamental value of an individual human as an intrinsic condition of existance.
Note to the founders: Don't talk the talk if you're not prepared to get called on it when you don't walk the walk.
Quote:
What was disagreed about at this stage of the game was how exactly to convert the economy of the south into a free system, without doing so much damage that you would end up with rebellion and loss of life that both sides were trying to avoid. (However imperfectly)
That is just a load of crap. The Union was limiting the expansion of slavery into th new states, effectively bottling the southern economy with an eye to shutting it down.
It would have been perfectly reasonable under the model some of you are presenting for Lincoln to simply let the practice continue as people saw fit locally.
Quote:
What makes a person, or a system evil is what it does, and what the consequences of those actions are. And in that respect, I think everyone is agreeing that slavery was evil, for the effects it created on the slaves first and foremost, but also in the denial of freedom required by the slave holders to maintain the slave system.
The slave holders deserved the same fate as Nazi war criminals post WW2. No more. No less. What they got was Andrew Johnson re-establishing the original paradigm as best he could under the circumstances. This gave us another century of Jim Crow and violent suppression of a significant portion of the American populace a la South African Apartheid.
The problem of the former slaveholders would best have been solved with bullets. No. Ropes would do just as well and would have been cheaper.
Quote:
Most folks, myself included, hate to think that our ancestors died in a less than noble pursuit.
That's sad for you. But those people were scum. Get over it. Suck it up like a man (or woman). Look to the modern Germans and how they've come to grips with their ignoble past.
Quote:
So fictions about the true causes of the war constantly get floated about.
As we are seeing here. It's really sad. And not a little frightening, I have to say. Mostly it's just really really disappointing.
Quote:
But in recognizing the simple fact that they are agreeing with you that slaveryNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Want to know what human livestock was really like then read a little about Irish History both in Ireland under the English and in America when the Irish fled their homeland.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You all might also want to know that Nathan Fillion's ancestor is Jubal Early, a famous Civil War Confederate General. Just pointing that out because this dicussion has turned into the Civil War and all.
My ancestor is Thomas Francis Meagher, a famous exiled Irish rebel turned Union General that built the Irish Brigade that fought for the Union during the Civil War.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME