Now they're after the mountain itself! (Douglas, Stone Mountain: how much, employment, taxes)

[Dkeating]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

The flaw to this whole rebuttal is you're failing to acknowledge that I'm not trying to deny the issue of slavery. I was merely trying to show your prior statement was incorrect and there were other issues mentioned, including tariffs and spending that were directly talked about at length..

There were other issues besides slavery, but slavery was the chief issue. If you had to put a percentage on it, it would be like 90-95% about slavery. The other issues wouldn't have led to secession without slavery. When people say "there were other issues besides slavery," it's usually to minimize the role slavery played. Even if you acknowledge slavery was an issue, you need to acknowledge that it was the main issue. How many times is slavery mentioned in the statements? Compare that to how many times tariffs or frontier military protection is mentioned.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I'm not just talking about the Washington Post article.

http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/FI...pdf?docID=4622

Yes, I saw 77's Houston Chronicle article (although I didn't read it-it was subscription). Just my first google search didn't have anything on the front page but extremely liberal publications. Huffington Post, NYT and Washington Post have a long history of being clueless and biased when they write about things outside the northeast.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by Dkeating

There were other issues besides slavery, but slavery was the chief issue. If you had to put a percentage on it, it would be like 90-95% about slavery. The other issues wouldn't have led to secession without slavery. When people say "there were other issues besides slavery," it's usually to minimize the role slavery played. Even if you acknowledge slavery was an issue, you need to acknowledge that it was the main issue. How many times is slavery mentioned in the statements? Compare that to how many times tariffs or frontier military protection is mentioned.

You can't put a percentage on it.

Abolition was a tipping point and one of several factions against the South that built up for some time. The inclusion of it gave the industrial north more political power, but that doesn't mean the other divisions that has existed for many decades at that point didn't exists, weren't strong, and weren't large. It meant they needed another issue to tip the balance of power and they got it.

To the underlined, we don't need to infer what small statements 'usually' mean. We need to look at the actual evidence, which continues to show these two polarized visions many people have taken up are both incorrect. That leads to logical flaws that -anything- commemorating the civil war era or white southern culture was only about slavery and there is nothing else worth remembering or memorializing.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by bu2

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is that yours is warped, simplistic and one-sided while cwkimbro has a deep understanding.

Think about this country electing a president who wasn't even on the ballot in your state. Wouldn't you feel a little disenfranchised?

Heh, heh..........and this "disenfranchised" feeling was worth invading and destroying the South and killing hundreds of thousands of people? Come, now.

[bu2]

You also can't understand now how close the war was to these people. 1 out of 4 military age white southern males were casualties in the war. Estimates are that more than 250,000 died. The south's population was 9.0 million with 5.5 million white, so that's nearly 10% of all males dying (and that doesn't count any who died fighting for the Union). My wife's grandmother who died in the 1990s was married to a man who was born in the 1870s (and lived until the 1970s), only a dozen years after the end of the war, so he lived through the South's "depression era." These people had parents and grandparents who lived that war. Sherman was a 4 letter word to her. She grew up with people who suffered because of Sherman's March to the Sea.

To say they built monuments honoring their parents and grandparents and those who led them in battle was all about slavery and oppressing Blacks is really simplistic. Its not a whole lot different than saying the Vietnam Memorial honors imperialism because the US denied the Vietnamese the choice of choosing their government. But maybe you can understand Vietnam because you are closer to it. The people who built these Confederate Memorials across the South were very close to the Civil War.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Listener2307

Heh, heh..........and this "disenfranchised" feeling was worth invading and destroying the South and killing hundreds of thousands of people? Come, now.

???

I don't think the Confederates invaded and destroyed the South.

Both sides thought it would be a quick, relatively painless war.

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

You can't put a percentage on it.

Abolition was a tipping point and one of several factions against the South that built up for some time. The inclusion of it gave the industrial north more political power, but that doesn't mean the other divisions that has existed for many decades at that point didn't exists, weren't strong, and weren't large. It meant they needed another issue to tip the balance of power and they got it.

To the underlined, we don't need to infer what small statements 'usually' mean. We need to look at the actual evidence, which continues to show these two polarized visions many people have taken up are both incorrect. That leads to logical flaws that -anything- commemorating the civil war era or white southern culture was only about slavery and there is nothing else worth remembering or memorializing.

Which other divisions existed for many decades, which were not caused by slavery. Slavery is the reason for all of the divisions which led to secession, small and large. To exclude slavery from any issue merely makes the issue nonexistent, because the south war fighting initiative was to preserve slavery and its EXPANSION!

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by onemanarmy

Which other divisions existed for many decades, which were not caused by slavery. Slavery is the reason for all of the divisions which led to secession, small and large. To exclude slavery from any issue merely makes the issue nonexistent, because the south war fighting initiative was to preserve slavery and its EXPANSION!

That is incorrect and like the other poster above me ignoring my arguments.

You're trying to warp my arguments and fit me into a camp that is all in or all out on the slavery issue, when my central argument is both camps are wrong. Slavery as A issue, not THE [implying only] issue. I haven't excluded the issue.

I already answered the preceding question.

You really need to read up on the history of the US in the early 1800s, including tax, trade, and protection policy.

[chuckshere]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

not exactly.

It was really started in 1915. It was planned to be something far bigger than it is now with more than just those 3 main characters. Lee's head was finished in the early 20s.

The original sculptor left the project to do Mount Rushmore after having creative conflicts.

The original sculptor was Gutzon Borglum, who, as you said, also carved Mt. Rushmore. When the NAACP starts reading some of the politically incorrect statements made by Lincoln, they will demand the destruction of Mt. Rushmore, too.
There is an historical marker in front of a house in Avondale Estates, which was the residence for Borglum while he was in GA.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by bu2

???

I don't think the Confederates invaded and destroyed the South.

Both sides thought it would be a quick, relatively painless war.

I didn't use enough words. Sorry.

The North must have felt disenfranchised, too, since The South just sent in their letter of resignation and said, "Farewell, We've got our own Prez."
But Northerners to this day call Southerners "traitors" or some variation of that, as if The South tried to overthrow a government. Which they didn't.

My own feeling is that the war was unnecessary. The reasons for secession are irrelevant, I think. Sort of like a divorce.
As is said often, The North used to hold slaves. They want the rest of the world to believe that The North suddenly came to their senses and freed all their slaves. Ha! They freed slaves when it was economically feasible to do so. And not before.
The South would have done the same in time, so no war was necessary.

*For that reason, remembering the war is a wise course of action.