U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-26-2015, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Manhattan, NYC
895 posts, read 626,864 times
Reputation: 829

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Most people didn't own slaves. It doesn't mean there weren't people who didn't feel that slavery was a necessity. There were many non-slaveholders who certain would have owned slaves if they had the money. Slaves weren't cheap, and most people in the South were quite poor.

And there are some instances where not protesting or speaking up is not a sign of showing affinity. Sometimes it is a sign of not having the courage to speak up, or simply not knowing better. When one knows better, but still chooses to ignore the situation, that is an even scarier situation.

The paragraphs that you mention cannot be refuted. However, it won't surprise me if these scenarios take place.

1) Someone argues that the north was no better
2) Someone mentions that most southerners didn't own slaves
3) Someone tries to argue that "slavery wasn't all bad".

Those equations you brought up do make a point that slavery isn't efficient as machines. We can both agree with that. Science backs us up on that. I do want to bring something up about social rights. I disagree with that for this reason. Often there is a disconnect between what science tells us, and what humans will do. Slavery might have been very inefficient with the advances in machines. That being said, there was a disdain among slave holders in the South for industrialization. Among slaveholders, it was considered important to have someone to look down on. There was also a degree of anti-intellectualism among many slaveholders in the South. Alot to consider.

In addition, the South came out of slavery kicking and screaming. It went into Reconstruction kicking and scream(and the KKK was formed as a result). Jim Crow didn't end without a fight. Slavery might have met an end with machines. I would argue that the social rights would have only come via people fighting back against the system based on what was seen in American history.
I do agree that courage and ignorance could explain or rationalize such actions but what I was trying to say is that legally speaking, those circumstances are de facto not recognized and would require a specific review.

For the social rights and the end of discrimination, it is true that the end of slavery did not mean that racial segregation was abolished. And it was certainly more tempting for people who considered slavery legitimate to enforce racial segregation in a way or another.

Therefore if we consider the whole picture, it is actually very curious that a developed country such as the United States had a form of Apartheid with effective segregation for such a long time and could not find a way out until roughly half a century ago, and maybe those topics are still of some relevance now days.

But I am going to concede that segregation was also somehow present in the North so it is not an exclusive Southern phenomenon. But they always moved forward faster into History compared to the South.

 
Old 12-26-2015, 02:44 PM
 
Location: *
8,042 posts, read 2,388,099 times
Reputation: 2204
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg View Post
but what does all this slavery have to do with today, why is it keep being drag up. there not one person in United states that agrees with it. Everybody is on the same side, nobody fighting for slavery. There is not one person alive today or for awhile that was born a slave. Everybody alive was born free. Nobody fighting that, were all on the side side. so why does this keep getting dragged up
I'm including a few lines quoted from the following article. Slavery is part of USA history. Any thread about the American Civil War & its memorials should include the monument to remember Denmark Vesey:

Quote:
"Today, many people are still unable or unwilling to grasp the pertinence of slavery and freedom," he said. "They don't have the conceptual framework or proper vocabulary to understand Denmark Vesey."

"Some people see Denmark Vesey as a dangerous terrorist," Darby said. "Most see him as a freedom fighter. My hope is that this monument will add to the full story of our southern heritage."

Denmark Vesey monument unveiled in Hampton Park before hundreds - Post and Courier
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/op...-monument.html

... more
 
Old 12-26-2015, 03:53 PM
 
6,045 posts, read 2,791,474 times
Reputation: 5947
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
You are free to your opinion. I am strict on mine because I look at it like this. If I had been living back then, I would have to consider what happens to me. I value my freedom. The CSA's mission would be detrimental to me.
Given that at one time there were slaves in the North, you're not very strict on your opinion. You hold Southerners today to account for what happened 150 years ago, while giving Northerners a pass. Your inconsistency seriously diminishes the value of your position.
 
Old 12-26-2015, 04:07 PM
 
6,045 posts, read 2,791,474 times
Reputation: 5947
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
This is not about the soldiers. This is about the general Confederate cause. Sure, most Whites in the South didn't own slaves. The thing is, the cause as a whole was about keeping slavery.

I would also read this: Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought
Do you really not understand that there were other reasons for the South to secede, not just wanting to continue with the institution of slavery?
 
Old 12-26-2015, 04:41 PM
Status: "Days like this I think to myself "I hate living in Georgia"." (set 4 hours ago)
 
47,566 posts, read 45,256,057 times
Reputation: 15200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gasolin View Post
I do agree that courage and ignorance could explain or rationalize such actions but what I was trying to say is that legally speaking, those circumstances are de facto not recognized and would require a specific review.

For the social rights and the end of discrimination, it is true that the end of slavery did not mean that racial segregation was abolished. And it was certainly more tempting for people who considered slavery legitimate to enforce racial segregation in a way or another.

Therefore if we consider the whole picture, it is actually very curious that a developed country such as the United States had a form of Apartheid with effective segregation for such a long time and could not find a way out until roughly half a century ago, and maybe those topics are still of some relevance now days.

But I am going to concede that segregation was also somehow present in the North so it is not an exclusive Southern phenomenon. But they always moved forward faster into History compared to the South.
Looking at the USA and how it did things, there is alot to consider. Looking at developed nations, the USA sticks out. It was the only one with a plantation style economy. Slavery held on longer. If you look at the South, it wasn't as developed. Economically, it had more in common with the Caribbean colonies than the North.

Something more to consider. The USA did its own thing once split from Britain.

Northern states evolved differently. There is certainly prejudice in the North, and violence has erupted in the North. Segregated schools were not the law of the land. However, there was alot of real estate discrimination, setting residential segregation patterns. The North did do things differently. It was a different system.
 
Old 12-26-2015, 04:43 PM
Status: "Days like this I think to myself "I hate living in Georgia"." (set 4 hours ago)
 
47,566 posts, read 45,256,057 times
Reputation: 15200
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Do you really not understand that there were other reasons for the South to secede, not just wanting to continue with the institution of slavery?
I never said it was the only reason. However, it was a major reason and one of the biggest reasons. Look at the Articles of Secession.
 
Old 12-26-2015, 04:51 PM
Status: "Days like this I think to myself "I hate living in Georgia"." (set 4 hours ago)
 
47,566 posts, read 45,256,057 times
Reputation: 15200
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Given that at one time there were slaves in the North, you're not very strict on your opinion. You hold Southerners today to account for what happened 150 years ago, while giving Northerners a pass. Your inconsistency seriously diminishes the value of your position.
I know there were some slaves in the north. Northern states akso voluntarily abolished slavery within their borders. Southern states held in to that institution until the bitter end. The northern states weren't seveding in order to keep slavery.
 
Old 12-26-2015, 05:02 PM
Status: "Days like this I think to myself "I hate living in Georgia"." (set 4 hours ago)
 
47,566 posts, read 45,256,057 times
Reputation: 15200
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
I for one don't want the confederate flag banned. It would be unconstitutional and very un-American I think to ban something like that flag.

If Americans can be neo-Nazis and in the KKK, then they sure as hell should be able to fly a confederate flag. It's free speech.
If we are to adhere to the Constitution, we have to let people fly that flag. That said, it does not belong on the grounds of state capitals. Private property, ok. Public and government property, no.

To be honest, I have a strong disdain for the Confederate flag. I never want to see it flown anywhere. However, people have a right to fly it from their cars and porches, so I cannot interfere with freedom of speech. People have the right to fly it. Ihave the right to expressy syrong disdain for it.
 
Old 12-27-2015, 12:48 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 4,140,280 times
Reputation: 4699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelers10 View Post
Levying war against the United States regardless of citizenship is treason, bottom line:
Wrong.

You can only commit treason against your own country.

That is so obvious that I am amazed that you keep denying it.

Quote:
A terrorist today can renounce his American citizenship and move to Yemen and bomb US military personnel. His renouncing of his citizenship will not prevent him from committing treason.
Wrong.

Once you renounce your citizenship and/or declare or demonstrate your exclusive allegiance to another country (in this case, the CSA), then you are no longer a citizen of the United States.

If your state renounces its membership in the United States through secession, and you are in that state, then you are no longer a citizen of the United States.

And you cannot commit treason against a country of which you are not a citizen.

Period.

Quote:
You unwisely brought up the Japanese in WWII. If you bother to read the paragraph in the link I posted above this will become apparent:

Tomoyo Kawakita, convicted of treason for abusing American prisoners of war, was sentenced to death but had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.


From Wikipedia: "Kawakita claimed he could not be found guilty of treason because he had lost his U.S. citizenship while in Japan, but this argument was rejected by the courts (including the Supreme Court), which ruled that he had in fact retained his U.S. citizenship during the war."
Fine.

Since he was a U.S. citizen all along, he could be guilty of treason.

I would never argue otherwise, so you are still wrong.

Quote:
You also repeatedly ignore the fact of what I have brought up numerous times that when Southern states claimed their right to secede, Northern States had the EQUAL right to say that the Union could not be dissolved.
They had a right to say anything they wanted to say, but they didn't have a right to prevent the southern states from seceding.

Quote:
Yes, in your alternate reality you may like to think a collection of traitors can just walk away from their debts and an infrastructure that they did not pay for
First, as I have already shown repeatedly, they were not traitors.

Second, their debts and the U.S. losing federal infrastructure that was in the territory of the seceding states is entirely irrelevant.

If I lend you money, and then later on falsely imprison you, and you escape and then refuse to pay me back, well....maybe I shouldn't have abused you in the first place.

Quote:
and take arms against citizens of a country when they themselves were not recognized as sovereign by ANYBODY.
So what?

That is entirely immaterial as to whether or not you are sovereign.

Quote:
However on the real planet Earth, when no other entity on the planet recognizes your sovereignty, you are just a traitor. Lee (or any other Southerner) can't be a citizen of a country that doesn't exist.
The CSA existed.

There was nothing in the Constitution that forbade its member states' secession.

Recognition or non-recognition by other nations made no difference whatsoever.

Quote:
Yet, any individual state could have tried any Confederate soldier or sympathizer for treason, not even at the behest of the federal government (remember, the State of Virginia tried, convicted, and executed John Brown for treason, not the US government). The only reason why everyone in the South did not end up being tried for treason (and summarily executed) was Andrew Johnson's VERY controversial granting of amnesty to Southern traitors not even two months after he took office.
The victorious North declaring southerners traitors doesn't make them traitors.

Nice try, though.

I could call Southerners martians, but that wouldn't make them martians.

Quote:
I think what all of the rational people on this forum are saying is that anyone who had to receive a pardon from the president against treason and had to have their American citizenship restored after renouncing it due to HATING this country should not have a statue honoring them on public grounds in New Orleans.
Nonsense.

The North had NO constitutional basis whatsoever for declaring southerners traitors.

It was the northern leaders who committed treason -- against the Constitution -- by making a VOLUNTARY confederation of states as envisioned by the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution INVOLUNTARY and destroying the very concept of states' rights and independence.

If any statues should be torn down because of treason, we should start with statues of Lincoln.

Last edited by dechatelet; 12-27-2015 at 12:59 AM..
 
Old 12-27-2015, 01:25 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 4,140,280 times
Reputation: 4699
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu View Post
It is how these Americans died. And these men you are calling "American dead," died trying not to be American!
Wrong.

They were fighting for the CSA -- the Confederate States of America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu View Post
Because people like you conveniently forget the century of rigid racial segregation and peonage that was erected in the post-Civil War era to replace slavery and which lasted until the middle of the 20th century.
That was fifty years ago.

Some blacks occasionally call for segregation.

But I don't hear whites calling for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
The way I see it, if people are truly over the Civil War , there wouldn't be Confederate flags flying anywhere.
Why not? It's part of history.

Maybe some who fly it are racist against blacks, but most probably fly it because they have ancestors who fought valiantly in the war.

The war against the South was an illegal invasion, so if any flag should not be flown, it is that of the invaders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
"Sadly"? I think we're all glad it doesn't exist anymore. I don't think anyone is blaming people of the South TODAY for slavery.
They sure are in this thread.

As if the North never had it....

Quote:
... Let me ask you, if the South so badly wanted to exercise their supposed constitutional and state rights to secede, then why did they have to fire on Ft Sumter, a US base still even after secession, and start the war? Why fire first in the supposed war of "Northern Aggression"?
Fort Sumter became the property of the Confederate States of America once they seceded.

It was an act of northern aggression for Union troops to take it over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg View Post
even though those statues are traitors, they are still american history, the 1 percent that feels they are a dishonor and must be taken down, dont care if they are stepping on the toes of the other 99%. most dont even live in the same state as the statues
Exactly.

I don't consider them traitors for the reasons I've already given in this thread.

But even if they were, they are a part of our history.

Half of this country fought the other half, and now we're supposed to act as though one of those halves never even existed and erase the history of its leaders?

That is nothing other than politically correct insanity.

Protestants and Catholics fought in Europe for centuries. So should mostly Catholic countries like France now tear down monuments to Protestant Huguenot leaders?

That would be absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Given that at one time there were slaves in the North, you're not very strict on your opinion. You hold Southerners today to account for what happened 150 years ago, while giving Northerners a pass. Your inconsistency seriously diminishes the value of your position.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Looking at the USA and how it did things, there is alot to consider. Looking at developed nations, the USA sticks out. It was the only one with a plantation style economy. Slavery held on longer. If you look at the South, it wasn't as developed. Economically, it had more in common with the Caribbean colonies than the North.
That's not true at all.

Europe had slavery in its colonies.

Slavery didn't end in Brazil until the end of the nineteenth century.

King Leopold of Belgium turned the Congo into a giant plantation.

Slaves who didn't work hard enough had their arms cut off.

The South had an agrarian economy compared to the industrialized North. The entire country benefited from the sale of southern agricultural products to Europe. Because of its lack of industry, people sneer at the south. Do they sneer at France for having an agrarian economy while England was developing an industrial economy? No.

There is a lot of snobbery going on when northerners talk about the South.

In the meantime, what did the North have? Disease-ridden tenement slums on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Immigrants exploited and treated brutally. Child labor. Yeah, the double standards...I guess we'll always have them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
If we are to adhere to the Constitution, we have to let people fly that flag. That said, it does not belong on the grounds of state capitals. Private property, ok. Public and government property, no.
That should be up to the people of the southern states.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:43 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top