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 12-27-2015, 09:30 PM
 
Location: On the bus.
335 posts, read 246,693 times
Reputation: 1992

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nox View Post
The real denial is the number of NO blacks who owned slaves. Very convenient to ignore that. Kinda takes the sub-human crap out of the discussion, or let's say that it should, but won't.


El Nox
I'm well aware that the first slave owner was a black man. Virginia? in the 1700's or so? That just proves my point even more.

 
Old 12-27-2015, 09:32 PM
 
2,057 posts, read 1,116,786 times
Reputation: 2101
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
How did I show bias? Of course there's racial bias in that slaves weren't considered a whole person. But in 1787, or whatever year it was when that was made into law, slaves WEREN'T considered people.
An ASSumption on your part. They were considered property. I guess you forget about all the slaves that were freed before the War of Northern Aggression. Once they were freed ... what were they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
To consider slaves, who were not legally considered people of their own freedom
An amalgamation of words which contain no meaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
So looking at it both now AND then, how was any of it fair?

How is that fair?
You asked the question twice. Since when did ANYTHING having to do with politics have ANYTHING to do with being FAIR?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
so the South, which had a LOT of slaves, could have increased representation, yet give those people no additional rights, no rights at all
Have you ever considered just exactly slavery is? Apparently not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
So the South can have a slight advantage, yet the slaves see none of that benefit, in fact, it would have worked AGAINST them since those very representatives would have lobbied to keep rights away from them and maintain slavery as long as they could have?
Hmmm ... political advantage ... wow, the first time in recorded human history that this occurred.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
So essentially, to recap, the South (and North), who didn't see slaves as free people, but saw them as property and basically sub-human, decided that since slaves made up so much of the population of the South, the balance in representation between the regions was thrown off. To combat that, they wanted to make those people who were seen as sub-human pieces of property actually count as a person for once, yet see no individual benefit at all of counting as a person.
You enjoy using the word sub-human. Please explain the metamorphosis that took place when a slaveholder freed his sub-human slave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
So they suddenly wanted to make people who did not even count as people... people. For the sake of Congressional representation. This seem fair to you? Doesn't seem very fair to me. Neither does the 3/5 Compromise, but to me, given the time period, it sure as hell made a lot more sense.
I've already spoken of 'fair' and political advantage. But I stand by the fact that the south wanted every person to count as one person. The historical revisionists today still try to pawn that pony off on the south. Maybe it makes sense to you ... but certainly not to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
The American Civil War. Or even, "The War Between the States."

I could very easily say "The War of Southern Aggression" since the South fired first. But I'm not that petty. I just call it by its actual name - The Civil War.
By calling it that, YOU are showing your own bias. And like me, you are stating your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
Huh? If you're talking about how I quoted your post, I didn't delete anything. If you're not talking about that, I have not a clue what you're talking about.
Now it is time for you to work on reading comprehension. NEVER DID I SAY YOU DELETED ANYTHING. Go back and reread what I actually said and then see if you can give a response.

El Nox
 
Old 12-27-2015, 09:35 PM
 
12,558 posts, read 10,425,611 times
Reputation: 17319
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
If you know that education is different, and have since childhood, why did you act surprised and insulted when I pointed it out?

And if you know that education is different, what on earth makes you so darned sure that YOUR education isn't biased and flawed? It is, you know, more than likely that yours is because, as I said, the victor writes the history books, and those history books NEVER paint the defeated in a good light and ALWAYS mangle the reality in the favor of the victor. If you don't know that, then you haven't a clue, really, about why educations are different and most importantly why it matters.

I figured all that out about 4th grade. Apparently you haven't, as yet, and even worse, don't recognize your own prejudice (aka bigotry) against an entire part of the country which is closely related to the kind of attitude that leads to racism - the painting of an entire population with one dearly-clung to brush, to shore up one's own feelings of superiority.
You still fail to address points and questions I have made to you previously, so sorry if I'm not paying attention to your posts from now on. Keep thinking what you want but there's handful of posters here myself included who know what actually happened in history and why and aren't falling for the Southern revisionist version you and others are promoting so I'm way over this. I've said it enough times and I'm not going over it again. I shouldn't have to explain history to my fellow Americans but apparently since the South likes the "War of Northern Aggression" version of history/fairytale, I have to. But I'm done, I'm not doing it anymore. End of discussion from me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Further View Post
Note to JerseyGirl415..... 1) Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. It was the catalyst. 2) The Southern states had felt they were not fairly represented. Can you blame them? Lincoln was elected president and his name was not on the ballot of the majority of Southern states. 3) The issue of slavery in the soon to be western territories was an issue. 4) The "contract" between States and their rights to enact laws as they see fit were in question with the Federal Government. 5) The issue of run away slaves being returned as personal property. 6) Cotton was the commodity of the time and while the Northern states reaped most of the profits, the South felt neglected.

I'm happy you can recite fractions to promote your point of view, but you really need to dig deeper to evaluate the bloodiest era of American History and the causes there of.
Why just to me? I'm not the only one with this view.

Cause, catalyst... whatever word you like better. Bottom line is, had slavery not been around, had the North not ended it early and the South struggled to see it go at all, the war wouldn't have happened. Slavery was the main cause of the war... or "catalyst", sorry. Had slavery not been an issue, war wouldn't have happened. Plain and simple. And "recite fractions." What a cute way to summarize the 3/5 Compromise. You are so clever!

I am so over taking about this and going in circles with people who will never agree. I'm just glad plenty of others agree with me and know and understand what actually happened, as it is quite simple. They have stated quite eloquently multiple times now exactly how I also feel so I won't rehash anything.

Have fun with your alternate views of history people
 
Old 12-27-2015, 09:36 PM
 
12,558 posts, read 10,425,611 times
Reputation: 17319
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nox View Post
An ASSumption on your part. They were considered property. I guess you forget about all the slaves that were freed before the War of Northern Aggression. Once they were freed ... what were they?



An amalgamation of words which contain no meaning.



You asked the question twice. Since when did ANYTHING having to do with politics have ANYTHING to do with being FAIR?



Have you ever considered just exactly slavery is? Apparently not.



Hmmm ... political advantage ... wow, the first time in recorded human history that this occurred.



You enjoy using the word sub-human. Please explain the metamorphosis that took place when a slaveholder freed his sub-human slave.



I've already spoken of 'fair' and political advantage. But I stand by the fact that the south wanted every person to count as one person. The historical revisionists today still try to pawn that pony off on the south. Maybe it makes sense to you ... but certainly not to me.



By calling it that, YOU are showing your own bias. And like me, you are stating your opinion.



Now it is time for you to work on reading comprehension. NEVER DID I SAY YOU DELETED ANYTHING. Go back and reread what I actually said and then see if you can give a response.

El Nox
Bye!
 
Old 12-28-2015, 01:43 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 4,141,919 times
Reputation: 4699
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Why not? The Nazi flag is part of Germany's history. People don't go flying it all over in that nation.
They don't because they are not allowed to. It is illegal to display Nazi symbols in Germany.

But unlike Germany, we have freedom of speech in this country. And we will continue to have it until the PC liberal police get their way.

Quote:
The "invasion" of the South was not illegal.
Yes, it was. It violated the rights of states to secede from the union. A right that was implicit in the fact that the United States from the very beginning was a voluntary confederation, not an involuntary one.

Quote:
The Confederates attacked Fort Sumter, a U.S. military installation.
On the contrary, the Union attacked Fort Sumter, which became the property of the Confederates once they seceded.

Quote:
The Confederates started this war.
Wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Let's face it, without slavery there's no Civil War, that's a sine qua non.
Even if true, so what?

The North had had slavery as well. There was slavery in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri and in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court had ruled that slavery was legal, and Lincoln explicitly said that he was not interested in freeing slaves. Northern banks and other interests profited from slavery. Taking all of this together, the North was in no position to judge the South. The only reason it had less slavery was because it was becoming an industrial economy. It wasn't giving up slavery just to be nice. There was no money to be made with slaves in the North.

Quote:
Let's face it, the cornerstone of the Confederacy rested on the belief of racial inequality.
Same deal in the North. I don't notice anyone in the North calling for tearing monuments to slave owners Washington and Jefferson. How odd. In the North, long after the civil war, it was illegal for persons of different races to marry. The North carried out a policy of extermination and oppression against Native Americans. But it's only the South that we should be indignant about? Talk about hypocrisy and double-standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
The Dred Scott decision, issued by the Supreme Court of The United States in 1857, decided once and for all, that Black people were not citizens. People love to point fingers at the south, but SCOTUS set the gold standard.
Exactly.

Quote:
Sure, every state has a history of slavery and racism, we all know that. And I don't see anyone who's proud of it. But some states found it harder to let go, and still today hold on historically to what IMHO should not be remembered as they are.
Why shouldn't it? Southern monuments honor the hundreds of thousands of Americans who fought for the South in the Civil War. They are a part of our history. And millions of Americans are descended from those who died. There is no justification for erasing that history, especially when you consider that the victors celebrate slave-owning Washington and Jefferson as part of their heritage. What hypocrites!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
The Confederacy was a traitor to Science, Logic, Reason, Common Sense ... . Keep in mind the Confederacy was the side that believed human beings were property.
So did Washington and Jefferson.

Do you want to tear down their monuments?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Leveling continued charges of racism against the Southern states, while holding Northern states blameless is unfair in the extreme. That the Northern states generally (but not completely) ended slavery sooner than the Southern states in no way puts them on the moral high ground.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
The South wanted each body counted as a whole body to up their representation, yet those very same people were considered property, barely human, and could not vote themselves. So how was that fair? To use the slaves' large population in the Southern states to the South's advantage without allowing them any say in said representation the states would thus receive? Looking at it from the POV at the time, considering slaves were property and not really seen as individuals, as humans, considering them 3/5 of a person made much more sense and wouldn't have given the South the advantage, or even just the extra representation, advantage or not, they didn't deserve.
All of that is well and good, but the fact is that northerners say that that it was southerners who insisted on considering slaves 3/5 of a person when in fact the opposite is true. Southerners would have been happier to have slaves be considered 5/5 of a person, not 3/5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
How did the North treat the South? What was so bad about its treatment of the South that would have led to secession or conflict even disregarding slavery as an issue?

Some of the posters here talk a big game but don't specify.
Tariff and trade issues.

Feel free to look into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit View Post
ISIS likes removing monuments too.

To me the day Nikki Haley had her little self-righteous PC presser regarding banishing the Confederate Flag was a total cave-in to the Political Coercion powers that be.

History is history. The Soviets and other commies were always rewriting history. Removing these statues and symbols is more of the same.
Well said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyndarn View Post
...hey..I'm Canadian trying to educate American's here!!
Thanks, but no thanks.

Quote:
Freedom of speech hasn't been changed..Freedom of expression hasn't changed..Oh wait..Sure it has..Ala Trump..No more PC speech now....Hate on ALL Muslims..Hate on those 47%'er's..Hate Government...yet DEMAND services but NOT willing to pay for them...Yep Yep..That sound familiar!!
As I said, thanks but no thanks.

Don't you have problems in Canada to worry about?
 
Old 12-28-2015, 01:48 AM
 
24,503 posts, read 35,340,649 times
Reputation: 12818
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nox View Post
An ASSumption on your part. They were considered property. I guess you forget about all the slaves that were freed before the War of Northern Aggression. Once they were freed ... what were they?
Although I don't necessarily agree with the person you are quoting, you're ASSessment is flawed. A freed person is no longer a slave. Thus when someone suggests that slaves were not considered people, it doesn't included freed people (since, again, they are no longer slaves).
 
Old 12-28-2015, 02:12 AM
 
2,057 posts, read 1,116,786 times
Reputation: 2101
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
Although I don't necessarily agree with the person you are quoting, you're ASSessment is flawed. A freed person is no longer a slave. Thus when someone suggests that slaves were not considered people, it doesn't included freed people (since, again, they are no longer slaves).
The poster you mention kept referring to slaves as sub-human. My point was just when during the act of manumission did this sub-human actually become a human? They either were or were not humans all along. The poster stated this ... "slaves WEREN'T considered people". So we have just done a lap and gotten back to the starting point ... human/sub-human (people/not people).


El Nox
 
Old 12-28-2015, 08:30 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,472 posts, read 8,483,183 times
Reputation: 19588
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Actually, I was being serious. Attack someone's fort, expect the owner of that fort to fight back. That is what happened when the Confederates attacked Ft. Sumter.
Alright, I'll buy that.

But here's my point:
People always whine about not learning from history. Historically, politicians have (rightly) come under fire for over-reacting to one situation or another. Bush catches hell in that regard. So does LBJ.

So why was in necessary to kill 750,000 people and destroy fully HALF of America in retaliation for an event in which no one was killed? Would it not have been wiser to find out "who fired that shot" and "who ordered it fired", and prosecute those people?
The possibilities of such action are almost never discussed. We hear all about "treason" and "traitors" and how the South "promoted slavery" and were "racist" and some of this is true, but WERE all those things so awful that they called for a destruction of America that was so great that some of the areas never recovered?

Obviously, I say they were not. The Civil War should not have happened at all. People are quick to jump on the "Iraq War should not have happened", and "Viet Nam was rigged", but somehow when the subject of the Civil War is brought up people always feel that it was justified and necessary in order to save people from slavery.
It wasn't necessary, and it brought about the suffering and death of 750,000 mostly White people and uncounted Black people, who were simply turned loose in a country that had already decided they were not citizens (Dred Scott) and had no intention of including them in its economy.

And the federal government simply dusted off its hands, and said, "What a good boy am I".
 
Old 12-28-2015, 08:37 AM
 
4,536 posts, read 4,711,740 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
Or statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, and Sam Houston? All were commerical level slave owners. Benjamin Franklin owned more than a few, but less than alot.
Why are all the people saying the statues should be removed because the Civil War was simply an act to maintain slavery and we shouldn't condone slavery not responding to this question. Should we remove all statues and all monuments to these men because they were also slave owners? If we are being logically consistent we should. But I have noticed not one person has responded to this.

Let's not pick and choose, let's remove all monuments that have anything to do with slave ownership/owners. After all a statue of George Washington is honoring a slave owner.
 
Old 12-28-2015, 08:54 AM
 
Location: *
8,045 posts, read 2,389,941 times
Reputation: 2204
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
The Confederates started the war. The Union ended it. South Carolina finally got what it wanted when it seceded. A secession in which one major reason was the desire to keep slavery. When the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, that was an act of war. You cannot attack a U.S. military installation, even if it's on foreign soil. There was no "invasion". The Union just fought back. The war is over, the South lost. The broader Confederate cause was not noble. It is better to just admit such.
Hi green_mariner, I'm responding to your post because I know you continue to think deeply on these subjects, & because I've seen you in many similar threads. You know how these discussions go. I also know you have critical thinking skills & an excellent, logical, & reasonable mind & have the courage to change it when presented with new information.

I continue to read these types of threads & sometimes respond. I continue to read & research & think about - I can't seem to stop. Here are some things I've been reading recently:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...m-not-slavery/

story (U.S. National Park Service)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...nts-are-wrong/

(James W. Loewen is an excellent writer, researcher, & thinker, he wrote "Lies My Teacher Told Me" & "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader.")

& I also read the opinions on threads/forums like this one.

There were more than 250 Slave Rebellions or Insurrections in North America during the 17th, 18th, & 19th centuries. All of these predated the American Civil War. The American Civil War was a Civil War. All Wars are Acts of Aggression. People here & elsewhere argue about who were aggressors or traitors & whether it was a Civil War or not. Personally, I spend less time considering some of these things & more time on others.

Without Slavery, there is no American Civil War. That's the connection between Slavery & that War.

North, South, East & West were systemically racist. The more than 250 Slave Rebellions or Insurrections were just as responsible for ending Slavery as the American Civil War. Without them ...? After Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion in 1831, the Virginia legislature considered abolishing slavery to prevent further rebellions however the people of that State decided to keep slaves.

I'm done here but just wanted to respond to you. I wholeheartedly agree that it is better to admit even if uncomfortable than to comfortably deny.
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 05:47 PM.

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