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.
Neither here nor there but the confederacy was like a religious fundamentalist republic and politicians like Jefferson David did things like point out slavery was protected in the constitution and found in the Bible to justify its existence (sound familiar lol)
Slavery was an American institution and the south was the last region holding the bag for its continuance and its politicians decided to fall on the sword of it and felt like it was necessary to its economic survival
I only mention this stuff to say the actual history of the civil war as read by the words and deeds of people put into context we can learn about our past and who we are. When we paint them with simplistic modern arguments we do ourselves a disservice
The Articles of Secession make the reason for it pretty clear. It's right there in them.
So, that's what the war was for.
I wish that Congress could have figured out a way to end slavery without the South seceding from the Union. I feel like that's all on them, really.
This would be a very different country if secession had never occurred in the first place.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
That wasn't their goal though no one fought the civil war over slavery.
The best formulation is the states seceded over the preservation of slavery and the war was fought over secession
Same thing. They wanted slavery to continue. They were told it would not. They left the Union to continue slavery and fought the Union army because they seceded to continue slavery.
The semantics in this particular case are irrelevant because without the desire to keep slaves, none of it would've happened at all.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Same thing. They wanted slavery to continue. They were told it would not. They left the Union to continue slavery and fought the Union army because they seceded to continue slavery.
The semantics in this particular case are irrelevant because without the desire to keep slaves, none of it would've happened at all.
"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.
The problem is, the lost cause movement has eliminated any historical complexity. I was born in 1970 and grew up here. In Wake County public schools I was taught that most of the slave owners were good people and didn't mistreat their slaves and that most slaves were happy. That the civil wars was exclusively about states rights, not mentioning that the specific right they were fighting over was to keep a race of people as captives or that many writings of confederates from the time contradict this. The textbooks we used didn't have the classic picture of how they crammed people into the slave ships. I didn't see that until I was in my 20s. The civil war was talked about as "the war of northern aggression" and if they would have just left us alone everything would be fine.
So, unless the monuments are going to have a big plaque put on every one of them with equal billing, describing the evils of slavery, what the war was really about, why and when the monuments were erected, there's no way for there to be historical complexity and nuance.
I'm a few years older than you, but I was taught that same stuff in public schools. I didn't really believe it then, and the older I got, the more I realized how full of it that kind of teaching was.
States rights? Yes. Specifically... the right of states to keep slaves.
Hey! It was fought over slavery.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.
And, yet... this guy later signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
Look, I'm not saying Lincoln was perfect, but even if he was a racist who thought black people were inferior, he still signed it and slavery was still ended.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I think people need to stop being so sensitive about stupid things.
Let me guess, you're a white person who doesn't have to deal with statues that were erected to honor those who enslaved your recent ancestors. Isn't it an awesome privilege to be a white person and not have to worry about being marginalized or living in a country that spent much of its history considering you sub-human? *high five*
Because vandalizing historical elements like this really has nothing to do with race, they just use this as an excuse to do it in the hopes it will lessen consequences.
Vandalizing statues, confederate flags, etc. is a simple matter of seeking attention. They want their 15 minutes of "fame" (or infamy in this case), hoping to see themselves on social media, tv, etc. and to be able to later say "I was there! I did that brah!"
Humans place a priority on seeking the need to feel important (particularly immature ones). To be recognized for something, even something negative, satisfies a need. You can tell by their "euphoric" behavior in the videos that it was something fueled not by alcohol or drugs, but a craving for attention and the feeling of having done something notable.
It's the same high serial killers seek. They want to be known for something, even if that something is not desirable. They want their name in the history books even if it has to be for something like a body count record.
It's just a sign of weak human beings who are not mature enough to balance morals against their own need to satisfy immediate cravings for attention.
Nailed it in one.Excellent post.Unfortunately this is going to get worse in the future as the "entitled"want their hit of the fame game.
Nailed it in one.Excellent post.Unfortunately this is going to get worse in the future as the "entitled"want their hit of the fame game.
LOL, on the contrary, that post is full of pop-psychology nonsense. But, hey, it it makes you feel good to compare them to serial killers, don't let me harsh your mellow.
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.
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.
