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.
No offense to anyone, but as a black male. The NAACP should be a more proactive organization. When a organization is always reactive to the latest new story it demonstrates ineffectiveness. lack of true vision, and a organization model that is outdated and not respected. Organizations like the NAACP and others should focus on community solutions to resolves issues like the break down of black families with the lack of fathering, second chance employment for those getting out of jail, current STD's crisis, and horrible disrespect and generational dis-unity within our own culture.
The NAACP model was good for the 1960's, but times have drastically change.
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.
Among the other issues implied, where any of them potential reasons to secede? I'll ignore the last part, simply because it's rather petty, when I do not have the burden of proof.
No offense to anyone, but as a black male. The NAACP should be a more proactive organization. When a organization is always reactive to the latest new story it demonstrates ineffectiveness. lack of true vision, and a organization model that is outdated and not respected. Organizations like the NAACP and others should focus on community solutions to resolves issues like the break down of black families with the lack of fathering, second chance employment for those getting out of jail, current STD's crisis, and horrible disrespect and generational dis-unity within our own culture.
The NAACP model was good for the 1960's, but times have drastically change.
Is it not possible to for an organization to do both, since when have the NAACP abandoned the issues you are concerned about, and all of those issues are American problems and not isolated to Black Folks.
No offense to anyone, but as a black male. The NAACP should be a more proactive organization. When a organization is always reactive to the latest new story it demonstrates ineffectiveness. lack of true vision, and a organization model that is outdated and not respected. Organizations like the NAACP and others should focus on community solutions to resolves issues like the break down of black families with the lack of fathering, second chance employment for those getting out of jail, current STD's crisis, and horrible disrespect and generational dis-unity within our own culture.
The NAACP model was good for the 1960's, but times have drastically change.
That's an excellent point. My first thought, when I read this, is that with all of the problems that could be tackled, they're going after a carving that's been there for decades. And the cost of the demolition would be money that could be used more productively for things that could help people in a more direct way. It's a lack of vision, as you pointed out.
Among the other issues implied, where any of them potential reasons to secede? I'll ignore the last part, simply because it's rather petty, when I do not have the burden of proof.
With all respect due...
It wasn't petty 'nor meant to be. I was directly telling you issues to look into.
Also, to be frank... if anything is petty it is a rash assumption that one of us has a burden of proof over the other and you seem to be doing quite a bit of ignoring already.
I have already cited exactly what the issues are. Mentioned the name of a few acts and showed a rather lengthy direct quote from Georgia's article of secession that cited a tariff acts and discussed the implications of policies affecting manufacturing at the cost of farming. The evidence is there. It is just a matter if you choose to accept it or dive into it further.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread and you keep responding to me like I didn't.
In 1832 in response to one tariff act South Carolina directly threatened secession, which I mentioned earlier. This prompted a partial roll-back of the tariffs in 1833. There is more to it and the South would win back some of the balance of power in this matter in the 1840s.
Soon after secession in 1861 the Morrill tariff was quickly passed, in comparison to prior ad valorem taxes that encouraged more trade. It was a decades long contentious issue over political issues that pit manufacturing economies vs farming economies.
There were political battles and tug-of-war over these issues during most of the early 1800s and it was very divisive north vs. south.
It wasn't petty 'nor meant to be. I was directly telling you issues to look into.
Also, to be frank... if anything is petty it is a rash assumption that one of us has a burden of proof over the other and you seem to be doing quite a bit of ignoring already.
I have already cited exactly what the issues are. Mentioned the name of a few acts and showed a rather lengthy direct quote from Georgia's article of secession that cited a tariff acts and discussed the implications of policies affecting manufacturing at the cost of farming. The evidence is there. It is just a matter if you choose to accept it or dive into it further.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread and you keep responding to me like I didn't.
In 1832 in response to one tariff act South Carolina directly threatened secession, which I mentioned earlier. This prompted a partial roll-back of the tariffs in 1833. There is more to it and the South would win back some of the balance of power in this matter in the 1840s.
Soon after secession in 1861 the Morrill tariff was quickly passed, in comparison to prior ad valorem taxes that encouraged more trade. It was a decades long contentious issue over political issues that pit manufacturing economies vs farming economies.
There were political battles and tug-of-war over these issues during most of the early 1800s and it was very divisive north vs. south.
One problem we have now is that a growing number of people don't know history and don't care. They just respond to the emotional appeals of some politician or TV person. There's no educated context for anything. There are people who don't even know what century the Civil War was fought, much less know the political details of the economy of the time.
Princeton did a survey a few years ago and analyzed the language of the national political debates. Their analysis showed that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were at about the reading level of 12th grade. The Nixon-Kennedy debates had declined to a 10th grade level. By the time of the Bush-Kerry debates the language was down to 6th grade level.
That's why it's hard to get the general public to understand, or be interested in, anything that requires some thinking.
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.
Neither side was willing to listen to the other or compromise. Both were trying to push their beliefs on the other (Dred Scott effectively made slavery legal in the North).
One problem we have now is that a growing number of people don't know history and don't care. They just respond to the emotional appeals of some politician or TV person. There's no educated context for anything. There are people who don't even know what century the Civil War was fought, much less know the political details of the economy of the time.
Princeton did a survey a few years ago and analyzed the language of the national political debates. Their analysis showed that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were at about the reading level of 12th grade. The Nixon-Kennedy debates had declined to a 10th grade level. By the time of the Bush-Kerry debates the language was down to 6th grade level.
That's why it's hard to get the general public to understand, or be interested in, anything that requires some thinking.
So that's why politics often seems like an elementary playground!
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.
I have never argued that slavery was the only cause of secession. Maybe one poster has argued that, but it wasn't me.
However, just because there are multiple "causes" doesn't mean they all carry the same weight. It's possible for one motivation to be predominant.
Typically, when a source talks much more about one thing than other things, we assume that that thing is more important to them, unless the source is being disingenous.
When you look at the documentary evidence--the statements issued by the seceding states--one issue predominates, and it rhymes with "knavery."
Slavery is mentioned 80 times.
"Protection"--in the context of trade protection, tariffs--is mentioned about 3 times.
It's not crazy to assume that slavery was a more important issue to the people doing the seceding.
It would be great for Lost Cause apologists if the seceding parties had couched their motivation in terms of states' rights, or mentioned the tariffs or protection from Indians more often, but they didn't.
They were very concerned about their $3-4 billion in human property, and they weren't shy about saying so. Only one state mentioned the tariff, and you can judge for yourself how much they thought that was a reason for seceding.
The Stone Mountain carving doesn't commemorate "the Civil War Era" generally--it commemorates three Confederate leaders. It doesn't commemorate "white southern culture" unless white southern culture is coterminous with the 4-year Confederate experiment. It also doesn't commemorate the common Confederate soldier. The Confederacy, from the actual documentary evidence, seemed to be primarily concerned with the perpetuation of chattel slavery and the enforcement of Fugitive Slave Acts--at least that's what they spent most of their time talking and writing about.
It wasn't petty 'nor meant to be. I was directly telling you issues to look into.
Also, to be frank... if anything is petty it is a rash assumption that one of us has a burden of proof over the other and you seem to be doing quite a bit of ignoring already.
I have already cited exactly what the issues are. Mentioned the name of a few acts and showed a rather lengthy direct quote from Georgia's article of secession that cited a tariff acts and discussed the implications of policies affecting manufacturing at the cost of farming. The evidence is there. It is just a matter if you choose to accept it or dive into it further.
I mentioned this earlier in the thread and you keep responding to me like I didn't.
In 1832 in response to one tariff act South Carolina directly threatened secession, which I mentioned earlier. This prompted a partial roll-back of the tariffs in 1833. There is more to it and the South would win back some of the balance of power in this matter in the 1840s.
Soon after secession in 1861 the Morrill tariff was quickly passed, in comparison to prior ad valorem taxes that encouraged more trade. It was a decades long contentious issue over political issues that pit manufacturing economies vs farming economies.
There were political battles and tug-of-war over these issues during most of the early 1800s and it was very divisive north vs. south.
Ok for the sake of argument, let's move on. The Civil War was a turning point in American History, but until the 1960's these "heroes" were much less celebrated as historical figures. Slavery is America's original sin, it will forever define us as a nation.
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.
