Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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 10-03-2017, 05:02 AM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,846,747 times
Reputation: 6842

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertbrianbush View Post
They same argument, that people should not be kept against their will, also applied to the South's desire to maintain four million people in slavery, which was their stated reason for secession and the root cause of the war.
If that was the case why not invade Cuba and free their slaves? If slavery is in a different country did the North really care if it existed? The North could have started by freeing slaves in their own capital before trying to free everybody else’s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2017, 06:38 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,868,754 times
Reputation: 3456
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertbrianbush View Post
They same argument, that people should not be kept against their will, also applied to the South's desire to maintain four million people in slavery, which was their stated reason for secession and the root cause of the war.
Rather than admitting the false premise of one's so called 'right' to own other folks as property, some folks chose to just go with it. Rather than admitting the mistakes, some folks chose to honor those who made them, to legitimize, justify, & rationalize mistakes hardly seems worth the effort. Why not just admit? Why deny? Doesn't make sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
If that was the case why not invade Cuba and free their slaves? If slavery is in a different country did the North really care if it existed? The North could have started by freeing slaves in their own capital before trying to free everybody else’s.
Seemingly always the fantasist , why not speak of these fantasies while you're at it?

Quote:
The Golden Circle (Spanish: Círculo Dorado) was an unrealized 1850s proposal by the Knights of the Golden Circle to expand the number of slave states. It envisioned the annexation of several areas—Mexico, Central America, northern South America, Cuba, and the rest of the Caribbean—into the United States in order to vastly increase the number of slave states (it was proposed that Mexico alone be divided into 25 new slave states) and thus the power of the slave holding Southern upper classes. After the Dred Scott Decision (1857) increased anti-slavery agitation, it was advocated by the Knights of the Golden Circle that the Southern United States should secede in their own confederation and invade and annex the area of the golden circle to vastly expand the power of the South.[1] ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold...oposed_country)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 08:18 AM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,846,747 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Rather than admitting the false premise of one's so called 'right' to own other folks as property, some folks chose to just go with it. Rather than admitting the mistakes, some folks chose to honor those who made them, to legitimize, justify, & rationalize mistakes hardly seems worth the effort. Why not just admit? Why deny? Doesn't make sense.



Seemingly always the fantasist , why not speak of these fantasies while you're at it?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold...oposed_country)
Again you chose to ignore evidence that doesn’t suit your narrative. There is a noticable pattern here. Who’s denying what? Slavery didn’t exist? Who’s rationalizing a mistake? Understanding a perspective doesn’t mean you legitimize or rationalize it. If that’s your definition then most of the world’s history is going to be very incomprehensible to you.

Surely you understand it’s possible to comprehend why people in the past did what they did without actually agreeing with them. The key to getting the full story on a historical topic is being able to separate your own current views from those from another time in place. The world that shapes your views is nothing like the world that shaped theirs. Take your current issues out of it and look for evidence anywhere you can to prove what somebody’s true motives were even if it doesn’t agree with your own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2017, 08:03 PM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,868,754 times
Reputation: 3456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Again you chose to ignore evidence that doesn’t suit your narrative. There is a noticable pattern here.
Evidence of what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
Who’s denying what?
White supremacy/black inferiority was the underlying or root cause of race-based enslavement in the United States of America from day 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
Slavery didn’t exist? Who’s rationalizing a mistake? Understanding a perspective doesn’t mean you legitimize or rationalize it. If that’s your definition then most of the world’s history is going to be very incomprehensible to you.
I don't recall anyone ever claiming slavery didn't exist. & which mistakes are you referring to here? The white supremacy/black inferiority false premise mistake? The compromises made at the Constitutional Convention re: owning people as property mistake? The secession based on the false premise mistake? The lives lost (as collateral damage is surely an effed up rationalization) during the American Civil War mistake? The 'separate but equal' doctrine & the state & local Jim Crow laws that remained unchallenged until the American Civil Rights movement mistakes?

Precisely which mistakes are you referring to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
Surely you understand it’s possible to comprehend why people in the past did what they did without actually agreeing with them. The key to getting the full story on a historical topic is being able to separate your own current views from those from another time in place. The world that shapes your views is nothing like the world that shaped theirs. Take your current issues out of it and look for evidence anywhere you can to prove what somebody’s true motives were even if it doesn’t agree with your own.
Surely you understand there are people who understand "why people in the past did what they did" in the present day. Surely you understand they do so by believing what they did. & said. & wrote. & died over. & killed others over. Madness.

Surely you understand the honors bestowed upon the Confederacy by the United States of America, one example, significant for a militaristic Country:

Quote:
It’s tough to top the historical amnesia that has let the Confederate flag fly over the South Carolina capitol for more than half a century. But the U.S. Army certainly can give Columbia’s banner a run for its money: it operates posts named for nine Confederate generals and a colonel, including the head of its army, the reputed Georgia chief of the Ku Klux Klan and the commander whose troops fired the first shots of the Civil War.

It shouldn’t be surprising. ...
Ten U.S. Army Bases Named for Confederate Officers | Time.com

Surely you understand the historical facts, context & circumstances surrounding how the 'separate but equal' doctrine & the state & local Jim Crow laws remained unchallenged until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Quote:
Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson

During Reconstruction, the federal government expanded the vote to blacks in the South, and provided some equal protection to black citizens. As Reconstruction failed, however, white supremacists began to use violence and intimidation to oppress blacks. When whites re-gained control of Southern states’ governments, they began to enact laws that oppressed blacks through segregation and disenfranchisement.

Though the 1875 Civil Rights Act had stated that all races were entitled to equal treatment in public accommodations, an 1883 Supreme Court decision clarified that the law did not apply to private persons or corporations. Confusion about the legality of segregation continued until it was challenged by Homer Plessy.

In 1892, in a planned act of civil disobedience, Plessy boarded a train in New Orleans and sat in the car reserved for whites only. Plessy, a man who was one-eighth black, but classified as black by Louisiana law, refused to leave in order to trigger a case about the legality of segregation. In 1896, after years of trials appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” was fair, and was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment requiring equal protection to all. This ruling signaled the federal government’s and North’s unwillingness to challenge segregation or the oppression of blacks in the South.

After the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, segregation became even more ensconced through a battery of Southern laws and social customs known as “Jim Crow.” Schools, theaters, restaurants, and transportation cars were segregated. Poll taxes, literacy requirements, and grandfather clauses not only prevented blacks from voting, but also made them ineligible to serve on jury pools or run for office. “Separate but equal” and Jim Crow remained unchallenged until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson | Slavery By Another Name Bento | PBS

Surely you understand what Mr. Orwell wrote about confusing nationalism with patriotism?

Quote:
...By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

...Indifference to Reality. All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.

...The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

...Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should — in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918 — and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible. Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which it is felt ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied(6).
George Orwell: Notes on Nationalism
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 04:35 AM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,285,590 times
Reputation: 7213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
If that was the case why not invade Cuba and free their slaves? If slavery is in a different country did the North really care if it existed? The North could have started by freeing slaves in their own capital before trying to free everybody else’s.
Sophomoric question. After the carnage of the Civil War, there was no desire to engage in further bloodshed. If you were familiar with American history, you would know that an invasion of Cuba would result in war with Spain. The U.S. did use military influence to force the French and Austrians out of Mexico immediately after the Civil War.

Given the American experience of the last 50-60 years, the Americans of the mid-19th century sensibly still adhered to George Washington's admonition to avoid "foreign entanglements." Americans of the period still studied Washington and were well aware of his views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...rewell_Address
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 07:26 AM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,846,747 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Sophomoric question. After the carnage of the Civil War, there was no desire to engage in further bloodshed. If you were familiar with American history, you would know that an invasion of Cuba would result in war with Spain. The U.S. did use military influence to force the French and Austrians out of Mexico immediately after the Civil War.

Given the American experience of the last 50-60 years, the Americans of the mid-19th century sensibly still adhered to George Washington's admonition to avoid "foreign entanglements." Americans of the period still studied Washington and were well aware of his views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...rewell_Address
So you think they would have gone on a worldwide liberaltion mission, but just thought it wasn’t worth the hassle?
We did go to war with Spain at the cost a fraction of the lives than the Civil War.

You don’t have drink all the koolaid. Try a little skeptiscim every now and then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 07:43 AM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,846,747 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Evidence of what?



White supremacy/black inferiority was the underlying or root cause of race-based enslavement in the United States of America from day 1.



I don't recall anyone ever claiming slavery didn't exist. & which mistakes are you referring to here? The white supremacy/black inferiority false premise mistake? The compromises made at the Constitutional Convention re: owning people as property mistake? The secession based on the false premise mistake? The lives lost (as collateral damage is surely an effed up rationalization) during the American Civil War mistake? The 'separate but equal' doctrine & the state & local Jim Crow laws that remained unchallenged until the American Civil Rights movement mistakes?

Precisely which mistakes are you referring to?



Surely you understand there are people who understand "why people in the past did what they did" in the present day. Surely you understand they do so by believing what they did. & said. & wrote. & died over. & killed others over. Madness.

Surely you understand the honors bestowed upon the Confederacy by the United States of America, one example, significant for a militaristic Country:



Ten U.S. Army Bases Named for Confederate Officers | Time.com

Surely you understand the historical facts, context & circumstances surrounding how the 'separate but equal' doctrine & the state & local Jim Crow laws remained unchallenged until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.



Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson | Slavery By Another Name Bento | PBS

Surely you understand what Mr. Orwell wrote about confusing nationalism with patriotism?



George Orwell: Notes on Nationalism

As long as somebody knows what happened, they’re entitled to their opinions about it.
If somebody only has a partial knowledge of history and their opinions are based off that limited knowledge, then that’s a bit more concerning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 09:33 AM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,410 posts, read 16,510,164 times
Reputation: 29579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
If that was the case why not invade Cuba and free their slaves? If slavery is in a different country did the North really care if it existed? The North could have started by freeing slaves in their own capital before trying to free everybody else’s.
Remember Maryland and Delaware were slave states, so the capital was surrounded by slave territory before the war. Virginia seceded; Maryland was occupied before that could happen.

Military necessity likely drove the Emancipation Proclamation. Revolting slaves were excellent both as internal opponents to the Confederacy and potential Union recruits. My belief is that after we won the war the Union states rammed the 13th-15th Amendments through before defeated southern states were reconstructed and could block the amendments. The war was not waged by the North originally to abolish slavery but once the parts start moving things start happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 09:54 AM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,285,590 times
Reputation: 7213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
So you think they would have gone on a worldwide liberaltion mission, but just thought it wasn’t worth the hassle?
You're totally misrepresenting what I said -- the nation had just suffered the most massive carnage in its history in the Civil War and wasn't remotely interested in another bout of carnage, especially involving a foreign nation and European power.

Unlike France during the Napoleonic Wars, the U.S. was a democracy and, at times, the stomach in the North for even continuing the Civil War was marginal, such as in the run-up to the 1864 Presidential election. There was no interest among the U.S. populace in 1865 in invading Cuba.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
We did go to war with Spain at the cost a fraction of the lives than the Civil War.

You don’t have drink all the koolaid. Try a little skeptiscim every now and then.
The Spanish American War was three decades after the Civil War. You repeatedly attempt to collapse a century into the Civil War period. Total ridiculousness.

The sinking of the Maine, likely due to a coal dust explosion according to modern research, and yellow journalism aimed at asserting a U.S. imperialist destiny, were the causes of the war. Slavery in Cuba already had been ended in 1886 by royal decree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propag..._and_the_media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Cuba

Few in 1865 were concerned with acquiring in imperialist foreign colonies. Their one desire was, in the words of Lincoln, "to bind up the nation's wounds." Note also Lincoln's emphasis on "lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations" in his famed Second Inaugural Address.

<<With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraha...ugural_address

I am skeptical about much of what you write, and certainly have no desire to drink your koolaid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 10:59 AM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,410 posts, read 16,510,164 times
Reputation: 29579
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
You're totally misrepresenting what I said -- the nation had just suffered the most massive carnage in its history in the Civil War and wasn't remotely interested in another bout of carnage, especially involving a foreign nation and European power.

************************

I am skeptical about much of what you write, and certainly have no desire to drink your koolaid.
Sans the personal attacks I think we're all missing something crucial. There was much talk of building a canal across Central America. Available alternatives were Nicaragua and the northern part of Columbia, now Panama. Cuba and Puerto Rico as Spanish colonies weres giant obstacle to such construction. Similarly, the Philippines posed an obstacle to Western access to China. Our motives, in 21st Century terms were not pure, but certainly the Panama Canal has been a net benefit to the world.

Spain was a rotting empire that was able to impede these developments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top