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.
All of these 408 and counting posts, including the ones from pseudo-historians, have bloviated repeatedly about the Articles of Confederation, black ancestors, hate for the Confederate battle flag, hate for the southern soldiers and other ad nauseam hates, but never once has any pseudo-historian or other pseudo-intellectual addressed the question as to just why droves of poor southern farmers fought for the Confederacy. They didn't own slaves and surely had no desire to give up their lives so the rich plantation owners could keep theirs. 1 January 1863 is also ignored. All of this crap about hatred, which is repeated countless times (and by some of the same folks) does nothing to foster a real understanding of the events of 1861-1865 (a period I chose to call The War of Northern Aggression...MY OPINION... for you folks who desire to stifle my First Amendment right of free speech).
I challenge the intellectuals/pseudo intellectuals here to address those concerns. Probably won't happen since all of you have ignored it before.
El Nox
The only thing you have managed to accomplish with this post is demonstrate to the historians and intellectuals on this thread is that you are not one of their rank because you never bothered to actually READ their posts or READ any of the research on primary sources that support their assertions. If you had bothered to READ any of the cited sources not (what was your term?) bloviated supposition about what everybody's Confederate grandfather believed then you would have an answer to your "concerns". Cited from sociologist/historian James Loewen:
"[T]wo ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.
Second and more important, belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.” Given this belief, most white Southerners — and many Northerners, too — could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains. Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted race war if slavery was not protected. 'The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.' Thus, secession would maintain not only slavery but the prevailing ideology of white supremacy as well."
Loewen's assertions are corroborated by the inferences to white supremacy cited by the intellectuals and historians on this thread explicitly outlined in the primary sources of the Articles of Succession, Cornerstone Speech, etc. Feel free to provide a link or quotation from a source contemporary to the Civil War that indicates anything to the contrary. Hopefully I can speak on the behalf of the intellectuals and historians on this thread that no one is attempting to stifle your First Amendment rights!
Georgia's opening sentences regarding secession from the Union: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." And later: "The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all... ... An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support... ... We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition [slavery]...." In fact, Georgia's entire statement revolves around the single issue of slavery.
Mississippi's secession statement begins with: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world. ... by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun... ... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union... ... It [the North] advocates negro equality...." Again, almost the entire statement is based around slavery.
Texas' secession statement includes the following: "based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color -- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. ... We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. ... That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations...."
And after all that, some of you are going to try to tell us that the Civil War was not about slavery. Honest to god, what are you on?
It may not be an English class, but a poster who can't write a sentence using even rudimentary grammar, spelling, and punctuation probably also isn't well-read on the fine points of historical, national, and international law, which this thread is about.
Give me a break.
The poster's sentence was clear and grammatical enough.
Quote:
Pettifogging is not "a fallacy", it's "placing undue emphasis on petty details".
It is a fallacy.
Or maybe my philosophy text and professor are wrong and you are right.
Sure thing.
Quote:
Deciding what position is "rational" is pretty much a personal opinion, so everyone gets to decide.
No, deciding what position is rational happens through a process of gathering evidence and making a valid and logical argument.
Quote:
Where is your evidence that the poster has any intent to move beyond stopping with statues only on government property?
Where is your evidence that he doesn't?
If you're going to tear down monuments to some slave owners, why not tear down monuments to all slave owners?
That's the obvious next logical step.
And beyond that, why not just kill all whites if you consider them racially stained by slavery -- never mind that all races practiced slavery?
That's where this is all going, obviously.
Quote:
You go from 3 consecutive statements about secession and treason to saying: "How odd, then, that we have racial preference programs (affirmative action) that judge people solely on race and are racially discriminatory." There is no segway at all, so that conclusion is irrelevant to this discussion.
Read the post again.
It obviously flew over your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
No, applying the standards of the present to people is the past is not bogus -- at least in this case -- because the fact that "Slavery was practiced by all races and ethnic groups for thousands of years" doesn't mean that it was ever moral.
So what?
I wasn't saying that it was either moral or immoral.
I was saying that it is bogus to apply the standards of today to the standards of the past.
History is a story of immoral acts. So shall we tear down all historical monuments? The Roman Colosseum? The Parthenon? The Vatican? Versailles? The Tower of London? Windsor Castle? The White House? Just where does this end?
Quote:
You are also over-simplifying how people look at (or should look at) monuments. Like if there was a statue dedicated to Washington or Jefferson which praised their slave-holding past.
Irrelevant.
The statues honor THEM, and THEY OWNED SLAVES.
Quote:
A double standard? That doesn't fit in your post.
Yes, it does.
YOUR side wants to tear down statues of Confederates who owned slaves -- but you DON'T want to tear down statues of Washington and Jefferson who also owned slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelers10
Well Mr. Grammar, you have just committed the greatest fallacy of all, the Slippery Slope Fallacy.....There is no evidence whatsoever that the removal of Confederate statues from sovereign ground will lead to anything else.
And there's no evidence that it won't.
You apparently don't understand the slippery slope fallacy.
Gee, what a surprise.
I would have committed it if I had said that other statues WOULD be torn down.
But I didn't say that.
I just suggested that they might be.
And that certainly fits in with the facts as we know them.
If you're going to tear down the statues of some slave owners because they owned slaves, then you're probably going to decide to tear down the statues of other slave owners because they owned slaves.
The first act is what I call "dipping your toe into the water to see what you can get away with."
Then, if you get away with it, you go on to the logical next step.
BTW, I don't know why you call me "Mr. Grammar."
I wasn't the one criticizing other people's grammar.
More liberal deflections...but that's to be expected.
Quote:
In other posts you have....even gone as egregiously far to say that the removal of Confederate statues are a "war on white people".
It is a war on white people.
I see no passion from liberals to condemn slavery as it is practiced today by Muslims.
Or to condemn racial preferences that discriminate against whites and gender preferences that discriminate against males.
But oh boy -- some confederate statues in New Orleans....that will get your dander up!
Yeah, you libs have it in for white people, even to the point of romanticizing non-whites and pretending that only whites ever did anything wrong.
Your easiest target is the South, but it is obviously not your only one over the long term.
Quote:
Do Canadians support Confederate iconography? What about the majority of white Americans who are not Southerners? Their ancestors are not traitors therefore any monuments commemorating their contributions to America (remember Confederates did not contribute anything to America, only sought to destabilize it) are not in peril of being removed from sovereign ground.
Nonsense.
The Confederates were not traitors, for reasons already given in this thread.
They had a perfect right to secede and form their own nation.
And members of one nation can't commit treason against members of another nation.
Quote:
What about the usual conservative trope about all of the black people who owned slaves
Yes, that happened.
Quote:
and all of the Africans that forced your ancestors take the slaves to America against you ancestors free will?
What are you talking about?
Africans forced white Americans to take slaves?
Who has said that?
Quote:
You are repeatedly and completely discounting the Southern violation of Northern state's rights
B.S.
Have you even read through this thread?
I don't know why I waste my time responding to you.
Quote:
....the fact that you repeatedly ignore that NO SOVEREIGN ENTITY in the world even recognized the independent existence of the Confederacy shows your ignorance. You can't claim citizenship to a country that doesn't exist.
So a country can't exist unless it is recognized by other countries?
Sez who?
That is total b.s.
Quote:
And there was nothing in our founding documents that said the Northern states could not prevent the Southern ones from walking away with their assets.
Our Constitution spells out a very limited (and deliberately so) number of things that the federal government can do.
Forcing states not to secede is NOT one of those things.
Anything that can conceivably be done by the federal government that is not specifically stated in the Constitution, the federal government cannot do.
Such things are reserved to the states or the people.
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand our government as it was conceived by the Founders -- as a VOLUNTARY confederation of independent states.
Quote:
The Constitution does specifically state that only the national government can make treaties and Congress declare war.
So what?
Was the Confederacy making treaties for the U.S.?
No.
Was it declaring wars on behalf of the U.S.?
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nox
All of these 408 and counting posts, including the ones from pseudo-historians, have bloviated repeatedly about the Articles of Confederation, black ancestors, hate for the Confederate battle flag, hate for the southern soldiers and other ad nauseam hates, but never once has any pseudo-historian or other pseudo-intellectual addressed the question as to just why droves of poor southern farmers fought for the Confederacy. They didn't own slaves and surely had no desire to give up their lives so the rich plantation owners could keep theirs. 1 January 1863 is also ignored. All of this crap about hatred, which is repeated countless times (and by some of the same folks) does nothing to foster a real understanding of the events of 1861-1865 (a period I chose to call The War of Northern Aggression...MY OPINION... for you folks who desire to stifle my First Amendment right of free speech).
I challenge the intellectuals/pseudo intellectuals here to address those concerns. Probably won't happen since all of you have ignored it before.
El Nox
They're really just a bunch of pathetic know-nothings who can't argue their way out of a paper bag.
And they sure do go on, and on, and on, and on, ad nauseum, don't they?
After over 400 posts, I'm actually beginning to wonder if a very few of our fellow-posters want to go back to owning Black slaves if they could. I just can't see any other reason for the obsession.
And I could see where this can come from. I remember in high school a few people saying things like "go pick my cotton" and "I'm going to hang you by the end of my rope".
There are a few Southerners on this thread who seem to believe the stuff that has been shoved down their throats forever to try to justify the Civil War. Yes, it was about slavery. Yes, there were poor Southerners who fought to protect their homeland without supporting slavery. It was a tragedy and a travesty, and it is time to let that part go. However, history should be preserved and remembered. An ignorant kid in a pickup flying what he believes is a Confederate flag from the back of his truck is not about history, but monuments erected to honor the fallen are. The monuments should be left alone.
Perhaps at the site where the Twin Towers fell, we should erect a monument to the Al Qaeda operatives that took the planes down. I mean sure, they were on the wrong side of history (like the Confederate soldiers), but they were apart of an important historical event. If any of these Al Qaeda dudes have offspring/family living in the states, they should demand the right to have their relatives honored.
No, his analogy makes no sense. The Confederates honored in New Orleans fought FOR that city at the time. They did not try to destroy it.
You might want to read The History Behind New Orleans' White League, Lee, and Davis Monuments before making this assertion. The White League Monument celebrates one of the largest killings of municipal police officers in American history. The Battle of Liberty Place Memorial honors those who killed the Police Officers & others. The analogy makes sense to me because the killings are defended & supported, even celebrated because they are 'honor killings.'
Quote:
Fought in September 1874, the Battle of Liberty Place is considered one of the largest killings of municipal police officers in American history. Monumental Mistakes? | NOLA DEFENDER
For those who are interested in reading, the full article provides the historical context of the White League, Lee, & Davis Monuments in New Orleans.
There are a few Southerners on this thread who seem to believe the stuff that has been shoved down their throats forever to try to justify the Civil War. Yes, it was about slavery. Yes, there were poor Southerners who fought to protect their homeland without supporting slavery. It was a tragedy and a travesty, and it is time to let that part go. However, history should be preserved and remembered. An ignorant kid in a pickup flying what he believes is a Confederate flag from the back of his truck is not about history, but monuments erected to honor the fallen are. The monuments should be left alone.
This is where I stand. We should be making monuments to those who brought this nation back together, not to those who sought to tear the nation apart. I have been to Charleston a few times. The old slave trade building is still there. However, it is there in terms of a history lesson. History is preserved, but not in a way as to honor slavery. It is to show what happened.
I say that said monuments belong in museums, not in the public for display. The ignorant person in a pickup flying a Confederate flag is just the smaller part of bigger issues. If we have truly moved on, we would pay tribute to those who brought the nation back together.
...No, deciding what position is rational happens through a process of gathering evidence and making a valid and logical argument.
Where is your evidence that he doesn't?
If you're going to tear down monuments to some slave owners, why not tear down monuments to all slave owners?
That's the obvious next logical step.
And beyond that, why not just kill all whites if you consider them racially stained by slavery -- never mind that all races practiced slavery?
That's where this is all going, obviously. ...
Do you honestly believe all of this is rational? You have gathered evidence & are making a valid and logical argument? & the premise of the argument is ... It is a war on white people.
Honestly? I wonder if this is how the American Civil War started. Delusions of Slaver States believing the Non Slaver States were waging War on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
... It is a war on white people.
I see no passion from liberals to condemn slavery as it is practiced today by Muslims.
Or to condemn racial preferences that discriminate against whites and gender preferences that discriminate against males.
But oh boy -- some confederate statues in New Orleans....that will get your dander up!
Yeah, you libs have it in for white people, even to the point of romanticizing non-whites and pretending that only whites ever did anything wrong.
Your easiest target is the South, but it is obviously not your only one over the long term. ...
Holy ****!
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.
?
