Groups Sue To Stop New Orleans From Removing Confederate Statues (vs, 2013)
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.
I have actually posted facts, showing that slavery and White supremacy were large parts in CSA secession. You have not confronted those facts.
At least you are consistent. You have not, and apparently never will address these issues:
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nox
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.
What you continue to do is to keep on bloviating the same schtuff.
Yet again, I invite you to address those issues ... hopefully without your normal obfuscation.
I think El Nox is saying green_mariner is either downplaying or outright lying? About what? Who can say? Some of these replies are getting more & more irrational. Oh well, lemme move on then.
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!
we got a vietnam statues at our park in town, honoring those that died in that war, we should take that statue down too, I mean they lost a war, they attack another country for no reason, I mean invaded another country, they killed women and children. so by using the logic of the confederate statues, we need a history cleaning, we need to start burning books too, rewrite history so it favorable. My town under five flags, we need to erase that history too, four of those flags lost.
or better yet, why not stick in a warehouse and hide it, we got a battleship, we can scrap that too, it was in a war that we lost
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's a House of Cards. If one admits Slavery is the sine qua non reason for the American Civil War, one must also admit a White Supremacist belief system is the sine qua non reason for the resistance to Reconstruction & also responsible for ushering in the Black Codes, & Jim Crow. & why the resistance to Civil Rights in the 1950s & on? ...
I don't think most American people believe there is a War on White people going on? Am I wrong in this?
we got a vietnam statues at our park in town, honoring those that died in that war, we should take that statue down too, I mean they lost a war, they attack another country for no reason, I mean invaded another country, they killed women and children. so by using the logic of the confederate statues, we need a history cleaning, we need to start burning books too, rewrite history so it favorable. My town under five flags, we need to erase that history too, four of those flags lost.
or better yet, why not stick in a warehouse and hide it, we got a battleship, we can scrap that too, it was in a war that we lost
Don't compare our Vietnam Veterans to a bunch of traitors. And I'm sure Vietnam has no statues honoring our soldiers who fought against them.
The poster's sentence was clear and grammatical enough.
It is a fallacy.
Or maybe my philosophy text and professor are wrong and you are right.
Sure thing.
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.
Read the post again.
It obviously flew over your head.
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?
Irrelevant.
The statues honor THEM, and THEY OWNED SLAVES.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, that happened.
What are you talking about?
Africans forced white Americans to take slaves?
Who has said that?
B.S.
Have you even read through this thread?
I don't know why I waste my time responding to you.
So a country can't exist unless it is recognized by other countries?
Sez who?
That is total b.s.
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.
So what?
Was the Confederacy making treaties for the U.S.?
No.
Was it declaring wars on behalf of the U.S.?
No.
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?
Useless drivel since you still can't comprehend that the fact that the Confederates OWNED slaves is not why people have an issue with honoring them, but that THEY LEFT THE COUNTRY TO FORM THEIR OWN IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SLAVERY, which was the MAIN reason. If it was simply about owning slaves, we would have like no people to honor from our early history since owning slaves was common and normal. However, seceding from the country to maintain slavery while everyone else is starting to move on and realize how wrong it was is not an action that deserves to be honored. Many of us consider Confederates, especially important ones like Lee and Davis, to be TRAITORS TO THE UNITED STATES. It's not about just owning slaves, it's about seceding and being traitors to your country so you can keep owning slaves when everyone else was realizing it was no longer ideal or right.
God, it is really not hard to understand yet you keep insisting it's JUST about owning slaves and making that useless comparison to George Washington. Washington didn't secede from the US then fire on it over slavery. He helped create this great country your confederates seceded from and fired upon first. Washington is not honored for anything related to slavery, yet any Confederate who is honored not only owned slaves/supported owning slaves (whatever, it was normal at the time) but also seceded and fired on the US to keep slavery like petulant little brats when they lost a fair election. It's not about slavery, it's really about seceding and being what many see as traitors to your country. Why honor a traitor?
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
You say you want to 'foster a real understanding of the events of 1861-1865'? I think Mr. Rhea has dedicated his life to understanding. Will you give him a chance by reading?
Quote:
Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought
ADDRESS TO THE CHARLESTON LIBRARY SOCIETY, JANUARY 25, 2011
BY GORDON RHEA
... As a Southerner, a historian, and a descendant of former slave-owners, I sincerely hope that we use the opportunity of the Sesquicentennial to open a frank and civil dialogue about what happened 150 years ago. Our ancestors were unapologetic about why they wanted to secede; it is up to us to take them at their word and to dispassionately form our own judgments about their actions. It is time for Southerners to squarely face this era in our history so that we can finally understand it for what it was and move on.
Note: For those interested in further exploring this topic, I recommend Charles B. Dew, Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War; George C. Rable, God’s Almost Chosen People: A Religious History of the American Civil War; and Mitchell Snay, Gospel of Disunion. https://web.archive.org/web/20110321...veholding.html
It's a House of Cards. If one admits Slavery is the sine qua non reason for the American Civil War, one must also admit a White Supremacist belief system is the sine qua non reason for the resistance to Reconstruction & also responsible for ushering in the Black Codes, & Jim Crow. & why the resistance to Civil Rights in the 1950s & on? ...
I don't think most American people believe there is a War on White people going on? Am I wrong in this?
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.
Oh well, lemme move on then.
