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.
Democrats should keep the Confederate statues up as a way of giving Russia the middle finger.
I'm kind of crossed on the Brits siding with the Confederacy, given they considered helping out the South by naval bombing Boston and New York City and burning both to the ground, maybe they should have.
The Confederates apparently were going to naval attack San Francisco but the Russian Navy protected the city. Russia should have allowed them to get attacked by the South too.
I like how the French were going to take Mexico and funnel arms to the Confederacy. Sounds like the USA in Syria.
There were no convictions for treason. Anyone can be tried for anything, numerous trials have occurred where parties have been found innocent.
As I stated, when the CSA voted to declare independence, they also broke all political links with the US. Just as the Founding Fathers did with England. The CSA was an enemy combatant, that is what we call people who the US(or any country) engages in warfare with. However, being an enemy combatant does not make one a traitor. I doubt the Germans in WW2 would be called traitors to the US, yet they were enemy combatants.
Part of the entire CSA legacy including Lee is that once the war was over, it was over. No decades long lingering and insurrection as we commonly see in the world. This was a grave issue the US was worried about. Ill treatment of CSA forces would have sparked a potentially decades long conflict, in which the US could have very well lost. Lee (among others) was instrumental in preventing this, and with that, the US treated him in kind.
The symbolic figure of the CSA (on the official seal) was George Washington. The idea of secession had been debated many times since the Revolution. Many felt that since the US originated out of a revolution, seeking freedom to run things as they chose, and that since the states voluntarily entered into this union then they were also free to leave. The problems between North and South go back to the very beginning of the US. The national capital was placed in to DC (which was originally part of Virginia) as a bridge between North and South. Sadly, it did not work as the two sections developed differently and these differences became more pronounced over time. Yes, the South had a vested interest in slavery as the economy was built on it. The North had a huge influx of immigrants to exploit instead.
I'm sure no one would argue that slavery wasn't bad. But you do have to take the context of the times into consideration. Women had no rights - were basically chattels of their husbands or fathers. Black men had the right to vote decades before women did. Children were also exploited - no child labor laws. Many children worked and died in factories. The poor were just left to fend for themselves or die. Food, water and medicines were all unsafe. Worker safety wasn't even a thought. All of these things are unconscionable now, but back then they were accepted (yes, there were people who found these practices wrong - but on the whole society approved). So let's look at the big picture and keep it in its correct context.
And in 1864, Congress passed the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery. Here is the difference. While the USA had long tolerated slavery where it existed, the CSA was willing to wage a war when southerners felt that institution was in danger. CSA never abolished slavery. So don't come at me with that.
The north was OK with slavery for your information. The argument was if new states had the right to choose weather or not they could have slaves in their territory. Just to correct you, the north was fine with slavery in the south before the war. it wasn't until years of war happened before the Emancipation Proclimation.
And yes slavery was a bad thing but we must look at history within the context of the world. The world was a very different place and this was just the tail end of a long long time possibly forever that slavery was accepted.
This and all displays of the confederacy on Government property should be outlawed and struck down. It's incredibly embarrassing to have such people idolized to this day. How would we feel about Germany having statues up of Rudolph Hess and Himmler?
This and all displays of the confederacy on Government property should be outlawed and struck down. It's incredibly embarrassing to have such people idolized to this day. How would we feel about Germany having statues up of Rudolph Hess and Himmler?
Not only embarrassing, these misplaced "idolizations" allowed & even encouraged the harms to continue for more than a hundred years after the American Civil War was over. This is evidenced by the fact we're still discussing the harms in the present day.
Granted, President Lincoln's assassination didn't help. Definitely harmful to him & his family, & definitely harmful to a Country whose #1 objective should've been to heal or remedy the many harms. Reconstruction should've been just that, although in reality it was deconstruction as well, or more so. The former Confederate States actively resisted reconstruction, remedy, & healing.
Some folks' active resistance to the outcomes & natural consequences of the American Civil War was evidenced by the creation of Jim Crow laws, which essentially followed the 1800–1866 Black Codes, which had previously restricted the civil rights & civil liberties of African Americans.
During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the United States for freedmen, African Americans who had formerly been slaves, & former free blacks.
Some folks resisted the Civil Rights Act of 1875's guarantee that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in public accommodations, such as inns, public transportation, theaters, & other places of recreation.
Segregation, Jim Crow laws & 'separate but equal' dogma were about maintaining or attempting to recover rights based on white supremacy that were lost when the Confederate States of America lost the American Civil War.
The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s & 60s came nearly 100 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
The north was OK with slavery for your information. The argument was if new states had the right to choose weather or not they could have slaves in their territory. Just to correct you, the north was fine with slavery in the south before the war. it wasn't until years of war happened before the Emancipation Proclimation.
And yes slavery was a bad thing but we must look at history within the context of the world. The world was a very different place and this was just the tail end of a long long time possibly forever that slavery was accepted.
Consider the context of that time period by comparing line by line the Constitution of the Confederate States of America with that of the Constitution of the United States of America:
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA
...As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (Art. VI, Sec. 1[3]), the "Commerce" clause (Art. I, Sec. 8[3]) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (Art. I, Sec. 8[18]). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."
As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of anti-slave law or policy would be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" as much as they want, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land. ...
Denial is one part of it. Another part can be that some individuals lie. Some look at Confederate heritage as a callback to what they see as better days. However, some of those said individuals can't flat out admit how they feel.
The north was OK with slavery for your information. The argument was if new states had the right to choose weather or not they could have slaves in their territory. Just to correct you, the north was fine with slavery in the south before the war. it wasn't until years of war happened before the Emancipation Proclimation.
And yes slavery was a bad thing but we must look at history within the context of the world. The world was a very different place and this was just the tail end of a long long time possibly forever that slavery was accepted.
Then explain the Underground Railroad. Explain some northerners risking their lives to help runaway slaves get to Canada. Explain the Fugitive Slave Act. Why did some northern states pass "Personal Liberty Laws" to counter the Fugitive Slave Acts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_liberty_laws
I do not care how different the world was back then. We are talking about what happened here in the USA. And I care about how it applies to me. If I was alive back then, I would have been a slave.
Denial is one part of it. Another part can be that some individuals lie. Some look at Confederate heritage as a callback to what they see as better days. However, some of those said individuals can't flat out admit how they feel.
Personally, generally speaking, I feel most folks who lie are afraid of something. If folks want to claim the Confederate States of America as heritage, they should be willing to look at it directly, own it, admit it, refer to oneself as a Confederate-American, immigrant-status, so to speak.
Then explain the Underground Railroad. Explain some northerners risking their lives to help runaway slaves get to Canada. Explain the Fugitive Slave Act. Why did some northern states pass "Personal Liberty Laws" to counter the Fugitive Slave Acts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_liberty_laws
I do not care how different the world was back then. We are talking about what happened here in the USA. And I care about how it applies to me. If I was alive back then, I would have been a slave.
The Confederate States were (with reason) afraid of the Slave rebellions. They needed numbers to resist the rebellions. They had the numbers, the situation in the Caribbean islands was the reverse & is why they were more successful in their fight for freedom.
Here? At best, Orwellian:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
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.
