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.
While your question about Congress is pointed, and we're certainly not far from that in reality, I think that the answer lies in the potential that the situation in Congress is subject to change. Republicans have a voice because they don't just make their arguments to other members of Congress, they make it to potential voters.
The situation for the South was quite different. Their populations numbers had always been less than the more dense Northern states. An agrarian economy is only going to reinforce that. Additionally, the immigration to the United States was lopsidedly to the urban Northern cities. Not even close.
So the South wasn't looking at a numbers deficit that might change in the next election. They were looking at a numbers deficit that was going to grow worse and worse for decades at least, and more likely for centuries. That's grim.
Quite right. I'm not disagreeing with you on that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
It's not black and white, it's not cut and dried. If people want to understand the Civil War, they can't apply 21st century morality and standards. They can't even apply current election laws to how elections were conducted back then. They have to learn about that time period, and what people thought, and what was done. There were legislative efforts in the first half of the 19th century to address slavery, by both Northern and Southern states. Some of these efforts dealt with the proposal to re-locate freed blacks, some of them had to do with freeing slaves and compensating slave-owners. My point is that the Civil War didn't occur in a vacuum. It is a part of history. And understanding the war involves knowing more about that history, about knowing enough about that period in history to put ourselves in that time and place.
So true, yet so misunderstood and so overlooked. As with everything (including these forums), context matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
After letting the commander know when they were going to fire, and what they were going to aim at. So no one would get hurt. And no one did. Not from Southern artillery.
As I recall, nobody died until the "after ceremony". There's probably a joke in there somewhere, but somehow it doesn't seem appropriate....
However, that is what McDonnell and Barbour were celebrating and that is what led to the Op-ed article from Roland Martin which this thread was based off of.
Nonsense there are thousands of minority positions in this country that never get their way. The only position that voting minorities prevail on are constitutional rights. Everything else is majority rule. The South joined the Union knowing those were the rules.
The slaveholder were like the immature little brat who wants to take the bat and ball home with him spoiling a game because he didn't get his way.
Minority positions?
We're not talking about minority positions. We're talking about one region of the country having the political power to dictate to another region of the country. For an unlimited period of time.
The slaveholders were less than 5% of the entire population in the South. So if the slaveholders were immature little brats, what were the other 95% of the Southern population? Maybe not so immature. Maybe troubled by the political imbalance that was developing in the nation. Maybe people who were direct descendants of American revolutionaries who had fought to have a government that listened and responded to them.
We're not talking about minority positions. We're talking about one region of the country having the political power to dictate to another region of the country. For an unlimited period of time.
Oh you mean like white folk dictating to black folks things like we can own you, or we can dominate you, murder you, etc. Yeah I can see what you mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
The slaveholders were less than 5% of the entire population in the South. So if the slaveholders were immature little brats, what were the other 95% of the Southern population? Maybe not so immature. Maybe troubled by the political imbalance that was developing in the nation. Maybe people who were direct descendants of American revolutionaries who had fought to have a government that listened and responded to them.
The other 95% worked for the slaveholders as overseers, brokers, etc. In many areas of the South the entire economy was based upon slave labor, but only the Souther aristocracy owned slaves. That plus southern white males tend not to be the sharpest tool in the shed even today.
Oh you mean like white folk dictating to black folks things like we can own you, or we can dominate you, murder you, etc. Yeah I can see what you mean.
The other 95% worked for the slaveholders as overseers, brokers, etc. In many areas of the South the entire economy was based upon slave labor, but only the Souther aristocracy owned slaves. That plus southern white males tend not to be the sharpest tool in the shed even today.
No, I don't mean that offensive opening paragraph.
Actually, you are mistaken about the other 95%, as well. The "entire economy" was not based upon slave labor. It was a vital part of the Southern economy, but there were many Southerners who made a living without any reference to slavery at all.
No, I don't mean that offensive opening paragraph.
Actually, you are mistaken about the other 95%, as well. The "entire economy" was not based upon slave labor. It was a vital part of the Southern economy, but there were many Southerners who made a living without any reference to slavery at all.
Funny how you're so concerned about Southern white having a say, but Southern blacks -- not so much concern.
There were areas of the Souther where the economy wasn't based upon slave labor -- the hills of the Carolinas, non-coastal areas of Texas, etc. The political power brokers in the South were predominantly reliant on a slave-labor economy and thats where their loyalty lay and that's the force that pushed Souther secession.
Funny how you're so concerned about Southern white having a say, but Southern blacks -- not so much concern.
There were areas of the Souther where the economy wasn't based upon slave labor -- the hills of the Carolinas, non-coastal areas of Texas, etc. The political power brokers in the South were predominantly reliant on a slave-labor economy and thats where their loyalty lay and that's the force that pushed Souther secession.
Despite your accusation, I am very concerned that black people enjoy full equality. I am very concerned that every citizen in the United States be treated fairly and without prejudice.
I recognize that my sensibilities were not prevalent 150 years ago. That doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't have been.
Despite your accusation, I am very concerned that black people enjoy full equality. I am very concerned that every citizen in the United States be treated fairly and without prejudice.
I recognize that my sensibilities were not prevalent 150 years ago. That doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't have been.
There a statement that's inconsistent with defending the South's right to secede. Shouldn't the blacks in the South been allowed to vote on such a decision? They counted in the census toward representation and electoral votes.
There a statement that's inconsistent with defending the South's right to secede. Shouldn't the blacks in the South been allowed to vote on such a decision? They counted in the census toward representation and electoral votes.
Where did I defend the South's right to secede? Answer, I didn't. What I did to was to try to explain that the causes of the Civil War and the reasons for secession were complex and rooted in a history that involved more than the singular issue of slavery.
You are actually showing prejudice on your part. I am saying that if you are trying to understand secession and Civil War, you have to look at the entire context of events. And from that, you are extrapolating all sorts of things about me.
There is nothing inconsistent about thinking that history is complicated and not just black and white, not just good and evil. And also supporting the rights and equality of all people.
04-13-2010, 02:44 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
The South did have the right to secede - funny thing aint it.
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.
