150year anniversary of the South's declaration of secession

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

shouldn't you be out trident hunting?

Currently I'm being amused enough at some people's pride in their state's participation in American slavery during the 19th century.

I wonder what the fuck it is that make these people tick.

I have no pride that slavery was allowed. Fact is that slavery in America started in the 1500's. The Spanish used slaves. The Colonies used slaves. There were Native Indian slaves as well as white slaves. There were also black slave owners.

Fact; some African Kings sold slaves. Blacks selling blacks.
Fact; all ethnic groups have been enslaved at one point or another in time.
Fact; many in the North owned slaves.
Fact; Ulysses Grant owned a slave.
Fact; slavery existed in Canada until the early 1800's.
Fact; slavery still exist in the Sudan to this day.

Currently, I am being amused by your lack of knowledge.

I wonder what the fuck it is that makes you think that us of the 13 States are proud that slavery existed.

My ancestors were Confederates. One such ancestor was 2nd Lt. Bradford Hamm of Frazer's Dragoons. Should I feel shame? I think not. I fly the Stars and Bars. It is heritage, not racism.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Claim 1) Andy is playing down slavery as a justification for the war.

Claim 2) Andy is defending the Confederacy's part in the war.

Which would you like to dispute?

I'll take that one, Mike.

You're wrong on both counts. You premise is invalid.

1) What part of our mutual agreement that "slavery is abhorrent" do you not understand?

2) How does thinking about causes point to defending?
In a rational mind, it doesn't

You've wasted a lot of time and effort whining about something you refuse to understand and I'm starting to get the idea that you are incapable of understanding and seeing anything other than your simplistic view of the entire issue.

Quote

....C) you're just a mindless shit-stirring drone who's trying to create as much drama as possible to cover for a complete lack of actual content.

In light of you exposing yourself to be rather childish and immature, I'll lower myself to your level just so you can understand...

SO, Jakee, here's to you. Enjoy your mental incapacity. Ignorance, indeed is bliss, eh?

You've exhausted all the energy I'm going to spend on you. Thanks for your input.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't have to be telepathic to read

Then show me where I said what you said I said. You can't, because I didn't say it.

You claim he's posting in support of slavery, even though he has said it's abhorrent. In my experience, you don't support something you find abhorrent - your mileage may vary.

Quote

Your saying that something else I said meant what you said i said, but unless you can actually read my mind, you have absolutely no basis for saying so.

You mean claims like:
"Andy is downplaying slavery as a justification for the war" and "Andy is defending the Confederacy's part in the war", when he's already said that slavery itself is abhorrent?

Stuff like that?

Quote

So either A) You've got that junior telepath kit working overtime;

Proven false, above.

Quote

B) You can't read;

Quote

Also proven false, by the quotes.

Quote

or C) you're just a mindless shit-stirring drone who's trying to create as much drama as possible to cover for a complete lack of actual content.

Ooh, nice PA - THAT sure adds content to the discussion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

>open your mind - People had a way different mind set and thought
>differently then.

Exactly! And Al Qaeda thinks differently than we do here in the US. You should open your mind and not condemn them just because you have a different mind set.

Disagreeing with and condemning are two different things.

Do you condemn them for their treatment of their women?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

People making those arguments should go back to the first post of the thread and read the Declaration again.

Maybe YOU missed:

-"...declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union;"

-"...4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do"

-"...They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government."

-"...For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."


And more interesting stuff regarding this issue in there.


You may reasonably argue that the slavery issue may or may not have been the match that set off the powder keg, but you can't reasonably say that slavery, in and of itself, was the cause of the Civil War.

OR

You an choose the simpleton way...IT WAS ALL BECAUSE OF SLAVERY!

It's there - In Bold . . . you just have to read into it as much as some people are here doing.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,009]

>Do you condemn them for their treatment of their women?

Condemn them? No, I disagree with their treatment of women, but I condemn them for killing innocent people. Even if it's because they think differently than we do.

Likewise, I disagree with some of what the South did in the leadup to the civil war. Gotta condemn them for supporting slavery, though - even if they thought differently than we do.

[quade 4]

Quote

Do you condemn them for their treatment of their women?

Yes, vocally and publicly. Not just those terrorists, but also the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

My question is; why wouldn't you?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Do you condemn them for their treatment of their women?

Yes, vocally and publicly. Not just those terrorists, but also the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

My question is; why wouldn't you?

It is their choice right? What business do you have trying to change their ways?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Thanks for proving my point, again - emotion based arguments over the validity of slavery, vs. an argument over the economic/states rights issues that WERE brought up.

The economic issue the southern states were interested in was their right to continue to hold slaves and expand slavery into the western territories.

The States rights they were interested in was the right to continue with slavery and expand slavery into the western territories.

It's very telling the Declaration did not list any other economic or states rights issues by name but includes (by my quick count) eight references to slavery.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you condemn them for their treatment of their women?

Yes, vocally and publicly. Not just those terrorists, but also the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
My question is; why wouldn't you?

It is their choice right? What business do you have trying to change their ways?

So, let's say I told you there was a secret/not-so-secret religious police force commissioned by the King of a country. Let's say one day that a girls' school caught on fire and members of this religious police force kept the girls in the burning building because the girls weren't dressed "appropriately." That is to say that in their rush to get out of the burning building they weren't wearing an over garment known as an abbya, what some in the US would incorrectly call a "burka."

Would you be ok with that? I mean, after all, it's their country. Why shouldn't they be allowed to trap young girls in burning buildings?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tkhayes 348]

yep - it's a great reason to celebrate.....ranks right up there with the anniversary of the opening of Auschwitz....

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

I DO appreciate people telling me how to think. Really, I do.
I really appreciate people's skewed view of American History...almost like those who were born and raised here.

I can empathize with people's anti-slavery values.

What I CAN'T stand is the simple-minded, closed-minded, mouth-running know-it-all. If you see any of them around anywhere, please tell them to give it rest, eh?

The way I look at it, you are dealing with adolescent mentality. Intelligence is fairly good but, the emotional maturation level is stuck around + or - 15. It is similar to arguing with a teenage girl. Pick your battles.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for proving my point, again - emotion based arguments over the validity of slavery, vs. an argument over the economic/states rights issues that WERE brought up.

The economic issue the southern states were interested in was their right to continue to hold slaves and expand slavery into the western territories.

The States rights they were interested in was the right to continue with slavery and expand slavery into the western territories.

It's very telling the Declaration did not list any other economic or states rights issues by name but includes (by my quick count) eight references to slavery.

Here is an article that shows the complexity of the issues that contributed to the Civil War. Although the catalyst really was the issue of slavery it did boil down to the so-called "states rights". Some northern politicians were becoming more aligned with the abolitionist movement but a series of events and rulings regarding slavery and individual states led directly to secession of some slave states, even before Lincoln was inaugurated. It certainly was not a cut and dried question of the northern pro-abolition guys vs the southern pro-slavery guys. Even 2 years into the war the Emancipation Proclamation "freed" only those slaves from states that had seceded from the Union. It was not intended to (immediately) affect slavery in pro-Union states. It also allowed those "free" slaves from those Confederate states to join the Union forces ...which, IMO, was the intention of the Proclamation since the Union's situation in the war had become dire. Lincoln played the E.P. like a "hole card up his sleeve" to try to foment a sort of rebellion in the South. If the war, and the intention of the Union at the war's beginning, was simply to abolish slavery then abolition would have been well on it's way in the pre-war Union and the E.P., or something like it, would have been declared at or before the beginning of the war and would have had language to free all slaves, even (especially) those under Union control. So, while the South's resistance to abolition violated the rights of slaves as guaranteed in the Constitution, the North's motives weren't so pure, either. I think motives for both sides was more economic and less altruistic than either side would like to admit. Also ...while reading some of this stuff I thought it was somewhat ironic that the Dred Scott decision, while (unconstitutionally, IMO) affirming the slave status of Mr. Scott, it also struck down a couple of "States Rights" Acts which helped push the slave states to secession. Dred Scott

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Here is an article that shows the complexity of the issues that contributed to the Civil War. Although the catalyst really was the issue of slavery it did boil down to the so-called "states rights". Some northern politicians were becoming more aligned with the abolitionist movement but a series of events and rulings regarding slavery and individual states led directly to secession of some slave states, even before Lincoln was inaugurated. It certainly was not a cut and dried question of the northern pro-abolition guys vs the southern pro-slavery guys. Even 2 years into the war the Emancipation Proclamation "freed" only those slaves from states that had seceded from the Union. It was not intended to (immediately) affect slavery in pro-Union states. It also allowed those "free" slaves from those Confederate states to join the Union forces ...which, IMO, was the intention of the Proclamation since the Union's situation in the war had become dire. Lincoln played the E.P. like a "hole card up his sleeve" to try to foment a sort of rebellion in the South. If the war, and the intention of the Union at the war's beginning, was simply to abolish slavery then abolition would have been well on it's way in the pre-war Union and the E.P., or something like it, would have been declared at or before the beginning of the war and would have had language to free all slaves, even (especially) those under Union control. So, while the South's resistance to abolition violated the rights of slaves as guaranteed in the Constitution, the North's motives weren't so pure, either. I think motives for both sides was more economic and less altruistic than either side would like to admit. Also ...while reading some of this stuff I thought it was somewhat ironic that the Dred Scott decision, while (unconstitutionally, IMO) affirming the slave status of Mr. Scott, it also struck down a couple of "States Rights" Acts which helped push the slave states to secession. Dred Scott

Did you read that article? Although you said the article pointed out the complexity of the causes, four out of the five causes were slavery. Just for example, 1. Economic/social differences between the states explains that the south was different because it was a cotton economy based on SLAVE labor. The only one that is even potentially not about slavery is the states right vs. federal rights. Of course this is the one that is always trotted out. The truth is that the only state right the south was interested in was the right to continue to hold slaves and to extend that right into the western territories.

I would agree that the North's motives were not simply about slavery as I pointed out up thread, Lincoln endorsed the Permanent Slavery Amendment at his inauguration. You also point out that the E.P. didn't free all the slaves, e.g. the slaves held in Maryland.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[muff528 3]

Quote

Did you read that article? Although you said the article pointed out the complexity of the causes, four out of the five causes were slavery. Just for example, 1. Economic/social differences between the states explains that the south was different because it was a cotton economy based on SLAVE labor. The only one that is even potentially not about slavery is the states right vs. federal rights. Of course this is the one that is always trotted out. The truth is that the only state right the south was interested in was the right to continue to hold slaves and to extend that right into the western territories.

I would agree that the North's motives were not simply about slavery as I pointed out up thread, Lincoln endorsed the Permanent Slavery Amendment at his inauguration. You also point out that the E.P. didn't free all the slaves, e.g. the slaves held in Maryland.

I am not disagreeing with you that the issue of slavery directly lead to secession and the war. My points were that the constitutional right of each of the United States to independent self-determination was poisoned by the irresponsible, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional practice of holding humans to slavery and that the "north" was just as guilty as the "south" in allowing slavery to exist. Sure, the single-minded southern slave-holding states did secede over slavery issues. But, the north did not engage in war to abolish slavery. It fought to "preserve the Union" and only when things weren't looking so good on the war front did they appeal to and rally the abolitionists and southern slaves to their new cause ...free the slaves. "States rights" lost. The idea of "States rights" is not in itself a bad idea but the concept was abused by the citizens of some states to deny a group of people their guaranteed, unalienable constitutional rights. The result was, rather than to specifically criminalize slavery and affirm the founding principles, to transfer power from the States to the federal government. Good or bad, that transfer of power has continued for 150 years.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

1. Economic/social differences between the states explains that the south was different because it was a cotton economy based on SLAVE labor.

So you admit that abolishing slavery would have destroyed the economy of the southern states.

That's a start.

Another way to look at it:
You have a group of people that kill puppies. Everyone is making money. Part of the group is less successful at making money on it, so they do it less and eventually quit and find other ways to make money. Other parts of the group are very successfull at it and make lots of money. A portion of which that is shared among the group.

Suddenly, those that weren't very good at making money killing puppies say, "Killing puppies is bad. No one should do it anymore. No one in the group will be allowed to do it, and new members won't even have the option."

Even if they're correct, isn't that still hypocritical?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

1) What part of our mutual agreement that "slavery is abhorrent" do you not understand?

Dude. I said that you were playing down slavery as a justification for the war. It is a point completely independant of your attitude towards slavery.

But hey, whatever lets you ignore the argument, eh?

Quote

2) How does thinking about causes point to defending?

Do ya want to re-read the baker post?

Quote

In light of you exposing yourself to be rather childish and immature, I'll lower myself to your level just so you can understand...

"emotional... simple-minded, closed-minded, mouth-running know-it-all... the simpleton way... Beating brain-dead horses... tunnel vision..."

Lower yourself? Hell, I'd say you've just climbed a few notches from your previous posts today

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

You claim he's posting in support of slavery,

No, that's a lie.

Why is it that you think arguing against a false version of someone elses posituion gives you some form of win? It just makes you look like a twat.

Quote

You mean claims like:
"Andy is downplaying slavery as a justification for the war" and "Andy is defending the Confederacy's part in the war", when he's already said that slavery itself is abhorrent?

Stuff like that?

Yes, stuff like that which blatantly does not mean defending or supporting the institution of slavery. I'd be fascinated to see you explain how in your mind it does translate to that.

As I said before, the sheer level of hypocrisy you're willing to put on public display is simply incredible. The sheer gall of throwing around accusations of mindreading when you've just wasted 3 pages trying to tell me what I meant? Incredible.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I am not disagreeing with you that the issue of slavery directly lead to secession and the war. My points were that the constitutional right of each of the United States to independent self-determination was poisoned by the irresponsible, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional practice of holding humans to slavery and that the "north" was just as guilty as the "south" in allowing slavery to exist. Sure, the single-minded southern slave-holding states did secede over slavery issues. But, the north did not engage in war to abolish slavery. It fought to "preserve the Union" and only when things weren't looking so good on the war front did they appeal to and rally the abolitionists and southern slaves to their new cause ...free the slaves. "States rights" lost. The idea of "States rights" is not in itself a bad idea but the concept was abused by the citizens of some states to deny a group of people their guaranteed, unalienable constitutional rights. The result was, rather than to specifically criminalize slavery and affirm the founding principles, to transfer power from the States to the federal government. Good or bad, that transfer of power has continued for 150 years.

After reading your reply I can't really find anything to disagree with. (People agreeing in Speaker's Corner, what is the world coming to?)

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you condemn them for their treatment of their women?

Yes, vocally and publicly. Not just those terrorists, but also the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
My question is; why wouldn't you?

It is their choice right? What business do you have trying to change their ways?

So, let's say I told you there was a secret/not-so-secret religious police force commissioned by the King of a country. Let's say one day that a girls' school caught on fire and members of this religious police force kept the girls in the burning building because the girls weren't dressed "appropriately." That is to say that in their rush to get out of the burning building they weren't wearing an over garment known as an abbya, what some in the US would incorrectly call a "burka."

Would you be ok with that? I mean, after all, it's their country. Why shouldn't they be allowed to trap young girls in burning buildings?

No - I'm not OK with it - are you willing to go to war and chgange their attitude about it tthough? That is what it would take.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

1. Economic/social differences between the states explains that the south was different because it was a cotton economy based on SLAVE labor.

So you admit that abolishing slavery would have destroyed the economy of the southern states.

That's a start.

Another way to look at it:
You have a group of people that kill puppies. Everyone is making money. Part of the group is less successful at making money on it, so they do it less and eventually quit and find other ways to make money. Other parts of the group are very successfull at it and make lots of money. A portion of which that is shared among the group.

Suddenly, those that weren't very good at making money killing puppies say, "Killing puppies is bad. No one should do it anymore. No one in the group will be allowed to do it, and new members won't even have the option."

Even if they're correct, isn't that still hypocritical?

You could insert ex-christians, ex-smokers, ex drug addicts, or a bunch of other ex's and it makes even more sense than doing the Michael Vick!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

1. Economic/social differences between the states explains that the south was different because it was a cotton economy based on SLAVE labor.

So you admit that abolishing slavery would have destroyed the economy of the southern states.

That's a start.

Another way to look at it:
You have a group of people that kill puppies. Everyone is making money. Part of the group is less successful at making money on it, so they do it less and eventually quit and find other ways to make money. Other parts of the group are very successfull at it and make lots of money. A portion of which that is shared among the group.

Suddenly, those that weren't very good at making money killing puppies say, "Killing puppies is bad. No one should do it anymore. No one in the group will be allowed to do it, and new members won't even have the option."

Even if they're correct, isn't that still hypocritical?

You could insert ex-christians, ex-smokers, ex drug addicts, or a bunch of other ex's and it makes even more sense than doing the Michael Vick!

Not really as it all depends on why they are "ex."

If they quit doing it because they had a change of heart, not hypocritical.

If they quit doing it because they couldn't make money doing it or just because they got caught, hypocritical.

Then there's the people that do something privately, but speak out against it publicly. HUGE hypocrites.

It all boils down to what their motive to change was.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,009]

Quote

Another way to look at it:
You have a group of people that kill puppies. Everyone is making money. Part of the group is less successful at making money on it, so they do it less and eventually quit and find other ways to make money. Other parts of the group are very successfull at it and make lots of money. A portion of which that is shared among the group.

Suddenly, those that weren't very good at making money killing puppies say, "Killing puppies is bad. No one should do it anymore. No one in the group will be allowed to do it, and new members won't even have the option."

Even if they're correct, isn't that still hypocritical?

Yes, it would be. It would be much more justifiable if the less-successful puppy killers found ways of doing business so they didn't have to kill many (if any) puppies. Then when they announced that it was bad (which it is) and told everyone it was banned they would be far less hypocritical.

Which, of course, is what happened.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

...abolishing slavery would have destroyed the economy of the southern states.

Unlikely. The South was, at the time, economically based on the production of one product, cotton, which was sold to industries in Northern States for processing into finished products. The demand for cotton was strong, and no alternatives were available, so there still would have been a market for cotton even at the higher prices that would have been necessary without slave labor.

What was at risk was the Southern social system, which was one of class and privilege based on the plantation system. It's a curious fact that by the time of the civil war, slaves had become hugely expensive (this following the banning of importation of slaves, so the "supply" was limited to reproduction from the existing population), and only the most wealthy could afford even a few slaves. The vast majority of those who fought and died to defend the Confederacy could never have realistically hoped to own slaves themselves. Rather, they died to defend a social order that kept economic and political power in the hands of a relatively few wealthy plantation owners. Such is the power of "tradition" (=social indoctrination).

Quote

Another way to look at it:
You have a group of people that kill puppies. Everyone is making money. Part of the group is less successful at making money on it, so they do it less and eventually quit and find other ways to make money. Other parts of the group are very successfull at it and make lots of money. A portion of which that is shared among the group.

Suddenly, those that weren't very good at making money killing puppies say, "Killing puppies is bad. No one should do it anymore. No one in the group will be allowed to do it, and new members won't even have the option."

As I'm sure you recognize, your analogy is highly offensive in that it equates human slaves with dogs. The tactic is a familiar one, though:
1. Humans can be legally owned as slaves (as long as they aren't white, or are from another country according to Leviticus).
2. Slaves are property.
3. Therefore, abolition affects property rights.
4. Abolition isn't about "human rights", it's about "property rights"
Same goes for "States Rights" type arguments.
Of course, arguments about slavery necessarily involve both human rights and property rights/states rights. By emphasizing the States Rights/property rights aspect and glossing over the human rights side of the equation, Confederacy apologists seek to bolster their argument that the South was the aggrieved party. But, the pro-South position can be defended only by relegating slaves to the position of property.

Anyway, your analogy also fails because the abolitionist Northern States were by every measure better at "making money" than the South. Largely this was because the North became industrialized, due largely to the ready availability of water power to drive mills (for example, at Harper's Ferry), and later on steam power based on Pennsylvanian coal. True, they weren't good at growing cotton, but cotton was an economic trap for the South, in that they invested their whole economy in the one crop and never made the effort to build a diverse economy (until long after the Civil War). By the time of the Civil War, the economic gap between the North and the South had become huge, and Southern political leaders had become aware that the Southern "way of life" was doomed to extinction as long as they remained joined with the much more successful North. The only hope to prolong the Southern social order was to separate themselves as much as possible from the North.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 3,009]

>So you admit that abolishing slavery would have destroyed the economy
>of the southern states. That's a start.

?? Not at all. That's like claiming that the cotton gin destroyed the economy of the south because slaves were no longer used to separate seeds from cotton. There were alternatives to slavery; even back then. They just didn't want to be bothered.

The civil war destroyed the economy of the South for years. Afterwards, without slaves, they returned to - growing cotton. Heck, the South exported more cotton in 1880 than they did in 1860. Thus they clearly could have given up slavery without destroying their own way of life years earlier. Why didn't they? Profit. They made more money using slaves.