PDA

View Full Version : The War Between The States



CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 10:38 AM
That's good to hear, so you'd know then that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery,.


The civil war was about state's rights, not slavery.

The Civil War: A Narrative Fort Sumter to Perryville, Fredericksburg to Meridian, Red River to Appomattox by Shelby Foote

I have copies in the shelf behind me. I suggest you read it.

Mississippi declaration of secession:

''A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

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. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.''

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 10:44 AM
Georgia:
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-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. 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, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 10:50 AM
Texas:
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, 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.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

Sonnabend
04-07-2010, 10:54 AM
Wrong state, son, they seceded LATER.


SECESSION AND THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION. Some advocates of secession justified it as a revolutionary right, but most of them based it on constitutional grounds. The 1860 South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession quoted the states 1852 declaration, which said 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," would justify the state in withdrawing from the Union. The South Carolina secession ordinance, following the procedure that Calhoun had prescribed, simply repealed the states ratification of the Constitution and subsequent amendments. The secession ordinances of other states did the same.

The Confederate Constitution proved to he somewhat inconsistent in regard to state rights. It contained no provision for secession, though its preamble averred that each Confederate state was "acting in its sovereign and independent character." One article (like the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) affirmed that the "powers not delegated" were "reserved to the States." The states, however, were limited in important ways. For example, they could not (just as the states of the Union could not) pass any law "impairing the obligation of contracts." They could not get rid of slavery, for the citizens of each state were to "have the right of transit and sojourn in any State . . . with their slaves."

Congress was forbidden to impose duties or taxes to promote or foster any branch of industry" but in some ways was given even greater powers than the U.S. Congress. The ambiguity regarding territories and slavery was removed. The Confederacy could "acquire new territory," and Congress could "legislate" (nor merely make "rules and regulations") for the territories. In all of them "the institution of negro slavery" was to be "recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government." Congress could make all laws necessary and proper" for carrying out its specified powers. If this or any other clause should lead to a dispute over the constitutionality of a law, the Confederate courts (rather than state legislatures or conventions) would presumably decide the issue. This was implied by the following provision: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution."

In sum, the new Constitution was more national than the old one with regard to slavery, which it guaranteed as a nationwide institution. The document provided no more basis for nullification or secession than its predecessor had done--despite the preambles reference to the member states as "sovereign" and "independent." Nevertheless, there remained room for the reassertion of state rights in the Confederacy.
The funny part is that you dont see that history is repeating itself. Once again, a US government is encroaching on state's rights. Secession by its very nature in action was predicated on the abrogation of states rights by the Federal Government.

One reason, i would say, why the 10th amendment was written , to prevent what was happening at the time. The Founding Fathers wanted limited government, having just recently fought a war of Independence...each state wanted the right of self determination.

Slavery was a factor, but not by any means the direct cause. By dictating to the states, the Federal Government was in breach of the Constitution, and secession was the natural and inevitable consequence.

Industry and commerce, the beginnings of the industrial revolution, economic and social upheaval as an old age slowly died away, being replaced by a modern (at that time, to us hideously primitive) technology.

Slavery itself was a dying institution, and the Emancipation Proclamation, which came in 1862, was to all intents and purpose a de facto recognition of a de jure condition..slavery in fact did not end until the 13th amendment was passed, in 1865...AFTER the war was over.

Oh and CITM? Democrats opposed the Proclamation, as they themselves had given birth to the Klan.

It started in Tennessee...Gore's home state.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 11:00 AM
Wrong state, son, they seceded LATER.


The funny part is that you dont see that history is repeating itself. Once again, a US government is encroaching on state's rights. Secession by its very nature in action was predicated on the abrogation of states rights by the Federal Government.

One reason, i would say, why the 10th amendment was written , to prevent what was happening at the time. The Founding Fathers wanted limited government, having just recently fought a war of Independence...each state wanted the right of self determination.

Slavery was a factor, but not by any means the direct cause. By dictating to the states, the Federal Government was in breach of the Constitution, and secession was the natural and inevitable consequence.

Industry and commerce, the beginnings of the industrial revolution, economic and social upheaval as an old age slowly died away, being replaced by a modern (at that time, to us hideously primitive) technology.

Slavery itself was a dying institution, and the Emancipation Proclamation, which came in 1862, was to all intents and purpose a de facto recognition of a de jure condition..slavery in fact did not end until the 13th amendment was passed, in 1865...AFTER the war was over.

Oh and CITM? Democrats opposed the Proclamation, as they themselves had given birth to the Klan.

It started in Tennessee...Gore's home state.

Bullshit.
If Slavery was not the main object or reason behind the war on either party's part, it was on the part of the North. Lincoln stated that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slave, he would; if he could preserve it by freeing some and not others he would; If he would preserve the Union by freeing all slaves, he would. The Emanicipation Proclaimation was a paltry measure designed not as an abolitionist measure but an attempt to weaken the Confederacy. It had no teeth, as it was essentially a document stating that slaves in what was then another country were free.

And, do I give a damn whether or not the Dems opposed it 140 years ago? I mean it's not like parties change over time. Nor is it that the South is now today solidly Republican and has been since post 1964 (Hmm...what was signed by a Democratic President that year, who said when signing it that it would cost the Democratic party the votes of the south 'for a generation?').

Sonnabend
04-07-2010, 11:03 AM
Bullshit.
If Slavery was not the main object or reason behind the war on either party's part, it was on the part of the North. Lincoln stated that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slave, he would; if he could preserve it by freeing some and not others he would; If he would preserve the Union by freeing all slaves, he would. The Emanicipation Proclaimation was a paltry measure designed not as an abolitionist measure but an attempt to weaken the Confederacy. It had no teeth, as it was essentially a document stating that slaves in what was then another country were free.What part of this dont you get?


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.His attempt to intervene in states affairs was in DIRECT contravention of the Constitution.

Mississippi did NOT secede first, South Carolina did. Have you read the book I suggested? If not, you should.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 11:05 AM
Wrong state, son, they seceded LATER.


The funny part is that you dont see that history is repeating itself. Once again, a US government is encroaching on state's rights. Secession by its very nature in action was predicated on the abrogation of states rights by the Federal Government.

One reason, i would say, why the 10th amendment was written , to prevent what was happening at the time. The Founding Fathers wanted limited government, having just recently fought a war of Independence...each state wanted the right of self determination.

Slavery was a factor, but not by any means the direct cause. By dictating to the states, the Federal Government was in breach of the Constitution, and secession was the natural and inevitable consequence.

Industry and commerce, the beginnings of the industrial revolution, economic and social upheaval as an old age slowly died away, being replaced by a modern (at that time, to us hideously primitive) technology.

Slavery itself was a dying institution, and the Emancipation Proclamation, which came in 1862, was to all intents and purpose a de facto recognition of a de jure condition..slavery in fact did not end until the 13th amendment was passed, in 1865...AFTER the war was over.

Oh and CITM? Democrats opposed the Proclamation, as they themselves had given birth to the Klan.

It started in Tennessee...Gore's home state.


What part of this dont you get?



His attempt to intervene in states affairs was in DIRECT contravention of the Constitution.

Mississippi did NOT secede first, South Carolina did. Have you read the book I suggested? If not, you should.

I never said I was posting the declarations in chronological order as they were put out, did I?
Ah, so yes, the' right' of every state to hold slaves was trampled on. Boo fucking hoo.
So I'm guessing your feeling is (defending it as a violation of 'state affairs') slavery should be a matter left up to the states, amiright?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 11:07 AM
What part of this dont you get?

His attempt to intervene in states affairs was in DIRECT contravention of the Constitution.

Mississippi did NOT secede first, South Carolina did. Have you read the book I suggested? If not, you should.

I never said I was posting the declarations in chronological order as they were put out, did I?
Ah, so yes, the' right' of every state to hold slaves was trampled on. Boo fucking hoo.
So I'm guessing your feeling is (defending it as a violation of 'state affairs') slavery should be a matter left up to the states, amiright?

Sonnabend
04-07-2010, 11:12 AM
I never said I was posting the declarations in chronological order as they were put out, did I?
Ah, so yes, the' right' of every state to hold slaves was trampled on. Boo fucking hoo.I suggest you also read the Federalist Papers...and understand that the intent was to form a nation free of tyranny, and the key words here are and were self determination.


So I'm guessing your feeling is (defending it as a violation of 'state affairs') slavery should be a matter left up to the states, amiright?Slavery was already dying.As an institution it had very little time left, the cotton mill and other technological changes had ensured that.

Sooner or later it was going to die of its own accord.

I do not condone slavery, it is abhorrent..but if you cant see that the war remained primarilty about states rights, the very same issue that now confronts Obama and other states that are talking secession NOW, because of the encroaching abuse of power by the Federal Government...then you do not understand the original intent and framework of the Constitution you live under.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 11:16 AM
I suggest you also read the Federalist Papers...and understand that the intent was to form a nation free of tyranny, and the key words here are and were self determination.

Slavery was already dying.As an institution it had very little time left, the cotton mill and other technological changes had ensured that.

Sooner or later it was going to die of its own accord.

I do not condone slavery, it is abhorrent..but if you cant see that the war remained primarilty about states rights, the very same issue that now confronts Obama and other states that are talking secession NOW, because of the encroaching abuse of power by the Federal Government...then you do not understand the original intent and framework of the Constitution you live under.

You're still defending it as an institution because it was a state's right of ''self determination''

The excuse that it was 'already dying' doesn't justify the continuation of it for longer than it needed to be.
The right we're talking about was assumed by many of the secceeding states to be the right to own slaves and to uphold the fugitive slave act. Please, only right wing wingnuts are talking secession now, I'm sure the same was said back when Clinton was President.

Sonnabend
04-07-2010, 11:21 AM
You're still defending it as an institution because it was a state's right of ''self determination''

Straw man, kiddo. Read your own Constitution, especially the 10th amendment.


The excuse that it was 'already dying' doesn't justify the continuation of it for longer than it needed to be. The right we're talking about was assumed by many of the seceding states to be the right to own slaves and to uphold the fugitive slave act. Please, only right wing wingnuts are talking secession now, I'm sure the same was said back when Clinton was President.

Right wing wingnuts?

You haven't been paying attention to current affairs, currently TEN STATES are discussing secession. You didnt know?

Sonnabend
04-07-2010, 11:22 AM
I'm going to get some sleep. Anyone else wanna take this kid though US History for DUmmies?

Megaguns91
04-07-2010, 11:24 AM
. Please, only right wing wingnuts are talking secession now.



Don't you insult my wingnuts. :rolleyes:

Megaguns91
04-07-2010, 11:25 AM
I'm going to get some sleep. Anyone else wanna take this kid though US History for DUmmies?

We already went over this Sonna.

http://archive.perfectduluthday.com/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 11:29 AM
I suggest you also read the Federalist Papers...and understand that the intent was to form a nation free of tyranny, and the key words here are and were self determination.

Slavery was already dying.As an institution it had very little time left, the cotton mill and other technological changes had ensured that.

Sooner or later it was going to die of its own accord.

I do not condone slavery, it is abhorrent..but if you cant see that the war remained primarilty about states rights, the very same issue that now confronts Obama and other states that are talking secession NOW, because of the encroaching abuse of power by the Federal Government...then you do not understand the original intent and framework of the Constitution you live under.


Straw man, kiddo. Read your own Constitution, especially the 10th amendment.

Right wing wingnuts?

You haven't been paying attention to current affairs, currently TEN STATES are discussing secession. You didnt know?

I know what the 10th amendment says. So it seems while you supposedly don't support slavery itself, you do support the right of states or individuals to own slaves if they so choose as per the 10th amendment.

Yeah, and Alec Baldwin said he'd move if Bush was elected. When they actually make good on their petty threats, then you'll have a point. Until then it's just partisan raving as we've seen the rabid 'sore loser' mentality which has pervaded the Tea Party people since the election.

marv
04-07-2010, 11:29 AM
Right :rolleyes: that's why many of the secession documents begin by addressing how important the issue of slavery is. Yeah, it was also founded on state's rights, and over taxation, but the ''state right'' they were hoping to protect was the 'right' to own slaves.
Slavery and taxation had nothing to do with starting the CW. It was economics and political dominance in Congress by the industrialized North.

It was Lincoln who actually turned the CW into a "slavery" issue with the Emancipation Proclamation. Prior to that, and the real reason behind secession, was the economic disparity between Northern industrialized states, and the Southern agricultural states.

Hidden in classroom bias was the simple fact that Southern agriculture, at that time, could not compete with Northern industry because agriculture was too labor intensive and could not yet be mechanized. It was the birth of the Industrial Revolution, and the North with its machines was rising, and the South was in danger of being left behind economically. As things were, it would take many more Eli Whitneys to solve the South's labor intensive dilemma.

Never believe everything you hear, even from a PhD in a classroom.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 11:30 AM
We already went over this Sonna.

http://archive.perfectduluthday.com/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

Oh, if only we could bring back slavery, eh? I mean as long as it's only dark colored people who are enslaved.

Megaguns91
04-07-2010, 11:32 AM
Oh, if only we could bring back slavery, eh? I mean as long as it's only dark colored people who are enslaved.

Excuse me? Did the thought ever cross your mind that I might be black?

Oh of course not,
I'm a right wing wingnut, so there's absolutely no possibility I could be black.
How very narrowminded of you.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 11:33 AM
Slavery and taxation had nothing to do with starting the CW. It was economics and political dominance in Congress by the industrialized North.

It was Lincoln who actually turned the CW into a "slavery" issue with the Emancipation Proclamation. Prior to that, and the real reason behind secession, was the economic disparity between Northern industrialized states, and the Southern agricultural states.

Hidden in classroom bias was the simple fact that Southern agriculture, at that time, could not compete with Northern industry because agriculture was too labor intensive and could not yet be mechanized. It was the birth of the Industrial Revolution, and the North with its machines was rising, and the South was in danger of being left behind economically. As things were, it would take many more Eli Whitneys to solve the South's labor intensive dilemma.

Never believe everything you hear, even from a PhD in a classroom.

I didn't hear it from a PhD, the very declarations of secession by most of the states proclaim it is about the protection of the institution of slavery as a matter of state's rights, and how that god-given right and institution was being trampled on, and yes, they were worried about the economic impact of both the idea of the prohibition of slavery and the (lack of) expansion of slavery into new states as slavery was a core component of their agricultural economy.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 11:35 AM
We already went over this Sonna.

http://archive.perfectduluthday.com/beating-a-dead-horse.gif


Slavery and taxation had nothing to do with starting the CW. It was economics and political dominance in Congress by the industrialized North.

It was Lincoln who actually turned the CW into a "slavery" issue with the Emancipation Proclamation. Prior to that, and the real reason behind secession, was the economic disparity between Northern industrialized states, and the Southern agricultural states.

Hidden in classroom bias was the simple fact that Southern agriculture, at that time, could not compete with Northern industry because agriculture was too labor intensive and could not yet be mechanized. It was the birth of the Industrial Revolution, and the North with its machines was rising, and the South was in danger of being left behind economically. As things were, it would take many more Eli Whitneys to solve the South's labor intensive dilemma.

Never believe everything you hear, even from a PhD in a classroom.


Excuse me? Did the thought ever cross your mind that I might be black?

Oh of course not,
I'm a right wing wingnut, so there's absolutely no possibility I could be black.
How very narrowminded of you.

Please. Black and defending the Confederacy's right to own slaves...That sounds a little askew to me, even on a logical basis. That's akin to an Irishman defending the Potato Famine.

Megaguns91
04-07-2010, 11:36 AM
Please. Black and defending the Confederacy's right to own slaves...That sounds a little askew to me, even on a logical basis. That's akin to an Irishman defending the Potato Famine.

In which post did I defend "the Confederacy's right to own slaves"?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 11:41 AM
In which post did I defend "the Confederacy's right to own slaves"?

You agreed with the other fellow that I need a ''history lesson for DUmmies" so I imagine you mean I need a history lesson in how the South didn't secede over slaves nor did slavery have any factor in the war until Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. I've heard this same argument from many righties. Also, the other guy was basically defending slavery (while he said he thought it was abhorrant) as a state right, citing the 10th amendment and excusing it by saying it was ''dying'' anyway.

Megaguns91
04-07-2010, 11:44 AM
You agreed with the other fellow that I need a ''history lesson for DUmmies" so I imagine you mean I need a history lesson in how the South didn't secede over slaves nor did slavery have any factor in the war until Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. I've heard this same argument from many righties.

Your far-left assumptions have made quite the ass out of you today.

Perhaps I was merely agreeing with Sonna that you fail to understand that there is a current succession of states from the current Union that is disassociated to the color of mine and other people's skin.

Yet, you assume, assume, assume. Your beligerant accusations might have offended me if I wasn't so understanding of your failure to fully comprehend your words. ;)

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 11:45 AM
In which post did I defend "the Confederacy's right to own slaves"?


Your far-left assumptions have made quite the ass out of you today.

Perhaps I was merely agreeing with Sonna that you fail to understand that there is a current succession of states from the current Union that is disassociated to the color of mine and other people's skin.

Yet, you assume, assume, assume. Your beligerant accusations might have offended me if I wasn't so understanding of your failure to fully comprehend your words. ;)

Than I apologize. Sonna and I were mainly discussing the Civil War, so I didn't think you were veering off into his other remark comparing the 1860s to today.

NJCardFan
04-07-2010, 12:19 PM
Please, only right wing wingnuts are talking secession now,

You were saying? (http://www.vermontsecession.blogspot.com/) Vermont isn't the reddest state in the union last I looked.

marv
04-07-2010, 12:40 PM
Okay CaughtintheMiddle, perhaps you could explain the political reasoning behind what is now the State of West Virginia, and its separation from Virginia and secession from the Confederacy.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 12:52 PM
Okay CaughtintheMiddle, perhaps you could explain the political reasoning behind what is now the State of West Virginia, and its separation from Virginia and secession from the Confederacy.

Politically, union supporters in what is now West Virginia formed their own government after Gen. McCllellan's forces drove off Gen. Lee's troops from the area. The union supporters essentially wanted back in the Union as they felt it would be good for Virginia and for the Union (probably after seeing the Union's earlier successes) and held two conventions on the topic and voted on it and were re-admitted, intially as "Virginia" and then acknowledged not long after as a separate state.

Rebel Yell
04-07-2010, 12:53 PM
the South is now today solidly Republican and has been since post 1964


Sonny Perdue is the first Republican governor of Georgia since reconstrustion.

Rebel Yell
04-07-2010, 12:57 PM
Licoln promised to leave slavery intact if the South would continue to pay his unfair taxes. They didn't. If it were all about slavery, the war never would have happened. I'm not saying that slavery wasn't an issue, but the South had many gripes about the fedreal government long before slavery was an issue.

Chuck58
04-07-2010, 01:45 PM
To my thinking, the War Between the States was more about oppressive Northern Tariffs (taxes) designed to keep the South under the Northern thumb. These tariffs were such that the South couldn't sell cotton to England, since the taxes increased the cost. Thus, Southern planters were forced to deal with the Northern mills, who often set the prices.

Slavery was fading. Within a couple of decades it would have died out.

Chuck58
04-07-2010, 01:48 PM
Please. Black and defending the Confederacy's right to own slaves...That sounds a little askew to me, even on a logical basis. That's akin to an Irishman defending the Potato Famine.

Here are more Black men supporting the South, AND the Confederate Battle flag.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/black-men-say-rebel-flag-flies-for-freedom/blog-148689/

For an hour, the Confederate battle flag flew over the former site of the Eight Flags Display on U.S. 90.

Dressed in Confederate gray, a black man named Anthony Hervey marched with the banner clutched in his hands. His brother, Harry, accompanied him, wearing jeans and a Robert E. Lee T-shirt.

Hervey's devotion to the flag began when he discovered that a great-great-uncle, James Hervey, was a black American who fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War. James Hervey served in the Army of Mississippi and was killed at the battle of Shiloh.

Further research helped Hervey discover records of at least 100,000 black Confederates who fought in the war.

"I am marching for freedom," Hervey said. "The battle flag stands for freedom and states' rights. The U.S. flag is the flag of slavery. It flew over 100 years of slavery, and Native Americans were annihilated under that flag."

(more)

NJCardFan
04-07-2010, 02:14 PM
I bet CITM didn't know this but there were blacks fighting for the South (http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks.htm) and they all weren't slaves fighting in the stead of their masters either. Here are more sites on the subject:
http://southernpartysw.tripod.com/southernpartiesofthesouthwestssecondsite/id4.html
http://searchwarp.com/swa271320.htm

And of course there were black slave owners. (http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm) But you won't find that in any history book. http://www.blackinformant.com/uncategorized/more-buried-history-black-slave-owners-in-the-us

And, there is a small black neo-Confederate movement. http://www.phalange.com/blackneo.htm

Sort of blows a whole in CITM's vision that only white supported the confederacy even to this day.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 02:21 PM
Okay CaughtintheMiddle, perhaps you could explain the political reasoning behind what is now the State of West Virginia, and its separation from Virginia and secession from the Confederacy.


I bet CITM didn't know this but there were blacks fighting for the South (http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks.htm) and they all weren't slaves fighting in the stead of their masters either. Here are more sites on the subject:
http://southernpartysw.tripod.com/southernpartiesofthesouthwestssecondsite/id4.html
http://searchwarp.com/swa271320.htm

And of course there were black slave owners. (http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm) But you won't find that in any history book. http://www.blackinformant.com/uncategorized/more-buried-history-black-slave-owners-in-the-us

And, there is a small black neo-Confederate movement. http://www.phalange.com/blackneo.htm

Sort of blows a whole in CITM's vision that only white supported the confederacy even to this day.

You twisted my words around. Never once did I say whites only supported the Confederacy. However, I did say a large part of the Confederacy's cause was founded on the preservation of slavery as an institution and economic enterprise, and that is evidenced by their very own secession documents explaining why they seceded.

I'm sure there were black Confederates, and I'm sure many of them weren't voluntary vets. Maybe some were. I know the Confederacy toward the end of the war offered freedom in return for military service for slaves out of desperation. I know there were black slave owners; It was the African tribes and tribe leaders who sold their fellow countrymen or subjugated enemies or members of other tribes amongst each other and later to the Europeans; I know the history. Slavery wasn't the invention of white people--Goes back as far as Ancient Egypt if not even earlier. And some non-white countries practice legal or de facto human trafficking even today. So, for me, it's not a race issue.

I think the Confederacy was wrong for supporting slavery regardless if even one black person supported or fought it. It doesn't negate the fact that slavery is wrong, no matter who does it. The other issue of the Confederacy, states rights, I can support but not when they are fighting for the right to enslave others. The Confederacy was noble in some ways, and General Lee was a genius, as well as their other military leaders. Their flag is a beautiful flag, and their ideas (with the exception of slavery) were not disagreeable. They did have a right to secede in my opinion, but they played into Lincoln's hands by not giving up the fort.

As to why there are black neo-confederates, I personally can't understand that. But there are all sorts of crazy little movements out there, so..It's not really a big ''bingo'' shot.

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2010, 02:23 PM
Caughtinthemiddle, you can see here how a lot of people here are so ready to twist reality, forget what you just posted, and appear to have a mental block towards the obvious.

Keep that in mind when you find them agreeing with you, and take that chance to do more research.

Chuck58
04-07-2010, 02:42 PM
Numerous black southerners drew pensions from the various southern states after the war for their service. There are photos, during the war and postwar, of blacks serving. Blacks attended Confederate Veteran reunions along with the other CSA veterans.

At the 50th Anniv Gettysburg re-union, Northerners were stunned and totally unprepared for the number of Black Confederates who showed up. They didn't know what to do, since surely they couldn't be billeted with Whites. The problem was solved when Southern Vets welcomed the Black Vets into their encampments, bunked with them and treated them as equals in every way.

The problem with the Confederacy is, UNLIKE the Union records, the South didn't specify the race of their soldiers. Nor were blacks and whites segregated into individual units. Some all black units existed, since they enlisted en masse. In most cases, blacks and whites lived together in the Confederate Army without any restrictions. Thus, it's difficult to tell exactly how many blacks were in Confederate service.

There are Union letters and journals mentioning them in sizable numbers, such as a Union surgeon in Maryland who, when Jackson came through commented that from all appearances, a full quarter to a third of Stonewall Jackson's force was composed of Black soldiers, most armed and marching as Infantry.

megimoo
04-07-2010, 03:13 PM
You twisted my words around. Never once did I say whites only supported the Confederacy. However, I did say a large part of the Confederacy's cause was founded on the preservation of slavery as an institution and economic enterprise, and that is evidenced by their very own secession documents explaining why they seceded.

I'm sure there were black Confederates, and I'm sure many of them weren't voluntary vets. Maybe some were. I know the Confederacy toward the end of the war offered freedom in return for military service for slaves out of desperation. I know there were black slave owners; It was the African tribes and tribe leaders who sold their fellow countrymen or subjugated enemies or members of other tribes amongst each other and later to the Europeans; I know the history. Slavery wasn't the invention of white people--Goes back as far as Ancient Egypt if not even earlier. And some non-white countries practice legal or de facto human trafficking even today. So, for me, it's not a race issue.

I think the Confederacy was wrong for supporting slavery regardless if even one black person supported or fought it. It doesn't negate the fact that slavery is wrong, no matter who does it. The other issue of the Confederacy, states rights, I can support but not when they are fighting for the right to enslave others. The Confederacy was noble in some ways, and General Lee was a genius, as well as their other military leaders. Their flag is a beautiful flag, and their ideas (with the exception of slavery) were not disagreeable. They did have a right to secede in my opinion, but they played into Lincoln's hands by not giving up the fort.

As to why there are black neo-confederates, I personally can't understand that. But there are all sorts of crazy little movements out there, so..It's not really a big ''bingo'' shot.

Causes of the Civil War
by Randy Golden
exclusively for About North Georgia
http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html

...and they [Yankees] are marked ... with such a perversity of character, as to constitute, from that circumstance, the natural division of our parties
Thomas Jefferson.

Listen kid .If you are willing to put aside your liberal school learning and are capable of reading real factual history you could learn a fact or two about our great country.There are those in our country determined to
paint the Southern states as evil black slavers for political gains when in fact the very party they admire
was the party of slave owners and slavery .

The issue of slavery was the last thing on Lincolns mind during the war between the states.

The Southern states were supplying cotton and other raw materials to the Northern Mills before the war saw a way to increase their profitability by dictating lower prices to their Southern Suppliers.The newly dictated prices led to a disagreement over past prices with the Northern Mill owners forced the
Southern producers to look for better terms with England and France for their products.

The Northern mills panicked and complained to their captive congressional critters and they in turn levied a new tax on exported cotton and other southern products likely to force the southern states into virtual slavery to the northern mill owners.

Chuck58
04-07-2010, 03:21 PM
You twisted my words around. Never once did I say whites only supported the Confederacy. However, I did say a large part of the Confederacy's cause was founded on the preservation of slavery as an institution and economic enterprise, and that is evidenced by their very own secession documents explaining why they seceded.

I'm sure there were black Confederates, and I'm sure many of them weren't voluntary vets. Maybe some were. I know the Confederacy toward the end of the war offered freedom in return for military service for slaves out of desperation. I know there were black slave owners; It was the African tribes and tribe leaders who sold their fellow countrymen or subjugated enemies or members of other tribes amongst each other and later to the Europeans; I know the history. Slavery wasn't the invention of white people--Goes back as far as Ancient Egypt if not even earlier. And some non-white countries practice legal or de facto human trafficking even today. So, for me, it's not a race issue.

I think the Confederacy was wrong for supporting slavery regardless if even one black person supported or fought it. It doesn't negate the fact that slavery is wrong, no matter who does it. The other issue of the Confederacy, states rights, I can support but not when they are fighting for the right to enslave others. The Confederacy was noble in some ways, and General Lee was a genius, as well as their other military leaders. Their flag is a beautiful flag, and their ideas (with the exception of slavery) were not disagreeable. They did have a right to secede in my opinion, but they played into Lincoln's hands by not giving up the fort.

As to why there are black neo-confederates, I personally can't understand that. But there are all sorts of crazy little movements out there, so..It's not really a big ''bingo'' shot.

Did you know that the slaves were brought South on Yankee ships, sailing from Yankee ports, manned by Yankee crews? Somewhere, during a similar discussion on another forum, I found a list of captured slavers. All but one of the 9 ships listed was ported out of Boston, New York, and one other New England port. The lone exception was a Dutch slaver.

megimoo
04-07-2010, 03:27 PM
Did you know that the slaves were brought South on Yankee ships, sailing from Yankee ports, manned by Yankee crews? Somewhere, during a similar discussion on another forum, I found a list of captured slavers. All but one of the 9 ships listed was ported out of Boston, New York, and one other New England port. The lone exception was a Dutch slaver.Don't give it too much data .It's working set is very small and its storage if full of liberal talking points !About as much processing power as a parrot !

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2010, 03:30 PM
Did you know that the slaves were brought South on Yankee ships, sailing from Yankee ports, manned by Yankee crews? Somewhere, during a similar discussion on another forum, I found a list of captured slavers. All but one of the 9 ships listed was ported out of Boston, New York, and one other New England port. The lone exception was a Dutch slaver.

Now you're reaching. Was not the North the industrial base of the country?
And who bought those slaves once they reached the south? Southerners!
''Yankee'' This ain't the fucking 1870s, leave the word in the past. Are you going to call me an evil carpetbagger next? Should I call you a Cracker? Leave such words in the past. The Civil War is long over; the ''Yankees'' kicked the South's ass, deal with it. The ''Yankees'' also have the greatest city on Earth--New York.

Chuck58
04-07-2010, 03:47 PM
Now you're reaching. Was not the North the industrial base of the country?
And who bought those slaves once they reached the south? Southerners!
''Yankee'' This ain't the fucking 1870s, leave the word in the past. Are you going to call me an evil carpetbagger next? Should I call you a Cracker? Leave such words in the past. The Civil War is long over; the ''Yankees'' kicked the South's ass, deal with it. The ''Yankees'' also have the greatest city on Earth--New York.

I'm not Southern. I live in New Mexico, but I'm a Mainer. That despicable word is pretty widely used in Maine, New Hampshire and even still in Vermont, among native born Vermonters who can trace ancestry back over a century. It's a source of pride, in fact.

Best do your reading and learn about us before you criticize.

Teetop
04-07-2010, 05:22 PM
To my thinking, the War Between the States was more about oppressive Northern Tariffs (taxes) designed to keep the South under the Northern thumb. These tariffs were such that the South couldn't sell cotton to England, since the taxes increased the cost. Thus, Southern planters were forced to deal with the Northern mills, who often set the prices.

Slavery was fading. Within a couple of decades it would have died out.

Agreed. The Civil War was over power and money, than anything to do with slavery.

Jfor
04-08-2010, 09:05 AM
CITM... I will call you a fucking Yankee. States rights is states rights. We are a voluntary union, not a perpetual union. The states have the right to secede when the union is going in the wrong direction, as it is today. A strong central government is NOT what this country was founded on. The War of Northern Aggression was simply about power and control. While Lincoln did free the slaves in the South, he never freed the slaves in the North. So you tell me if it was about slavery.

Sonnabend
04-08-2010, 09:45 AM
I will try and explain this to you...AGAIN, and I am betting you will never understand it, but here goes.

First, we turn to this: any law, any Constitution, any piece of legislation has two factors, its letter and its spirit. By this we determine the intent, the purpose, the very essence of what the work is meant to achieve.

We will start here:


But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.The War of Independence was predicated on the implicit fact that "taxation without representation". the iron hand of a foreign government, or ANY Government for that matter, that did not serve at the consent of the governed, no longer held any authority.

In this the Founding Fathers laid the framework of the INTENT of the Constitution to come, that each state was free to choose its own destiny, and hence the 10th Amendment was written, to ensure that the loose nation of states retained the rights won in that revolution, and that they had the right and duty to throw off the hand of tyranny wherever it may be found, in this case with Lincolns stated intention to dictate to the states that the Federal Government held sway, and that the rights of the state were subservient to the government.

In many forms, being again the exact match to the King's rule by fiat and dictate, regardless of the will of the governed, and heedless of the fact that by his stance, he had violated the very will of the Constitution, negated the rights of the states and forced the hand of yet another oppressive central authority, exactly akin to the one that had already been thrown out.

Lincoln, like many shortsighted men, was thinking of "now now", not "later" , and in that foolish instant, failed to recognise that by his signing of that Proclamation, he had set himself up as yet another King, determined to enforce his will on a people that had already had a gutful of one absolute ruler...and was not about to sit back and be dictated to by another one in the guise of the Presidency...who had deliberately and with malice aforethought, abrogated his sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


For imposing Taxes on us without our ConsentA sore point then and now, in case it had escaped you.


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.And right there is the crux of the matter, in this and with the intent and purpose of the 10th Amendment, cemented the specific spirit of the law and the Constitution that the states were united, but that the states retained their sovereign rights to govern as they saw fit.

The letter of the law is never the sole arbiter of its spirit, to serve one, you must serve the other.

By its very foundation, the US was created free, and in both the Declaration and the Constitution, a united states BUT with the reserved right for the states to retain their own law and their own governing powers....they were not ready then, or ever, to accept an overweening central power that, less than one hundred years after the Declaration was signed, by its very existence, sought to negate state's rights..and betrayed the very principles on which the war was won.

Lincoln knew that this was the consequence of this Proclamation, and by imposing taxes, by ordering the states to do what HE wanted, had committed the gravest breach possible, defying the very Constitution he was sworn to protect.

By issuing the Proclamation, he created the very schism that caused the war between the states.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Read this again, and again, and again, then try and reconcile that with the intent of the Declaration...the moment he issued the order, he was well aware that he had violated the Constitution, and that secession was not if, BUT WHEN.

The framework of any nation, regardless of where it may be, is predicated and dependent on three factors to ensure it survives the test of time

1. It must support and defend, by its very being, intent and wording, the rights and freedoms of the people it seeks to represent. In this the Founders knew, understood and accepted that their hard won independence was determined by the very nature of the rights of the states, separate to and free of any central authority.

2. It must codify and exactly enumerate the rights of the citizens, and specifically the means of recourse the citizens will have to address grievances, those who claim to rule must answer to those they claim to represent..of such are the very foundations of democracy and freedom.

3. It must address both the vision of the nation to come, and be representative of the will of the people, whose last word will always be to remove those who abuse their power and replace them with those that can be trusted to serve the will of the people, and nothing else.

One issue youhttp://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/twisteddark/editor/color.gif seem to have also overlooked, the 2nd Amendment had one specific intent, to ensure that no citizen anywhere would be forced to buckle unarmed to the hand of tyranny..in this the Founders had great wisdom, as they knew full well that any oppressive government would find it hard, if not impossible, to enforce its will against an armed and angry citizenry. Try as they will, there is no way in hell that the guns will be taken from their citizens, and the fact they own these guns is the implicit acceptance that again, the consent of the governed is required.

The act of any dictatorship is to first disarm its citizens, making them subjects....the very reason the 2nd Amendment exists

Power in the Federal Government and the Presidency was limited by DELIBERATE intent, as the original articles of Confederation severely limited the powers of the Federal Government, as evidenced here


Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.By its intent, letter, and spirit, both the Declaration and the Constitution, by the Preamble which at no time ever, assigned powers to the Federal Government, the United States was formed "as a more perfect union"...with the shared understanding that each state retained its right to self rule..working together but with the direct understanding that the violation of the spirit and the letter of that Constitution had but one consequence: secession.

Lincoln caused the war between the states

The war was never about slavery, it may have been a catalyst, but ANY honest observer of history will know, and agree, that the American Civil War began because, and only because, a president overreached himself, and ignored the very purpose for which the nation was founded.

Jfor
04-08-2010, 10:42 AM
Bravo Sonnabend! Very well said!

NJCardFan
04-08-2010, 12:22 PM
I find it funny how an Australian has more of a grip on what the Civil War was all about than someone born and raised in this country. WeeWee and CITM are prime examples of a public school education.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-08-2010, 03:39 PM
Did you know that the slaves were brought South on Yankee ships, sailing from Yankee ports, manned by Yankee crews? Somewhere, during a similar discussion on another forum, I found a list of captured slavers. All but one of the 9 ships listed was ported out of Boston, New York, and one other New England port. The lone exception was a Dutch slaver.


I find it funny how an Australian has more of a grip on what the Civil War was all about than someone born and raised in this country. WeeWee and CITM are prime examples of a public school education.

Except I only went to Public School for Kindergarten and First Grade. I was in a Lutheran school in Pre-K, and only private Catholic schools (with another Lutheran school in between) including High School thereafter.

Rockntractor
04-08-2010, 03:43 PM
Except I only went to Public School for Kindergarten and First Grade. I was in a Lutheran school in Pre-K, and only private Catholic schools (with another Lutheran school in between) including High School thereafter.
So basically you can only blame yourself for being a complete idiot!

Chuck58
04-08-2010, 03:58 PM
Except I only went to Public School for Kindergarten and First Grade. I was in a Lutheran school in Pre-K, and only private Catholic schools (with another Lutheran school in between) including High School thereafter.

Obviously, education is deteriorating everywhere. Or, maybe you just skipped history, and haven't done much reading since? What else can explain not knowing that the term Yankee is a common term amongst northern New Englanders? Or, I think, not realizing that the slave trade was a huge source of income to New England shipping.

Jfor
04-08-2010, 04:25 PM
Obviously, education is deteriorating everywhere. Or, maybe you just skipped history, and haven't done much reading since? What else can explain not knowing that the term Yankee is a common term amongst northern New Englanders? Or, I think, not realizing that the slave trade was a huge source of income to New England shipping.

Well, considering he is a history major...

Chuck58
04-08-2010, 04:33 PM
Well, considering he is a history major...

And that's frightening, but probably typical these days. Skim the surface but never actually dig below the surface to learn the causes of various events. Rather, judge the past by the PC attitudes of the present, rather than immersing themselves in the past and trying to see it from the viewpoints of the era.

NJCardFan
04-08-2010, 05:49 PM
Well, considering he is a history major...

You mean revisionist history major.

Chuck58
04-08-2010, 06:03 PM
You mean revisionist history major.

The little that they teach these days. I probably had more history in high school than history majors have these days - and it was a real history class. Then, the teacher's actually taught history. Now, they barely focus on anything other than the civil rights era and Bobby Kennedy.

NJCardFan
04-08-2010, 06:26 PM
The little that they teach these days. I probably had more history in high school than history majors have these days - and it was a real history class. Then, the teacher's actually taught history. Now, they barely focus on anything other than the civil rights era and Bobby Kennedy.

Or that the founders were nothing but a bunch of rich white guys trying to protect their wealth.

Chuck58
04-08-2010, 06:30 PM
Or that the founders were nothing but a bunch of rich white guys trying to protect their wealth.

Right, and who wrote documents that anyone who isn't a lawyer or a revisionist, PC, progressive liberal can easily understand. Documents written 230 yrs ago that still stand the test of time.

Rockntractor
04-08-2010, 08:16 PM
I will try and explain this to you...AGAIN, and I am betting you will never understand it, but here goes.

First, we turn to this: any law, any Constitution, any piece of legislation has two factors, its letter and its spirit. By this we determine the intent, the purpose, the very essence of what the work is meant to achieve.

We will start here:

The War of Independence was predicated on the implicit fact that "taxation without representation". the iron hand of a foreign government, or ANY Government for that matter, that did not serve at the consent of the governed, no longer held any authority.

In this the Founding Fathers laid the framework of the INTENT of the Constitution to come, that each state was free to choose its own destiny, and hence the 10th Amendment was written, to ensure that the loose nation of states retained the rights won in that revolution, and that they had the right and duty to throw off the hand of tyranny wherever it may be found, in this case with Lincolns stated intention to dictate to the states that the Federal Government held sway, and that the rights of the state were subservient to the government.

In many forms, being again the exact match to the King's rule by fiat and dictate, regardless of the will of the governed, and heedless of the fact that by his stance, he had violated the very will of the Constitution, negated the rights of the states and forced the hand of yet another oppressive central authority, exactly akin to the one that had already been thrown out.

Lincoln, like many shortsighted men, was thinking of "now now", not "later" , and in that foolish instant, failed to recognise that by his signing of that Proclamation, he had set himself up as yet another King, determined to enforce his will on a people that had already had a gutful of one absolute ruler...and was not about to sit back and be dictated to by another one in the guise of the Presidency...who had deliberately and with malice aforethought, abrogated his sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

A sore point then and now, in case it had escaped you.

And right there is the crux of the matter, in this and with the intent and purpose of the 10th Amendment, cemented the specific spirit of the law and the Constitution that the states were united, but that the states retained their sovereign rights to govern as they saw fit.

The letter of the law is never the sole arbiter of its spirit, to serve one, you must serve the other.

By its very foundation, the US was created free, and in both the Declaration and the Constitution, a united states BUT with the reserved right for the states to retain their own law and their own governing powers....they were not ready then, or ever, to accept an overweening central power that, less than one hundred years after the Declaration was signed, by its very existence, sought to negate state's rights..and betrayed the very principles on which the war was won.

Lincoln knew that this was the consequence of this Proclamation, and by imposing taxes, by ordering the states to do what HE wanted, had committed the gravest breach possible, defying the very Constitution he was sworn to protect.

By issuing the Proclamation, he created the very schism that caused the war between the states.

Read this again, and again, and again, then try and reconcile that with the intent of the Declaration...the moment he issued the order, he was well aware that he had violated the Constitution, and that secession was not if, BUT WHEN.

The framework of any nation, regardless of where it may be, is predicated and dependent on three factors to ensure it survives the test of time

1. It must support and defend, by its very being, intent and wording, the rights and freedoms of the people it seeks to represent. In this the Founders knew, understood and accepted that their hard won independence was determined by the very nature of the rights of the states, separate to and free of any central authority.

2. It must codify and exactly enumerate the rights of the citizens, and specifically the means of recourse the citizens will have to address grievances, those who claim to rule must answer to those they claim to represent..of such are the very foundations of democracy and freedom.

3. It must address both the vision of the nation to come, and be representative of the will of the people, whose last word will always be to remove those who abuse their power and replace them with those that can be trusted to serve the will of the people, and nothing else.

One issue youhttp://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/twisteddark/editor/color.gif seem to have also overlooked, the 2nd Amendment had one specific intent, to ensure that no citizen anywhere would be forced to buckle unarmed to the hand of tyranny..in this the Founders had great wisdom, as they knew full well that any oppressive government would find it hard, if not impossible, to enforce its will against an armed and angry citizenry. Try as they will, there is no way in hell that the guns will be taken from their citizens, and the fact they own these guns is the implicit acceptance that again, the consent of the governed is required.

The act of any dictatorship is to first disarm its citizens, making them subjects....the very reason the 2nd Amendment exists

Power in the Federal Government and the Presidency was limited by DELIBERATE intent, as the original articles of Confederation severely limited the powers of the Federal Government, as evidenced here

By its intent, letter, and spirit, both the Declaration and the Constitution, by the Preamble which at no time ever, assigned powers to the Federal Government, the United States was formed "as a more perfect union"...with the shared understanding that each state retained its right to self rule..working together but with the direct understanding that the violation of the spirit and the letter of that Constitution had but one consequence: secession.

Lincoln caused the war between the states

The war was never about slavery, it may have been a catalyst, but ANY honest observer of history will know, and agree, that the American Civil War began because, and only because, a president overreached himself, and ignored the very purpose for which the nation was founded.

Food for thought Sonna but I feel slavery played a much bigger part than you give it. Our country was built on a contradiction "all men were created equal" yet we bought and sold some, not all had freedom. Did Lincoln violate the constitution, yes of course he did, but no more than any slave owning citizen in the country. To me the country started at the end of the civil war.

Chuck58
04-09-2010, 04:38 PM
I bet CITM didn't know this but there were blacks fighting for the South (http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks.htm) and they all weren't slaves fighting in the stead of their masters either. Here are more sites on the subject:
http://southernpartysw.tripod.com/southernpartiesofthesouthwestssecondsite/id4.html
http://searchwarp.com/swa271320.htm

And of course there were black slave owners. (http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm) But you won't find that in any history book. http://www.blackinformant.com/uncategorized/more-buried-history-black-slave-owners-in-the-us

And, there is a small black neo-Confederate movement. http://www.phalange.com/blackneo.htm

Sort of blows a whole in CITM's vision that only white supported the confederacy even to this day.

This thread has kind of died, but I'm posting this anyway. Did some digging in books I have and online. Here are some direct quotes from Union soldiers referencing Black Confederate soldiers. If they were slaves, would they be armed and fighting against the Union troops?

"One avenue of determining the numbers comes from northern records. There are Union letters and journals mentioning black Confederate troops in sizable numbers. A Union army surgeon in Maryland, when Jackson's Stonewall Brigade came through his town commented that from all appearances, a full quarter to a third of Stonewall Jackson's force was composed of Black soldiers, most of whom were armed and marching as Infantry.

Frederick Douglass, Douglass' Monthly, IV [Sept. 1861,] pp 516 - "there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate Army - as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government...There were such soldiers at Manassas and they are probably there still."

"Negroes in the Confederate Army," Journal of Negro History, Charles Wesle, Vol. 4, #3, [1919,] 244-245 - "Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia. Sixteen companies of free men of color marched through Augusta, Georgia on their way to fight in Virginia."

"The part of Adams' Brigade that the 42nd Indiana was facing were the 'Louisiana Tigers.' This name was given to Colonel Gibson's 13th Louisiana Infantry, which included five companies of 'Avegno Zouaves' who still were wearing their once dashing traditional blue jackets, red caps and red baggy trousers. These five Zouaves companies were made up of Irish, Dutch, Negroes, Spaniards, Mexicans, and Italians." - Noe, Kenneth W., Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY, 2001. [page 270]

From James G. Bates' letter to his father reprinted in the 1 May 1863 "Winchester Indiana] Journal" the 13th IVI "Hoosier Regiment" was involved in operations around the Suffolk, Virginia area in April-May 1863 ] - "I can assure you [Father,] of a certainty, that the rebels have a great many negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters, and the boldest of them all here is a negro. He dug himself a rifle pit last night [16 April 1863] just across the river and has been annoying our pickets opposite him very much to-day. You can see him plain enough with the naked eye, occasionally, to make sure that he is a "wooly-head," and with a spy-glass there is no mistaking him."

Colonel B. C. Christ, 50th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, official report of May 30, 1862 "Sargeant said the war is close to being over. He saw a large number of woolies fighting in the rebel ranks."

And last, although I have many more references, is the Gettysburg 50th Re-Union. "Tents were set and staked preparatory to the arrival of the Confederate Veterans. We were stunned that a considerable number of Confederates who appeared were Colored men. We had made no provision for separating them from the white Veterans, under the reasonable assumption that the Confederate Veterans would not wish to have Colored men in their midst. To our astonishment, the Confederate Veterans met them with hail fellow well met zeal, took them into their encampment and treated them in every way as equals."

Loogie
04-10-2010, 03:56 PM
Regardless of the rationale for secession (it was certainly not primarily about slavery), the states had (and still have) a right to secede, and the north attempted to prevent it.

The civil war was not a true civil war (which means two sides struggling for ultimate power or control), it is more accurately described as the war of northern aggression, because the north attacked a state for exercising it's Constitutional right to secede.
The south was not trying to wrest control of, or assert power over, the north. They were simply trying to break away. Big difference.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-10-2010, 04:41 PM
Or that the founders were nothing but a bunch of rich white guys trying to protect their wealth.

No school I've ever been in--and I've been to many many schools throughout my academic career--has ever taught that. They gave the whole history of the conflict, and told us of events like the Boston Massacre, soldiers being quartered in Colonists' houses without their permission, the taxes, and the other abuses by the British. They gave the reasons why the Founders fought and it was never ''rich white men protecting their wealth.''

Sonnabend
04-10-2010, 07:08 PM
No school I've ever been in--and I've been to many many schools throughout my academic career--has ever taught that.

Academic career...uh huh, what WORK do you do ? Or are you a "lifer"?


They gave the whole history of the conflict, and told us of events like the Boston Massacre, soldiers being quartered in Colonists' houses without their permission, the taxes, and the other abuses by the British.

....and you havent a/ read what I posted and b/ told me if you have read Foote's trilogy.


They gave the reasons why the Founders fought and it was never ''rich white men protecting their wealth.''

And mine knew better than yours at Berkeley and knew that the Civil War was about state's rights. My case is as above.

Refute it, if you can.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-10-2010, 07:13 PM
Academic career...uh huh, what WORK do you do ? Or are you a "lifer"?



....and you havent a/ read what I posted and b/ told me if you have read Foote's trilogy.



And mine knew better than yours at Berkeley and knew that the Civil War was about state's rights. My case is as above.

Refute it, if you can.

Well, I'm 19 and am in college currently and because of my family's moves as well as other reasons, I've been in let's see (This is between Pre-K and 12th Grade)...
3 Public Schools
4 Catholic Schools
2 Luthern Schools
And No, I've never read Foote's Trilogy. And the Civil War being about State's Rights is your opinion and is contested even among historians.

Sonnabend
04-10-2010, 07:22 PM
Well, I'm 19 and because of my family's moves as well as other reasons, I've been in let's see...
3 Public Schools (Between Kindergarten and Second Grade)
4 Catholic Schools (Second half of Pre-K, Between 2nd-5th and 6-12th Grade)
2 Luthern Schools (Pre-K and 5th grade)So...when do you actually intend to do any work for a living and you're NINETEEN?

Where the hell do you get off lecturing US? You're barely a child out of nappies and you have the effrontery to argue with ADULTS?

You went to liberal ass schools that taught white guilt, you have no real world knowledge. Why am I not surprised.


And No, I've never read Foote's Trilogy.Shelby Foote is one of the most noted and celebrated writers of that era and is and was an expert on the Civil War...that I have read those books, and you have NOT, tells me that you are poorly informed and have been taught a load of politically correct garbage. That I know who he was, and you do not, tells me even more.

Here (http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Shelby_Foote-mcid_2114032.html?isrc=b-authorsearch)

Buy.

Read.

Learn.


And the Civil War being about State's Rights is your opinion and is contested even among historians.No, it is not. Not amongst any who actually KNOW what they are talking about.

Black armband history....disgusting.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-10-2010, 07:35 PM
Academic career...uh huh, what WORK do you do ? Or are you a "lifer"?



....and you havent a/ read what I posted and b/ told me if you have read Foote's trilogy.



And mine knew better than yours at Berkeley and knew that the Civil War was about state's rights. My case is as above.

Refute it, if you can.


So...when do you actually intend to do any work for a living and you're NINETEEN?

Where the hell do you get off lecturing US? You're barely a child out of nappies and you have the effrontery to argue with ADULTS?

You went to liberal ass schools that taught white guilt, you have no real world knowledge. Why am I not surprised.

Shelby Foote is one of the most noted and celebrated writers of that era and is and was an expert on the Civil War...that I have read those books, and you have NOT, tells me that you are poorly informed and have been taught a load of politically correct garbage. That I know who he was, and you do not, tells me even more.

Here (http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Shelby_Foote-mcid_2114032.html?isrc=b-authorsearch)

Buy.

Read.

Learn.

No, it is not. Not amongst any who actually KNOW what they are talking about.

Black armband history....disgusting.

Well, I've had a job before working as a teacher's assistant with blind children. I intend to do that again when the semester ends as I work toward my degree. I also intend to get a job as a Security Guard with a firm near me. As far as ''real life experience'', you do not know my life or where I've been or who I've known or what I've experienced. And what does ''real life experience'' have to do with the Civil War, an even that happened over 130 years ago anyway?
And you don't know what I was taught the schools I went to. My schools were liberal? And you know this how? And I was never taught white guilt, neither at home nor at school nor is it something I believe in. My ancestors came to America after slavery for one, and secondly, even if they owned slaves two hundred years ago, it has no bearing on me now.
You're so angry. Chill.

Sonnabend
04-10-2010, 07:56 PM
Well, I've had a job before working as a teacher's assistant with blind children. I intend to do that again when the semester ends as I work toward my degree

In what. Womyns studies?


I also intend to get a job as a Security Guard with a firm near me. As far as ''real life experience'', you do not know my life or where I've been or who I've known or what I've experienced. And what does ''real life experience'' have to do with the Civil War, an event that happened over 130 years ago anyway?

You'll learn.


And you don't know what I was taught the schools I went to. My schools were liberal? And you know this how?

Every word you have said.


And I was never taught white guilt, neither at home nor at school nor is it something I believe in. My ancestors came to America after slavery for one, and secondly, even if they owned slaves two hundred years ago, it has no bearing on me now.

Oh but you were, you just dont realise it. Yet.


You're so angry. Chill.

I dont suffer fools gladly.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-10-2010, 08:04 PM
In what. Womyns studies?



You'll learn.



Every word you have said.



Oh but you were, you just dont realise it. Yet.



I dont suffer fools gladly.

No actually in Law, and then go back and get a BA in Business Administration.
Can't answer the question again I see.
My schools were actually non-political. The teachers didn't push politics down our throats eithr way.
No, I know exactly what white guilt is and was never taught it, in the home or otherwise. My family is actually very anti white guilt.

Sonnabend
04-10-2010, 08:12 PM
No actually in Law, and then go back and get a BA in Business Administration.

Ah..a career academic


My schools were actually non-political. The teachers didn't push politics down our throats either way.

Wrong.


No, I know exactly what white guilt is and was never taught it, in the home or otherwise. My family is actually very anti white guilt.

Is that when they're not coming to you for "wise counsel"? :rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-10-2010, 08:18 PM
In what. Womyns studies?



You'll learn.



Every word you have said.



Oh but you were, you just dont realise it. Yet.



I dont suffer fools gladly.


Ah..a career academic



Wrong.



Is that when they're not coming to you for "wise counsel"? :rolleyes:

Career academic? You can go to school and work, or, if not, spend say a decade at your primary profession and then go back to school. I've always had an interest in law and I intend that to be my profession and later at some point I'd like to go back and get a BA in Business as business has always been a great interest of mine. My father worked two jobs and still managed to get his associates, and then later worked full time and got his Bachelors of Science in 2 years as already had half the credits needed.

No, not wrong.

I'll put it this way---My parents are very anti white guilt and I was raised by them. My surviving grandparents are all staunch conservatives and registered Republicans with my maternal grandmother and paternal grandpa bordering on racist. My aunts are all conservatives and as far as I'm aware registered Republicans, as were all my great aunts and uncles, including a great uncle who told my aunt (for whatever reason) to ''register Democrat but vote Republican."
My cousins, nephews and Brother in Law are those who in my family whom I offer my advice to; the others are my friends.

Sonnabend
04-10-2010, 08:20 PM
I'll put it this way---My parents are very anti white guilt and I was raised by them. My surviving grandparents are all staunch conservatives and registered Republicans with my maternal grandmother and paternal grandpa bordering on racist.

:rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-10-2010, 08:24 PM
:rolleyes:

My grandfather grew up in Bensonhurst in the 30s and 40s, and his family was very connected with a lot of the Mafia types. He is naturally a bit biased. Perhaps racist is the wrong word. He's more like Archie Bunker biased--He'll bad talk minorities but got into a bar fight while in the Army during the '50s down in Alabama defending a black friend of his who was a fellow soldier after his friend was called the 'N' word.
Likewise, my maternal grandmother was raised by a drunken Irish father who considered even Italians to be ''niggas.'' They were both products of their upbringing or time.

Sonnabend
04-10-2010, 10:01 PM
My grandfather grew up in Bensonhurst in the 30s and 40s, and his family was very connected with a lot of the Mafia types. He is naturally a bit biased. Perhaps racist is the wrong word. He's more like Archie Bunker biased--He'll bad talk minorities but got into a bar fight while in the Army during the '50s down in Alabama defending a black friend of his who was a fellow soldier after his friend was called the 'N' word.
Likewise, my maternal grandmother was raised by a drunken Irish father who considered even Italians to be ''niggas.'' They were both products of their upbringing or time.

Doesn't make them "borderline racists". I've ben called "racist" for daring to disagree with "The One"...it's an idiotic liberal meme and it's a LIE.

I refer to this


My surviving grandparents are all staunch conservatives and registered Republicans with my maternal grandmother and paternal grandpa bordering on racist.

Yeah, right..all Republicans are "racist"

Got it :rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-10-2010, 10:03 PM
:rolleyes:


Doesn't make them "borderline racists". I've ben called "racist" for daring to disagree with "The One"...it's an idiotic liberal meme and it's a LIE.

I refer to this



Yeah, right..all Republicans are "racist"

Got it :rolleyes:

Never said all Republicans are racist. They're very, very socially conservative.
And I've heard the way my grandparents talk, you haven't. They're biased if anything.

Sonnabend
04-10-2010, 11:20 PM
They're biased if anything.

..and you aren't? :rolleyes:

Chuck58
04-10-2010, 11:34 PM
So...when do you actually intend to do any work for a living and you're NINETEEN?

Where the hell do you get off lecturing US? You're barely a child out of nappies and you have the effrontery to argue with ADULTS?

You went to liberal ass schools that taught white guilt, you have no real world knowledge. Why am I not surprised.

Shelby Foote is one of the most noted and celebrated writers of that era and is and was an expert on the Civil War...that I have read those books, and you have NOT, tells me that you are poorly informed and have been taught a load of politically correct garbage. That I know who he was, and you do not, tells me even more.

Here (http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Shelby_Foote-mcid_2114032.html?isrc=b-authorsearch)

Buy.

Read.

Learn.

No, it is not. Not amongst any who actually KNOW what they are talking about.

Black armband history....disgusting.

The late Shelby Foote's Civil War - A Narrative might be the best work on that war written to date. I'm also a fan of Bruce Catton and his trilogy on that war.

I had a hunch, as I'm sure you did, that this guy was a kid trying to impress adults with his vast life experience and knowledge. I often dealt with them when I was a cop.

I can't remember how many times I was lectured on law by some kid around 19 or 20 who planned to go to law school. In the meantime, they were in 2nd or 3rd yr of college.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-10-2010, 11:49 PM
..and you aren't? :rolleyes:

No, not racially.
When you feel on the whole Hispanics are trash like my grandmother does, I'd call that biased, predjudiced, whatever you'd prefer.

Rockntractor
04-10-2010, 11:55 PM
No, not racially.
When you feel on the whole Hispanics are trash like my grandmother does, I'd call that biased, predjudiced, whatever you'd prefer.
Yeah, I remember someone else throwing grandma under the bus!:rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-10-2010, 11:57 PM
..and you aren't? :rolleyes:


Yeah, I remember someone else throwing grandma under the bus!:rolleyes:

Disagreeing with someone's mode of thinking on one particular subject is throwing the person under the bus?

Rockntractor
04-11-2010, 12:00 AM
Disagreeing with someone's mode of thinking on one particular subject is throwing the person under the bus?
It's not the first time you dissed grandma! Grandma hater.:rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-11-2010, 12:04 AM
It's not the first time you dissed grandma! Grandma hater.:rolleyes:

She isn't particularly the nicest person.

Chuck58
04-11-2010, 01:04 AM
She isn't particularly the nicest person.

You can't judge an elderly person based on their beliefs.

Here, in New Mexico, there are a few survivors of the Bataan Death March. Some 1900 men from the NM National Guard were taken prisoner in the Philippines. Less than 800 came home, after almost 4 yrs in Japanese captivity. Most have never resolved their issues with the Japanese.

My father served in the Marine Corps, in the Pacific Theater. To him, until the day he died, they were Japs - and some other really nasty things. My father was raised in an Italian neighborhood. He grew up hating Blacks, Irish, French and despised Puerto Ricans.

I understood that. I'd heard him mention the names he was called and heard stories of how he had to fight his way to school and home every day, through those enemy neighborhoods.

He was a solid Roosevelt Democrat and thought the sun rose and set on Bill Clinton. I'm not sure where he'd stand on the obamessiah. He died 6 yrs ago.

He and I got into some godawful arguments over politics. I'm registered Republican but lean more libertarian on many issues.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-11-2010, 01:07 AM
It's not the first time you dissed grandma! Grandma hater.:rolleyes:


You can't judge an elderly person based on their beliefs.

Here, in New Mexico, there are a few survivors of the Bataan Death March. Some 1900 men from the NM National Guard were taken prisoner in the Philippines. Less than 800 came home, after almost 4 yrs in Japanese captivity. Most have never resolved their issues with the Japanese.

My father served in the Marine Corps, in the Pacific Theater. To him, until the day he died, they were Japs - and some other really nasty things. My father was raised in an Italian neighborhood. He grew up hating Blacks, Irish, French and despised Puerto Ricans.

I understood that. I'd heard him mention the names he was called and heard stories of how he had to fight his way to school and home every day, through those enemy neighborhoods.

He was a solid Roosevelt Democrat and thought the sun rose and set on Bill Clinton. I'm not sure where he'd stand on the obamessiah. He died 6 yrs ago.

He and I got into some godawful arguments over politics. I'm registered Republican but lean more libertarian on many issues.

I don't judge her on her beliefs, it's her words and actions. She's not the nicest person, believe me, and never was. Verbally, mentally and physically abusive to her husband and children and very hateful and selective with her grandchildren and great grandchildren.

My other grandmother on the other hand was old enough to remember WWII and Korea and is a sweetheart.

fettpett
04-11-2010, 12:05 PM
Well, I've had a job before working as a teacher's assistant with blind children. I intend to do that again when the semester ends as I work toward my degree. I also intend to get a job as a Security Guard with a firm near me. As far as ''real life experience'', you do not know my life or where I've been or who I've known or what I've experienced. And what does ''real life experience'' have to do with the Civil War, an even that happened over 130 years ago anyway?
And you don't know what I was taught the schools I went to. My schools were liberal? And you know this how? And I was never taught white guilt, neither at home nor at school nor is it something I believe in. My ancestors came to America after slavery for one, and secondly, even if they owned slaves two hundred years ago, it has no bearing on me now.
You're so angry. Chill.

a TA isn't much of a job, even if it's with blind kids, while admirable, it's still hardly what we'd call life experience.

Intending to get a job as a Security Guard and actually having one are different things. and that isn't a particularly hard one either....sit in a both and walk around every couple of hours. Hell most wont even let you carry more than a flashlight.

When you've got 3 kids, worked in shithole factories, flipped burgers, and various other jobs, then come back and say you've got some life experience. you're nothing more than a youngn' that doesn't know your head from your ass.

Chuck58
04-11-2010, 01:39 PM
a TA isn't much of a job, even if it's with blind kids, while admirable, it's still hardly what we'd call life experience.

Intending to get a job as a Security Guard and actually having one are different things. and that isn't a particularly hard one either....sit in a both and walk around every couple of hours. Hell most wont even let you carry more than a flashlight.

When you've got 3 kids, worked in shithole factories, flipped burgers, and various other jobs, then come back and say you've got some life experience. you're nothing more than a youngn' that doesn't know your head from your ass.

When I was a kid, I was a know it all, too. My father told me a number of times, when you're 18 you know it all. If you make it to 40, you'll realize how stupid you were.

He was right. I'm almost 65 now, and thinking back, I don't think I was too bright when I was 40. I was dumber than the average rock at 18 and 19.

BUT, on the plus side, I was pretty right wing and conservative even in my teens. That hasn't changed with the passing years.

fettpett
04-11-2010, 04:44 PM
When I was a kid, I was a know it all, too. My father told me a number of times, when you're 18 you know it all. If you make it to 40, you'll realize how stupid you were.

He was right. I'm almost 65 now, and thinking back, I don't think I was too bright when I was 40. I was dumber than the average rock at 18 and 19.

BUT, on the plus side, I was pretty right wing and conservative even in my teens. That hasn't changed with the passing years.

yep, I agree. I thought I knew everything then too...at 27 I've changed my mind.

Rockntractor
04-11-2010, 05:07 PM
yep, I agree. I thought I knew everything then too...at 27 I've changed my mind.
And as you get older you realize you know even less, and a lot that you do know, doesn't really matter anymore.

Bubba Dawg
04-11-2010, 06:13 PM
And as you get older you realize you know even less, and a lot that you do know, doesn't really matter anymore.

Then you have to have an operation. They may call it a procedure, but you know it's surgery. Then you develop a chronic condition and take meds for it. The meds have side effects and you take meds to deal with the side effects of the other meds. Then you have a major condition that arises. Surgery. More procedures. Then you can't remember things like you used to and then, one day, you go to the store and can't find your way back to your own house and your family has the police looking for you and they find you 1000 miles away in Utah or some such place. By then the milk you went to the store to buy has soured and you've pooped your pants three times and didn't notice.

I hate when that happens.

Rockntractor
04-11-2010, 06:30 PM
Then you have to have an operation. They may call it a procedure, but you know it's surgery. Then you develop a chronic condition and take meds for it. The meds have side effects and you take meds to deal with the side effects of the other meds. Then you have a major condition that arises. Surgery. More procedures. Then you can't remember things like you used to and then, one day, you go to the store and can't find your way back to your own house and your family has the police looking for you and they find you 1000 miles away in Utah or some such place. By then the milk you went to the store to buy has soured and you've pooped your pants three times and didn't notice.

I hate when that happens.

Sigh! Been there done that.:o

Bubba Dawg
04-11-2010, 06:36 PM
Sigh! Been there done that.:o

Me too. :D

Rockntractor
04-11-2010, 06:39 PM
Me too. :D
On a serious note, I have passed out in New Orleans and came out of it by Houston before, but that's a long story!

AmPat
04-11-2010, 07:00 PM
Bullshit.
If Slavery was not the main object or reason behind the war on either party's part, it was on the part of the North. Lincoln stated that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slave, he would; if he could preserve it by freeing some and not others he would; If he would preserve the Union by freeing all slaves, he would. The Emanicipation Proclaimation was a paltry measure designed not as an abolitionist measure but an attempt to weaken the Confederacy. It had no teeth, as it was essentially a document stating that slaves in what was then another country were free.

And, do I give a damn whether or not the Dems opposed it 140 years ago? I mean it's not like parties change over time. Nor is it that the South is now today solidly Republican and has been since post 1964 (Hmm...what was signed by a Democratic President that year, who said when signing it that it would cost the Democratic party the votes of the south 'for a generation?').

BS back at you sonny boy.

Slavery was a major economic factor. If the South had tried to force Slavery on the North, the results would have been the same. If the South had tried to destroy the North's industrial based economy without viable alternatives, like the Norht did to the South, the North would have seceeded. Slavery happened to be the economic system targeted by the North, but the North had no great, altruistic love of the Negroes.:cool:

fettpett
04-11-2010, 09:44 PM
BS back at you sonny boy.

Slavery was a major economic factor. If the South had tried to force Slavery on the North, the results would have been the same. If the South had tried to destroy the North's industrial based economy without viable alternatives, like the Norht did to the South, the North would have seceeded. Slavery happened to be the economic system targeted by the North, but the North had no great, altruistic love of the Negroes.:cool:

exactly, there were Whole divisions that litterally up and left, going home as soon as they heard about the Emancipation Proclamation. Many Union soliders understood how the meaning of the War shifted after Antietam and the document was signed. As much as we see that it changed the emphasis of the war as a good thing. Lincoln took a gamble, all it was designed to do was keep the UK and France out of the War. As big as the Union Army was in 1862, there was no way that they could have fought a 2 sided war between the CSA and British Canada, as well as keeping the British and French ships from breaking the blockade. The Trent Affair made tensions between the US and Britain to new heights and Lincoln needed a way to make the war one of Morality. McClellan's victory at Antietam gave him that opportunity, but cost him a lot of support in the western states.

NJCardFan
04-11-2010, 10:56 PM
On a serious note, I have passed out in New Orleans and came out of it by Houston before, but that's a long story!

Those Hurricanes are mean drinks aren't they?

Sonnabend
04-12-2010, 04:34 AM
The late Shelby Foote's Civil War - A Narrative might be the best work on that war written to date. I'm also a fan of Bruce Catton and his trilogy on that war.

The moment our little brat here said he hadn't read it, told me he knew jack and shit. Any serious student reads that series....anyone that wants to actually LEARN anything, that is.

Akin to some idiot telling me what he knew of the Caesars, then telling me he didnt know what the Res Gestae Divi Augusti was. :rolleyes:

AmPat
04-12-2010, 11:22 AM
Now you're reaching. Was not the North the industrial base of the country?
And who bought those slaves once they reached the south? Southerners!
''Yankee'' This ain't the fucking 1870s, leave the word in the past. Are you going to call me an evil carpetbagger next? Should I call you a Cracker? Leave such words in the past. The Civil War is long over; the ''Yankees'' kicked the South's ass, deal with it. The ''Yankees'' also have the greatest city on Earth--New York.That's a pretty old word and much more incendiary than Yankee. How about you leave it in the past child?:cool:
You have a problem with the New York Yankees? I have a problem with your assertion that the "Yankees kicked the South's ass." While it is true that the North won, the "ass kicking" was done by the South to the North. Had the South had a stronger infrastructure, there would be a USA and a CSA today.

fettpett
04-12-2010, 12:43 PM
That's a pretty old word and much more incendiary than Yankee. How about you leave it in the past child?:cool:
You have a problem with the New York Yankees? I have a problem with your assertion that the "Yankees kicked the South's ass." While it is true that the North won, the "ass kicking" was done by the South to the North. Had the South had a stronger infrastructure, there would be a USA and a CSA today.

a stronger infrastructure and a larger immigrant base would have helped a lot. If southern Railway line companies had done what the north had and applied for Federal Grants to help build the Rail system, they would have had a much better system. As it was, it was a hodge-podge of decent to shitty rail lines.

If they had encouraged more immigration to their area, not only would they have had a lot more men. The South's attitude toward forward thinking innovation and progress tied their hands in being viable entity. Perfect example is the Cotton Gin, prior to it's invention Slavery was a dieing institution. but Eli Whitney went on a trip south and saw how labor intensive it was to pick and clean cotton and came up with the idea. He was a Northerner that was trying to free up slave labor, but ultimately lead to it's expansion as Cotton became easy to produce