International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   One less confederate monument to vandalize... (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321074)

luchog 4th July 2017 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907163)
Do you dispute that slavery would not have eventually ended in the south?


Not anytime soon, no. While slavery had ended within the borders of mainland Europe for the most part, European governments still maintained the institution of slavery in their African, Caribbean, and remaining Central and South American colonies, and would continue to do so for decades after the end of the American Civil War.

The economy of the South was heavily dependent on slave labour, and it is quite clear that they intended for it to continue indefinitely. The invention of the cotton gin is touted by some as the beginning of the end of slavery, but the reality is far different, and in fact it served to help cement the institution of slavery in the South, by increasing the speed at which the cotton could be processed, causing prices to fall and demand to increase accordingly. Plantations expanded, and additional slaves were needed to work the fields and the cotton gins to meet the growing demand.

Paid labour would have reduced the profits available, despite the increased demand, due to the drop in price. This made slaves even more financially necessary to maintain the plantation system, particularly for smaller scale plantations which could not depend as heavily on economies of scale.

Even had the changing markets made slavery less financially viable over the long term, it would still have been well into the industrial boom of the 1890s before the impact became significant enough; and indeed, with the North and South split, it's highly likely that the boom itself would have been greatly delayed, quite likely until the period of the Great War stimulated the manufacturing economy.

All that being the case, even should the institution of slavery have finally failed to be viable, it would still have been maintained out of law and tradition. Given the fact that the Confederate Constitution explicitly enshrined the institution of slavery and the supremacy of the European-descended white race, black people would never have been able to become fully free, but would have been relegated to perpetual second-class citizen status.

Influence from outside would have had little to no impact on the status of black slaves in the South, as we can see from the strident opposition of the southern states to recognition of the full-citizen status of black people well into the lifetimes of those debating on this forum. Anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting interracial marriage were not abolished in the South until 1967, and it took a Supreme Court ruling (Loving vs. Virginia) to do so. The South violently resisted the process of racial desegregation until well into the 1980s, and indeed still enforces de facto segregation in many places to this day. I'm old enough to remember the fight over desegregation of educational institutions, aka "bussing", in the 1980s; and despite the fight continuing well into the 1990s and beyond, educational segregation still exists throughout much of the South today.

It's quite clear, to even the most casual student of Southern history, that there was no way market or social forces were going to have any significant impact on the institution of slavery, had the Confederacy been allowed to secede, until well into the 20th Century, and even then the process would have been far slower, more violent, and less comprehensive than it has otherwise been. The Confederacy was founded on slavery, depended for its existence on slavery, and would have done everything within its power to perpetuate slavery de facto if not de novo.

Indeed, the restructuring of the US prison system after the Civil War was designed predominantly to maintain the functions of slavery while the rest of the society gave the appearance of abolishing the trappings of slavery.

Belz... 4th July 2017 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resume (Post 11900899)
“Because what had happened with the vandalism to it, and the city wanted it removed, this way it will be preserved . . . It is a beautiful monument.” says Patsy Limpus, president of the United Daughters of the Confederacy Missouri Division and the St. Louis Confederate Monument Association.

Because nothing says beauty like civil war, treason, and the ownership of human beings.

One has nothing to do with the other. There are monuments to Alexander the Great but the man was a monster.

Checkmite 4th July 2017 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11907156)
The CSA offered to abandon slavery in return for recognition from Europe as a nation.

Out of desperation once it became obvious the war was lost. At that point the men responsible were facing the prospect of likely disgrace and imprisonment, along with mass forfeiture of wealth and property. Of course they were willing to give up slavery for any hope of staving off such an eventuality at that point.

Belz... 4th July 2017 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11905101)
"History is written by the winners" doesn't mean the losers were always right.

It's also seldom true. The losers write quite a bit of history.

Belz... 4th July 2017 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11905785)
Since this fact is wrong, everything that follows is also wrong.

No, actually. The CSA was very clear about it being about slavery. The north was pretty clear about it being about slavery. What else would it be about? The issue of slavery had been an important and divisive issue since even before the revolutionary war. It's a major part of US history throughout. It still is, I'd argue.

Belz... 4th July 2017 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11906903)
It takes two to tango. The South fought for a reason. You say it was slavery. OK, fine. But why did the North insist that they stay? Why did the North refuse to allow the majority of the slave states to secede? There wasn't enough slavery in the united states unless the Southern states remained? The North fought for a reason and it wasn't slavery. So the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Because it's nonsense. The south started the war. They did so because of slavery. So the Civil War was about slavery.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?


Quote:

It proves that it wasn't about slavery because the North wasn';t fighting to free the slaves.
They had a strange way of showing it, what with the emancipation and all that.

CaptainHowdy 4th July 2017 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11907154)
And we could have prevented WWII by just letting Hitler have as much of Europe as he wanted. Your point?

No, because World War 2 was fought to stop the Holocaust.

Quote:

The Civil War was worth it to stop the Confederacy from being a separate country.

The South succeeding in seceding (no pun) would have enshrined slavery as Constitutional in the new country, a fact that you are dancing around mentioning to the point that it is getting sort of suspicious. Apparently now the argument is "It's not about slavery if I just never say the word."
The US Constitution allowed slavery. The fact that it required a specific amendment to disallow slavery should be a clue that nothing in the Constitution prevented it prior.

Quote:

The United States, ambivalent politically about slavery as it might have been at the time, did not want an explicitly pro-slavery nation made out of a chunk of it to become their new neighbor.

"Creating pro-slavery countries is a bad thing" is not a statement that should have a counter argument.
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri were slave states that remained in the Union. Slavery survived there for years after it had been abolished in the states in rebellion.

Deny Deny Deny that the our country was founded by and for the benefit of White slaveowners. But you're not fooling anyone. Taking down monuments to local heros in the Southern states doesn't remove the blight on our history as long as we honor slave owners with memorials on the National Mall and print their portraits on our currency.

Stacko 4th July 2017 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 11907279)
It's also seldom true. The losers write quite a bit of history.

I'd say it'd be more accurate to say that until literacy became widespread, history was mostly written by the rich for the rich about the rich. We get lots of information about events on all side but from a very small portion of society that was literate.

Belz... 4th July 2017 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11907315)
The US Constitution allowed slavery. The fact that it required a specific amendment to disallow slavery should be a clue that nothing in the Constitution prevented it prior.

That's very different from specifically disallowing its prohibition.

Quote:

Deny Deny Deny that the our country was founded by and for the benefit of White slaveowners. But you're not fooling anyone.
So was it about slavery or not? You don't seem sure.

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 11907318)
So was it about slavery or not? You don't seem sure.

It's the same 2-4 answer round robin that all Southerners are trained to parrot from birth. And I say this from experience.

I am always want to remind people from other countries (and the non-South US to some degree) that it is hard to describe how much the South has started to believe in its own rhetoric. I don't know enough about other country's internal struggles to know if it something I can directly translate into any parallels for them. It's sincerely weird in a way that's hard to get across.

"The Civil War wasn't about slavery" is Holy Writ in the American South. There has been a huge push to whitewash (errr pun I guess not intended. Or sure have a pun works either way) the role of the South in the Civil War and the time periods book ending it.

And this very specific "talk around slavery, don't mention the word, one step remove everything" is how it's done.

We have one country. We then have an attempt to turn that into two countries. The literal only difference that the rebellious Southern states codified into their proposed Constitution was putting into the highest legal and political document in the land the explicit rule that slavery cannot be made illegal. Literally the South tried to make a new country and were willing to fight a war to that end and the only difference between the proposed new country and the country they were attempting to secede from was the legal protection of the act of keeping slave. No amount of Lost Cause of the South, War of Northern Aggression, revisionist romanticism will make that not true.

So if tomorrow.... New England decides to try and secede from the United States and they right up new Constitution that is a 1:1 copy of the current US Constitution with only change being they add in a line that goes "And the wearing of white pants after Labor Day shall not be infringed" it's not about white pants?

Upchurch 4th July 2017 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11907315)
Taking down monuments to local heros...

Wait, what local heroes are we talking about here? St. Louis was part of the Union during the war.

The St. Louis Confederate monument wasn't dedicated to any local hero. It was erected some 50 years after the war as part of the effort to re-write history to the "noble" Lost Cause of the Confederacy bunk.

CaptainHowdy 4th July 2017 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumn1971 (Post 11906413)
And the South, who started the war, did so only to preserve slavery.

Even if preserving slavery was the only reason the South seceded, the fact that the North was fighting to preserve the Union means the Civil War wasn't just about slavery.

Babbylonian 4th July 2017 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11907404)
Even if preserving slavery was the only reason the South seceded, the fact that the North was fighting to preserve the Union means the Civil War wasn't just about slavery.

Or, it might mean that one cause can - shockingly enough - have multiple effects. There would be no need to go to war to preserve the Union if the issue of preserving slavery didn't cause secession.

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11907404)
Even if preserving slavery was the only reason the South seceded, the fact that the North was fighting to preserve the Union means the Civil War wasn't just about slavery.

Everyone catch that? The subtle softening shift from "Not about slavery" to "not JUST about slavery?"

And again this is more of the traditional Southern apologist "Talk until you say something that isn't about slavery then just... stop talking."

Yes the North was fighting to preserve the Union. The Union that was in danger because the South left it. And why did the South leave it? Why leave that part out? Outside of the frankly at this point in history baffling need to repaint a bunch of rebellious treasonous states with an odious motivation as some kind of picked up underdog I don't get.

This kind of grade school debate, lawyer technicality speak doesn't change the real world facts.

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 01:17 PM

Secession wasn't about slavery the same way bank robbing is not about money. Bank robbers don't care about the money. They care about what the money could buy.

luchog 4th July 2017 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907441)
Secession wasn't about slavery the same way bank robbing is not about money. Bank robbers don't care about the money. They care about what the money could buy.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luchog (Post 11907445)

I'm not sure how that applies to what I said. Could you clarify?

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907455)
I'm not sure how that applies to what I said. Could you clarify?

Because these silly juvenile "It's not about the thing it's about the thing that's a direct result of the thing" argumentatives aren't fooling anyone.

Lawyer: "Your Honor my client is innocent. The victim didn't die of a gunshot. He died due to his brain not getting enough oxygen.
Judge: "And why did his brain not get enough oxygen?"
Lawyer: "Massive loss of blood pressure."
Judge: "And what caused this massive loss of blood pressure?"
Lawyer: "Massive internal bleeding."
Judge: "And what caused this massive internal bleeding?"
Lawyer: "Several large holes in several of his vital organs."
Judge: "And what caused the holes in his vital organs?"
Lawyer: "Several large caliber bullet wounds."
Judge: "And what caused these large caliber bullet wounds?"
Lawyer: "Bullets."
Judge: "And where did these bullets come from?"
Lawyer: "My client's gun."
Judge: "I see. Hmmmm Death penalty."
Lawyer: "For my client?"
Judge: "No for you."

We aren't going to entertain the demand that we acknowledge some distinction without difference hairsplit between "The Civil War was about slavery" and "The Civil War was about forcing the Confederacy back into the Union and the reason the Confederacy wanted out of the Union was slavery."

Unless anyone wants to step up and argue why they think letting the Confederacy form an explicitly pro-slavery nation was the better option instead of just dancing around it while you wiggle your eyebrows suggestively this distinction isn't a distinction, it barely rates above a change in verbiage and sentence structure.

You're arguing that we all say "The ball was thrown by the Steve" rather then "Steve threw the ball" as a way to prove the sentence isn't about Steve throwing the ball.

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11907511)
Because these silly juvenile "It's not about the thing it's about the thing that's a direct result of the thing" argumentatives aren't fooling anyone.

Lawyer: "Your Honor my client is innocent. The victim didn't die of a gunshot. He died due to his brain not getting enough oxygen.
Judge: "And why did his brain not get enough oxygen?"
Lawyer: "Massive loss of blood pressure."
Judge: "And what caused this massive loss of blood pressure?"
Lawyer: "Massive internal bleeding."
Judge: "And what caused this massive internal bleeding?"
Lawyer: "Several large holes in several of his vital organs."
Judge: "And what caused the holes in his vital organs?"
Lawyer: "Several large caliber bullet wounds."
Judge: "And what caused these large caliber bullet wounds?"
Lawyer: "Bullets."
Judge: "And where did these bullets come from?"
Lawyer: "My client's gun."
Judge: "I see. Hmmmm Death penalty."
Lawyer: "For my client?"
Judge: "No for you."

We aren't going to entertain the demand that we acknowledge some distinction without difference hairsplit between "The Civil War was about slavery" and "The Civil War was about forcing the Confederacy back into the Union and the reason the Confederacy wanted out of the Union was slavery."

Unless anyone wants to step up and argue why they think letting the Confederacy form an explicitly pro-slavery nation was the better option instead of just dancing around it while you wiggle your eyebrows suggestively this distinction isn't a distinction, it barely rates above a change in verbiage and sentence structure.

You're arguing that we all say "The ball was thrown by the Steve" rather then "Steve threw the ball" as a way to prove the sentence isn't about Steve throwing the ball.

Here is what you are leaving off of my analysis: no one would find bank robbing acceptable. An analogy to bank robbing would be very stupid for someone to use if they supported secession.

Not to mention it is extremely useful to distinguish the cause of death like that.

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907518)
Here is what you are leaving off of my analysis: no one would find bank robbing acceptable. An analogy to bank robbing would be very stupid for someone to use if they supported secession.

Well until I had this conversation I thought no one would think forming your own country just so nobody could ever take away your slaves to be acceptable but waddayaknow.

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11907530)
Well until I had this conversation I thought no one would think forming your own country just so nobody could ever take away your slaves to be acceptable but waddayaknow.

I don't think anyone has said it is acceptable. But something being unacceptable and what you should take in response are two different issues.

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907539)
I don't think anyone has said it is acceptable.

Then well the hell do so many people have a problem with just saying it?

bruto 4th July 2017 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11907315)
No, because World War 2 was fought to stop the Holocaust.


The US Constitution allowed slavery. The fact that it required a specific amendment to disallow slavery should be a clue that nothing in the Constitution prevented it prior.


Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri were slave states that remained in the Union. Slavery survived there for years after it had been abolished in the states in rebellion.

Deny Deny Deny that the our country was founded by and for the benefit of White slaveowners. But you're not fooling anyone. Taking down monuments to local heros in the Southern states doesn't remove the blight on our history as long as we honor slave owners with memorials on the National Mall and print their portraits on our currency.

Nonsense. It's not even clear that most people were aware of the holocaust. As with the slavery issue, that might have occurred partway through, and bravo that it did, but we joined the war because we got bombed.

Yes, the US constitution allowed slavery, and shame on our founding fathers for that. It also did many other things, good and bad. The purpose of the Union was not the entrenchment of slavery. The purpose of the Confederacy was.

It's true that the emancipation proclamation applied only to the Confederacy, and that abolition in the North did not occur for a couple more years, but this does not change the reason why the South seceded. The shame of the North does not absolve the South.

332nd 4th July 2017 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11907156)
Does anyone really feel slavery would've lasted much longer in the South even if it had been allowed to secede?

Yes.

Quote:

The CSA offered to abandon slavery in return for recognition from Europe as a nation. You can bet those same European nations would've been putting pressure on the CSA to move in that direction. Slavery would've died a natural death, without a war, just like it did everywhere else (except Haiti, which was a slave revolt, so not quite the same thing).
What happens if the resources gained from the CSA out weighs the concern over slavery?

Foolmewunz 4th July 2017 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 332nd (Post 11907709)
Yes.



What happens if the resources gained from the CSA out weighs the concern over slavery?

Double ditto that "Yes" from me, okay. I mentioned this before. Just look at the de facto slavery that the "newly reformed, I sweah, your honor" former slave states put into effect not just the night after they were allowed to, but over the next seventy-five years. Hell, look at the North Carolina GOP specifically targeting black voters in order to determine who to disenfranchise to keep the old order in power a few more generations. (ETA: And that was back in '16.... 2016!)

The importation of slavery had been banned for two generations. The southern states were all involved in People Husbandry.... breeding slaves. To me, that's one of the most powerful emotional arguments and not taken advantage of sufficiently. THEY WERE BREEDING SLAVES, fer crissake!

I actually find it foolishly naive to think that across-the-board legalized slavery whether by Congressional Act or by a truce in the war that conceded slavery to the Confederate States would not have given us a continuation of slavery well into the early 20th Century.

Roboramma 4th July 2017 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11906979)
And the winner gets to decide the right reasons?

No, we do.

Roboramma 4th July 2017 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907121)
This is true. If the North let the south leave, there wouldn't have been a civil war. Why is that a farce?

Because it's a good thing that the north didn't let the south leave.

Roboramma 4th July 2017 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11907511)
Because these silly juvenile "It's not about the thing it's about the thing that's a direct result of the thing" argumentatives aren't fooling anyone.

It reminds me of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charle..._and_execution
Quote:

"The doctors killed Garfield, I just shot him"

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11906349)
The North chose to resist the secession. What was their motive? Were White people in the North fighting to free the slaves?

And you are entirely ignoring the motivations of secession I see. Why not focus on the ones who started the whole thing?

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11906904)
The North did not invade to free the slaves, it invaded to force the south back into the union. Emancipation wasn't even a Unionist war aim until around 18 months into the war, and that was a political move designed to stop Britain and France recognising the Confederacy as a new country. Suggesting the North fought to free the slaves is a clear example of the winners writing the history books.

Now of course saying the south was really only motivated by slavery for their actions is just simply quoting primary sources.

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11907156)
Does anyone really feel slavery would've lasted much longer in the South even if it had been allowed to secede?

Given the way they put the supremacy of the white race and slavery as cornerstones of their constitution I think they would have been hard pressed to walk away from it. They had grand ideas of spreading slavery by conquering mexico and the like too.

You have to understand that like Robert E Lee, many southerners viewed slavery as a positive. How else were they going to civilize the blacks after all?

"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure." Robert E Lee.

http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/let...ife-on-slavery

Belz... 5th July 2017 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11907993)
You have to understand that like Robert E Lee, many southerners viewed slavery as a positive. How else were they going to civilize the blacks after all?

Education and clean drinking water? Nah, too obvious.

Mumbles 5th July 2017 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11907993)
Given the way they put the supremacy of the white race and slavery as cornerstones of their constitution I think they would have been hard pressed to walk away from it. They had grand ideas of spreading slavery by conquering mexico and the like too.

They had already run "fillibustering" expeditions to Guatemala and Cuba, in order to add them as Slave states, and fought over the issue in Kansas.

Quote:

You have to understand that like Robert E Lee, many southerners viewed slavery as a positive. How else were they going to civilize the blacks after all?
Lee 's troops were so happy with it that they kidnapped free black people and sold them into slavery when they were in Union territory.

(And we can discuss the black codes, vagrancy laws, and so forth that effectively allowed people in the US to continue to effectively enslave free blacks long after then - recall that prisoners can still be used as free laborers.
And of course, with little court access, some whites just flat out scammed their black workers.)

Craig B 5th July 2017 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903503)
Do you feel that your dislike of it is sufficient to override anybody else's view who may value that insight to history?

As pointed out before; the best places in which to administer history lessons are schools, museums and so on. The statues would more appropriately be relocated there, for the edification of people seeking historical information. Statues in public squares are intended to convey political messages.

Would it be necessary, for example, to restore Stalin's monuments to public squares in Russia, so that Stalin might not disappear from the history books (where he is needed as a negative lesson)?

But no attention need be paid to the tastes of people who value Stalin.

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbles (Post 11908082)
Lee 's troops were so happy with it that they kidnapped free black people and sold them into slavery when they were in Union territory.

And clearly we need monuments honoring that.

Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11904412)
I think there is a disconnect here.

This memorial neither remembers history nor memorialized any real occurrence. It is a fiction presented as history. It is, perhaps, worth saving only as a historic artifact of the attempt.

The statue of liberty neither remembers history nor memorializes any real occurrence. It is a symbol.

The current argument is that the civil war was fought over slavery. Yes, slavery was the proximate cause, the lever that supplied the momentum. But that was not the only reason. It was fought over what power the central government actually had, as opposed to the rights guaranteed in our constitution. Specifically, the tenth amendment.

The emancipation proclamation didn't start the war. It wasn't issued until partway through the war itself. The war began because the central government refused to allow the peaceful secession of states - and at that time the states were considerably more independent than they are today.

And if you think that the civil war ended that debate, you're completely wrong. The argument between state's rights and central supremacy just keeps going and going. Consider the legalization of marijuana, for instance. It's in direct contradiction to federal mandates, but in keeping with the constitutional guarantee that any rights not specifically held by the central government reside with the states or with the people. The right to make laws about drugs isn't guaranteed to the central government by the constitution - that right resides with the states.

Yes, slavery was an atrocity (and still is, where it still exists). Yes, we should have abolished slavery sooner, and yes, I find the owning of slaves to be abhorrent as well as baffling. But to insist that this is the only reason the south rebelled is to completely miss the point, and to ignore the foundational concepts of the US.

To insist that the civil war occurred only and exclusively because of slavery is to rewrite history.

Spindrift 5th July 2017 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908534)
The statue of liberty neither remembers history nor memorializes any real occurrence. It is a symbol.

The current argument is that the civil war was fought over slavery. Yes, slavery was the proximate cause, the lever that supplied the momentum. But that was not the only reason. It was fought over what power the central government actually had, as opposed to the rights guaranteed in our constitution. Specifically, the tenth amendment.

The emancipation proclamation didn't start the war. It wasn't issued until partway through the war itself. The war began because the central government refused to allow the peaceful secession of states - and at that time the states were considerably more independent than they are today.

And if you think that the civil war ended that debate, you're completely wrong. The argument between state's rights and central supremacy just keeps going and going. Consider the legalization of marijuana, for instance. It's in direct contradiction to federal mandates, but in keeping with the constitutional guarantee that any rights not specifically held by the central government reside with the states or with the people. The right to make laws about drugs isn't guaranteed to the central government by the constitution - that right resides with the states.

Yes, slavery was an atrocity (and still is, where it still exists). Yes, we should have abolished slavery sooner, and yes, I find the owning of slaves to be abhorrent as well as baffling. But to insist that this is the only reason the south rebelled is to completely miss the point, and to ignore the foundational concepts of the US.

To insist that the civil war occurred only and exclusively because of slavery is to rewrite history.

Slavery was the main reason, the seceding states said so, but where did anyone say that slavery was the only reason?

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908534)
The statue of liberty neither remembers history nor memorializes any real occurrence. It is a symbol.

The current argument is that the civil war was fought over slavery. Yes, slavery was the proximate cause, the lever that supplied the momentum. But that was not the only reason. It was fought over what power the central government actually had, as opposed to the rights guaranteed in our constitution. Specifically, the tenth amendment.

No one is arguing that. But people say it was about slavery because that is what all the states said in their letters of secession.
Quote:

The emancipation proclamation didn't start the war. It wasn't issued until partway through the war itself. The war began because the central government refused to allow the peaceful secession of states - and at that time the states were considerably more independent than they are today.
Which only shows how pro active the south was in promoting the expansion of slavery. Which was the real cause, that the republicans would be against admitting new states in as slave states.

Of course the south hated states rights, they trampled on them at every opportunity, like how no state could really outlaw slavery because they had to let slaves visit and live there for indefinite periods of time. So while the argument that states rights was an issue, it was but really that the states did not have the right to outlaw slavery. The southern states did not support any kind of uniform view on the 10th amendment, they were simply for slavery and its expansion in anyway that they could.

Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11905932)
The thing is the civil war defined the south. There would be no southern identity with out it. There isn't a north east identity, there isn't a midwestern identity, there isn't a west coast identity. But there is a southern identity.

That's baloney. There is most definitely a "west coast" identity - in fact there are two: California and Pacific Northwest. There's definitely a midwestern identity, and there's a northeast identity. FFS, Bostoners and New Yorkers and Long Islanders and Jersey folks all have their own identities!

The south had a separate culture and identity well before the civil war began.

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908667)
That's baloney. There is most definitely a "west coast" identity - in fact there are two: California and Pacific Northwest. There's definitely a midwestern identity, and there's a northeast identity. FFS, Bostoners and New Yorkers and Long Islanders and Jersey folks all have their own identities!

The south had a separate culture and identity well before the civil war began.

There is a New York identity, and it in no way is shared by Boston which has its own identity. There is no identity that would cover both. Kind of like in the South you can be from Charleston, or Huston and still be a southerner in addition to the specific identity of the cities. People from both of those cities might say "as a southerner..." You will not have people from new york and boston saying "as a north easterner" even though those cities are far closer together.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.