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)

Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 11906086)
Quite apart from the technicalities of who did what, or who fired the first shot, etc., if slavery was the reason for secession, and the war was about the secession, then how is slavery not the root cause of the war? That argument sounds very familiar to the one that it was about states' rights, omitting the little detail that the right in question was the right to keep the institution of slavery. I takes a very big stretch of credibility to imagine, after the long and contentious disputes over territorial expansion, that any issue other than that of slavery would have led to secession. I have yet to see a noble abstraction that is not post hoc to the core issue of slavery.

It wasn't about the right to keep slavery. At the time the civil war began, it was legal to keep slaves and it wasn't being abolished.

The issue was whether it was within the rights of the newly formed states to determine on their own whether slavery would be legal within those states - a right that the other states had already utilized in making the determination for themselves.

Slavery wasn't abolished until a few years AFTER the civil war began.

Slavery was the topic, but the war wasn't about keeping slaves - it absolutely was about the right of states to determine their own laws.

Spindrift 5th July 2017 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908695)
It wasn't about the right to keep slavery. At the time the civil war began, it was legal to keep slaves and it wasn't being abolished.

The issue was whether it was within the rights of the newly formed states to determine on their own whether slavery would be legal within those states - a right that the other states had already utilized in making the determination for themselves.

Slavery wasn't abolished until a few years AFTER the civil war began.

Slavery was the topic, but the war wasn't about keeping slaves - it absolutely was about the right of states to determine their own laws.

Their own laws about slavery.

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spindrift (Post 11908703)
Their own laws about slavery.

And their ability to travel with slaves and kidnap black people in free states and make them slaves. I mean seriously who was going to take a recovered slaves word that they were free?

Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 12:37 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? 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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11907157)
Ah yes the "Slavery was going away anyway so it doesn't matter that the South tried to form a new country with Constitutionally protected slavery the only change." argument.

Reread the CSA constitution. It doesn't constitutionally protect slavery... it protects the right of the states to determine whether or not slavery is legal within that state. It prohibits the central government of the confederacy from making laws prohibiting slavery.

It doesn't enshrine slavery, it enshrines states rights.

I know a lot of you make no distinction there, but you should. States rights can be abused, and have been in the past. But it's states rights that have allowed progress for gay and lesbian people. It's states rights that have legalized marijuana. It's states rights that are moving transgender rights forward. Those aren't being done at the federal level, and without the right of states to make their own laws, those would not have progressed as far as they have. If it were only determined at the federal level, we still wouldn't have gay marriage.

Slavery is abhorrent. But saying that the entirety of the civil war was only about slavery is like saying that the american revolution was about tea.

Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11907338)
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 by the central government. 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?

Fixed your post.

It could still be made illegal by the states in the confederacy.

BobTheCoward 5th July 2017 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 11907886)
Because it's a good thing that the north didn't let the south leave.

Bad is not the same as farce. "Good" is also up for interpretation.

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908730)
Reread the CSA constitution. It doesn't constitutionally protect slavery... it protects the right of the states to determine whether or not slavery is legal within that state. It prohibits the central government of the confederacy from making laws prohibiting slavery.

It doesn't enshrine slavery, it enshrines states rights.

That all depends on if this applied to the states

"(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Also
"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

and

"The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Doesn't seem to give a lot of wiggle room about say new territories choosing not to be slave states. And imposing slavery on free states was a southern tradition before the civil war with the fugitive slave act and Plessy vs Ferguson.

They certainly don't give any indication that ending slavery was possible under their constitution. If the constitutional prohibition on ending slavery applied to the individual states or not is not at all clear.

Did states have a legal ability to have unreasonable searches and seizures in the CSA? It would seem so as it is in exactly the same section with no added language that it applies to individual states.

Spindrift 5th July 2017 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908730)
Reread the CSA constitution. It doesn't constitutionally protect slavery... it protects the right of the states to determine whether or not slavery is legal within that state. It prohibits the central government of the confederacy from making laws prohibiting slavery.

It doesn't enshrine slavery, it enshrines states rights.

The states rights to slavery.

CSA Constitution, Article 4
Quote:

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908730)
Slavery is abhorrent. But saying that the entirety of the civil war was only about slavery is like saying that the american revolution was about tea.

Why do you keep saying that? No one said the civil war was only about slavery.

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908740)
Fixed your post.

It could still be made illegal by the states in the confederacy.

That is certainly unclear. It would exactly be illegal as you could still bring your slaves in freely. I can not find any clear guide that the rights in the CSA constitution did not apply to individual states. I don't think they figured that states can violated habeas corpus freely for example.

Mumbles 5th July 2017 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908730)
Reread the CSA constitution. It doesn't constitutionally protect slavery... it protects the right of the states to determine whether or not slavery is legal within that state. It prohibits the central government of the confederacy from making laws prohibiting slavery.

It doesn't enshrine slavery, it enshrines states rights.

Oh, god, read it yourself.

Quote:

3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.
Article 4, section 3, explicitly states that slavery cannot be banned in any part of the Confederacy. And again, this was explicitly done because several states wished to extend the Confederacy wished to - and had already financed invasions into - Cuba, Central America, and were looking at South America as well.

Go look up the articles of succession they wrote - whah whah whah, slavery slavery slavery. Go and read Alexander Stephens' "Corner Stone" Speech.

And *again*, they introduced Convict Leasing right after they showed up again, where black people could be arrested for minor infractions and leased out to work, for free, to individuals. It's where the phrase "Show me your papers" since not having them earned you a vagrancy arrest. Kept that up until damn near 1930.

CaptainHowdy 5th July 2017 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 11907318)
That's very different from specifically disallowing its prohibition.

Yes, but specifically banning slavery (or, as is the case with the 13th amendment, severely restricting it) is different from saying nothing and allowing it to exist or not.


Quote:

So was it about slavery or not? You don't seem sure.
It's not an either/or situation. Slavery was one of the differences (although even that gets muddled due to the slave states that remained in the Union) but it wasn't the only difference between the North and the South. Southerners were not fighting only because they wanted to keep slaves. Most Southerners didn't own slaves. Northerners were definitely not motivated by the desire to abolish slavery. Maybe some were motivated by that but not all of them. The ones that were fighting to abolish slavery were not motivated by a belief in the inherent equality of the races. They wanted to abolish slavery because they didn't want their country to be over run by black people.
.
My point here is that the United States was founded by White slave owners for the benefit of White slave owners. Our country's history is infused with slavery. Removing statues and monuments or banning the display of the second confederate navy jack doesn't erase that stain. It's a whitewashing of history that allows Northerners to feel good about themselves as the people who fought to free the slaves.

If there were a statue of Nathan and Isaac Levy honoring them as great slave traders, I would have no objection to bringing that down. But a statue of Gen. Beauregard isn't honoring slavery anymore than a statue of Gen. Washington is.

Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spindrift (Post 11908545)
Slavery was the main reason, the seceding states said so, but where did anyone say that slavery was the only reason?

Well... let's recap:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Checkmite (Post 11902157)
Of course people who think the Civil War was fought to free the slaves are misinformed.

The Civil War was fought to prevent slaves from being freed.

It failed at this aim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddt (Post 11903803)
The only raison d'Ítre of the Confederacy was the right (constitutionally enshrined) to keep slaves and the view that blacks were inferior human beings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spindrift (Post 11903806)
The war was started by the South to preserve slavery, not the glorious "lost cause" of fiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 11903812)
I would add that, although many of our other heroes are indeed tainted by the sins of their times and sins of their own, a monument to the Confederacy has a somewhat different status, because when it comes down to it, however fine many of the participants may have been, the Confederacy itself existed for only one real purpose, and that was the perpetuation of slavery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11905492)
1. The Civil War was about slavery.
2. The Confederate States were treasonous.
3. The Confederate States lost the war.
4. The Confederate States losing the war was a good thing.
5. Having monuments in place to celebrate the losing side of a war makes no sense.

...

1. "Well technically the Civil War wasn't about sla..." let me me just stop you right there. Yes. Yes it was. Completely and totally. All the one stepped removed nonsense doublespeak is just historical revisionism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz (Post 11905800)
The Civil War was about slavery. One group wished to maintain the practice so much and were so worried about losing that source of income that they rebelled from the Union and seceded TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES. Period. All the other Mies Institute lies are based on the later catechism according to the Stevens Revisionist School. It's all lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11905923)
It was technically about slavery. It was practically about slavery. It was economically about slavery. It was culturally about slavery. It was politically about slavery. It was about slavery from every possible angle.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke2se (Post 11906944)
But they only needed to force the south back into the Union because the south started hostilities over slavery.

Slavery was the cause of the war. Get over it.


Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spindrift (Post 11908703)
Their own laws about slavery.

And abortion, and marriage rights for gay people, and whether or not marijuana should be legalized, and whether or not a person has the right to end their own life, and many other reasons as well.

Like I said - slavery was the topic, the war was about the right of states to make their own laws for anything not specifically written into the constitution.

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11908775)
Yes, but specifically banning slavery (or, as is the case with the 13th amendment, severely restricting it) is different from saying nothing and allowing it to exist or not.



It's not an either/or situation. Slavery was one of the differences (although even that gets muddled due to the slave states that remained in the Union) but it wasn't the only difference between the North and the South. Southerners were not fighting only because they wanted to keep slaves.

Exactly it was far more about the expanding of the institution of slavery and white supremacy than it was about owning individual slaves. Just look at what they said in the various letters of secession.

What other of these vague and nebulous causes that they had that were totally not about slavery can you find in the letters of secession?

ponderingturtle 5th July 2017 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908783)
And abortion, and marriage rights for gay people, and whether or not marijuana should be legalized, and whether or not a person has the right to end their own life, and many other reasons as well.

Like I said - slavery was the topic, the war was about the right of states to make their own laws for anything not specifically written into the constitution.

And they were quite explicitly against it. You couldn't outlaw slavery in the confederacy because it was quite clear that you couldn't constitutionally bar citizens from entering your state with their slaves.

The south wasn't about states rights, that is a BS argument made up later, unless you can show some primary source documents that they in any way supported states violating the constitution of the confederacy like that. They certainly did not say "congress may not introduce any law restricting slavery" they went with a much broader wording, and through their action before the war were happy to have the federal government trampling on states rights not to round up escaped slaves.

CaptainHowdy 5th July 2017 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spindrift (Post 11908761)
The states rights to slavery.

CSA Constitution, Article 4


Why do you keep saying that? No one said the civil war was only about slavery.

Yes they have. The Civil War was about slavery or it was not about slavery has been the theme throughout.

luchog 5th July 2017 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908730)
Reread the CSA constitution. It doesn't constitutionally protect slavery... it protects the right of the states to determine whether or not slavery is legal within that state. It prohibits the central government of the confederacy from making laws prohibiting slavery.


Utter nonsense showing a complete lack of history. Read the letters of secession for the various Confederate states. Each and every one, with only a single exception, explicitly denotes slavery as the primary or sole reason for their secession.

Do you even know why the secession happened when it did? Do you think a bunch of states just woke up one morning and though "You know, I'm really getting tired of being part of such a free and prosperous country, I think I'll drop out and do my own thing for a while"?

The reason for the secession is that the federal government was already on the verge of legislating against slavery. It was simply a matter of time, and not much time at that. Most northern states had already outlawed it, and there was a profound and growing movement, even in the south, to abolish the institution of slavery nationwide.

What really lit a fire under them was the westward expansion. Most of the territories were being settled by anti-slavery northerners and freed/escaped slaves, and any newly-formed states were restricted from enacting pro-slavery legislation. The South could clearly see that they were about to be outnumbered, and that they would very shortly lose the battle to preserve slavery. They moved to secede in order to forestall the possibility of becoming subject to legislation that would have ended the practice of owning human beings.

Quote:

It doesn't enshrine slavery, it enshrines states rights.

Again, more bollocks. The Southern states had a long history of fighting against state's rights when they found the rights of other states inconvenient. In particular, they fought bitterly against the rights of the Northern states to outlaw slavery and protect escaped slaves; and demanded that the federal government violate state's rights and state laws in otfrt to compel the Northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and return escaped slaves. As it stood, Southerners who attempted to "recover" escaped slaves from Northern states were themselves subject to arrest and prosecution, and they were not happy about that.

The only "state's rights" that the South cared about was the "right" to own slaves. Saying that the Confederate Constitution only prevented the Confederate federal government from prohibiting slavery, but the states could do as they like, is the same as saying that the US's First Amendment only means that the federal government cannot restrict speech or the practice of religion, and the individual states can restrict it all they want. It's nonsensical, and there's a great deal of legal case history demonstrating it to be nonsense.

The "state's rights" argument was not even made until the Reconstruction period, as part of the revisionist effort to paint the South as the victims of "Northern Aggression", rather than racist traitors to the Union.

Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11908775)
It's a whitewashing of history that allows Northerners to feel good about themselves as the people who fought to free the slaves.

Agreed - especially since the Northerners were NOT fighting to free the slaves.

The civil war was complicated and slavery was unquestionably a part of that complication. But the south wasn't fighting to keep slavery - they already had it and it was legal for them to own slaves. And the north wasn't fighting to abolish slavery - many of the northern states still held slavery to be legal as well.

The issue was about whether or not it was within the power of the federal government to make laws regarding slavery (specifically with respect to new regions and territories being allowed entrance to the union as states) or whether that right belonged to the states/territories themselves.

Progress moves forward. Societies tend to become more liberal over time. There are exceptions, there are occasionally backslides, but on the whole the human race becomes more tolerant and more considerate and more liberal with the passage of time.

So consider an analogy. Imagine that the federal government of the US wanted to make laws disallowing abortions. Or would only accept Puerto Rico as a state if they outlawed abortions. Imagine that the federal government of the US wanted to make laws disallowing gay marriage.

Would you object? Would you argue that this is not the role of the federal government, and that this is the right of the state to decide?

It was the right of the states to decide that allowed progress to occur on both those fronts, as well as with respect to euthanasia and legalization of marijuana.

luchog 5th July 2017 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908810)
Agreed - especially since the Northerners were NOT fighting to free the slaves.

The civil war was complicated and slavery was unquestionably a part of that complication. But the south wasn't fighting to keep slavery - they already had it and it was legal for them to own slaves. And the north wasn't fighting to abolish slavery - many of the northern states still held slavery to be legal as well.


And we're back to the same tired semantic and logic games. The Northern states fought to preserve the union because the Southern states tried to secede. And the Southern states tried to secede because of... what again?

Upchurch 5th July 2017 01:28 PM

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 Statue of Liberty is also not a memorial.

For completeness, the Statue of Liberty is also not a street light, a stop sign, or a water buoy and no one, to my knowledge, ever claimed that it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908534)
[snipping the strawmen]

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

I never said the Civil War was exclusively fought over slavery. I'm saying the South fought the Civil War over slavery, because that's what they said they were fighting for.

Babbylonian 5th July 2017 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luchog (Post 11908820)
And we're back to the same tired semantic and logic games. The Northern states fought to preserve the union because the Southern states tried to secede. And the Southern states tried to secede because of... what again?

Because the northern states weren't respecting southern states' property rights.

Mumbles 5th July 2017 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908783)
And abortion, and marriage rights for gay people, and whether or not marijuana should be legalized, and whether or not a person has the right to end their own life, and many other reasons as well.

Like I said - slavery was the topic, the war was about the right of states to make their own laws for anything not specifically written into the constitution.

No, they were quite happy so stomp on the rights of other states when it came to bringing the enslaved into and out of other states. It wasn't caused by the desire to *end* slavery, but by the southern ruling class' desire to expand it.

And while Lincoln's main desire was for the Union to stay together, there were clearly people who wished to end slavery - including in particular the black regiments.

JoeMorgue 5th July 2017 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908730)
Reread the CSA constitution.

I literally posted a link to a line by line breakdown of it earlier in the thread. I've got a pretty good handle on it, thanks.

Quote:

It doesn't enshrine slavery, it enshrines states rights.
Bull... crap. The CSA Constitution doesn't grant any meaningful states rights that the US Constitution doesn't and actually takes away several more meaningful ones. If anything the CSA Constitution is very slightly more federally focused than the at the time US Constitution.

Under the CS Constitution states lose the right to:

- Determine voting rights (set at the Federal level CS Constituion)
- Freely trade with each other. (The CSA could set up tariffs and taxes on interstate trade, something the USA couldn't do at the time.)
- And of course outlaw slavery within their own borders.

And only gain a few minor ones:

- The power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways
- The power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways
- The power to impeach federally-appointed state officials
- The power to distribute "bills of credit."

So that's it? That's the big government tyranny that's totally not about slavery that the Confederacy had no choice but to take up arms against? They were pissed they could tax their waterways and fire federal judges? I don't buy that for a second.

The one thing that gets explicitly mentioned multiple times in slavery. If it was about "States rights" which state's rights? You figured if it was about state's right they would make sure to put that in their constitution. But oddly enough they only bothered to put one state right of any note in their constitution. And they put in there several times.
Slavery. Funny that.

JoeMorgue 5th July 2017 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luchog (Post 11908820)
And we're back to the same tired semantic and logic games. The Northern states fought to preserve the union because the Southern states tried to secede. And the Southern states tried to secede because of... what again?

"He died of natural causes. His heart stopped when I put a knife in it. Perfectly natural."

luchog 5th July 2017 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11908849)
"He died of natural causes. His heart stopped when I put a knife in it. Perfectly natural."


It's like saying that the cause of death was "lack of oxygen to the brain". Well, yeah, that's pretty much going to be the terminal cause of death for pretty much everyone who is not currently alive. The fact that the "lack of oxygen to the brain" was caused by "reduced or interrupted blood flow to the brain" may get closer to the root of the problem, but maybe we should consider the fact that the head is currently sitting about three feet away from the rest of the body as the most likely proximate cause for the "reduced or interrupted blood flow" that resulted in a "lack of oxygen to the brain".

But it's not as easy to engage in historical revisionism when you have to deal with inconvenient facts like proximate causes.

TragicMonkey 5th July 2017 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luchog (Post 11908893)
It's like saying that the cause of death was "lack of oxygen to the brain". Well, yeah, that's pretty much going to be the terminal cause of death for pretty much everyone who is not currently alive. The fact that the "lack of oxygen to the brain" was caused by "reduced or interrupted blood flow to the brain" may get closer to the root of the problem, but maybe we should consider the fact that the head is currently sitting about three feet away from the rest of the body as the most likely proximate cause for the "reduced or interrupted blood flow" that resulted in a "lack of oxygen to the brain".

But it's not as easy to engage in historical revisionism when you have to deal with inconvenient facts like proximate causes.

The real cause of death is the cessation of observable life signs. What is life, really? I can't define it. Therefore I move the charges against me be dismissed, for vagueness.

kookbreaker 5th July 2017 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11908775)
My point here is that the United States was founded by White slave owners for the benefit of White slave owners. Our country's history is infused with slavery. Removing statues and monuments or banning the display of the second confederate navy jack doesn't erase that stain. It's a whitewashing of history that allows Northerners to feel good about themselves as the people who fought to free the slaves.

No. What removing these things does is stop glorifying the traitors who took up arms to defend a 'nation' whose primary economy required human chattel slavery.

More to the point, many of these monuments are not mere battle-markers. They are outright white supremacists symbols.

Quote:

If there were a statue of Nathan and Isaac Levy honoring them as great slave traders, I would have no objection to bringing that down. But a statue of Gen. Beauregard isn't honoring slavery anymore than a statue of Gen. Washington is.
While it is to the shame that the US that many of its founders were slave owners, there is canyonwide difference between Washington & Jefferson and the likes of Preston Brooks, the Mudsillers, "King Cotton" & Jefferson Davis. I refuse to give the latter any more glory for their uncompromising part in upholding an outright evil system.

Mumbles 5th July 2017 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kookbreaker (Post 11908931)
No. What removing these things does is stop glorifying the traitors who took up arms to defend a 'nation' whose primary economy required human chattel slavery.

And took all of four years to surrender - after the entire place had been trashed.

Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luchog (Post 11908807)
Utter nonsense showing a complete lack of history. Read the letters of secession for the various Confederate states. Each and every one, with only a single exception, explicitly denotes slavery as the primary or sole reason for their secession.

Again, slavery is the topic, but not the sole reason. The North took a stance, and wanted to make it so that new states could only be added if they outlawed slavery. This meant that territories that already allowed slavery wouldn't be admitted as states in their own rights unless they outlawed slavery.

From the perspective of the Southern states, the North was going well beyond their rights as states, and unduly influencing the federal government by applying additional restrictions for statehood.

Yes, slavery is the proximate cause, yes it was the topic of dissent. But there were two other ways to approach it. The first would be to just stay out of it - let the states (or territories) make the decisions on their own. The other way would be to create a new amendment abolishing slavery.

Obviously, slave-holding states would be likely to oppose an amendment. It had severe economic impacts that are still felt today - most of the southern states are still poor states. From an ethical perspective, it's certainly better... but there were still significant economic consequences. Beyond that, it would likely have taken longer, since there were still several northern states that were slave-holding, and that may have voted against it as well.

Of course there is some risk from an ethical perspective with letting states make their own decision, especially territories seeking statehood. Again, it would likely have delayed abolition, for reasons similar to those above - I'm assuming that the northern states would have continued arguing for abolition.

What they did, however, was to effectively collude to deny statehood to any territory that allowed slavery, even though that wasn't a stipulation for statehood beyond their own beliefs. And while you and I agree with their beliefs, that doesn't dismiss the complicity of the northern states in the incitement to war.

Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luchog (Post 11908820)
And we're back to the same tired semantic and logic games. The Northern states fought to preserve the union because the Southern states tried to secede. And the Southern states tried to secede because of... what again?

Oh good god. Read the next damned sentence. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908810)
The issue was about whether or not it was within the power of the federal government to make laws regarding slavery (specifically with respect to new regions and territories being allowed entrance to the union as states) or whether that right belonged to the states/territories themselves.


Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbles (Post 11908836)
No, they were quite happy so stomp on the rights of other states when it came to bringing the enslaved into and out of other states. It wasn't caused by the desire to *end* slavery, but by the southern ruling class' desire to expand it.

Lol, that's an interesting interpretation.

The north colluded to deny statehood to any territory unless it abolished slavery within its borders, and as a requirement of it's state constitution. Never mind that slavery was already legal within many of those territories - it was an ultimatum; abolish slavery or never get the rights of a state.

Territories didn't have senators. By colluding in this fashion, the northern states attempted to usurp decision-making authority by only allowing new states that held the same view they did. Not a bad tactic, but still beyond their power as granted by the US constitution.

JoeMorgue 5th July 2017 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11909048)
Again, slavery is the topic, but not the sole reason. The North took a stance, and wanted to make it so that new states could only be added if they outlawed slavery.

Yes. As if slavery was a bad thing. Crazy idea that.

Quote:

From the perspective of the Southern states, the North was going well beyond their rights as states, and unduly influencing the federal government by applying additional restrictions for statehood.
Seriously listen to what you are saying. "Who are they to say we that keeping other human being as property is a bad thing?"

Quote:

Yes, slavery is the proximate cause, yes it was the topic of dissent. But there were two other ways to approach it. The first would be to just stay out of it - let the states (or territories) make the decisions on their own. The other way would be to create a new amendment abolishing slavery.
Both of those would have lead to slavery staying put. Apparently people think that's an acceptable loss in... something. I do not. Thankfully that nation as a whole did not either.

Quote:

What they did, however, was to effectively collude to deny statehood to any territory that allowed slavery, even though that wasn't a stipulation for statehood beyond their own beliefs.
Can we for the love of God please stop treating the wholesale keeping of other people in slavery as some minor political difference the sides should have just worked out?

When one's side sole motivating factor is the idea that they own other people you don't have to meet them halfway.

Emily's Cat 5th July 2017 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11909090)
Yes. As if slavery was a bad thing. Crazy idea that.



Seriously listen to what you are saying. "Who are they to say we that keeping other human being as property is a bad thing?"



Both of those would have lead to slavery staying put. Apparently people think that's an acceptable loss in... something. I do not. Thankfully that nation as a whole did not either.



Can we for the love of God please stop treating the wholesale keeping of other people in slavery as some minor political difference the sides should have just worked out?

When one's side sole motivating factor is the idea that they own other people you don't have to meet them halfway.

That's all a great argument from the perspective of slavery being history. That wasn't the view at the time. And half your arguments above could be applied to the topic of abortion, and I rather suspect you would strongly disagree with your own arguments.

As if murdering babies was a bad thing. Crazy idea that.

Seriously listen to what you are saying. "Who are they to say that killing another human being as if it's merely a tumor is a bad thing?"

Arisia 5th July 2017 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 11908930)
The real cause of death is the cessation of observable life signs. What is life, really? I can't define it. Therefore I move the charges against me be dismissed, for vagueness.

Life? Don't talk to me about life!

Checkmite 5th July 2017 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11909123)
That's all a great argument from the perspective of slavery being history. That wasn't the view at the time.

Except it was a view at the time, wasn't it? Abolitionism was a thing that actually existed during this period - and had been for decades as Northern states which started their lives as slave states outlawed slavery one by one. States that willingly wanted to join the Union as non-slave states were also a thing; and while you pointedly bring up the fact of anti-slavery powers in the US wanting to force new states to be non-slave-holding, you ignore for whatever reason the contemporaneous Southern tactic of forcing popular-vote decisions on the matter and then flooding prospective states with pro-slavery settlers just before the vote in order to influence it - a tactic that was so resented and actively opposed by the original residents of those territories that the situation led to violent confrontations and military-like battles between civilian factions before the Civil War even began.

So no, this isn't looking at the situation from a standpoint of 150 years of hindsight; slavery as an immoral evil was a viewpoint that existed within the United States in pockets from the time of its founding, and grew to be shared by a substantial segment of the population by the years immediately leading up to the Civil War, which is the entire reason why already-established slave-owning states felt so threatened by the prospect of too many new states joining the US that were not slave states - because they were afraid for the future of slavery in a country where a majority of federal lawmakers considered slavery bad.

Roboramma 6th July 2017 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908783)
And abortion, and marriage rights for gay people, and whether or not marijuana should be legalized, and whether or not a person has the right to end their own life, and many other reasons as well.

Like I said - slavery was the topic, the war was about the right of states to make their own laws for anything not specifically written into the constitution.

And since the Confederacy lost the war, I guess that the states rights issue was also lost right? So different states didn't legalise marijuana or gay marriage at different times, right?

Or maybe no one has, or even had, a problem with the general idea of states rights, but only with the specific balance between state and federal powers: and which specific one led to war? States rights to slavery.

ponderingturtle 6th July 2017 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908810)
Agreed - especially since the Northerners were NOT fighting to free the slaves.

And the average german soldier in WWII was fighting to protect germany, what does the motivations of the individual soldiers or one side have to do with the actual causes of the war?
Quote:

The civil war was complicated and slavery was unquestionably a part of that complication. But the south wasn't fighting to keep slavery - they already had it and it was legal for them to own slaves. And the north wasn't fighting to abolish slavery - many of the northern states still held slavery to be legal as well.
Why do you refuse to take them at their words when they said that was their motivations in the articles of secession? You know that thing that kicked off the whole war.

ponderingturtle 6th July 2017 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 11909562)
And since the Confederacy lost the war, I guess that the states rights issue was also lost right? So different states didn't legalise marijuana or gay marriage at different times, right?

Or maybe no one has, or even had, a problem with the general idea of states rights, but only with the specific balance between state and federal powers: and which specific one led to war? States rights to slavery.

And uppity northern states thinking that their banning slavery ment anything.

Upchurch 6th July 2017 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11908777)
Well... let's recap:

Now, if you could have found a quote with "only" in it, that might have been worth posting.

Upchurch 6th July 2017 04:51 AM

Very few times in history do we have a contentious issue so clearly and definitively answered by primary sources and, yet somehow, it is still a contentious issue.

For those who seem to believe that the South wasn't motivated by, or even primarily motivated by, the desire to preserve the institution of slavery, what would it take to convince you? Perhaps an official document, or five, saying "we want to preserve the institution of slavery"?

Why would you look at those documents and think, "naw, that can't be it"?


Does anyone deny that there was a conscious effort to rewrite history in the early Twentieth century to get people to believe and repeat the exact nonsense that is being repeated here a century later?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:34 PM.

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