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)

ponderingturtle 6th July 2017 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11909652)
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.

Hey we have had 150 years of very effective southern propaganda trying to refute those primary sources. Clearly they have won over many forum members with it.
Quote:

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?
And they clearly succeeded in rewriting history.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11909652)
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?

I think there is a disconnect between criticism on this forum and in the real world. In the real world, you have people who visit plantations and try to say slaves were treated well. That is bad.

Here it is a bit different. The perception seems to be the south was mercenary in their interest. Their support for slavery was dependent on it's economic benefit. Unlike religious zealots who may wage war on ideology, if slavery stopped being profitable the perception is that the south would lose interest.

Does that mean the civil war was about slavery? When people divorce, is it about the issues they fought over or more fundamental things underlying it?

ponderingturtle 6th July 2017 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909707)
Does that mean the civil war was about slavery? When people divorce, is it about the issues they fought over or more fundamental things underlying it?

And what was the supposed more important thing that they were really fighting over? The North's support for states rights and the South's demands for strong federalism?

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11909711)
And what was the supposed more important thing that they were really fighting over? The North's support for states rights and the South's demands for strong federalism?

If i we're only allowed one word like "slavery," my choice would be greed.

The Don 6th July 2017 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11909660)
Hey we have had 150 years of very effective southern propaganda trying to refute those primary sources. Clearly they have won over many forum members with it.


And they clearly succeeded in rewriting history.

It helps if the fiction ties to people's preferred narrative.

Nobody wants to hear that their forebears were traitors who committed treason in order to protect their rights to own other people. Much better that they are portrayed as brave, but perhaps slightly misguided freedom fighters who, like the original revolutionaries, fought to protect their rights against an external power who was trying to rake them away....

pgwenthold 6th July 2017 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11908759)
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.

You guys have it all wrong. If you look at the differences between the CSA constitution and the US constitution, it is obvious. The main reason the states seceded was obviously waterway rights. Apparently, that was a MAJOR issue going on back then, because, aside from enshrining slavery, that was the other thing that got serious attention in the CSA constitution, so much that the US constitution had to be fixed for this topic.

ponderingturtle 6th July 2017 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909714)
If i we're only allowed one word like "slavery," my choice would be greed.

We are allowed what ever you want, the standard narrative states rights vs federalism clearly does not hold historical scrutiny. Because the south had traditionally been on the side of federalism enforcing slavery.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11909748)
We are allowed what ever you want, the standard narrative states rights vs federalism clearly does not hold historical scrutiny. Because the south had traditionally been on the side of federalism enforcing slavery.

I think greed is pretty good. You are not going to strip a bunch of people of their wealth with small consequence to your side without it creating a conflict.

Upchurch 6th July 2017 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909707)
Unlike religious zealots who may wage war on ideology, if slavery stopped being profitable the perception is that the south would lose interest.

Of course, it was completely ideological. 150ish years since we first started freeing slaves, we followed it with Jim Crow, segregation, the war on drugs, the war on crime and systematic racism.


Just to reiterate, the South was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. The North was fighting to preserve the Union. This monument was part of an movement to rewrite history. It is a fiction. A fantasy.

mumblethrax 6th July 2017 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909707)
Here it is a bit different. The perception seems to be the south was mercenary in their interest. Their support for slavery was dependent on it's economic benefit. Unlike religious zealots who may wage war on ideology, if slavery stopped being profitable the perception is that the south would lose interest.

There are good reasons to believe that slavery wasn't profitable outside of narrow interests by 1860. Even better reasons to believe that it stifled economic development more generally. And yet the South did not lose interest.

The prevailing attitude towards slavery in the antebellum South is probably best given by John Calhoun's "positive good" speech.

In other words, no, I do not see this as primarily an economic conflict. It was, in fact, an ideological contest that sought to preserve the "peculiar institution" and the way of life that surrounded it. A kind of extreme institutional inertia.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11909759)
Of course, it was completely ideological. 150ish years since we first started freeing slaves, we followed it with Jim Crow, segregation, the war on drugs, the war on crime and systematic racism.


Just to reiterate, the South was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. The North was fighting to preserve the Union. This monument was part of an movement to rewrite history. It is a fiction. A fantasy.

If it was ideological, then they would have fought the civil war if there was only tens of slaves. I seriously doubt that. I seriously doubt they cared about slavery if slaves were not a source of wealth.

ponderingturtle 6th July 2017 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909757)
I think greed is pretty good. You are not going to strip a bunch of people of their wealth with small consequence to your side without it creating a conflict.

There was no such proposal. They were not going to accept monetary compensation for their slaves either.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mumblethrax (Post 11909766)
There are good reasons to believe that slavery wasn't profitable outside of narrow interests by 1860. Even better reasons to believe that it stifled economic development more generally. And yet the South did not lose interest.

The prevailing attitude towards slavery in the antebellum South is probably best given by John Calhoun's "positive good" speech.

In other words, no, I do not see this as primarily an economic conflict. It was, in fact, an ideological contest that sought to preserve the "peculiar institution" and the way of life that surrounded it. A kind of extreme institutional inertia.

Plantation houses look expensive.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11909771)
There was no such proposal. They were not going to accept monetary compensation for their slaves either.

I wouldn't accept an offer like that, either.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mumblethrax (Post 11909766)
There are good reasons to believe that slavery wasn't profitable outside of narrow interests by 1860. Even better reasons to believe that it stifled economic development more generally. And yet the South did not lose interest.

The prevailing attitude towards slavery in the antebellum South is probably best given by John Calhoun's "positive good" speech.

In other words, no, I do not see this as primarily an economic conflict. It was, in fact, an ideological contest that sought to preserve the "peculiar institution" and the way of life that surrounded it. A kind of extreme institutional inertia.

As an economic major and a libertarian, I love the case that it stifled economic growth. That advances my issues of personal autonomy. The issue is that income inequality probably also stifles growth, but those at the top are not too bothered by it.

ponderingturtle 6th July 2017 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909775)
Plantation houses look expensive.

So what? The wealthy had money it doesn't mean that the system they got that money was the best one at making money for them.

Upchurch 6th July 2017 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909767)
If it was ideological, then they would have fought the civil war if there was only tens of slaves. I seriously doubt that. I seriously doubt they cared about slavery if slaves were not a source of wealth.

Did you even read my post beyond the first sentence?

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11909797)
Did you even read my post beyond the first sentence?

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said in the rest of your post.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11909792)
So what? The wealthy had money it doesn't mean that the system they got that money was the best one at making money for them.

I would also say so what. Just because they are not in the objectively best way to make money doesn't mean they are not greedy. The south shared a number of things, including dysfunction, with countries suffering under the resource curse. I wouldn't call those countries ideologically defending their resource industry.

mumblethrax 6th July 2017 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909775)
Plantation houses look expensive.

Have you done a comprehensive overview? Most plantation houses weren't the mansions we tend to think of today (we're biased towards this view because the gaudier plantation houses are more likely to be preserved and celebrated). Most of them were just houses.

In any case, most of them were also built well before 1860, and so tell us nothing about the "profitability" of slavery by 1860. Maybe the typical story for the slavemaster in 1860 was "struggling to stay afloat".

Quote:

As an economic major and a libertarian [...]
I can tell. You're making the standard error of assuming that human beings are rationally self-interested maximizers, despite centuries worth of evidence that we aren't.

Upchurch 6th July 2017 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909815)
I don't necessarily disagree with what you said in the rest of your post.

Then why hand-wave away the racist ideology that has permeated American society and politics after slavery was outlawed? "It's the economy, stupid" doesn't explain either the language used at the time or since the Civil War.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mumblethrax (Post 11909824)

I can tell. You're making the standard error of assuming that human beings are rationally self-interested maximizers, despite centuries worth of evidence that we aren't.

People are. It is why they make objectively irrational decisions all the time.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11909833)
Then why hand-wave away the racist ideology that has permeated American society and politics after slavery was outlawed? "It's the economy, stupid" doesn't explain either the language used at the time or since the Civil War.

I see what a similarities between slave holding and the mafia. Both have adopted a philosophy that absolves them of guilt. Both have deep cultural ties. Despite long after it being a real source of wealth, their superiority attitude persists. Both are greater drags on wealth than creators of it. But mob wars were about wealth.

I will say, we should probably think of it as individuals. While I'm giving a bigger influence to these wealthy slave owners in decision making, there were a LOT of what can best be described as religious terrorists.

autumn1971 6th July 2017 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11906975)
If you followed this argument to its inevitable conclusion, you'd end up with Adam and Eve.

Look at it another way. If the North hadn't invaded, there wouldn't be a war. So why did the North invade?

The South fired on Union troops without provocation, announced the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Union land and materiel, and marched an army toward Washington D.C..

Fairly decent grounds for eventual invasion.

ponderingturtle 6th July 2017 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumn1971 (Post 11909886)
The South fired on Union troops without provocation, announced the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Union land and materiel, and marched an army toward Washington D.C..

Fairly decent grounds for eventual invasion.

But how do we blame that all on the vile north instead of the loyal and heroic south?

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11909888)
But how do we blame that all on the vile north instead of the loyal and heroic south?

Simple. The north should have supported the decision to secede rather than give signs it was unacceptable.

mumblethrax 6th July 2017 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909835)
People are. It is why they make objectively irrational decisions all the time.

That's almost as good an explanation for irrational decisions as "greed" is for the Civil War.

In any case, the problem with unfalsifiable god theories like this is that in seeking to explain everything, they explain nothing. Presumably if the South had abandoned slavery you'd think the best explanation there would also be "greed."

pgwenthold 6th July 2017 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 11909792)
So what? The wealthy had money it doesn't mean that the system they got that money was the best one at making money for them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html
Quote:

The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer. Whites who did not own slaves were primarily yeoman farmers. Practically speaking, the institution of slavery did not help these people. And yet most non-slaveholding white Southerners identified with and defended the institution of slavery. Though many resented the wealth and power of the large slaveholders, they aspired to own slaves themselves and to join the priviledged ranks. In addition, slavery gave the farmers a group of people to feel superior to. They may have been poor, but they were not slaves, and they were not black. They gained a sense of power simply by being white.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 11909904)

They sound like trump's base.

pgwenthold 6th July 2017 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by autumn1971 (Post 11909886)
The South fired on Union troops without provocation, announced the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Union land and materiel, and marched an army toward Washington D.C..

Fairly decent grounds for eventual invasion.

Thank you. I have been perplexed by this whole "the north invaded" theme that has been used in this thread.

I was wondering if my recollection of history was incorrect. I thought it was the case that the US had a military post at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Then SC tried to secede, the US was having nothing of it, and kept their troops at THEIR military base. And then the confederates fired upon the fort which set off the hostilities?

War of northern invasion? Indeed.

Upchurch 6th July 2017 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909909)
They sound like trump's base.

And it also sounds like wealth was not motivator for them.

bruto 6th July 2017 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 11909913)
Thank you. I have been perplexed by this whole "the north invaded" theme that has been used in this thread.

I was wondering if my recollection of history was incorrect. I thought it was the case that the US had a military post at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Then SC tried to secede, the US was having nothing of it, and kept their troops at THEIR military base. And then the confederates fired upon the fort which set off the hostilities?

War of northern invasion? Indeed.

I brought that up pretty early in the thread, I think. At the same time, though, I don't think it ultimately matters all that much who fired the first shot. Nor, I suspect, does it matter exactly why slavery was valued so highly in the South. Racism or greed, realistic or not, reasonable or not, it takes a pretty apologetic view of the whole issue to spin the reason for secession away from slavery.

BobTheCoward 6th July 2017 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11909922)
And it also sounds like wealth was not motivator for them.

Really? It says many wanted to own slaves and join the privileged ranks. That sounds like about wealth.

autumn1971 6th July 2017 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909757)
I think greed is pretty good. You are not going to strip a bunch of people of their wealth with small consequence to your side without it creating a conflict.

Which the South did by annexing all Union property within its borders. Just an aside, but that alone was an act of war justifying the "War of Southern Aggression."

autumn1971 6th July 2017 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11909889)
Simple. The north should have supported the decision to secede rather than give signs it was unacceptable.

It could have been done legally. I grant that it probably would have failed, but an appeal to the tenth amendment was never raised in court by a southern state.

Unless I'm wrong about that or if it had been raised earlier in the country's history and rejected. Damn, more reading.

pgwenthold 6th July 2017 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 11909923)
I brought that up pretty early in the thread, I think. At the same time, though, I don't think it ultimately matters all that much who fired the first shot..

Oh, I agree, which is why I didn't say anything earlier. It just has been nagging on me all along, and since it was brought up, I figured I'd say something.

luchog 6th July 2017 09:36 AM

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. This meant that territories that already allowed slavery wouldn't be admitted as states in their own rights unless they outlawed slavery.


You realized that everything you've written here directly contradicts your claim that it wasn't effectively about slavery, right?

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.

You keep dredging up this nonsense, but ignoring the fact that the South was vehemently against state's rights, when other states voted to abolish slavery and refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. As Joe Bentley ably pointed out, the Confederate Constitution gave substantially more power to the federal government to overrule state's rights than the American constitution did.

The issue of state's rights was not even mentioned in any of the foundational documents, and was not brought up until the Reconstruction period revisionism began to take shape. I challenge to you to provide a citation showing otherwise.

Quote:

Yes, slavery is the proximate cause

Really? Ya think?

Quote:

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.

Which was not even remotely a possible option. "A state cannot exist half slave and half free." No one who actually cared about liberty, and who considered Africans to be fully human and deserving of equal rights, could have allowed such a state to exist. The delicate sensibilities of Southern racists notwithstanding.

Quote:

The other way would be to create a new amendment abolishing slavery.

And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the growing movement demanding that very thing is what prompted the Confederate states to secede.

Quote:

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.

Nope, it was well-documented at the time that the North was moving very quickly to abolish the institution of slavery, and the vote was effectively a foregone conclusion by the time of the secession, which is why the South seceded when it did. They could read the writing on the wall, and did not like what it said.

Quote:

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.

And I'm sure all of those African slaves would have appreciated your "ethical" approach to acknowledging their humanity and civil rights. :rolleyes:

And maybe if they'd been less uppity during the Civil Rights movement, we could have avoided all that unpleasant violence and confrontation. Sure, it may have taken another hundred years to be treated like equal citizens, but that's less important that white folks' comfort. What's a few lynchings and Jim Crow laws compared to white sensitivity and "ethics".

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. And while you and I agree with their beliefs, that doesn't dismiss the complicity of the northern states in the incitement to war.

This is the worst sort of pseudo-intellectual, relativist, revisionist apologia I think I've seen on this issue. Congratulations.

luchog 6th July 2017 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11909062)
Lol, that's an interesting interpretation.


:rolleyes:

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

Craig B 6th July 2017 09:41 AM

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.

Please see the Cornerstone SpeechWP
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
That seems clear enough.

pgwenthold 6th July 2017 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luchog (Post 11910075)
You keep dredging up this nonsense, but ignoring the fact that the South was vehemently against state's rights, when other states voted to abolish slavery and refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. .

Look especially into the response by and to Vermont, who did everything they could to circumvent the FSA.

The behavior of Vermont in itself almost led to secession. How dare the state not return slaves to their rightful owners!!!! States' rights my ass. Seriously, the south threatened to secede because Vermont would not uphold the federal law!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:20 PM.

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