ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th July 2017, 09:57 AM   #281
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
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!
Yet somehow people seem to think they would have let their own states abolish slavery under their constitution.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 10:42 AM   #282
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,290
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
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!
The passing of that odious law was itself an attempt by the Northern states to compromise with the South which was already agitated over the growing division between slave and free states, and aside from quite conspicuously defying the very idea of states' rights, it also, of course, empowered the Southern states to act lawlessly under its guise. Remember that Solomon Northup's story, later to become the movie 12 Years a Slave, was a personal memoir, and though one may dispute some of the particulars, and though there is some question of how many free blacks were kidnapped and made into slaves, part of the reason for that ambiguity is that they were so easily captured, destroyed, and lost. In many places, and especially in the South, blacks were legally barred from legal action, and not allowed to testify in court. Thus, once captured they had no recourse. It is uncertain how many such cases there were, but contemporary accounts make it clear that they were not so uncommon. How many murders and kidnappings are too many?

Of course, so much of the argument for the south is based on the idea of "heritage," and I, being an old New Englander sired by old New Englanders for some distance back, can, by the same token, I presume, invoke my heritage. My Vermont ancestors fought for the Union. My Connecticut ancestors did too, and my great grandfather was a Civil war orphan, having lost both his father and an uncle. If a southern apologist can make a case here, then I suggest so can the descendant of northern abolitionists, and I'm pretty sure my ancestors would suggest that any lingering southern sympathizers take that stars and bars, roll it up tight, and cram it.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 10:50 AM   #283
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Really? It says many wanted to own slaves and join the privileged ranks. That sounds like about wealth.
You're cherry-picking. Keep reading.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 12:04 PM   #284
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,878
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You're cherry-picking. Keep reading.
Reread it. Still all economic to me in total.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 02:51 PM   #285
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,442
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Now, if you could have found a quote with "only" in it, that might have been worth posting.
Seriously? I suppose all the other phrases that are synonymous with "only" aren't acceptable, because they don't use that specific word?

Well, except for this one, which you seem to have missed:
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
And the South, who started the war, did so only to preserve slavery.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 02:52 PM   #286
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,442
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
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?
Who are you talking to with the highlighted bit?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 04:56 PM   #287
Mumbles
Illuminator
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
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.
A reasonable view. As I've said before on this board, white supremacy is usually about taking money from black/and Native) Americans, and transferring it to *some* white people. Doesn't change the fact that the primary means of doing so was the preservation and expansion of chattel slavery.

Last edited by Mumbles; 6th July 2017 at 05:00 PM.
Mumbles is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 07:10 PM   #288
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,553
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Who are you talking to with the highlighted bit?
At this point I have no clue because what exactly the what and ways of this problem so many of you seem to have with associating the Civil War with slavery keeps changing.

Basically there is just this broad, obsessive need in the South to disassociate the American Civil War with slavery as much as possible via as much pedantics, semantics, and nitpicking as possible and it is getting harder and harder to pin a motivation on that need that's not rather... distasteful.

Call it a cause. Call it a motivation. Call it a inciting incident. Call it the last straw. Call it whatever, this discussion has already drifted way too far into pure distinctions without difference as it is. The X-factor, whatever exact term you need to pin on it to make the equation work in your head, was slavery.

The South's fear of at the very possibility of losing the institution of slavery is what lead them to secede, which is what lead to the Civil War.

If you just can't get over just plainly stating it as "The War was about slavery" for some reason (reasons for which I would just love someone to explain to me at some point) I'm sorry.

Here's the absolute last ounce of effort I'm going to put into rephrasing this very simple concept over and over to get people to swallow it. People can play their silly transparent high school debate club games with less important topics.

Yes support or acceptance of slavery was still (shamefully) widespread throughout the United States in the time leading up to the Civil War, but opposition to slavery was already starting and the possibility of a widespread organized social and political abolitionist movement was becoming a very real thing. The South had much more invested in the institution of slavery since their largely agriculture economy was dependent on it. The idea of losing slavery was so scary to them that the very possibility that political winds might turn against slavery at some hypothetical point in the future was enough for them to secede, go into open rebellion against their country, and fight a war over it.

So in one very specific semantic way you are right. It wasn't about slavery. It was about the fear at the very possibility of losing slavery.

You can rearrange the words anyway you wish to make that "not about slavery" if that's so damn important but you can't wordsmith your way out of the fact the South saw losing slavery as not an option.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

Last edited by JoeBentley; 6th July 2017 at 07:32 PM.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 07:29 PM   #289
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Who are you talking to with the highlighted bit?
It seems self-explanatory. Anyone who, when asked why the South started the Civil War, answers anything other than some variation of "slavery".
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 07:31 PM   #290
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Seriously? I suppose all the other phrases that are synonymous with "only" aren't acceptable, because they don't use that specific word?
Well, except for the one, none of them specified that there was a sole reason to the exclusion of any other.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 08:25 PM   #291
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,671
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Who are you talking to with the highlighted bit?
Perhaps you could make yourself more clear, then, on what exactly you are arguing in this thread?

Upthread you suggested that the civil war was about state's rights, and then pointed out that states rights are a good thing as evidenced by various modern ways in which states rights have advanced agendas that we all tend to agree with.

But, as I pointed out, the south wasn't interested in states rights in general, but rather in a particular state's right: the right to maintain the institution of slavery.

Further, clearly the civil war wasn't necessary to maintain state's rights in general since the south lost, but states rights are intact enough to have done those good things that you mentioned.

So again, what's your point?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 10:55 PM   #292
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
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....
And here we have a prime example of smug Northerners of today pointing fingers at the uncivilized Southerners because slavery ended thirty or forty years earlier in the North than in the South.

This is why these monuments and memorials and statues and Museums to the Confederacy need to remain in place. Northerners need to face their disgraceful past and accept that the United States was founded by slave owning terrorists fighting a barbaric and cowardly war against the peaceful British to form their own government that in no way restricted their right to continue buying, selling, and sexually molesting other human beings. When Northerners blow up slave-rapist Jefferson's head on Mt. Rushmore, Southerners can start thinking about taking down a statue of Gen Lee.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 11:33 PM   #293
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
... Northerners need to face their disgraceful past and accept that the United States was founded by slave owning terrorists fighting a barbaric and cowardly war against the peaceful British to form their own government that in no way restricted their right to continue buying, selling, and sexually molesting other human beings. When Northerners blow up slave-rapist Jefferson's head on Mt. Rushmore, Southerners can start thinking about taking down a statue of Gen Lee.
I think you're being disingenuously provocative here, but in case you really think that, I'll let the Cornerstone SpeechWP inform you on the Confederate view of Jefferson and slavery. It does Jefferson some credit.
Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." ... The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 11:46 PM   #294
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Reread it. Still all economic to me in total.
At the end of the day, just about any conflict between nations is economic.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 11:46 PM   #295
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,361
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
And here we have a prime example of smug Northerners of today pointing fingers at the uncivilized Southerners because slavery ended thirty or forty years earlier in the North than in the South.
Except I'm neither a U.S. Northerner nor am I a Southerner

As someone not from the U.S. but who has spent some considerable time over there (probably around 100 weeks in total) I find the (white) South's ongoing love affair with the Confederacy troubling especially in light of those same people's ongoing, recently increasingly successful, attempts to deny African-Americans their basic human rights.

I wonder if we'll end up looking back and see some point in the '90s or early '00s as the high water mark for civil rights in the South as they slip back into some kind of new Jim Crow era or whether the current attempts to deny black people the vote are the final twitches of an otherwise inanimate corpse.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 11:52 PM   #296
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Seriously? I suppose all the other phrases that are synonymous with "only" aren't acceptable, because they don't use that specific word?

Well, except for this one, which you seem to have missed:


ddt and bruto also used the word "only."

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

Originally Posted by bruto
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.

As if using the word only is the only way to say only.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 12:08 AM   #297
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
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"?
Evidence that the North resisted Southern independence because of slavery. That somehow the slavery status quo existing in the South was unacceptable and it needed to be changed. If the South had abolished slavery at the same time it seceded, would the North have been willing to go to war? If the South had not seceded, would the North have raised an army and invaded the South to overthrow the institution of slavery?

To say the war was only about slavery, both sides need to be fighting only about slavery. That's not the way it was. So the war wasn't only about slavery.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 01:11 AM   #298
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,853
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Evidence that the North resisted Southern independence because of slavery ...

To say the war was only about slavery, both sides need to be fighting only about slavery. That's not the way it was. So the war wasn't only about slavery.
A word not present in the first part of extract has found its way into the second part. Can you spot it?

As I stated, it may well be that nobody either defending Fort Sumter or bombarding it was giving a moment's thought to the question of slavery. So what? Slavery was the primary cause of the war. The defeat of the secession marked the end of slavery as a legal social status in the USA.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 03:13 AM   #299
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Evidence that the North resisted Southern independence because of slavery.
This is what is known as a non-sequitor. The North's intentions are immaterial as to the primary motive for why the South started the Civil War.

Would you like to try again?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 05:07 AM   #300
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,553
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
And here we have a prime example of smug Northerners of today pointing fingers at the uncivilized Southerners because slavery ended thirty or forty years earlier in the North than in the South.
I'm from North Carolina there bucko. Try again.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 05:27 AM   #301
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Evidence that the North resisted Southern independence because of slavery. That somehow the slavery status quo existing in the South was unacceptable and it needed to be changed. If the South had abolished slavery at the same time it seceded, would the North have been willing to go to war? If the South had not seceded, would the North have raised an army and invaded the South to overthrow the institution of slavery?

To say the war was only about slavery, both sides need to be fighting only about slavery. That's not the way it was. So the war wasn't only about slavery.
Slavery it is then!


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 06:58 AM   #302
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
This is why these monuments and memorials and statues and Museums to the Confederacy need to remain in place. Northerners need to face their disgraceful past and accept that the United States was founded by slave owning terrorists...
Wait, what? That makes absolutely no sense.

How does denying that the South's primary focus on preserving slavery make the North face the fact that slavery was part of the entire country's past? Who is even denying that slavery was part of the entire country's past?

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
...fighting a barbaric and cowardly war against the peaceful British to form their own government that in no way restricted their right to continue buying, selling, and sexually molesting other human beings.
"barbaric and cowardly war against the peaceful British"? What on Earth are you talking about?

Yes, the Founders permitted slavery to continue in their new country. Some didn't want it included, some did. Those who didn't knew the colonies would never unite if they drew that line, so they essentially decided to kick the can down the road and deal with it at a later time. Not the best decision, but likely the only one that had a path that got them free from the British.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 07:01 AM   #303
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,290
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
ddt and bruto also used the word "only."

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

Originally Posted by bruto
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.

As if using the word only is the only way to say only.
Yes, I used the word "only," and meant it, in the context cited. I do not contend that the civil war was fought only to abolish slavery, or only because of slavery. I do, however, contend that the only reason that the various differences between sections resulted in secession was slavery. If slavery had not been at issue, there would have been no Confederacy. This is not to say there were no other issues, but I do not believe that the introduction of other issues, whether pre-existing and negotiable, or post hoc and apologetic, changes this.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 07:41 AM   #304
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,781
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Yes, I used the word "only," and meant it, in the context cited. I do not contend that the civil war was fought only to abolish slavery, or only because of slavery. I do, however, contend that the only reason that the various differences between sections resulted in secession was slavery. If slavery had not been at issue, there would have been no Confederacy. This is not to say there were no other issues, but I do not believe that the introduction of other issues, whether pre-existing and negotiable, or post hoc and apologetic, changes this.

To put it more succinctly, there is no historical evidence of any other issues at hand that were divisive enough and entrenched enough to trigger a movement toward secession.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 07:47 AM   #305
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,793
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
How does denying that the South's primary focus on preserving slavery make the North face the fact that slavery was part of the entire country's past? Who is even denying that slavery was part of the entire country's past?
Absolutely. It's often called "white guilt" and liberals are frequently derided for it by people who like to pretend that legal slavery in the US has nothing to do with the world of today. It certainly couldn't have been made more clear to me as a child that slavery was baked right into the United States of America from the very beginning; if there are people denying that, I certainly don't see them here in this thread...perhaps because those people aren't here or perhaps because this thread is about a Civil War statue and, therefore, the Civil War is what is being discussed.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 08:32 AM   #306
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
It certainly couldn't have been made more clear to me as a child that slavery was baked right into the United States of America from the very beginning; if there are people denying that, I certainly don't see them here in this thread...perhaps because those people aren't here or perhaps because this thread is about a Civil War statue and, therefore, the Civil War is what is being discussed.
Just to be clear, I fully acknowledge that there are people who deny that slavery, and the related racism, has any lingering impact on on our country today. That's true regardless of North, South, East, or West and it is something we need to face and largely aren't.

It's part of the reason that the false narrative provided by these Lost Cause memorials need to go and/or be put in their proper context. That is, as part of an effort to rewrite history and not an effort to honor real events.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 08:37 AM   #307
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,793
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Just to be clear, I fully acknowledge that there are people who deny that slavery, and the related racism, has any lingering impact on on our country today. That's true regardless of North, South, East, or West and it is something we need to face and largely aren't.
Agreed.
Quote:
It's part of the reason that the false narrative provided by these Lost Cause memorials need to go and/or be put in their proper context. That is, as part of an effort to rewrite history and not an effort to honor real events.
Word.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 09:40 AM   #308
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
The discussion about this particular monument has been going on for a few years. I remember (but can find no reference to) a suggestion that the monument remain where it is, but a garden be planted around it dedicated to the Civil Rights movement.

The best I could find was in this article
Quote:
However, Slay’s* office plans to either move the memorial out of the park or put a new interpretive marker around it by the end of the summer.

Roth says that the monument was part of a national movement around the turn of the century to reshape the image of confederacy to the point where there’s no mention of slavery. He is researching how much is will cost to move it or whether to putting a plaque beside it explaining the context.
* Slay was the mayor of St. Louis at the time of the article. He recently retired.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 12:16 PM   #309
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,257
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Yes, the Founders permitted slavery to continue in their new country. Some didn't want it included, some did. Those who didn't knew the colonies would never unite if they drew that line, so they essentially decided to kick the can down the road and deal with it at a later time. Not the best decision, but likely the only one that had a path that got them free from the British.
In fairness to the founding fathers, they had reason to believe that slavery In the US was fading fast. From 1783 to 1830 slaves were being freed in large numbers. It just was not economical to have them at that time. When Nat Turner's rebellion hit, there was actually some brief soul-searching done by even the Southern states who wondered if this was an institution they wanted to end.

But then the Cotton Gin kicked in and so did the money. Since they were no longer soul-searching about ending slavery they now had to justify why they had human chattel. Biblical sources were used, mudsilers spoke, and a host of other justifications invoked to justify slavery, even if they tried to avoid using that term. When those justifications failed (and oh, did they fail) they could always resort to the likes of Preston Brooks to keep them nasty Northerners out of their peculiar institution.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 12:25 PM   #310
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I think you're being disingenuously provocative here, but in case you really think that, I'll let the Cornerstone SpeechWP inform you on the Confederate view of Jefferson and slavery. It does Jefferson some credit.
Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." ... The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
What Alexander Stephens said about Thomas Jefferson isn't as relevant as the actions taken by Jefferson during his lifetime.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 12:40 PM   #311
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
This is what is known as a non-sequitor. The North's intentions are immaterial as to the primary motive for why the South started the Civil War.

Would you like to try again?
No. If you believe the causes of a war are determined only by the side that started and lost the war, I can't help you.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 12:50 PM   #312
CaptainHowdy
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I'm from North Carolina there bucko. Try again.
I'm from California. NORTHERN California. You're not The Don. But if you believe that the people who had no problem living in a diverse multicultural paradise are more racist than those who wanted to ethnically cleanse the South of all its Africans, then you too need to get over yourself. Bucko.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 12:51 PM   #313
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
No. If you believe the causes of a war are determined only by the side that started and lost the war, I can't help you.
You're trying to (not) answer a different question than the one I asked.


eta: But I do think it's rather funny that even your refusal is self-defeating.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern

Last edited by Upchurch; 7th July 2017 at 12:52 PM.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 01:02 PM   #314
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
In fairness to the founding fathers, they had reason to believe that slavery In the US was fading fast. From 1783 to 1830 slaves were being freed in large numbers. It just was not economical to have them at that time. When Nat Turner's rebellion hit, there was actually some brief soul-searching done by even the Southern states who wondered if this was an institution they wanted to end.
What? Why would things that happened after founding the US give the Founders reason to think slavery was fading fast before they wrote the constitution? What is your source for the number of slaves freed between 1783 and 1830?

It appears that slave imports were starting to hit their peek in the 25 years just prior to the Revolution and hit their historic highs sometime between 25-50 years after.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 01:17 PM   #315
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,257
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
What? Why would things that happened after founding the US give the Founders reason to think slavery was fading fast before they wrote the constitution? What is your source for the number of slaves freed between 1783 and 1830?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver..._United_States

Quote:
None of the Southern states abolished slavery, but it was common for individual slaveholders in the South to free numerous slaves, often citing revolutionary ideals, in their wills. Methodist, Quaker and Baptist preachers traveled in the South, appealing to slaveholders to manumit their slaves. By 1810, the number and proportion of free blacks in the population of the United States had risen dramatically. Most free blacks resided in the North, but even in the Upper South, the proportion of free blacks went from less than one percent of all blacks to more than 10 percent, even as the total number of slaves was increasing through importation


Quote:
It appears that slave imports were starting to hit their peek in the 25 years just prior to the Revolution and hit their historic highs sometime between 25-50 years after.
I never said they stopped cold. Just that the signs could be seen as pointing to a possible end of slavery down the road. They were still kicking that can down the road, however.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 01:43 PM   #316
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,550
There's an excellent article on how a peaceful abolition of slavery could've been achieved and why it was the better option here.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 02:25 PM   #317
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,862
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
There's an excellent article on how a peaceful abolition of slavery could've been achieved and why it was the better option here.
I'm no expert on the topic, but why couldn't refugee slaves that escaped to the North just simply not have been returned without secession? Assuming all other things being equal, it would have accomplished the same thing.

Of course, I find it a little naive to believe that the Confederacy would have just been okay with slaves escaping to the US and not have demanded them back, perhaps also to the point of still going to war over it. Remember, the South launched the first attack.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 02:40 PM   #318
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,550
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Remember, the South launched the first attack.
Within their own borders. The war proper started when the north invaded the south. Fort Sumter should've been a very minor incident. Besides, you could argue the first act of aggression was the northern troops - by then representative of a foreign country - not leaving.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 03:00 PM   #319
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,793
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Of course, I find it a little naive to believe that the Confederacy would have just been okay with slaves escaping to the US and not have demanded them back, perhaps also to the point of still going to war over it. Remember, the South launched the first attack.
It's more than a "little" naive. One could argue that the [often purposeful] failure of northern states to adhere to the Fugitive Slave Act (through lack of enforcement and jury nullification) was a key factor that lead to the secession. Continuing that trend could have seen the "upper southern" states going ahead and joining the CSA even in the absence of the US decision to go to war.

As for the argument that waiting for the gradual end of slavery would have been preferable to a terrible war, I'd only ask this: Preferable for whom? How many more years of horror for how many slaves would have been acceptable in exchange for the soldiers and civilians killed and maimed during the war?
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2017, 03:04 PM   #320
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,553
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Within their own borders.
What borders? Nobody ever recognized the Confederacy as a legit country. As far the USA was concerned it was an uprising.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.