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 10th July 2017, 10:02 AM   #441
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
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?
How many people died in the Civil War? What was the economic toll of that conflict? Taken from a purely economic perspective, the delayed freedom of slaves may have had less impact overall.

My opinion is that if slavery had gradually been abolished without major conflict, then the assimilation of free blacks into the population would have been much quicker - there wouldn't have been nearly as much violence and conflict centered around equality in the south. I suspect that segregation would have been considerably shortened (if it were even present) if it weren't for the lingering animosity brought about by the Civil War. Additionally, the Civil War and the forced abolition of slavery effectively destroyed the southern economy, and that is still felt today. It's always a challenge to imagineer what would have happened if things had gone differently... but I suspect that a gradual shift away from slavery could have been accommodated with an influx of newly competing industries and processes. Instead, we got a dramatic collapse of a localized economy with nothing to replace it. The south is still painfully poor... and that is largely a legacy of the Civil War.
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 10:28 AM   #442
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
That is a distinction without a difference, but okay, why did the South want to secede from the USA?
Because in their eyes, the federal government had severely overstepped its bounds with respect to making laws regarding the property of other people, and had supported the receipt of stolen goods by northerners without legal ramifications by failing to enforce property rights.
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 10:31 AM   #443
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
The people who put up these monuments to honor these men for their violent, treasonous defense of slavery and white supremacy care!

These are statues to these people for their vile actions. The actions of other people hardly enter into it. We don't have statues honoring Jefferson for owning slaves. The British don't have statues of Nelson for having affairs. The south does have many statues and monuments for vile, despicable treason committed by these men in order to keep owning other humans as chattel.

The motivations of the North don't matter to how dishonorable and idiotic it is to have these monuments in places that glorify them.
It was only determined to be treason AFTER the war was over. It wasn't treason before or during the war.

This is kinda similar to declaring that Clinton committed treason because a bunch of the emails on her private server were classified after the fact.
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 10:32 AM   #444
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
duplicate
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 10th July 2017 at 10:57 AM.
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 10th July 2017, 10:33 AM   #445
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
He said, living in the shadow of a 630 foot steel arch commemorating "westward expansion", aka "Manifest Destiny", aka the divine right to genocide the crap out of native peoples in a quest to seize as much of the continent as possible for white people.
Very good point.

If it is inappropriate to have any memorials commemorating the Civil War from the perspective of the southern side, because slavery is bad... I think there are a whole lot of memorials commemorating white people killing the crap out of first nations and stealing their land that really need to come down too.

I think we would also need to give Texas back to Mexico.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 10th July 2017 at 10:35 AM.
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 10th July 2017, 10:42 AM   #446
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
It was action by the South - secession - that (we are agreed) initiated the war.
This isn't true. It wasn't the secession that triggered the war. Seven states had peacefully seceded prior to the onset of hostilities. South Carolina was the first to secede. It was several months after that, when northern troops had refused to withdraw from foreign territory that conflict ensued. They ensued because northern troops took steps to supply Fort Sumter, at that point a foreign fort on Confederate grounds.

When Texas seceded from Mexico, and Mexico refused to let it go and proceeded to send in troops... the same thing happened. Do we view Texas as the aggressor in that conflict?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 10th July 2017 at 10:57 AM.
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 10th July 2017, 10:51 AM   #447
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I'm saying this is yet another pointless semantic hair split for Confederate apologist that I have zero intention of entertaining.
I get tired of any argument for a different perspective being classed as "apologist". An apologist is a person who offers arguments in support of a controversial topic. So far as I know (barring a couple of posters I don't read), nobody has actually argued FOR the confederate secession. Nobody has argued FOR slavery.

What has been argued is that the monuments of that conflict shouldn't be taken down, because they represent a complex situation and they represent the perspective of one side in that conflict.

And it WAS a complex situation. Slavery was the immediate cause, the central topic... but the reason for secession had many aspect to it. Ignoring those reasons, disregarding the political events at the time, and dismissing the impact of how federal government powers changed as a result of those issues is a bad thing.

Consider if several states were to lobby congress to outlaw abortion. Those infants are people who deserve the rights of people, and shouldn't just be murdered out of hand on a whim! If some states were to start pushing legislation regarding abortion into bills unrelated to that topic, wouldn't you disagree with that approach? If a political party were to run on the foundation that fetuses are humans and deserving of the same natural rights as any other child, wouldn't you object? If a large coalition within congress were to insist that no new states can enter the union unless they first outlaw abortion as part of their state constitution... wouldn't you raise holy hell about it? Wouldn't you see that as a fundamental shift in the role of government, and in the power invested in government, and take steps to curtail that power?
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 10:55 AM   #448
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
The most interesting part is that it presents itself, specifically and insultingly, as "Southern" heritage. This simply wipes out both the great majority of US history, but also regional variation - and blatantly erases non-white southerners as members of "the South."
In a way quite similar to how anything talking about "American" heritage wipes out the majority of pre-colonial US history, regional variation, and blatantly erases the First Nations as members of "America".
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 11:01 AM   #449
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
This isn't true. It wasn't the secession that triggered the war. Seven states had peacefully seceded prior to the onset of hostilities. South Carolina was the first to secede. It was several months after that, when northern troops had refused to withdraw from foreign territory that conflict ensued. They ensued because northern troops took steps to supply Fort Sumter, at that point a foreign fort on Confederate grounds.

When Texas seceded from Mexico, and Mexico refused to let it go and proceeded to send in troops... the same thing happened.
Sumter was not a foreign fort. It was a federal installation garrisoned by federal troops who had been there before the pretended secession. That is not an invasion. The attempted supply of these troops by the Star of the West was a peaceful, or at least non-aggressive, operation prevented by gunfire from the Secessionists. If that was the opening shot of the war, the South fired it.

ETA There are, however, similarities with the Texas secession from Mexico..
Because slavery was illegal in Mexico, these settlers made their slaves sign agreements giving them the status of indentured servants – essentially slavery by another name. The Mexican authorities grudgingly went along with it, but the issue occasionally flared up, especially when slaves ran off. By the 1830s, many settlers were afraid that the Mexicans would take their slaves away: this made them favor independence.

Last edited by Craig B; 10th July 2017 at 11:06 AM.
Craig B 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 10th July 2017, 11:11 AM   #450
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,769
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Setting aside ethical arguments, think about it from the perspective of the southerns at the time. They viewed slaves as property. They were owned. Failure to return missing property is tantamount to theft.

Consider if a rancher's fence broke, and all of his cattle wandered into his neighbor's field. If that neighbor refused to return the cattle to the rightful owner, the owner would very likely consider it theft.

In the case of slavery, it was compounded by this 'theft' being backed by the government. Contrary to all existing property laws, the government of many states as well as the federal government all essentially said "It's okay to receive stolen goods, as long as you don't like the beliefs of the people from whom they were stolen".
Well, that was exactly my point of the rest of the second half of the post you quoted. Specifically, that it is naive in the extreme that think that slavery would have peacefully faded away due to attrition, which was the point of the linked article I was responding to.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
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 10th July 2017, 11:17 AM   #451
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,002
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Specifically, that it is naive in the extreme that think that slavery would have peacefully faded away due to attrition, which was the point of the linked article I was responding to.
Why? Every other country except Haiti has done away with slavery without bloodshed, and no other country had to go to war with itself. Are southern Americans uniquely stupid, violent or racist?
__________________
"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 10th July 2017, 11:21 AM   #452
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,769
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Because in their eyes, the federal government had severely overstepped its bounds with respect to making laws regarding the property of other people, and had supported the receipt of stolen goods by northerners without legal ramifications by failing to enforce property rights.
Not just any property, of course. They weren't upset about horses or land or money. There was one type of property they were specifically upset about. A type of property so important to them, they considered the institution of it the corner stone or a just and moral society. So much so, that it was enshrined in the CSA Constitution.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
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 10th July 2017, 11:23 AM   #453
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,769
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Why? Every other country except Haiti has done away with slavery without bloodshed, and no other country had to go to war with itself.
Emily's Cat put forth a good argument for why.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
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 10th July 2017, 11:44 AM   #454
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Setting aside ethical arguments, think about it from the perspective of the southerns at the time. They viewed slaves as property. They were owned. Failure to return missing property is tantamount to theft.

Consider if a rancher's fence broke, and all of his cattle wandered into his neighbor's field. If that neighbor refused to return the cattle to the rightful owner, the owner would very likely consider it theft.

In the case of slavery, it was compounded by this 'theft' being backed by the government. Contrary to all existing property laws, the government of many states as well as the federal government all essentially said "It's okay to receive stolen goods, as long as you don't like the beliefs of the people from whom they were stolen".

Now, you and I and everyone else in this thread understands and accepts that human beings should not be considered property. Like I said, the ethics of the situation, especially from a 21st century perspective, are fairly irrelevant. At the time, slavery was legal. According to the rule of law in existence at that time, those slaves were the property of their owners. Within that context, it's a legitimate complaint, regardless of how much I disagree with the ethics of it.
And as such no state had the right to decide that human beings are not property. That is why the north really started it when they pretended that slavery was outlawed when it clearly wasn't.
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 11:50 AM   #455
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And as such no state had the right to decide that human beings are not property. That is why the north really started it when they pretended that slavery was outlawed when it clearly wasn't.
They had no right to decide anything else, than that human beings are not property (and it is to their discredit that in practice they decided otherwise for several decades) given that they declared independence on this prospectus
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Craig B 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 10th July 2017, 12:29 PM   #456
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,725
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
They had no right to decide anything else, than that human beings are not property (and it is to their discredit that in practice they decided otherwise for several decades) given that they declared independence on this prospectus
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Were slaves considered "men"? There's your loophole.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 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 10th July 2017, 12:30 PM   #457
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Were slaves considered "men"? There's your loophole.
It's not a loophole through which the authors and signatories of the Declaration would have sought to escape.
Craig B 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 10th July 2017, 12:30 PM   #458
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,890
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
How many people died in the Civil War? What was the economic toll of that conflict? Taken from a purely economic perspective, the delayed freedom of slaves may have had less impact overall.
Taken from a purely economic perspective, we might as well have continued slavery and admitted new states only if they were slave states.
Quote:
My opinion is that if slavery had gradually been abolished without major conflict, then the assimilation of free blacks into the population would have been much quicker - there wouldn't have been nearly as much violence and conflict centered around equality in the south. I suspect that segregation would have been considerably shortened (if it were even present) if it weren't for the lingering animosity brought about by the Civil War. Additionally, the Civil War and the forced abolition of slavery effectively destroyed the southern economy, and that is still felt today. It's always a challenge to imagineer what would have happened if things had gone differently... but I suspect that a gradual shift away from slavery could have been accommodated with an influx of newly competing industries and processes. Instead, we got a dramatic collapse of a localized economy with nothing to replace it. The south is still painfully poor... and that is largely a legacy of the Civil War.
All of this is garbage for one simple reason: Slavery was evil, and if the South had been allowed to continue it, either as part of the United States or their own nation, war would have been inevitable because it would have become completely intolerable to northerners long before southerners decided to acknowledge that slavery was evil and it had to end.

And, guess what? The cost - both from an economic perspective and from a human life perspective - of that inevitable war would have been a great deal higher if the CSA had been allowed to become entrenched.

Edited by jsfisher:  ...snip... Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

Last edited by jsfisher; 15th July 2017 at 09:39 AM.
Babbylonian 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 10th July 2017, 12:48 PM   #459
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Very good point.

If it is inappropriate to have any memorials commemorating the Civil War from the perspective of the southern side, because slavery is bad... I think there are a whole lot of memorials commemorating white people killing the crap out of first nations and stealing their land that really need to come down too.

I think we would also need to give Texas back to Mexico.
Hey Texans fought to install slavery in mexico after immigrating there we need to honor their commitment to slavery by having it remain a part of the US. Like we need to keep Hawaii to honor the sacrifices of the off duty marines who conquered that nation to make it american.
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 01:07 PM   #460
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,971
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Setting aside ethical arguments, think about it from the perspective of the southerns at the time. They viewed slaves as property. They were owned. Failure to return missing property is tantamount to theft.

This is beyond ridiculous. The problem was that some Southerners, not all, decided that Africans were not people, that they were little more than animals, and therefore could be owned like every other animal.

The fact that they did not consider black people fully human was enshrined in their constitution, just as it had once been in the American constitution, only much more explicitly and

That's like saying we should "understand" the point of view of Nazi Germany, and accepted that they truly believed that the Jews were destroying their world. This is all ridiculous semantic hairsplitting to support a society that was fundamentally based on


Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
How many people died in the Civil War? What was the economic toll of that conflict? Taken from a purely economic perspective, the delayed freedom of slaves may have had less impact overall.

My opinion is that if slavery had gradually been abolished without major conflict, then the assimilation of free blacks into the population would have been much quicker - there wouldn't have been nearly as much violence and conflict centered around equality in the south.

And I'm sure all those slaves would have been happy to wait a few decades or centuries to obtain their freedom, knowing that they were protecting delicate white sensibilities and

Quote:
I suspect that segregation would have been considerably shortened (if it were even present) if it weren't for the lingering animosity brought about by the Civil War.

History has demonstrated quite brutally that you're wrong. To this day black people are still widely discriminated against and oppressed throughout the South, long after anyone who had any direct experience of the Civil War had ended, and long after the South attempted to deny that slavery had anything to do with the Civil War though a concerted campaign of historical revisionism.

Read the history. The overwhelming majority of post-war violence, political legislation, and discriminatory social pressures were not directed against northern whites who had won the war, they were directed at newly-freed black people. Even after having been freed, black people were still treated like cattle, and the South did everything in their power to maintain the de facto institution of slavery, despite being prohibited from doing so de novo. The restructuring of the prison system and enacting of legislation to criminalize a wider range of activities aimed at black people, "sundown" laws and practices, the founding of secret societies for the express purpose of oppressing black people, miscegenation laws, and on and on and on.

And it wasn't just the slave owners who enacted and supported these practices, it was just as much, if not more, the poor whites who were the backbone of oppression.

When your entire society is founded on White Supremacy, hurt feelings over a war isn't a sufficient justification for the systematic oppression of an entire ethnicity in this manner.

Quote:
Additionally, the Civil War and the forced abolition of slavery effectively destroyed the southern economy, and that is still felt today. It's always a challenge to imagineer what would have happened if things had gone differently... but I suspect that a gradual shift away from slavery could have been accommodated with an influx of newly competing industries and processes.

Well, no. Not when slavery and white supremacy was the supreme law of the land. It would have taken a Constitutional Amendment to abolish it in the South, just like it did in the North; except that the South was founded on the back of slavery, and had no interest in abolishing it.

Even had the institution of slavery been abolished (highly unlikely), there is no way that black people would have obtained anything like equality. They were precluded by the Confederate constitution of ever becoming citizens, and therefore having any real chance of improving their status aside from leaving the territories.

There is plenty of evidence around the world that contradicts your assertion that slavery would have melted away in a flash of moonbeams and fairydust. The institution was continued throughout Africa, the Caribbean, and South America for decades afterward the American Civil War, and in each place it took a war or popular uprising of some sort to end it. And even when it ended, there was still some sort of apartheid or similar discriminatory practice that persisted. Many of them well into my lifetime. South Africa ring a bell? Jamaica?
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
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 10th July 2017, 01:10 PM   #461
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Why? Every other country except Haiti has done away with slavery without bloodshed, and no other country had to go to war with itself. Are southern Americans uniquely stupid, violent or racist?
History says yes, they started a war to keep and expand slavery, something no other nation did.
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 01:16 PM   #462
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,971
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Why? Every other country except Haiti has done away with slavery without bloodshed, and no other country had to go to war with itself. Are southern Americans uniquely stupid, violent or racist?

They have? I daresay that the Brazil, South Africa, Jamaica, Congo, Danish West Indies, Rhodesia, Ghana, and many others would beg to disagree. Most places slavery has been abolished, it has only been so after bloody uprisings, revolts, or full-on revolutions and wars.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
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 10th July 2017, 01:31 PM   #463
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,197
There's also the issue of how the holiday of Juneteenth (June 19th) came to be. That commemorates the date that the Federal troops arrived in Texas in 1865 and told the black residents that they were free. Apparently the white residents neglected to tell them the war had ended and all slaves were free.

Some claim that nobody in Texas knew that the war had ended. Since Texas didn't have major fighting, their infrastructure was still sound, so I find it hard to believe that the telegraph lines were all down and no travelers brought the news.
deadrose 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 10th July 2017, 02:14 PM   #464
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Well, that was exactly my point of the rest of the second half of the post you quoted. Specifically, that it is naive in the extreme that think that slavery would have peacefully faded away due to attrition, which was the point of the linked article I was responding to.
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
Why? Every other country except Haiti has done away with slavery without bloodshed, and no other country had to go to war with itself. Are southern Americans uniquely stupid, violent or racist?
I don't think they were uniquely stupid, violent, or racist at that point in time. I'll leave you to your own opinion with respect to current behavioral trends. There's an economic factor here that gets ignored. And yes, I know - human lives >>> money!!!111!1eleventyone1! That's not the debate here, people.

Most of the other countries that had slavery during that era weren't dependent on slavery. Slavery, and slave trading, weren't integral elements of their economy. So getting rid of slavery didn't have as much impact. It's fairly straightforward to acknowledge the essential humanity of the darker-skinned person across from you when doing so doesn't threaten you with poverty. When that admission will result in your economy, your income, and your financial security all being at severe risk... it's a little bit harder to address.

At heart we're all tribal. We're great about giving lip-service to how all humans are equal, and how all lives are equal... until it comes right down to it. I like you guys, but you're random people on the internet. I can guarantee that if there's ever a forced choice between you and my family or close friends, I'll let you die every time. I won't go out of my way to kill you... but if I have to choose between saving my spouse and killing you, well I hope you believe in an afterlife.
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 02:15 PM   #465
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There are three scenarios presented in this thread

-slavery as an ideological cause where slavery is a valuable ends to itself

-slavery as a mechanism to generate wealth

-slavery as a mechanism to create a lower social tier to boost your own relative status.

Only the first one is actually about slavery. The other two are about wealth and relative social status.
No, they're all about slavery. It's just that for different people, different aspects of slavery were appealing and a reason to want its continuation.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 10th July 2017, 02:21 PM   #466
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 10,090
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
All of this is garbage for one simple reason: Slavery was evil, and if the South had been allowed to continue it, either as part of the United States or their own nation, war would have been inevitable because it would have become completely intolerable to northerners long before southerners decided to acknowledge that slavery was evil and it had to end.

And, guess what? The cost - both from an economic perspective and from a human life perspective - of that inevitable war would have been a great deal higher if the CSA had been allowed to become entrenched.
Nice to know that several thousands of years worth of human history across the entire planet can so easily be dismissed from that moral high-horse (what is that, a percheron?). Arguments from morality have always been effective in justifying aggression and war.

ETA: I agree that slavery is unethical and unacceptable. I agree today, from the perspective of the 21st century. That wasn't the view at the time.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 10th July 2017 at 02:26 PM.
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 10th July 2017, 02:31 PM   #467
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,566
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Nice to know that several thousands of years worth of human history across the entire planet can so easily be dismissed from that moral high-horse (what is that, a percheron?). Arguments from morality have always been effective in justifying aggression and war.

ETA: I agree that slavery is unethical and unacceptable. I agree today, from the perspective of the 21st century. That wasn't the view at the time.
It wasn't the view of everyone, but it certainly was the view of some, and as it happens, the view of those some is the view that carried the day, and that we now consider the default. It just might be worth considering that they were right.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
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 10th July 2017, 02:44 PM   #468
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,215
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Setting aside ethical arguments, think about it from the perspective of the southerns at the time. They viewed slaves as property. They were owned. Failure to return missing property is tantamount to theft.
As Frederick Douglass pointed out, by this logic he actually stole himself.

"I appear this evening as a thief and a robber. I stole this head, these limbs, this body from my master, and ran off with them.Ē

There's a profound and obvious lack of basic respect for the intellect of the slaves in this line of thinking, which is exactly why any reasonable person immediately rejects this analogy as false, and immediately returns to the basic monstrous nature of the institution.

Quote:
Consider if a rancher's fence broke, and all of his cattle wandered into his neighbor's field. If that neighbor refused to return the cattle to the rightful owner, the owner would very likely consider it theft.
Emphasis mine. That word is exactly where the analogy fails.
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 10th July 2017, 03:00 PM   #469
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Nice to know that several thousands of years worth of human history across the entire planet can so easily be dismissed from that moral high-horse (what is that, a percheron?). Arguments from morality have always been effective in justifying aggression and war.

ETA: I agree that slavery is unethical and unacceptable. I agree today, from the perspective of the 21st century. That wasn't the view at the time.
It is noteworthy that even in those benighted days, people strongly resisted being made into slaves themselves, and if they found themselves in that condition they often tried to escape from it. In respect of their own persons they swiftly mounted the moral high horse, and had no compunction about exempting themselves from the thousands of years of history to which you refer.

ETA The principle that you should not do to others what you do not wish to be done to yourself was known even in antebellum times. It goes back at least to Confucius who died around 479 BCE.So the "view at the time" of secession was contrary to the moral principles known at that time.

Last edited by Craig B; 10th July 2017 at 03:09 PM.
Craig B 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 10th July 2017, 03:03 PM   #470
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,215
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Bob's point seems to be that the south fought the civil war to protect it's wealth, which was in the form of slaves.

This seems somewhat reasonable to me, but it doesn't change the fact that they were fighting a war to protect the institution of slavery. Why they wanted to protect that institution might be an interesting question, and "because it increased their wealth and status" may certainly be part of the answer to that question. But it doesn't change the fact that they were fighting the war to maintain that institution.

The back robber analogy that he presented actually makes this very clear: if someone robs a bank to get money, that's true regardless of why they want that money. Maybe they want to spend it, maybe they want to give it to someone, maybe they want to throw it in a room and swim in it. All of those are consistent with the statement that they robbed the bank in order to get the money.
Let's put it this way - it's certainly true that the heart of white supremacy in the US is to plunder the wealth of black (and, again, Native) people in order to enrich some white people. That doesn't mean that the secessionists didn't believe their own rhetoric - if anything, it gives them a very strong reason to believe it as strongly as possible. After all, if it's false that white people are inherently superior to non-white people, then they're just a pack of treasonous slavers* - and who wants to be that?

* - obviously, they were a pack of treasonous slavers, regardless of how well they treated their family, how many poor people they fed, or anything else. Kinda like how, while Jerry Sandusky may have started a charity that helped many poor and at-risk children, he still raped some of them.
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 10th July 2017, 03:14 PM   #471
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,769
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
ETA: I agree that slavery is unethical and unacceptable. I agree today, from the perspective of the 21st century. That wasn't the view at the time.
Baloney. There were plenty of people who viewed it as unethical and unacceptable then, too. Before then, as well.

While I agree that there are few, if any, moral absolutes, we cannot dismiss every morally heinous act by people as them merely being automatons guided by the society of the time. It especially falls down when the particular aspect of society isn't monolithic. It isn't like the idea of not treating people like sub-human property was completely alien to the people of the time.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
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 10th July 2017, 03:54 PM   #472
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 16,071
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
ETA: I agree that slavery is unethical and unacceptable. I agree today, from the perspective of the 21st century. That wasn't the view at the time.
Huck Finn calls bull ****.
__________________
It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is ó if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

Feynman
Resume 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 10th July 2017, 04:05 PM   #473
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,468
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
ETA: I agree that slavery is unethical and unacceptable. I agree today, from the perspective of the 21st century. That wasn't the view at the time.
Then why did the South feel the need to form a separate country and be willing to fight a war over same in order to protect it?

Even ignoring the icky subtext of using it as apologetics the whole "But don't you see slavery wasn't seen as that bad at the time" argument makes the South's action more rash, more extreme, and less forgivable even within its own excuse.

So the defense is the South started a war that killed millions so they would be ensured they would be able to keep doing something that nobody at the time considered a big deal? That doesn't flow.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 10th July 2017, 04:26 PM   #474
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,760
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Really? If you ask me "what is this movie about" you expect nothing about plot? No synopsis, just an immediate discussion of themes?

I get the very strong sense that you're just making this up as you go along.
This
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 10th July 2017, 04:37 PM   #475
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,658
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
It was only determined to be treason AFTER the war was over. It wasn't treason before or during the war.



This is kinda similar to declaring that Clinton committed treason because a bunch of the emails on her private server were classified after the fact.


Bearing arms and waging war against your nation state is treason. And I'm fairly certain it was at the time of the ACW as well.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 10th July 2017, 05:42 PM   #476
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,468
I'm scared to ask what the Southern apologist would consider treason given that literally uprising against your own country doesn't seem to count.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 10th July 2017, 06:00 PM   #477
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,704
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Then why did the South feel the need to form a separate country and be willing to fight a war over same in order to protect it?

Even ignoring the icky subtext of using it as apologetics the whole "But don't you see slavery wasn't seen as that bad at the time" argument makes the South's action more rash, more extreme, and less forgivable even within its own excuse.

So the defense is the South started a war that killed millions so they would be ensured they would be able to keep doing something that nobody at the time considered a big deal? That doesn't flow.
There is a difference between cat's "not seen as unethical" position and your "not a big deal" position. I think by cat's logic the fact slavery was ethical could be a big deal to go to war over.
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 10th July 2017, 06:32 PM   #478
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,704
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I'm scared to ask what the Southern apologist would consider treason given that literally uprising against your own country doesn't seem to count.
That depends. Do you think the people of the revolutionary war saw it as treason?
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 10th July 2017, 07:09 PM   #479
Arisia
Graduate Poster
 
Arisia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 26.2 from Boston
Posts: 1,049
I'm sure they knew it would be seen as treasonous by the British Empire. I'm also pretty sure they tried every diplomatic/peaceful way they could to get some autonomy for the American colonies short of declaring independence before they did just that.

Last edited by Arisia; 10th July 2017 at 07:11 PM.
Arisia 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 10th July 2017, 07:35 PM   #480
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,566
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That depends. Do you think the people of the revolutionary war saw it as treason?
For the rank and file it may not have been, but it's pretty certain that the signers of the Declaration of Independence did in fact realize that their action was treasonous. It was, and it was more than just a clever quip when Benjamin Franklin suggested that they would do better to hang together than separately.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
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
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 02:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.