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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


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 14th September 2018, 08:22 PM   #201
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Most wars are fought over what can be classified in the broad category of "economics".
And you don't think taxes and tariffs have anything to do with economics?
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky 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 14th September 2018, 08:54 PM   #202
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Maybe because the issue of slavery was, as I keep saying, the overriding and immediate cause?
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this truth. You will never convince those with idealistic manifestos whose dogma will allow them neither to admit nor accept that any other factors whatsoever, in any part, no matter how small in measure, contributed to the secession and the war that followed.

As quoted earlier, and I'll now repeat...

"Many factors contributed to the Civil War. One caused it: slavery.”
- Ken Burns
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky 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 15th September 2018, 05:32 AM   #203
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,902
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What part of "I do not deny that slavery was the overriding concern of these "rights" that they feared would be taken from them. But it was not the only right they feared losing," are you not understanding?
I do not claim that slavery was not the most important issue for them, merely that it was not their only concern. I don't know how much more clear I can make that. See the Articles of Secession...especially that of S. Carolina which clearly stated that they feared their RIGHTS were being violated. Sheesh.
What the hell are you talking about? The only specific right South Carolina complains about losing is the right to hold they "property" in the form of slaves. You do get that where the document speaks to "rights of property" they mean slaves right?
Craig4 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 15th September 2018, 05:38 AM   #204
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
What the hell are you talking about? The only specific right South Carolina complains about losing is the right to hold they "property" in the form of slaves. You do get that where the document speaks to "rights of property" they mean slaves right?
And the agricultural products they "needed" the slaves the produce. But that's still just "Our awesome slavery gravy train."
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 15th September 2018, 05:54 AM   #205
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,258
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this truth. You will never convince those with idealistic manifestos whose dogma will allow them neither to admit nor accept that any other factors whatsoever, in any part, no matter how small in measure, contributed to the secession and the war that followed.

As quoted earlier, and I'll now repeat...

"Many factors contributed to the Civil War. One caused it: slavery.”
- Ken Burns
You seem to be agreeing with stacyhs, while actually contradicting her. She claims there was more than one cause, without actually being able to name one separate from slavery. You claim there was one cause, as your quote makes clear. You do see the difference, right?
wareyin 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 15th September 2018, 06:35 AM   #206
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,477
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
And taxing a product that the South relied on slavery to produce was somehow not slavery related?
Okay you have to understand how the Civil War apologist mind works.

Somehow because of reasons thing which are directly about slavery don't count in the "It's about slavery" argument somehow because... reasons.

It's not about slavery it's about...

- State's Rights. (Specifically and only the right to own slaves and no others.)
- The Southern Economy (The completely slave based economy.)
- The Power of the Federal Government (To end slavery)
- Insert any one of a billion other variations.

Take slavery out of the equation and the Civil War doesn't happen. No amount of hand wringing over Cause/Factor or historical revisionism will make that not true.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
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 15th September 2018, 07:17 AM   #207
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,428
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay you have to understand how the Civil War apologist mind works.

Somehow because of reasons thing which are directly about slavery don't count in the "It's about slavery" argument somehow because... reasons.

It's not about slavery it's about...

- State's Rights. (Specifically and only the right to own slaves and no others.)
- The Southern Economy (The completely slave based economy.)
- The Power of the Federal Government (To end slavery)
- Insert any one of a billion other variations.

Take slavery out of the equation and the Civil War doesn't happen. No amount of hand wringing over Cause/Factor or historical revisionism will make that not true.
Well, it's understandably tough for certain Americans to believe that their fellow "civilized" Euro descendants could have created a Christian ISIS/ISIL, and yet there it is. So they strive to come up with some redeeming factor in a proto-nation trying to carve out a land where they would have been free to enslave and torture fellow human beings. The sad thing is that this is no distant history in America, the remnants of this white supremacist empire still clings on in statues, flags, and persistent descendants who would love to bring it back.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 15th September 2018, 11:29 AM   #208
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this truth. You will never convince those with idealistic manifestos whose dogma will allow them neither to admit nor accept that any other factors whatsoever, in any part, no matter how small in measure, contributed to the secession and the war that followed.

As quoted earlier, and I'll now repeat...

"Many factors contributed to the Civil War. One caused it: slavery.”
- Ken Burns
Actually I've heard this rather boring tactic before. The whole notion of "other" causes of the Civil War separate from slavery. It is often a tactic designed to shift the discussion away from slavery has a cause of the war towards more idealistic "better" reasons.

It is a familiar tactic and the problem with it is that slavery permeated Southern life and affected one way or the other virtually all Social and Political issues in the South. So it is virtually impossible to disentangle any so-called cause of the war from slavery.

To get back to an issue raised earlier the so-called tariff question. Mentioned with this is the so-called nullification crisis of the early 1830s. Aside from the fact that the crisis occurred 30 years before the Civil War and tariffs had by 1860 been massively reduced and the issue by then was largely dead. There are the following issues.

1. The crisis involved just one state, South Carolina, versus the Federal government. The rest of the South refused to join South Carolina in its attempted nullification.

2. South Carolina's nullification of Federal laws was clearly illegal and unconstitutional.

3. It was a Southern President Andrew Jackson who lead the charge against South Carolina and in this he was supported by most of the South.

4. What damage the alleged "Tariff of Abominations" did to South Carolina was likely far more perception than reality. Certainly other states didn't cry and whine has much. It was the poor market for South Carolina staples, Rice, Cotton, in the 1830s which damaged the economy but the "Tariff of Abominations" made a good scapegoat.

5. Finally did the Nullification Crisis have nothing to do with slavery? Probably not because in South Carolina at the time the "Tariff of Abominations" was viewed has a covert attempt to undermine slavery. (See William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War,Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1966.)

It is so amusing to read what Southern Politicians complained about before and during the Civil War. Again and again it is just so easy to find hysterical pontifications about the threat to slavery, about other stuff very little.

After the war a vast industry of lies and mendacity was established. Large numbers of former Confederate officials etc., wrote an extensive literature of lies in which they denied over and over again the role of slavery in causing the war. Again and again they cooly lied with breathtaking mendacity. Thus Davis, President of the Confederacy, and Stevens wrote books full of lies and distortions. They were taken up by the "Lost Cause" school which was also very proficient at lying.

With the rise of Jim Crow we got further developments, such has slavery wasn't so bad, and nothing to get upset about.

In the 20th century we got the Revisionistic school, which continued this venerable tradition of lying. They were also much exercised by the Abolitionists who they loved to characterize has fanatics and crazy. And behind it all was the sometimes disguised, and sometimes overt notion that the enslavement of Black people was nothing much to get excited over.

You see even before the Civil War both North and South agreed that slavery was an unspeakable evil - if it involved enslaving White people. So many Southern politicians shrieked about the North wanting to enslave the South. But so many North and South thought enslaving Black people was no big deal.

In the years before the Civil War the South exerted massive influence on the Federal government. Both the Executive and the Judiciary were basically Southern dominated.

There was precious little actual Federal action against slavery. The whole mantra of "States Rights" was little more than a shield for slavery. For over all the South was for Federal interference if it was for slavery and for "States Rights" if it could be against slavery. Thus many, many in the South supported forcing free states which did not allow, under any circumstances, the transit of slaves, to allow transit of slaves. Thus they supported the Fugitive Slave Law another Federal abridgement of "States Rights". Thus some in the South wanted an abridgement of Freedom of the Press etc., in Free states.

If there is one cause of the Civil War which is not given enough space generally it is good old fashioned Racism. The number of people who whined that the Republicans would force their daughters to be married to Blacks was enormous. There was also the fear of "amalgamation". Basically for so many in the North and South it felt good to feel superior to a whole class of people you could view with contempt. Freeing the slaves was viewed has bringing that into question. For so many it felt really good to despise Black slaves, and giving up that feeling was just too much.
Pacal 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 15th September 2018, 11:34 AM   #209
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
And to those not from the South it seems amazing that such beliefs can be held, just as people outside of Turkey can't comprehend how they're still denying the Armenian genocide, and people outside of Japan can't understand how they can still think nice things about their role before and during WWII. Denial is a very powerful force in the human psyche; it's so much easier to believe things we want to believe than accept a painful reality.
It's wild that, and I know this for a fact, in the late 90's and early 2000's high school and college history teachers and professors were still teaching full on Lost Cause propaganda as "real history". I don't think it's psychological denial now outside of it being just unthinkable that "basically everything you were taught about the Civil War was a lie, and everyone you know is wrong about it". Especially since part of the Lost Cause narrative is that "History is written by the winner, and the North is still lying."
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 15th September 2018, 01:23 PM   #210
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-..._b_849066.html
(Schweitzer is no right wing conservative. He served as an advisor to Pres. Clinton and Al Gore)

Remember that the War was not started with the end goal of ending slavery in the South. Even Lincoln did not believe that slavery in the states where it already existed could be legally terminated by the federal government.
Schweitzer's argument is incoherent nonsense. His knowledge of the political history of the USA before the Civil War is limited. He seems to be unaware the virtually everybody in the USA before the Civil War, and this includes most Abolitionists, did not think that the Federal government had any right to interfere with slavery within states. He also seems to be absolutely unaware that the over all position of Southern politicians was that interference for slavery, even if it violated "States Rights" was good but interference against slavery was bad if it violated "States Rights".

Schweitzer seems to have bought, to some extent at least, the position advanced by Davis, (Confederate President), and Stevens (Confederate Vice-President), that the "real issue" was "Stats Right" and Federal interference and slavery was merely the issue this "real" reason was fought over. This is utter nonsense concocted by people like Davis and Stevens after the war to hide the actual reason. The hysteria and political fighting was over slavery not some abstract "right" "States Right" was clearly and explicitly used has a shield for slavery. Remove slavery and there was little to fight over.

The bottom line is that overall before the war the Federal government was pro-slavery overall and that the disputes and crises were over slavery.

Schweitzer's idea faces the problem of the dispute over slavery extension. What "States Rights" etc., were involved in slavery in a territory? And given that the Federal government could govern the territories what real obstacle was there in forbidding slavery in a territory? And of course by 1860 many in the South were denying the right of the inhabitants of a territory to forbid, or inhibit slavery and were insisting on a Federal Slave Code. They wanted slavery to be imposed on territorial residents unwilling or not. Many in the South were denouncing Northern Freedom laws has unconstitutional, demanding the end of State Laws that forbade the transit of slaves, and urging the Federal government to disallow State laws that interfered with the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. (They were also demanding that the Federal government force states to use state officials to enforce the law.)

And of course just what Federal laws passed before the Civil War interfered with slavery within states? The answer seems to be none. The South in 1860 lost with the Presidential election the overall dominance of the Federal government that it had exercised for decades and with the republicans in power any chance of winning the territorial contest was gone along with the chance of getting any new territory else ware to turn into slave states. All of this was held t the time to signal the eventual doom of slavery by permanently confining to the slave states has of 1860. The prospects of expansion and wealth were suddenly closed it seemed. It also seemed that if the South remained within the Union it would have to contemplate eventually the end of slavery and that was a bit too much for many to contemplate hence succession.

And Has I said there was basically no federal interference with slavery within states before the war so that was a non issue, a red herring an agit-prop piece of nonsense.

It was refusal to face the prospect of slavery ending "soon" rather than the indefinite nebulous future that precipitated succession. (Along with fear of the decline of the value of their Human "Capital" under the Republicans.)

As for fighting for "States Rights" isn't it interesting that the Confederate Constitution is silent about the right to Succession and that it explicitly forbade the abolition of slavery. ( A restriction of "States Rights"!)
Pacal 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 15th September 2018, 01:31 PM   #211
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You seem to be agreeing with stacyhs, while actually contradicting her. She claims there was more than one cause, without actually being able to name one separate from slavery. You claim there was one cause, as your quote makes clear. You do see the difference, right?
Because simply stating that the Civil War started because slavery, while it is ultimately true, is far too simplistic. Its like saying that WW2 started because anti-Semitism, and that there were no other factors.

Yes, slavery (and the slave states' refusal to give it up) was both the immediate and the proximate cause of the Civil War, but there were other factors that drove the events which led to the secession and the War. It didn't just happen overnight, it was a building up of animosity and resentment over almost 50 years leading up to Fort Sumter in April 1861.

There were a number of "triggers" for the Civil War, including...

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise

The 1828 ‘Tariff of Abominations’ - http://history.house.gov/HistoricalH...t/Detail/36974

The Nat Turner rebellion of 1831 - https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org..._Turner_s_1831

The Black Tariff of 1842 - https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h972.html

The debate over the David Wilmot Proviso ca. 1848 - http://www.ushistory.org/us/30a.asp

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 (which led to a seven year period known as "Bleeding Kansas") - http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/kansas.htm

The Dred Scott Decision of 1857 (SCOTUS) - http://www.ushistory.org/us/32a.asp

John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry (1859) and his subsequent execution for "treason" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B..._Harpers_Ferry

The Lincoln Election of 1860 - https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ewdow/Pol...nof1860-2.html

The Morrill Tarrff of 1961 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morril...ssion_movement

US Economic policy prior to the Civil War, right back as far as the first Congress in 1789, was greatly influenced by angry and heated debates over the imposition of tariffs, most of which were designed to protect the industry and manufacturing bases of The North. While they took a distant second place to the issue of slavery, they nonetheless occupied a considerable amount of the Congress' time and effort.

The Morrill Tariff of 1861, imposed two days before Lincoln's inauguration, and at the peak of the secession crisis, was a straw for the camel's back. It was an addition to the hugely important tariff revenue stream for the the US Government; at the time the Civil War began tariffs were bringing in $53m p.a. (over 94%) Federal Government’s tax receipts. People in The South saw much of that as "their money", and The North were stealing it.

Again, while tariffs did not “cause” the Civil War, they were nonetheless a key factor in the early debates among secessionist looking for a way out of the Union.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 15th September 2018 at 01:32 PM.
smartcooky 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 15th September 2018, 01:39 PM   #212
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

There were a number of "triggers" for the Civil War, including...
Do you understand the relationship between the MO compromise and the Dred Scott decision, and why the Dred Scott decision was so significant to the South in terms of the fate of slavery?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 15th September 2018, 01:47 PM   #213
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Do you understand the relationship between the MO compromise and the Dred Scott decision, and why the Dred Scott decision was so significant to the South in terms of the fate of slavery?
Absolutely I do. Its because the Dred Scott decision overturned many of the provisions of the MO Compromise, which was considered by the Government be to be a long-standing and binding agreement. It effectively ruled the MO Compromise as unconstitutional because a ban on slavery would be a violation of 5A.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 15th September 2018 at 01:53 PM.
smartcooky 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 15th September 2018, 01:51 PM   #214
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Absolutely I do. Its because the Dred Scott decision overturned many of the provisions of the MO compromise, which was considered by the Government be to be a long binding agreement. If effectively ruled the MO Compromised as unconstitutional.
Yes, but why was the ruling such a big deal to the monied interests (plantation owners) in the south?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 15th September 2018, 02:09 PM   #215
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Yes, but why was the ruling such a big deal to the monied interests (plantation owners) in the south?
Because it ruled that slaves were not, and could not be, citizens of the US, and therefore, had no standing to sue

Effectively, this meant that slaves were property.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky 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 15th September 2018, 02:30 PM   #216
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Because it ruled that slaves were not, and could not be, citizens of the US, and therefore, had no standing to sue

Effectively, this meant that slaves were property.
No, it meant that the fate of slaves in general were now determined by the SCOTUS and not the states as "popular sovereignty" (a form of states rights.)

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...scott-decision
Quote:
the United States Supreme Court issues a decision in the Dred Scott case, affirming the right of slave owners to take their slaves into the Western territories, thereby negating the doctrine of popular sovereignty and severely undermining the platform of the newly created Republican Party.


http://www.american-historama.org/18...ty-slavery.htm
Quote:
Abraham Lincoln challenged Stephen Douglas to debate the Popular Sovereignty and Slavery issues with him before the people of Illinois. Stephen Douglas accepted the challenge and a total of seven joint debates were held in the presence of enormous crowds. Abraham Lincoln forced Stephen Douglas to defend the doctrine of of "popular sovereignty." Stephen Douglas responded by declaring that the legislatures of the territories could make laws hostile to slavery. This idea was opposed to the Dred Scott decision. Stephen Douglas won the election and was returned to the Senate. But Abraham Lincoln was poplar with many people and the 1858 Lincoln and Douglas Debates had earned him a formidable, national reputation.
The Dred Scott decision signaled a shift in the nation's "constitutional order" which temporarily favored the slave owners, but very quickly overall was seen as putting the existence of institution of slavery itself in jeopardy in every state, even states that didn't exist yet, nationally. That's why the South freaked out when Lincoln was elected.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 15th September 2018 at 02:31 PM.
kellyb 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 15th September 2018, 03:12 PM   #217
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The Morrill Tarrff of 1961 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morril...ssion_movement

US Economic policy prior to the Civil War, right back as far as the first Congress in 1789, was greatly influenced by angry and heated debates over the imposition of tariffs, most of which were designed to protect the industry and manufacturing bases of The North. While they took a distant second place to the issue of slavery, they nonetheless occupied a considerable amount of the Congress' time and effort.

The Morrill Tariff of 1861, imposed two days before Lincoln's inauguration, and at the peak of the secession crisis, was a straw for the camel's back. It was an addition to the hugely important tariff revenue stream for the the US Government; at the time the Civil War began tariffs were bringing in $53m p.a. (over 94%) Federal Government’s tax receipts. People in The South saw much of that as "their money", and The North were stealing it.

Again, while tariffs did not “cause” the Civil War, they were nonetheless a key factor in the early debates among secessionist looking for a way out of the Union.
You do realize that by the time of Lincoln's inauguration 7 states had succeeded and the Confederacy was formed with Davis has its President. Further it was the succession of the 7 slave states that formed the Confederacy at the time that enabled the law to be passed in the first place. Oh and when a further 4 states left the Union they did so after Lincoln called for troops to supress the "insurrection", after the attack on Sumter. I would rate any problems with the Morrill tariff has basically of little significance in generating succession demands.

And may I point out the common belief in the South that "high" tariffs were an attack on the slave system.
Pacal 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 15th September 2018, 03:45 PM   #218
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Because it ruled that slaves were not, and could not be, citizens of the US, and therefore, had no standing to sue

Effectively, this meant that slaves were property.
Actually Taney's, (The Chief Justice who wrote the majority decision.) decision was that no Black person could be a citizen of the United States. (The fact that in several states Black men could vote in Federal Elections in 1860 would seem to create a problem for this view.)

Further Dred Scott's claim was that he was actually free due to the actions of his owner in taking him for a prolonged period to a area in which slavery was forbidden so that he was free. In which case he was not a slave but a free man suing to have his freedom recognized and legally established. In other words he was suing has a Freeman. Under Missouri law there were a multiple of slave freedom cases in which so-called slaves successfully sued for their freedom on the grounds that the actions of their owners had freed them years earlier. So in other words those seeking freedom had the right to sue in state court for their freedom to be recognized in law. The courts weren't giving the "slave" freedom they were instead recognizing that the slave was free through the actions of his / her owner years earlier and had been free all this time.

Taney decided that since Black people could not by definition be citizens of the USA, although he did recognize that they could be state citizens, ( I will not here mention that part of the Constitution that Taney completely ignored, not even mentioning it, that said the citizens of each state shall enjoy the rights of he citizens of the collective states.)

Actually the law both Federal and state long recognized that slaves were property and has such could not legally marry, sign contracts, move about freely etc., and were calculated has as part of personal property. Of course the simple fact that slaves were also human created a certain ambiguity in law. (Slaves for example could be charged with murder.) But that slaves were property was settled law.

The question for Taney and the court was not whether a slave could sue in Federal court because the answer to that was easy - No!! The question was whether or not Scott was in fact a slave in the first place - Had his owner by his actions freed him years earlier.

Taney sidestepped the question because it was clear under Missouri law that alleged slaves could sue to have their freedom recognized, which is all the courts did in these suits. Instead Taney turned it into a question of whether or not a Black person could sue in Federal court. He concluded that Black people could never be citizens of the USA and therefore Scott could not sue in Federal court. Rather interestingly "Persons" not citizens could sue in Federal court at the time but Taney concluded Black people weren't even "persons" under Federal law.

Taney did all this to avoid dealing with the simple fact alleged slaves could sue to have their freedom recognized in Missouri courts, (The other slave states also allowed this.), and that by definition would give rise to the presumption they could go to Federal court in necessary.

Taney wanted a decision that would in effect bar Black people in general from Federal courts and apparently from Constitutional rights in total.

Interestingly after all this Taney went ahead, although he claimed that Scott had no right to make the claim in the first place, and concluded that Scott's residence in "Free" territory wasn't long enough to free him anyway, overturning Missouri precedents. ( How is that for a Federal violation of "States Rights".)

The bottom line is that Taney argued that Scott had no standing to sue because he was Black not because he was a slave.

Last edited by Pacal; 15th September 2018 at 03:48 PM.
Pacal 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 15th September 2018, 04:24 PM   #219
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
and concluded that Scott's residence in "Free" territory wasn't long enough to free him anyway, overturning Missouri precedents. ( How is that for a Federal violation of "States Rights".)
That was Lincoln's "gotch'a!" regarding "popular sovereignty" when debating Stephen Douglas.
If the constitution could be interpreted by the supreme court to make a single man a slave in spite of the otherwise "sovereign" state's law, it could also be interpreted to make all slaves free.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 16th September 2018, 03:21 PM   #220
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,258
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Because simply stating that the Civil War started because slavery, while it is ultimately true, is far too simplistic. Its like saying that WW2 started because anti-Semitism, and that there were no other factors.

Yes, slavery (and the slave states' refusal to give it up) was both the immediate and the proximate cause of the Civil War, but there were other factors that drove the events which led to the secession and the War. It didn't just happen overnight, it was a building up of animosity and resentment over almost 50 years leading up to Fort Sumter in April 1861.

There were a number of "triggers" for the Civil War, including...

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise

The 1828 ‘Tariff of Abominations’ - http://history.house.gov/HistoricalH...t/Detail/36974

The Nat Turner rebellion of 1831 - https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org..._Turner_s_1831

The Black Tariff of 1842 - https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h972.html

The debate over the David Wilmot Proviso ca. 1848 - http://www.ushistory.org/us/30a.asp

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 (which led to a seven year period known as "Bleeding Kansas") - http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/kansas.htm

The Dred Scott Decision of 1857 (SCOTUS) - http://www.ushistory.org/us/32a.asp

John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry (1859) and his subsequent execution for "treason" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B..._Harpers_Ferry

The Lincoln Election of 1860 - https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ewdow/Pol...nof1860-2.html

The Morrill Tarrff of 1961 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morril...ssion_movement

US Economic policy prior to the Civil War, right back as far as the first Congress in 1789, was greatly influenced by angry and heated debates over the imposition of tariffs, most of which were designed to protect the industry and manufacturing bases of The North. While they took a distant second place to the issue of slavery, they nonetheless occupied a considerable amount of the Congress' time and effort.

The Morrill Tariff of 1861, imposed two days before Lincoln's inauguration, and at the peak of the secession crisis, was a straw for the camel's back. It was an addition to the hugely important tariff revenue stream for the the US Government; at the time the Civil War began tariffs were bringing in $53m p.a. (over 94%) Federal Government’s tax receipts. People in The South saw much of that as "their money", and The North were stealing it.

Again, while tariffs did not “cause” the Civil War, they were nonetheless a key factor in the early debates among secessionist looking for a way out of the Union.
The Morill Tariff, imposed after secession had begun, was a key factor in the Civil War, you say? You do realize that had the southern states not seceded, they would have been able to vote down that tariff, right? So we have a couple of tariffs which had ended a generation before the Civil War as well as a tariff enacted after the Civil War had basically begun offered as being key factors causing the Civil War. Not very convincing, but if you buy it, ok.
wareyin 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 16th September 2018, 04:53 PM   #221
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,698
The truth is that virtually all monuments to the Confederacy explicitly or implicitly celebrate “the Lost Cause.” And no matter how some have tried to sanitize it, rewrite it, or distract from it the Lost Cause was a fundamentally despicable, indefensible one: the right to keep human beings as slaves. This is undeniable given the very declarations of the leaders of the rebellion at the time. I would be thrilled if all the monuments honoring that cause, and the leaders who espoused it or fought for it, are shoved into museums and labeled with plaques that explain how we once were so deluded that we thought humans should be bought and sold as property. How we once thought that humans should be housed like animals and their families ripped apart for money. And how we once believed those who stood up should be tortured, maimed, or killed.

And the public places where these monuments once stood? Fill them with memorials to slavery and slaves: remembrances to and the stories of those who suffered, not to the slavers.

But what of the “common soldiers?” Should we not celebrate their willingness to defend their “homes” and “way of life?” After thinking about it for some time, I’ve concluded: absolutely not. Ultimately what is important is what one actually does in real life, not what one is thinking while doing it. Whatever the motivation in their heads or hearts (defense of slavery, loyalty to their State, fear of not appearing patriotic, etc.) the common soldiers of the Confederacy fought for an evil cause. Had they been successful roughly 4 million people would have remained as slaves for decades, if not centuries.

I don’t celebrate these soldiers, but I do pity many of them. Particularly those deluded, lied, frightened, or pushed into supporting, and often giving their lives to, the heinous, twisted blight on the USA’s soul that was slavery. No monuments: I would not honor the enablers any more than the leaders, but I do hope that there might be some way to tell their story because it is a tragic one, and because perhaps others will be informed enough to not follow in their footsteps. Perhaps a memorial to the loss of reason that periodically sweeps across all societies and sends our young and naive out to kill and be killed in response to empty patriotic words and bad ideas.

Ambassador Milton’s speech from Kurt Vonneguts’ Cat’s Cradle offers a suggestion:

[snip] “Perhaps, when we remember wars, we should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all fours all day long and grunt like pigs. That would surely be more appropriate than noble oratory and shows of flags and well-oiled guns.

“I do not mean to be ungrateful for the fine, martial show we are about to see—and a thrilling show it really will be . . .”

He looked each of us in the eye, and then he commented very softly, throwing it away, “And hooray say I for thrilling shows.”

We had to strain our ears to hear what Minton said next.

“But if today is really in honor of a hundred children murdered in war,” he said, “is today a day for a thrilling show?

“The answer is yes, on one condition: that we, the celebrants, are working consciously and tirelessly to reduce the stupidity and viciousness of ourselves and of all mankind.”
[snip]
Giordano 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 16th September 2018, 05:39 PM   #222
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,477
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Because simply stating that the Civil War started because slavery, while it is ultimately true, is far too simplistic. Its like saying that WW2 started because anti-Semitism, and that there were no other factors.
And if the gravitational constant of the universe was just a little lower stars wouldn't be massive enough to fuse elements heavier than iron, therefore no copper, therefore no bronze age, therefore no development of city states, therefore no agriculture, therefore no cotton plantations, therefore no slavery.

So this is really the universe's fault.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
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 16th September 2018, 05:46 PM   #223
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
And if the gravitational constant of the universe was just a little lower stars wouldn't be massive enough to fuse elements heavier than iron, therefore no copper, therefore no bronze age, therefore no development of city states, therefore no agriculture, therefore no cotton plantations, therefore no slavery.

So this is really the universe's fault.
Ha!
Pretty much.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 16th September 2018, 09:22 PM   #224
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
The Morill Tariff, imposed after secession had begun, was a key factor in the Civil War, you say? You do realize that had the southern states not seceded, they would have been able to vote down that tariff, right?
If you are so blinded by the dogmatic mindset of "it was slavery, only slavery and nothing but slavery that constituted ALL of the factors that led to the Civil War" then there is not much I can do to change your mind.

I repeat, for the third time, what Ken Burns said about this, and I will emphasis the bit that you, and kellyB and Pacal are ignoring

"Many factors contributed to the Civil War. One caused it: slavery.”


You are all so hell-bent on opposing (and taking me to task upon) the first part, that you are completely ignoring the second part.

Whether you like it or not, it is a FACT that slavery (while it was 100% the proximate and direct cause of the Civil War) was NOT 100% of the factors involved. If it were, then there would be nothing to discuss.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
So we have a couple of tariffs which had ended a generation before the Civil War as well as a tariff enacted after the Civil War had basically begun offered as being key factors causing the Civil War. Not very convincing, but if you buy it, ok.
If you don't understand that events and circumstances can lead to discontent and be factors leading to a war two or three or more generations later, then you haven't studied history very much.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky 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 17th September 2018, 02:17 AM   #225
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,258
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
If you are so blinded by the dogmatic mindset of "it was slavery, only slavery and nothing but slavery that constituted ALL of the factors that led to the Civil War" then there is not much I can do to change your mind.

I repeat, for the third time, what Ken Burns said about this, and I will emphasis the bit that you, and kellyB and Pacal are ignoring

"Many factors contributed to the Civil War. One caused it: slavery.”


You are all so hell-bent on opposing (and taking me to task upon) the first part, that you are completely ignoring the second part.
We are ignoring the second part by actually making that same point ourselves? It seems you might be a bit confused about what is being said, here.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Whether you like it or not, it is a FACT that slavery (while it was 100% the proximate and direct cause of the Civil War) was NOT 100% of the factors involved. If it were, then there would be nothing to discuss.



If you don't understand that events and circumstances can lead to discontent and be factors leading to a war two or three or more generations later, then you haven't studied history very much.
I think that JoeMorgue has answered this deep dive into the past explanation quite well
wareyin 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 17th September 2018, 02:21 AM   #226
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
We are ignoring the second part by actually making that same point ourselves? It seems you might be a bit confused about what is being said, here.
More importantly, why should anyone care about an evidence-free quote from a documentary filmmaker? And why would anyone care so much that they'd quote it multiple times as if it was a brilliant argument?
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 17th September 2018, 12:47 PM   #227
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
More importantly, why should anyone care about an evidence-free quote from a documentary filmmaker and acknowledged authority on the Civil War?
FTFY

I think you are being rudely dismissive of a man whose documentary series has been chiefly responsible for changing Americans' attitudes, understanding and perception of slavery and of the Civil War, from buying into the idea that they were just arguing about tariffs and "State's rights", to realizing that the right to keep the institution of slavery was at the very centre of the issues; the secession and the war.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
And why would anyone care so much that they'd quote it multiple times as if it was a brilliant argument?
I'll call out wrong when I see it.

That idea that slavery was the only thing at all involved in the factors leading up to the Civil War is just, plain wrong. Those who believe so are ignorant of history, and seem to me to be working to an agenda. Just because something its at the centre of an issue does not mean it is the sole factor in that issue.

NOTE: I've had enough of debating this issue here. Arguing with people who have their fingers in their ears yelling la la la la is a waste of time. I'll finish with this quote...

“the Civil War is still going on. It’s still to be fought and regrettably it can still be lost.”
Prof. Barbara J. Fields (Professor of American history at Columbia University)
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky 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 17th September 2018, 02:00 PM   #228
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
That idea that slavery was the only thing at all involved in the factors leading up to the Civil War is just, plain wrong. Those who believe so are ignorant of history, and seem to me to be working to an agenda. Just because something its at the centre of an issue does not mean it is the sole factor in that issue.
The agenda of those who deny that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War is of course rather plain and obvious. As for saying that slavery was the only cause. I wouldn't say that. I would argue maintaining White Supremacy was also involved. Further my point was that Slavery was so dominant in the economic and social life of most of the Slave states that it at the very least affected politics all the way down the line. In other words there was no "cause" of the Civil War free from the taint of Slavery. Thus Tariffs, etc., were tainted by the issue of Slavery. (The fear that Tariffs were designed to undermine Slavery.) Politics in the Slave South was permeated by Slavery.

You say above that Slavery was at the centre of the issue. What does that mean? What was this "issue"? Slavery was the issue and every other cause related one way or the other to it. As for the "agenda" we're pursuing care to elaborate?

Quote:
NOTE: I've had enough of debating this issue here. Arguing with people who have their fingers in their ears yelling la la la la is a waste of time. I'll finish with this quote...

“the Civil War is still going on. It’s still to be fought and regrettably it can still be lost.”
Prof. Barbara J. Fields (Professor of American history at Columbia University)
I frankly think other causes of the Civil War are not of much importance especially since all of them relate to Slavery one way or the other. The idea that causes of the Civil War exist that are free of the taint of Slavery strikes me has absurd.

All this stuff about Tariffs for example is so much hogwash especially since we can see all too clearly that Slavery gets into it also.

As for knowledge of history well during the succession crisis various Southern States sent commissioners to other states to encourage them to succeed. And what did those Commissioners talk about, overwhelmingly, - Why the threat to Slavery and the threat to White Supremacy and very little about the Tariff. (See Apostles of Disunion, Charles B. Dew, 2001.)

As for how much Slavery permeated the politics of the Slave South see Calculating the Value of the Union, James L. Huston, 2003.
Pacal 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 17th September 2018, 04:10 PM   #229
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
The agenda of those who deny that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War is of course rather plain and obvious. As for saying that slavery was the only cause. I wouldn't say that.
At Last!

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
I would argue maintaining White Supremacy was also involved.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Further my point was that Slavery was so dominant in the economic and social life of most of the Slave states that it at the very least affected politics all the way down the line. In other words there was no "cause" of the Civil War free from the taint of Slavery. Thus Tariffs, etc., were tainted by the issue of Slavery. (The fear that Tariffs were designed to undermine Slavery.) Politics in the Slave South was permeated by Slavery.
Fair enough

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
You say above that Slavery was at the centre of the issue. What does that mean? What was this "issue"?

Slavery was the issue and every other cause related one way or the other to it.
I thought the issue was the Civil War itself... have you forgotten the title of this thread?

."General discussion about civil war monuments, history of civil war"etc.

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
As for the "agenda" we're pursuing care to elaborate?
The stifling of any discussion that anything in addition to slavery might have been a factor (however small a factor that might be) in the circumstances that lead to the Civil War. This has the reeking stench of a social agenda.

To paraphrase a famous astronomer.... 'The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the discussion of history' This is why I am a Liberal minded person, but I object to attempts to deplatform right-wing and extreme right-wing speakers.... if they have nothing of value to say, what are we afraid of?
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky 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 17th September 2018, 05:28 PM   #230
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 950
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I thought the issue was the Civil War itself... have you forgotten the title of this thread?

."General discussion about civil war monuments, history of civil war"etc.
What I was discussing was the cause(s) of the Civil War. If I misunderstood I am sorry. But in terms of what caused the Civil War it was Slavery and all the other stuff that was entwined in it. So in terms of issues causing the Civil War the issue was Slavery and all the other "causes" dovetailed into that.

Quote:
he stifling of any discussion that anything in addition to slavery might have been a factor (however small a factor that might be) in the circumstances that lead to the Civil War. This has the reeking stench of a social agenda.
Yawn! The above has the reeking stench of an agenda also. Since when is criticism "stifling of any discussion"? You admit above that the denial of Slavery has probably the major cause of the Civil War serves an agenda. If that is the case, and given the long history of lies and mendacity associated with Ex-Confederate memoirs, Lost Cause crap, and the Revisionists is it such a surprise that efforts to discuss other "causes" of the Civil War creates suspicion. especially when they seem to be allied to the idea that there are causes of the Civil War separate from the taint of Slavery. For example the whole debate over Tariffs. Slavery was massively involved in that debate. During the nullification crisis in South Carolina, Tariffs were considered a threat because they were considered attacks on the economic system of South Carolina. (In other words Slavery) If that had not been a factor the agitation would have been massively less or non-existent. As it was the crisis only involved South Carolina and a Southern President joined by the North and most of the South was able to basically crush the nullification movement. Which sort of indicates that the Tariff problem didn't have legs outside of South Carolina at the time. And later it still seemed to have had few legs outside of a few states.

I have zero problem with people advancing all sorts of stupid "Lost Cause" nonsense. They are perfectly free to do so. and I am perfectly free to label it utter crap. And that is not suppression. (In fact given how "Lost Cause" crap deluges the Internet and publishing etc., I am not seeing any suppression here at all.) And may I point out that for decade after decade Southern Schools taught "Lost Cause" crap, and Southern educational institutions supressed speech that questioned the "Lost Cause" nonsense. I am not sure why your bothered by people criticizing arrant nonsense. All of course in the service of a Social Agenda which so many continue to serve. And for many in the Lost Cause movement the Agenda is Racism.

I could go on into other issues but I think my point is made.

Quote:
To paraphrase a famous astronomer.... 'The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the discussion of history' This is why I am a Liberal minded person, but I object to attempts to deplatform right-wing and extreme right-wing speakers.... if they have nothing of value to say, what are we afraid of?
Of course this uncomfortable idea is not being supressed in the slightest it is shrieked from the rooftops at decibel levels, and publications and propaganda outlets are legion. In fact if anything is being supressed it is the hysterical reaction of "Lost Cause" proponents whenever someone has the audacity to mention Slavery has the main cause of the Civil War. They certainly have desired in the past and still today to supress that idea.

As for de-platforming Right Wing Speakers. Ah yes the old PC inquisition fantasy, that has been PC for more than 30 years. It really is such a boring old trope. Of course the routine suppression of speech at Right Wing educational institutes goes unmentioned. But then this hysteria is a good method of deflection. I frankly am heartedly sick of so many on the so-called Right whining about how much they are victims of the PC "Left". To whine about PC has been PC for decades and is thoroughly conventional thinking. Oh and attacks on PC also reek of a "social Agenda". You see the "Social Agenda" of many Right Wingers who shriek about PC is to attack and "supress" speech they don't like and thus advance their "Social Agenda".

As for being afraid of ideas. It is so fascinating that so many of the Right Wingers I know, personally and through the Internet are absolutely terrified of ideas. Just like so many Creationists who want to shield themselves from Evolution. Just like so many religious people who want to shield themselves from Atheism. Doesn't that reek of a "Social Agenda"

It is ironic that we are not really all that far apart in terms of causes of the Civil War. It just that I see attempts to talk about other causes has often evasions to avoid the issue of Slavery. And frequently they have been in the past and still are such attempts. If one discusses other "Causes" one should not avoid discussing how those causes are linked, strongly, to Slavery.

Last edited by Pacal; 17th September 2018 at 05:36 PM.
Pacal 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 17th September 2018, 08:47 PM   #231
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
What I was discussing was the cause(s) of the Civil War. If I misunderstood I am sorry. But in terms of what caused the Civil War it was Slavery and all the other stuff that was entwined in it. So in terms of issues causing the Civil War the issue was Slavery and all the other "causes" dovetailed into that.



Yawn! The above has the reeking stench of an agenda also. Since when is criticism "stifling of any discussion"? You admit above that the denial of Slavery has probably the major cause of the Civil War serves an agenda. If that is the case, and given the long history of lies and mendacity associated with Ex-Confederate memoirs, Lost Cause crap, and the Revisionists is it such a surprise that efforts to discuss other "causes" of the Civil War creates suspicion. especially when they seem to be allied to the idea that there are causes of the Civil War separate from the taint of Slavery. For example the whole debate over Tariffs. Slavery was massively involved in that debate. During the nullification crisis in South Carolina, Tariffs were considered a threat because they were considered attacks on the economic system of South Carolina. (In other words Slavery) If that had not been a factor the agitation would have been massively less or non-existent. As it was the crisis only involved South Carolina and a Southern President joined by the North and most of the South was able to basically crush the nullification movement. Which sort of indicates that the Tariff problem didn't have legs outside of South Carolina at the time. And later it still seemed to have had few legs outside of a few states.

I have zero problem with people advancing all sorts of stupid "Lost Cause" nonsense. They are perfectly free to do so. and I am perfectly free to label it utter crap. And that is not suppression. (In fact given how "Lost Cause" crap deluges the Internet and publishing etc., I am not seeing any suppression here at all.) And may I point out that for decade after decade Southern Schools taught "Lost Cause" crap, and Southern educational institutions supressed speech that questioned the "Lost Cause" nonsense. I am not sure why your bothered by people criticizing arrant nonsense. All of course in the service of a Social Agenda which so many continue to serve. And for many in the Lost Cause movement the Agenda is Racism.

I could go on into other issues but I think my point is made.
I agree with most of this.

The "Lost Cause" argument is, as THHGTTG puts it, "a load of dingo's kidneys". However, I don't believe anyone here (in this thread) was arguing for it; certainly not stachys or myself.

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
As for de-platforming Right Wing Speakers. Ah yes the old PC inquisition fantasy, that has been PC for more than 30 years. It really is such a boring old trope. Of course the routine suppression of speech at Right Wing educational institutes goes unmentioned. But then this hysteria is a good method of deflection. I frankly am heartedly sick of so many on the so-called Right whining about how much they are victims of the PC "Left". To whine about PC has been PC for decades and is thoroughly conventional thinking. Oh and attacks on PC also reek of a "social Agenda". You see the "Social Agenda" of many Right Wingers who shriek about PC is to attack and "supress" speech they don't like and thus advance their "Social Agenda".
I wouldn't have believed it either until it happened in a very public way here and right next door in Australia..

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/105...-speakers?rm=a

My personal belief is that these two are a pair of despicable racists. I am not interested in hearing anything they have to say, and I wouldn't go to listen to them speak if you paid me. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea that they should not be allowed to speak at all. Where does it stop? Who gets to decide where the line is between what people are allowed to say, and what they are not allowed to say?
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky 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 » History, Literature, and the Arts

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 07:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.