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 12th September 2018, 07:06 PM   #81
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,919
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
No, it just means I have enough experience not to trust Politifact. Show me where I've been proved "factually wrong by other posters again and again". Why would a skeptic like myself believe half of the houses in Mississippi had slaves because Politifact said so? They said, no, it wasn't something like 1.4%, it was 50%. I haven't been wrong about anything as far as I know. If you actually read what I have written, I didn't say half of the houses in Mississippi didn't have slaves, I said I didn't believe it. That comes from being a skeptic, you know.
Oh, my.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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 12th September 2018, 07:11 PM   #82
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
No one is denying slavery was the overriding concern. But that was what they considered one of the Rights as a State.

Please note the final sentence of your link:

We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

Articles of Secession of S. Carolina:

Quote:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union;

Article of Secession of Georgia:

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning.
Stacyhs 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 12th September 2018, 07:11 PM   #83
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,919
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
"Technically doesn't count" -- it's merely an opinion. They weren't traitors, as determined by the U.S. Government.
You were on the highway recently, going 76 mph in a 65 zone. You happened to be stopped and, rather than issue a citation, the police officer let you off with a cordial warning. In regard to the incident in question, were you breaking the law?
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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 12th September 2018, 07:16 PM   #84
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No one is denying slavery was the overriding concern. But that was what they considered one of the Rights as a State.

Please note the final sentence of your link:

We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

Articles of Secession of S. Carolina:




Article of Secession of Georgia:

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning.
They pluralized "rights", but the only rights they were concerned with were the ones pertaining to 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 12th September 2018, 07:16 PM   #85
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The "right to govern themselves" looks like it was all about "the right to ensure the legality of slavery" when you look through the causes of secession for the various confederate states.
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
You've bought the lies from the same people who installed the Confederate statues. There has never been convincing evidence of what you claim. Every state that seceded and joined the CSA did so because of the issue of slavery and said so. They knew that the practice was doomed as more states were admitted to the Union and the population disparity between the north and south continued to expand.

Anybody who has told you different is a liar or completely ignorant of actual facts.
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.
Stacyhs 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 12th September 2018, 07:17 PM   #86
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No one is denying slavery was the overriding concern. But that was what they considered one of the Rights as a State.

Please note the final sentence of your link:

We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights TO OWN SLAVESwith the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

Articles of Secession of S. Carolina:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States TO OWN SLAVES, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union;

Article of Secession of Georgia:

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right TO OWN SLAVES was good under the Constitution. Our rights TO OWN SLAVESwere further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning.
FTFY.
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 12th September 2018, 07:24 PM   #87
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
They pluralized "rights", but the only rights they were concerned with were the ones pertaining to slavery.
I see. They pluralized "rights" but you know that the ONLY ones they were concerned with were slavery connected. Not their fear that their right to self government would be endangered by a Congress controlled by Northern and Western states?

I guess S. Carolina just threw this in for no reason?

"and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States"

I don't understand this need to over simplify a more complex situation. The causes of the Civil War were not as simple as some posters seem intent on making it.
Stacyhs 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 12th September 2018, 07:25 PM   #88
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
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.
The only rights they mentioned were the ones pertaining to slavery, like the right to own slaves, sell slaves, buy slaves, etc and so on.

Here's Texas:
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/aboutt.../2feb1861.html
Quote:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.
It was all about 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 12th September 2018, 07:26 PM   #89
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
FTFY.
Sorry, but you can't change what was actually written in the Article of Secession just because you don't like being proved wrong.
Stacyhs 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 12th September 2018, 07:30 PM   #90
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The only rights they mentioned were the ones pertaining to slavery, like the right to own slaves, sell slaves, buy slaves, etc and so on.

Here's Texas:
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/aboutt.../2feb1861.html


It was all about slavery.
That was in the TEXAS Articles. You simply ignore what especially S. Carolina said. That alone shows that it wasn't ALL about slavery.
Why are you so vehemently unable to accept that, while slavery was absolutely the most important right they were concerned with, that it wasn't the ONLY right that they were worried about?
Stacyhs 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 12th September 2018, 07:31 PM   #91
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I see. They pluralized "rights" but you know that the ONLY ones they were concerned with were slavery connected. Not their fear that their right to self government would be endangered by a Congress controlled by Northern and Western states?

I guess S. Carolina just threw this in for no reason?

"and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States"

I don't understand this need to over simplify a more complex situation. The causes of the Civil War were not as simple as some posters seem intent on making it.
I know slavery-related "rights" were the only ones they talked about. That's all they cared about according to their own words. They weren't arguing about any other rights at all.

The southern plantation owners were the wealthiest people anywhere in the whole world, and with the flick of a pen, almost off of their wealth was going to just magically disappear and evaporate into thin air. THAT is what was on the minds of the people in power in the US South. That's what compelled them to send their sons to die fighting the North.
__________________
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 12th September 2018, 07:35 PM   #92
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That was in the TEXAS Articles. You simply ignore what especially S. Carolina said. That alone shows that it wasn't ALL about slavery.
Why are you so vehemently unable to accept that, while slavery was absolutely the most important right they were concerned with, that it wasn't the ONLY right that they were worried about?
S Carolina did not enumerate the rights they were concerned with besides the ones which pertained to slavery.

It says, for example:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Quote:
The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
^^^ "rights"
__________________
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 12th September 2018, 07:37 PM   #93
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Sorry, but you can't change what was actually written in the Article of Secession just because you don't like being proved wrong.
Then name the other "rights." You don't get to pick out the passages that don't happen to specifically mention slavery and then claim that there were other infringed rights that were important enough to break up the nation and start a ******* war.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 07:58 PM   #94
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
The belief in strong states' rights held primarily in the South began before the Civil War so there was already contention over them. The Tariffs of 1832, just 28 years before the Civil War, which affected the South but not industrialized New England is an example of the South coming into open conflict with the Federal Gov't. S. Carolina ordered them nullified. President Jackson ordered military intervention but a compromise was found before it was enacted.

Quote:
The Nullification Crisis, as the episode is known, was the most serious threat of disunion the young country had yet confronted. It demonstrated both continuing beliefs in the primacy of states rights over those of the federal government (on the part of South Carolina and other Southern states) and a belief that the chief executive had a right and responsibility to suppress any attempts to give individual states the right to override federal law.
http://www.historynet.com/secession

The fear of the Southern States over losing their State's Rights against the Federal gov't did not begin (or end) with the Civil War. It existed well before...since the beginning of the nation.
Stacyhs 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 12th September 2018, 08:00 PM   #95
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I know slavery-related "rights" were the only ones they talked about. That's all they cared about according to their own words. They weren't arguing about any other rights at all.

The southern plantation owners were the wealthiest people anywhere in the whole world, and with the flick of a pen, almost off of their wealth was going to just magically disappear and evaporate into thin air. THAT is what was on the minds of the people in power in the US South. That's what compelled them to send their sons to die fighting the North.
No, you don't know what was talked about. You only know what you read. and what you think.

And no, the plantation owners were not the wealthiest people in the world. Where you got that idea, I have no idea.
Stacyhs 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 12th September 2018, 08:01 PM   #96
BrooklynBaby
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
This is now getting idiotic. You repeated a bunch of lies and now are painted into a corner so are pulling the Whataboutism card.

Hint: List the accomplishments of Jefferson Davis that merit a statue.
> Southern nationalist/separatist who headed the Confederacy.
> Robert E. Lee - leader of the armies of the CSA.
> Stonewall Jackson - great warrior for the confederacy.

You can find other factoids about the gentlemen, I'm sure. They didn't spring up out of nowhere in 1860. But the point is "you can find" refers to the general "you". You, personally, before you now rush off to research it, don't know a damned thing about any of them except for their connections to the Confederacy. Nor can most of the rubes out there talking about honoring them for their noble lives. It's all a bunch of horse **** and they want to honor them for their rebellion in the cause of holding title to human beings!

Now, even with your woeful knowledge of history and current events, I'm gonna bet you can come up with no less than ten other things that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did. And Jefferson. And Washington. But the Whataboutists (direct descendants of the Know Nothings) clutch at that cheap distraction technique.

And the funny thing is watching YOU try to condemn FDRs internment policy! You probably, if you'd ever given it any thought, supported it. Liberals and Progressives roundly condemn the policy for what it was. Conservatives and reactionaries think "well, it was a good start".
First of all, you are unnecessarily rude. Second, my comment about FDR is a question that you didn't answer, and as far as I know is the first comment I've made about any statues. I haven't said anything about the two strawmen you put up so there is nothing to there to criticize. It had occurred to me if you want to take down statues of racists, FDR putting people in concentration camps purely because of their race would be at the top of the list. Your comments above with regard to this subject are nonsensical. You didn't even answer the question, which is why don't you want his statues taken down?

The only point I've tried to make in this thread is the Confederate soldiers were not fighting all of those years for slavery. I've tried to explain why, but no one is listening. Soldiers follow orders and fight for their homeland and each other, in all wars, for all of history. They fight the "enemy" -- us against them. The kids who were drafted and sent to Korea without boot camp, uniforms, or in many cases didn't even know how to fire a gun, were not there to fight Communism. They fought so they could survive. They were there because they didn't have any choice. Ditto for all people drafted to fight in all wars, and all who enlisted and wanted out of there as soon as they saw what they got themselves into. The reason they don't just cut and run is because they don't want to be seen as cowards. Most men would rather die than that, which has been proved here at the Battle of New Orleans, Gettysburg, and countless other battles and wars.
BrooklynBaby 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 12th September 2018, 08:01 PM   #97
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
The belief in strong states' rights held primarily in the South began before the Civil War so there was already contention over them. The Tariffs of 1832, just 28 years before the Civil War, which affected the South but not industrialized New England is an example of the South coming into open conflict with the Federal Gov't. S. Carolina ordered them nullified. President Jackson ordered military intervention but a compromise was found before it was enacted.
"Only" 28 years before, huh? Would you be surprised to learn that that controversy ended "only" 27 years before?

The southern states loved states' rights because that allowed them to keep owning slaves.

It's obviously long past time to end this derail given that it's offtopic and you're presenting nothing convincing.

Last edited by Babbylonian; 12th September 2018 at 08:03 PM.
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 12th September 2018, 08:10 PM   #98
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Ooo...Ahhh… an argument from authority. I'm glad no child I know is subjected to your faulty administrations. Your argument falls flat because Winfield Scott knew his true duty and did it. You're arguing Lee should be memorialized for his failure to do what he swore to as an officer.
Yes, someone who has actually taught about the Civil War just might know a bit about it.

Please show me where I have argued for memorializing Lee for anything other than what he did as a civilian as president of Washington and Lee University. In fact I clearly said otherwise:

Quote:
There is a difference between honoring a statue of Lee the General of the Confederate forces and a statue honoring the civilian Lee who led and helped Washington (later) and Lee University grow into the institution it is today. For that he deserves to be honored
:

I then listed what he had done for the University. How you construe that as arguing for him to be memorialized for "his failure to do what he swore to as an officer" I have no idea.
Stacyhs 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 12th September 2018, 08:33 PM   #99
Lambchops
Critical Thinker
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 393
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
First of all, you are unnecessarily rude. Second, my comment about FDR is a question that you didn't answer, and as far as I know is the first comment I've made about any statues. I haven't said anything about the two strawmen you put up so there is nothing to there to criticize. It had occurred to me if you want to take down statues of racists, FDR putting people in concentration camps purely because of their race would be at the top of the list. Your comments above with regard to this subject are nonsensical. You didn't even answer the question, which is why don't you want his statues taken down?

The only point I've tried to make in this thread is the Confederate soldiers were not fighting all of those years for slavery. I've tried to explain why, but no one is listening. Soldiers follow orders and fight for their homeland and each other, in all wars, for all of history. They fight the "enemy" -- us against them. The kids who were drafted and sent to Korea without boot camp, uniforms, or in many cases didn't even know how to fire a gun, were not there to fight Communism. They fought so they could survive. They were there because they didn't have any choice. Ditto for all people drafted to fight in all wars, and all who enlisted and wanted out of there as soon as they saw what they got themselves into. The reason they don't just cut and run is because they don't want to be seen as cowards. Most men would rather die than that, which has been proved here at the Battle of New Orleans, Gettysburg, and countless other battles and wars.
Massive fail.
__________________
I am the working class.
Lambchops 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 12th September 2018, 10:16 PM   #100
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18,737
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
They pluralized "rights", but the only rights they were concerned with were the ones pertaining to slavery.
Don't forget the South's insistence on overriding the State's Rights of the Northern States to harbour escaped slaves
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Last edited by jimbob; 12th September 2018 at 10:18 PM.
jimbob 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 12th September 2018, 10:22 PM   #101
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 38,831
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Don't forget the South's insistence on overriding the State's Rights of the Northern States to harbour escaped slaves
And their own Constitution which forbid any state from banning slavery and forbid secession from the Confederacy.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz 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 12th September 2018, 10:23 PM   #102
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,275
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
Soldiers follow orders and fight for their homeland and each other, in all wars, for all of history.
Sweeping statement and I disagree. There were/are probably some who just follow orders and fight for each other - in all armies in all wars, but not necessarily the majority.

However, have a think about the soldiers who fought for Japan in WWII, or North Vietnam, the Viet Cong or the Bolsheviks. Perhaps even ISIS?

I can imagine a large majority of confederate soldiers joined up only because they felt they wanted to protect their way of life - even if they were duped into doing so by the rich cats who just wanted cheap labor.

I understand what you were trying to say, and I think it is true in some wars, for some armies. But not where the motivation was driven by deep seated ideological (or theocracy even).
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 12th September 2018, 10:28 PM   #103
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,275
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Yes, someone who has actually taught about the Civil War just might know a bit about it.
Still an argument from authority. Just because a person hasn't taught a subject, it doesn't mean they are wrong. It's the facts that count, not the person arguing them.

Equally a person who teaches a subject is open to being wrong or ill informed too.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 12th September 2018, 10:32 PM   #104
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
"Only" 28 years before, huh? Would you be surprised to learn that that controversy ended "only" 27 years before?
Would you be surprised that, since the Compromise Tariff of 1833 ended the Nullification Crisis and the war began in 1861, it was only 28 years before, not 27?

Quote:
The southern states loved states' rights because that allowed them to keep owning slaves.
It was one of the many reasons, undoubtedly the most important by far, that they "loved states' rights". Notice the plural "rights".

Quote:
It's obviously long past time to end this derail given that it's offtopic and you're presenting nothing convincing.
I can't help it if presenting several sources that support my points don't convince you of their factual accuracy. I also can't help it if you want to reduce a more complex situation to an extremely simple one. Wars, especially civil wars, are not started due to a single reason.
Stacyhs 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 12th September 2018, 10:38 PM   #105
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,600
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
Still an argument from authority. Just because a person hasn't taught a subject, it doesn't mean they are wrong. It's the facts that count, not the person arguing them.

Equally a person who teaches a subject is open to being wrong or ill informed too.
True, but the chances of someone who has actually studied a subject and is credentialed to teach that subject has a better chance of knowing that subject than someone who has not.

But please point out what sources I have cited that do not support my posts. Those arguing that it was simply slavery alone that caused the war have provided no evidence. All they've done is make proclamations that it was just slavery. The one exception was the TX Article of Secession, but it was countered by the S. Carolina A. of S. which clearly stated states' rights was a reason for secession. And all stated "rights" in the plural not the singular.


Maybe this simplified version will help:


Quote:
States' Rights

The idea of states' rights was not new to the Civil War. Since the Constitution was first written there had been arguments about how much power the states should have versus how much power the federal government should have. The southern states felt that the federal government was taking away their rights and powers.

Expansion

As the United States continued to expand westward, each new state added to the country shifted the power between the North and the South. Southern states began to fear they would lose so much power that they would lose all their rights. Each new state became a battleground between the two sides for power.
https://www.ducksters.com/history/ci..._civil_war.php

Notice the plural "rights" and not just "right to own slaves".

[quote]
"What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America? A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict."[/QUOTE] (Politifacts)

Like I've been saying all along.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 12th September 2018 at 11:01 PM.
Stacyhs 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 13th September 2018, 12:15 AM   #106
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,567
The Civil War was about Slavery - whether directly or indirectly is utterly irrelevant.

And it is pretty much treating the soldiers of the South like children to claim that they didn't know that they were fighting for their Slave-based economy.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza 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 13th September 2018, 01:03 AM   #107
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,920
I couldn't find an answer to the question about what other rights not pertaining to slavery directly or indirectly were threatened during the run up to the civil war, so I guess I'll reiterate the question.

Note that "the South were concerned about state rights" isn't an answer to the question of which particular states rights they were concerned about.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se 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 13th September 2018, 02:29 AM   #108
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,130
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
I'm convinced there's a trick here, I just have to figure out what it is.
"The facts don't support my opinion. It must be reality that's wrong."
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 13th September 2018, 02:36 AM   #109
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,319
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one.
Argument from incredulity.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 13th September 2018, 04:15 AM   #110
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, you don't know what was talked about. You only know what you read. and what you think.
The written historical record is our only source of information on the topic.

Quote:
And no, the plantation owners were not the wealthiest people in the world. Where you got that idea, I have no idea.
https://www.tnonline.com/2013/jan/19...t-town-america
Quote:
Natchez, Miss., is on a perfect location-a center of commerce on a bluff above America's water highway, the Mississippi River, and surrounded by cotton and sugar plantations. Its early planter elite built numerous antebellum mansions and estates. Many owned plantations in Louisiana but chose to locate their homes on the higher ground in Mississippi. According to the Mississippi State Parks web site: "Prior to the Civil War, over half of the millionaires in the entire United States lived in Natchez, constructing elegant mansions unrivaled in size and elegance by any in the nation."
There was also a "bubble" in the value of slaves, predicated upon the expansion of slavery into new territories westward, related to the Dred Scott decision.

https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/...qt56m1k703.pdf

Quote:
Capitalists without Capital: The Burden of Slavery and the Impact of Emancipation


Quote:
“If slaves … were an investment included in the asset portfolio of the planter/entrepreneur, they helped satisfy the owner’s demand for wealth. But unlike most other forms of capital, which depreciate with time, the stock of slaves appreciated. Thus, the growth of the slave population continuously increased the stock of wealth.”
Attached Images
File Type: png Screenshot 2018-09-13 at 6.17.21 AM.png (40.7 KB, 2 views)
__________________
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 13th September 2018, 04:21 AM   #111
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
"What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America? A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict." (Politifacts)

Like I've been saying all along.
Um, the economics of slavery and political control over the system of slavery is what we're saying.
__________________
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 13th September 2018, 04:30 AM   #112
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Don't forget the South's insistence on overriding the State's Rights of the Northern States to harbour escaped slaves
That was the last one listed here, from the SC causes:

Quote:
The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
Slavery was their gravy train, and nothing else mattered to them besides keeping that gravy train running.
__________________
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 13th September 2018, 05:37 AM   #113
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,169
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No one is denying slavery was the overriding concern. But that was what they considered one of the Rights as a State.
Like all politicians, they spoke in code to frame the issue in the way they think it looks best for them.

"It's about slavery", doesn't sound that good. "It's about state's rights" with an unspoken "to maintain slavery" sounds better.

It's like modern day "He's a strict constitutionalist" is code for "he might someday vote to overturn Roe v Wade". They're not fooling anyone.
Mycroft 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 13th September 2018, 05:44 AM   #114
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,567
It's amazing how Southerns turn to Snowflakes when someone suggests that they were anything but victims of the Civil War.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza 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 13th September 2018, 07:05 AM   #115
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,363
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
They feared they would lose the right to govern themselves as they saw Congress being dominated by northern and, eventually, western states. This fear of a strong central government and weak states is still strong in the Southern states.

ETA: Please remember that I did state earlier that "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."
Except when the southern states demanded the federal government have the power to alter state Constitutions.

And then instituted a more federally centralized Constitution in the CSA.

Other than that states’ rights were important. For zero things other than slavery.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 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 13th September 2018, 07:07 AM   #116
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,850
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It's amazing how Southerns turn to Snowflakes when someone suggests that they were anything but victims of the Civil War.
Hey, now. I'm a southerner, in TN just 10 minutes north of MS.
__________________
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 13th September 2018, 07:10 AM   #117
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,370
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
The problem is that no Democrat wants to take down all of the statues and other memorials to FDR, who actually put Japanese in concentration camps. That sounds like some extreme racism to me, yet he gets a free pass. Why is that? Why aren't Democrats demanding FDR be erased from all public property?
FDR didn't fight a war against the United States.
johnny karate 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 13th September 2018, 07:10 AM   #118
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,428
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
Except when the southern states demanded the federal government have the power to alter state Constitutions.

And then instituted a more federally centralized Constitution in the CSA.

Other than that states’ rights were important. For zero things other than slavery.
Not to mention feeling they had the right to go into states where slavery wasn't legal and round up escaped slaves, or to kidnap blacks outright in those states.
__________________
"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 13th September 2018, 07:11 AM   #119
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Then name the other "rights." You don't get to pick out the passages that don't happen to specifically mention slavery and then claim that there were other infringed rights that were important enough to break up the nation and start a ******* war.
I've been sleeping.

Were any specific rights (reserved to the states in the 1860s) finally named in the interim?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 13th September 2018, 07:11 AM   #120
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,370
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
First of all, you are unnecessarily rude. Second, my comment about FDR is a question that you didn't answer, and as far as I know is the first comment I've made about any statues. I haven't said anything about the two strawmen you put up so there is nothing to there to criticize. It had occurred to me if you want to take down statues of racists, FDR putting people in concentration camps purely because of their race would be at the top of the list. Your comments above with regard to this subject are nonsensical. You didn't even answer the question, which is why don't you want his statues taken down?

The only point I've tried to make in this thread is the Confederate soldiers were not fighting all of those years for slavery. I've tried to explain why, but no one is listening. Soldiers follow orders and fight for their homeland and each other, in all wars, for all of history. They fight the "enemy" -- us against them. The kids who were drafted and sent to Korea without boot camp, uniforms, or in many cases didn't even know how to fire a gun, were not there to fight Communism. They fought so they could survive. They were there because they didn't have any choice. Ditto for all people drafted to fight in all wars, and all who enlisted and wanted out of there as soon as they saw what they got themselves into. The reason they don't just cut and run is because they don't want to be seen as cowards. Most men would rather die than that, which has been proved here at the Battle of New Orleans, Gettysburg, and countless other battles and wars.
None of this explains why the United States should have memorials and monuments to enemy combatants.
johnny karate 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 07:40 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.