What is the Good in keeping Confederate Statues and such?

[Colonel Hogan]

Lincoln specifically indicated that state laws were not subject to his usurpation. The South still seceded.

No soldiers in the North (including my ancestors who joined the Union for the uniform allowance) were under the impression that successful prosecution of the war would result in the abolition of slavery.

My ancesters were anti-slavery, and were run out of Missouri for it, but the civil war was not designed to free slaves. As I said, slaves were not free at the end of the war.

Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky were surviving slave states after the war.

So let me get this straight. Because the North didn't fight the Civil War to abolish slavery, the South, despite its every indication and declaration to the contrary, DID NOT fight the Civil War to PRESERVE slavery.

That is EXACTLY what you and coachdweeb18 keep spewing and its the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

As I said before, if you wish to make that case, give me specific statements from the South rather than inferences from Lincoln's statements or slave ownership statistics from the North.

Until then, I will continue to believe that people fought the Civil War for the specific reasons they said they did.

 

[adrina]

Secondly and concurrently, the notion of "states rights" had far more to do with sentiments surrounding "Federalism" and "Anti-federalism" than it represented a euphemism for the "right" of slavery as a state institution.

The South fought the war to preserve slavery.

Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union, irregardless of the institution of slavery.

Let's keep this shit straight.

Yes let's.



As for the nazi comparison, eh, I'm not really invested into it. It was merely an example of how they handled the nazi iconography after the war. And subsequently for how that generational shift in perspective paved the way for the rejection of Nazi ideology and white supremacy later on.

 

[coachdb18]

So let me get this straight. Because the North didn't fight the Civil War to abolish slavery, the South, despite its every indication and declaration to the contrary, DID NOT fight the Civil War to PRESERVE slavery.

That is EXACTLY what you and coachdweeb18 keep spewing and its the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

You don't call me Coachdweeb, and I won't resort to calling you Colonel Klink, deal? Dealing with you on an adult level is something I requested before, I've now asked twice.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You don't call me Coachdweeb, and I won't resort to calling you Colonel Klink, deal? Dealing with you on an adult level is something I requested before, I've now asked twice.

I've called and been called far worse. Make a better argument that literally forces me to focus on its substance. You've failed miserably on that so far.

At least Que usually does far better.

 

[Que]

So let me get this straight. Because the North didn't fight the Civil War to abolish slavery, the South, despite its every indication and declaration to the contrary, DID NOT fight the Civil War to PRESERVE slavery.

That is EXACTLY what you and coachdweeb18 keep spewing and its the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

As I said before, if you wish to make that case, give me specific statements from the South rather than inferences from Lincoln's statements or slave ownership statistics from the North.

Until then, I will continue to believe that people fought the Civil War for the specific reasons they said they did.

hotels they did not go to wR to preserve the right to import zlaves.

I do think they saw the handwriting on the wall and assume that Lincolnwood get around to a polishing it at some point in figured better to secede before that happens put the war was not over slavery it certainly was not in ultra to war by the North to a ball it slavery.

voice-to-text garble and I can't take the time to fix it right now I will fix it later

 

[coachdb18]

I've called and been called far worse. Make a better argument that literally forces me to focus on its substance. You've failed miserably on that so far.

At least Que usually does far better.

If it were as simple as you try and make it, the whole thing could have been avoided and settled with a handshake. It was never that simple. For that very reason, the issues over how much government interference in our lives is acceptable would not still be with us. You demand to be right, and it's only fair to say that you have a viewpoint. Please stop with the mockery and self-aggrandizement, lest the conversation be terminated otherwise.

 

[jaF0]

Klink was cool. He was on our side even if he didn't realize it.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Yes let's.

The FACT that the concept of "states rights" derives directly from the Federalism/Anti-federalism debates and a lack from a Constitutional or other legal nexus prohibiting secession is NOT contradictory to or inconsistent with the South fighting the Civil War to preserve slavery.

Preserving slavery was the reason for the secession.

Secession was merely a right thought to be the best method for the preservation and most assuredly did not, in the view of the Confederacy, commit those states to war with the North. NOTHING about the various secession resolutions declared such a war.

Had Lincoln acquiesced to secession, there would likely have been no war. The fact that he viewed the situation differently does not impose a different philosophical, rational or methodological construct on the South for preserving slavery.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Lincoln specifically indicated that state laws were not subject to his usurpation. The South still seceded.

Uh huh. Because Lincoln had full command and control of the Northern economy vis-a-vis slavery, and the South had total confidence in this command and control.

Don't call me coachdweeb...

STFU, coachdweeb.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

voice-to-text garble and I can't take the time to fix it right now I will fix it later

Please do. Because.......shrapnel.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll always say it would have been better to let them secede than waste so many lives on both sides, often from the same families. I don't think it would have been too many years before some reunification.

I don't know if there would have been a reunification, but I've often wondered what the world would be like if they had remained as two divided countries. I'm not sure that it would have been disastrous. I also don't think that slavery would have continued in the South. They were already working their way out of it--and slavery wasn't absent, in fact, in the North and "controlled" border states during that period. It's true that slavery didn't end in all of the states that weren't secessionist by the end of the war--it didn't end in Delaware until 1872.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If it were as simple as you try and make it, the whole thing could have been avoided and settled with a handshake. It was never that simple. For that very reason, the issues over how much government interference in our lives is acceptable would not still be with us. You demand to be right, and it's only fair to say that you have a viewpoint. Please stop with the mockery and self-aggrandizement, lest the conversation be terminated otherwise.

That's all I've ever represented. And while I certainly feel my viewpoint is right, I don't "demand it."

Of course, you are free to disagree.

 

[coachdb18]

That's all I've ever represented. And while I certainly feel my viewpoint is right, I don't "demand it."

Of course, you are free to disagree.

No one here requires your permission to disagree with you ... that's why it's still called a free country!

 

[jaF0]

I don't know if there would have been a reunification, but I've often wondered what the world would be like if they had remained as two divided countries. I'm not sure that it would have been disastrous. I also don't think that slavery would have continued in the South. They were already working their way out of it--and slavery wasn't absent, in fact, in the North and "controlled" border states during that period. It's true that slavery didn't end in all of the states that weren't secessionist by the end of the war--it didn't end in Delaware until 1872.

Which is kind of the point. Did the loss of 700,000+ lives really accomplish much that might not have happened anyways?

 

[adrina]

The FACT that the concept of "states rights" derives directly from the Federalism/Anti-federalism debates and a lack from a Constitutional or other legal nexus prohibiting secession is NOT contradictory to or inconsistent with the South fighting the Civil War to preserve slavery.

Preserving slavery was the reason for the secession.

Secession was merely a right thought to be the best method for the preservation and most assuredly did not, in the view of the Confederacy, commit those states to war with the North. NOTHING about the various secession resolutions declared such a war.

Had Lincoln acquiesced to secession, there would likely have been no war. The fact that he viewed the situation differently does not impose a different philosophical, rational or methodological construct on the South for preserving slavery.

My point is that the south fought the war to preserve slavery and used states right as an excuse for the secession and for their "right" to own slaves.

We are not disagreeing in essence. My problem is essentially the soft pedaling of it - like what we see above in the revisionist history touted by AJ, Coach and even Que.

So we see things like defense of the iconography of the south as "dear old dad" - not Bigot Jim who beat and raped his slaves. And of course there are those that will even try to say that the black folks would have been better off remaining slaves because of the way some white southerners didn't abuse their "property".

We can dissect it fourteen ways from Sunday - the South fought to keep slavery. They fought for the right to see entire groups as inferior to them and as such able to be owned and used for their own economic gain. They fought for the right to be racist bigots. And that fight is still going on today. There's not a whole lot of sugar coating for that.

Will getting rid of statues make a dent? It's probably a fool's errand that plays into republican strategists hands, but the reality is we need to look very closely at those most vociferously defending these statues. I am betting - with some great amount of surety - that many of them are doing it for the same reasons as the south: to be allowed to be racist bigots. Even if in the most southern, most genteel and most subtle way possible.

 

[coachdb18]

Uh huh. Because Lincoln had full command and control of the Northern economy vis-a-vis slavery, and the South had total confidence in this command and control.



STFU, coachdweeb.

Your request is easily accommodated, you're now on *IGNORE*

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I don't know if there would have been a reunification, but I've often wondered what the world would be like if they had remained as two divided countries. I'm not sure that it would have been disastrous. I also don't think that slavery would have continued in the South. They were already working their way out of it--and slavery wasn't absent, in fact, in the North and "controlled" border states during that period. It's true that slavery didn't end in all of the states that weren't secessionist by the end of the war--it didn't end in Delaware until 1872.

Had the South existed as an independent country it would have succumbed to the very motivations which caused it to secede. If one of its main gripes was the North not returning fugitive slaves as a recognition of a "property right" under the Constitution, what would it have done as a separate country when no such right therefore existed? And what would the slaves have done in view of such a state of affairs?

Talk about a border wall to keep illegal Mexicans out. How about another Berlin Wall to keep slaves in? Barbed wire along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers? Atop the mountain peaks of Virginia?

That "underground railroad" would have very quickly impersonated a modern day interstate. The South would have had to invent tourism about 100 years earlier.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Your request is easily accommodated, you're now on *IGNORE*

 

[MGurkus]

hotels they did not go to wR to preserve the right to import zlaves.

I do think they saw the handwriting on the wall and assume that Lincolnwood get around to a polishing it at some point in figured better to secede before that happens put the war was not over slavery it certainly was not in ultra to war by the North to a ball it slavery.

voice-to-text garble and I can't take the time to fix it right now I will fix it later

What a foolish little tranny.

 

[MGurkus]

Coachdweeb and tranny dweeb... need I say more?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Thanks Colonel.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

My point is that the south fought the war to preserve slavery and used states right as an excuse for the secession and for their "right" to own slaves.

We don't disagree in the slightest that the South fought to preserve slavery. But I disagree that the right to secession was an "excuse" or "euphemism" under the Constitutional legal framework that existed at that time or that it is in some way tangential or irrelevant to make that distinction.

Will getting rid of statues make a dent? It's probably a fool's errand that plays into republican strategists hands, but the reality is we need to look very closely at those most vociferously defending these statues. I am betting - with some great amount of surety - that many of them are doing it for the same reasons as the south: to be allowed to be racist bigots. Even if in the most southern, most genteel and most subtle way possible.

We don't disagree about that either, and I would never want my legal arguments as to an arguable right of secession or the wisdom of removing statues and monuments to be so misconstrued.

 

[coachdb18]

Had the South existed as an independent country it would have succumbed to the very motivations which caused it to secede. If one of its main gripes was the North not returning fugitive slaves as a recognition of a "property right" under the Constitution, what would it have done as a separate country when no such right therefore existed? And what would the slaves have done in view of such a state of affairs?

Talk about a border wall to keep illegal Mexicans out. How about another Berlin Wall to keep slaves in? Barbed wire along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers? Atop the mountain peaks of Virginia?

That "underground railroad" would have very quickly impersonated a modern day interstate. The South would have had to invent tourism about 100 years earlier.

Wondering how different from actual outcomes your predictions would look had you predicted Japan and Germany would win that war? Predicting the way the world would look had history taken a different turn is a little like wondering what kind of dinosaurs we'd be if that giant meteor hadn't hit the planet back when! What we do know is that industrialization has and likely would have changed both north and south, because that wheel was already turning, and continues to shape both our present and future.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Thanks Colonel.

One of the few here who "gets me." If only you were a gorgeous hooker. Non-transgendered, of course.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I could be a Constitutional slut.

I feel "pretty!"