What is the Good in keeping Confederate Statues and such?

[Colonel Hogan]

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.

So what do you think? Do you think the South could have kept or substantially recovered by force or negotiation escaped slaves from a country that welcomed them?

Or do you think Trump's wall would today simply be positioned further north?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I could be a Constitutional slut.

I feel "pretty!"

Ditto. Every time I do it.

 

[jaF0]

I feel "pretty!"

Like Gertrude Linkmeier?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I feel all dressed up with no place to go.

Today has been a very interesting day. We experienced totality.

 

[sr71plt]

Had the South existed as an independent country it would have succumbed to the very motivations which caused it to secede.

Since you know everything, I'm sure you must know how the unknowable would turn out. The continent very likely would have fractured even more and there'd be maybe four countries in the territory that's now the mainland United States. But I'm sure you know how all of that would work out, seeing as how you know everything.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Like Gertrude Linkmeier?

You lost me there. I was thinking anger management.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Since you know everything, I'm sure you must know how the unknowable would turn out. The continent very likely would have fractured even more and there'd be maybe four countries in the territory that's now the mainland United States. But I'm sure you know how all of that would work out, seeing as how you know everything.

Are you constitutionally unable to engage in polite conversation? And you want us to believe that you have the emotional stability to be entrusted with high-end aircraft?

lol

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Since you know everything, I'm sure you must know how the unknowable would turn out. The continent very likely would have fractured even more and there'd be maybe four countries in the territory that's now the mainland United States. But I'm sure you know how all of that would work out, seeing as how you know everything.

No, I don't KNOW any such thing, any more than you "know" the country would have fractured into four other separate countries.

But I would be intrigued by whatever it is that leads you to that conclusion.

 

[adrina]

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.

Poor phrasing on my part. It wasn't an excuse. It was the reason.

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.

Thus proving that "legal" isn't always "wise".

 

[jaF0]

I maintain they would have eventually reunified. The South had the raw materials, the North had the industrialization. They both needed river transportation. They would have had to work something out.

The Union would have continued to steal the west. The South would have been left out.

 

[coachdb18]

So what do you think? Do you think the South could have kept or substantially recovered by force or negotiation escaped slaves from a country that welcomed them?

Or do you think Trump's wall would today simply be positioned further north?

A little known and little appreciated fact from that time, approximately 12% of southern slaveowners were themselves black. Certainly, the tensions would have continued, and I'm sure there would have been some attempts by both sides to fortify their positions. But the institution of slavery was already on the way out. In those areas where it continued AFTER the war, it eventually failed in the face of a better competitive edge, ie the cotton gin. And, in point of fact, slavery continues to this day. Efforts to eradicate it completely have never been totally effective. Like I said, it's more complex than just 'yes' or 'no'....

 

[sr71plt]

I maintain they would have eventually reunified. The South had the raw materials, the North had the industrialization. They both needed river transportation. They would have had to work something out.

The Union would have continued to steal the west. The South would have been left out.

The West just as likely would have gone bye-bye--Texas in one direction and the coast in another.

 

[Freudian_Slit]

Are you constitutionally unable to engage in polite conversation? And you want us to believe that you have the emotional stability to be entrusted with high-end aircraft?

lol

Are you constitutionally incapable of intellectual honesty?

lol

 

[adrina]

5 myths about slavery

Interesting bit about the states right angle.

Myth #2: The South seceded from the Union over the issue of states’ rights, not slavery.

This myth, that the Civil War wasn’t fundamentally a conflict over slavery, would have been a surprise to the original founders of the Confederacy. In the official declaration of the causes of their secession in December 1860, South Carolina’s delegates cited “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” According to them, the Northern interference with the return of fugitive slaves was violating their constitutional obligations; they also complained that some states in New England tolerated abolitionist societies and allowed black men to vote.

As James W. Loewen, author of “Lies My Teacher Told Me” and “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader,” wrote in the Washington Post: “In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.” The idea that the war was somehow not about slavery but about the issue of states’ rights was perpetuated by later generations anxious to redefine their ancestors’ sacrifices as a noble protection of the Southern way of life. At the time, however, Southerners had no problem claiming the protection of slavery as the cause of their break with the Union—and the Civil War that followed.

So in essence, they wanted the northern states to toe their line when it came to slavery. That's not states rights.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A little known and little appreciated fact from that time, approximately 12% of southern slaveowners were themselves black. Certainly, the tensions would have continued, and I'm sure there would have been some attempts by both sides to fortify their positions. But the institution of slavery was already on the way out. In those areas where it continued AFTER the war, it eventually failed in the face of a better competitive edge, ie the cotton gin. And, in point of fact, slavery continues to this day. Efforts to eradicate it completely have never been totally effective. Like I said, it's more complex than just 'yes' or 'no'....

The average Johnny Reb who fought and died was as poor as a slave. He fought for his state, his patch of land, his family and his way of lifecycle against a foreign power. Also, let us not forget that elements of the North resented the South for insufficient involvement in the revolution.

 

[adrina]

from the same link as above

Myth #3: Only a small percentage of Southerners owned slaves.

Closely related to Myth #2, the idea that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were men of modest means rather than large plantation owners is usually used to reinforce the contention that the South wouldn’t have gone to war to protect slavery. The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent in Arkansas).

But as Jamelle Bouie and Rebecca Onion point out in Slate, the percentages don’t fully express the extent to which the antebellum South was a slave society, built on a foundation of slavery. Many of those white families who couldn’t afford slaves aspired to, as a symbol of wealth and prosperity. In addition, the essential ideology of white supremacy that served as a rationale for slavery, made it extremely difficult—and terrifying—for white Southerners to imagine life alongside a black majority population that was not in bondage. In this way, many non-slave-owning Confederates went to war to protect not only slavery, but to preserve the foundation of the only way of life they knew.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The average Johnny Reb who fought and died was as poor as a slave. He fought for his state, his patch of land, his family and his way of lifecycle against a foreign power. Also, let us not forget that elements of the North resented the South for insufficient involvement in the revolution.

The Half-breed is going balls-to-the-wall with his "Noble Cause" crap today.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Your source is a pantheon of happy horseshit with no linkage to any scholarship.

Praise be to Google.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Your source is a pantheon of happy horseshit with no linkage to any scholarship.

Praise be to Google.

Shoot that messenger!
#PewPewPew!

 

[adrina]

Your source is a pantheon of happy horseshit with no linkage to any scholarship.

Praise be to Google.

Well that just tells me you didn't even bother reading it. Each of the five myths is sourced out and the articles that are pointed to have sources within them.

I'm sorry that it disagrees with what American Thinker has told you is on the approved list of thoughts.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Thus proving that "legal" isn't always "wise".

No better proof of which is the institution of slavery itself. Why do we routinely indict the South and fail to condemn the "aiding and abetting" of the Founding Fathers to the very compromise?

5 myths about slavery

Interesting bit about the states right angle.

Myth #2: The South seceded from the Union over the issue of states’ rights, not slavery.

This myth, that the Civil War wasn’t fundamentally a conflict over slavery, would have been a surprise to the original founders of the Confederacy. In the official declaration of the causes of their secession in December 1860, South Carolina’s delegates cited “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.” According to them, the Northern interference with the return of fugitive slaves was violating their constitutional obligations; they also complained that some states in New England tolerated abolitionist societies and allowed black men to vote.

As James W. Loewen, author of “Lies My Teacher Told Me” and “The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader,” wrote in the Washington Post: “In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.” The idea that the war was somehow not about slavery but about the issue of states’ rights was perpetuated by later generations anxious to redefine their ancestors’ sacrifices as a noble protection of the Southern way of life. At the time, however, Southerners had no problem claiming the protection of slavery as the cause of their break with the Union—and the Civil War that followed.

So in essence, they wanted the northern states to toe their line when it came to slavery. That's not states rights.

And IF the very right of the North to ignore the Constitutional property rights of the South coexisted with the inability of the federal government to enforce the supremacy of one over the other (or to turn a blind eye to one in favor of the other contrary to the rule of law), then it doesn't seem to me that secession from such a "union" was a blatantly unreasonable action for the South to take.

 

[adrina]

No better proof of which is the institution of slavery itself. Why do we routinely indict the South and fail to condemn the "aiding and abetting" of the Founding Fathers to the very compromise?

In all reality, probably because the forefathers were bringing a nation together while the south was trying to tear one apart.

And IF the very right of the North to ignore the Constitutional property rights of the South coexisted with the inability of the federal government to enforce the supremacy of one over the other (or to turn a blind eye to one in favor of the other contrary to the rule of law), then it doesn't seem to me that secession from such a "union" was a blatantly unreasonable action for the South to take.

Yes they took a reasonable path to their unreasonableness.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

In all reality, probably because the forefathers were bringing a nation together while the south was trying to tear one apart.

Here is a graphic documenting the slave populations on a colony-by-colony basis in 1770 -- six years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence and only 18 years before ratification of the Constitution.

Tell me again about the noble unification efforts of the forefathers.

But, hey, at least New York and Maryland had less per capita slave ownership than Georgia.

 

[nowisthetime]

My dear Snuggle,

It all comes down to PISSING off the LIBRULS.

It's not like they really care about these generals who didn't give a damn about their lowly peasant asses.


You have to understand that right wing yokels, like the bitter ones who dwell on this board, exist solely to stick it to the LIBRULS.

Hell they blame LIBRULS for their grandkids acting out in school, their plants dying, the fucking rain and the snow.

They flat out HATE LIBRULS even more so than NEGROES, who they merely look down upon.

They know the true meaning of any representation of the confederacy. They just don't care and are very pleased with their bigotry.

The cold, hard irony is that their forefathers fought the Nazis to liberate the oppressed people, yet their descendants turn around and ignore the meaning of the confederacy statues or worse--GLORIFY IT.

 

[coachdb18]

My dear Snuggle,

It all comes down to PISSING off the LIBRULS.

It's not like they really care about these generals who didn't give a damn about their lowly peasant asses.


You have to understand that right wing yokels, like the bitter ones who dwell on this board, exist solely to stick it to the LIBRULS.

Hell they blame LIBRULS for their grandkids acting out in school, their plants dying, the fucking rain and the snow.

They flat out HATE LIBRULS even more so than NEGROES, who they merely look down upon.

They know the true meaning of any representation of the confederacy. They just don't care and are very pleased with their bigotry.

The cold, hard irony is that their forefathers fought the Nazis to liberate the oppressed people, yet their descendants turn around and ignore the meaning of the confederacy statues or worse--GLORIFY IT.

Nothing like setting up a stereotype straw man to knock down.... geeesh