(10-31-2023 01:02 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Yep, the vast majority of southerners fighting that war didn't own any slaves. They were merely fighting for their homes, which were being invaded.

Lmao "invaded". What a completely disingenuous description.

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

So when the American colonies seceded from Great Britain they should have not expected to take British military installations with them? Do we now need to take down statues of our founding fathers since they were traitors to the country they were citizens of when the revolution began?

Again you cannot judge the people of the 1860's by todays standards. If you need evidence of where allegiance was take a look at the regimental designations of the time. There were very few regular army regiments and most were made up and designated by state of origin and that was true for the union and confederate forces.

Hey guess what, there are two REALLY big differences that separate the Revolutionary War from the Civil War:

1. The instigators won
2. They weren't fighting for slavery

(10-31-2023 01:41 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:02 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Lmao "invaded". What a completely disingenuous description.

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

So when the American colonies seceded from Great Britain they should have not expected to take British military installations with them? Do we now need to take down statues of our founding fathers since they were traitors to the country they were citizens of when the revolution began?

Again you cannot judge the people of the 1860's by todays standards. If you need evidence of where allegiance was take a look at the regimental designations of the time. There were very few regular army regiments and most were made up and designated by state of origin and that was true for the union and confederate forces.

Hey guess what, there are two REALLY big differences that separate the Revolutionary War from the Civil War:

1. The instigators won
2. They weren't fighting for slavery

1. So?
2. They kind of were given that several were slaveholders and were fighting to run their country the way they saw fit rather than being told how to run it by outsiders.

Contrary to your opinion most southern troops were not fighting for slavery and it doesn't take a lot of reading to understand that.

(10-31-2023 12:51 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:24 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

All of that is irrelevant. Was it still not an invasion? Did the Army of the Potomac not invade the South? Please, there is no need for semantics. And yes, the Army of Northern VA did invade the North, most notably at Antietam and Gettysburg.

Well I guess under your logic, Poland invaded Germany, Ukraine invaded Russia, Taiwan plans to invade China, and Israel invaded Gaza

Nah, from the South's perspective, it was an invasion as it saw itself as a separate nation. The North, on the other hand, probably didn't see it that way as it saw the split as illegal, and it's army as merely rectifying the situation. The difference in mindset goes to the very core of why the war was fought. We aren't going to solve that debate here.

The only reason we aren't going to solve that debate here is you won't or can't admit that the very core of why the war was fought was slavery, and no matter how you spin it, no matter how much context you try to share to create a different narrative, all the paths lead back to slavery. You can call it culture, or way of life, or defense of homeland, or whatever you want to call it, but the war was started to preserve a way of life and an economy that was built on slavery. A war voluntarily started by the South.

We're going in circle. If the friggin' POTUS at the time of the war said he'd keep the country together WITH slavery if possible, then I can't figure how anyone can say the reason for the war was to abolish slavery. Yes, I'll concede that it became a reason, but that was for pure political reasons to keep foreign powers out of the war. If Britain or France had joined the South, the US wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln didn't make it a moral fight out of the goodness of his heart, he only went that route to prevent being beaten. It worked. It was a brilliant political move.

(10-31-2023 02:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  We're going in circle. If the friggin' POTUS at the time of the war said he'd keep the country together WITH slavery if possible, then I can't figure how anyone can say the reason for the war was to abolish slavery. Yes, I'll concede that it became a reason, but that was for pure political reasons to keep foreign powers out of the war. If Britain or France had joined the South, the US wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln didn't make it a moral fight out of the goodness of his heart, he only went that route to prevent being beaten. It worked. It was a brilliant political move.

I'm not a part of the discussion thread I pulled this from. However, I do think the ultimate root cause of the war was slavery. That said - it wasn't fought because the north wanted to abolish slavery. However, IMHO it ultimately came down to the south's lack of political power in the Federal gov't as a result of too many territories coming into the country as free states. While I fully understand the argument of states rights, i.e. being opposed to import/export controls that were designed to assist the north with industrializing while benefiting from the revenues of the southern cash crops, following connections that led to the south being it the position it was in and the economic development was due to slavery.

My understanding is the south seceded because those states felt their voices and POVs weren't addressed by the federal gov't. That was a result of the slave states not having sufficient political capital to have their policies enacted or at least compromises made to give the south some of what they wanted. They began losing that political capital over time due to 1) northern population growth compared to the south and 2) Territories choosing to enter the union as free states instead of as a balance between free and slave states. While the population growth situation was a loser for the south due to a lack of a diversified economy compared to the north - which was going to put them at a disadvantage in the House regardless - they still had a shot to keep parity in the senate until too many of the recent territories rejected slavery in their referendums and entered as free states. This was what ultimately "forced" them to secede. It wasn't the north wanting to abolish slavery, it was the south not having slavery expand to future territories in order to preserve enough political clout to get some of their issues addressed in the federal government.

(10-31-2023 03:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  We're going in circle. If the friggin' POTUS at the time of the war said he'd keep the country together WITH slavery if possible, then I can't figure how anyone can say the reason for the war was to abolish slavery. Yes, I'll concede that it became a reason, but that was for pure political reasons to keep foreign powers out of the war. If Britain or France had joined the South, the US wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln didn't make it a moral fight out of the goodness of his heart, he only went that route to prevent being beaten. It worked. It was a brilliant political move.

I'm not a part of the discussion thread I pulled this from. However, I do think the ultimate root cause of the war was slavery. That said - it wasn't fought because the north wanted to abolish slavery. However, IMHO it ultimately came down to the south's lack of political power in the Federal gov't as a result of too many territories coming into the country as free states. While I fully understand the argument of states rights, i.e. being opposed to import/export controls that were designed to assist the north with industrializing while benefiting from the revenues of the southern cash crops, following connections that led to the south being it the position it was in and the economic development was due to slavery.

My understanding is the south seceded because those states felt their voices and POVs weren't addressed by the federal gov't. That was a result of the slave states not having sufficient political capital to have their policies enacted or at least compromises made to give the south some of what they wanted. They began losing that political capital over time due to 1) northern population growth compared to the south and 2) Territories choosing to enter the union as free states instead of as a balance between free and slave states. While the population growth situation was a loser for the south due to a lack of a diversified economy compared to the north - which was going to put them at a disadvantage in the House regardless - they still had a shot to keep parity in the senate until too many of the recent territories rejected slavery in their referendums and entered as free states. This was what ultimately "forced" them to secede. It wasn't the north wanting to abolish slavery, it was the south not having slavery expand to future territories in order to preserve enough political clout to get some of their issues addressed in the federal government.

Do you have a corporate job Miko? If you do you are indirectly involved in the slave trade, especially if your corporation uses sweatshops overseas. I'm not stating that as a justification of what has passed, but as a jolt to the consciousness of contemporary moral crusaders involved with corporate multi-nationals. Sweatshops are essentially slave labor; human trafficking is still with us. Subsistence exchanged for labor is still with us. Sex trafficking is still with us. It's all an abomination and almost every American supports it whether through their unwitting stock portfolio, the corporation of which they are a part, the products they obtain more cheaply, or the illicit activities some may engage in.

Now hoss, smoke that over and get back to me if you are sinless. Focusing on the cause of the Civil War is a common dodge that Northerners and corporate people take when they refuse to remove the log from their own eye, and 1865 is a speck in the vision of the contemporary. There are more forms of slavery today than at any point in human history. The Uyghurs are concentration camp slave labor in China. Warehoused women and children in Indonesia and other parts of Asia are slave labor. Those utilized by drug and sex trafficking anywhere are slave labor. Any forced labor under any kind of government is slave labor.

And something left out of your argument which I was content to let drop at the time is that New England sea captains trafficked slaves in hidden compartments of their merchant ships because it was more profitable. Northern industry traded with the slaveholding South, Therefore, Northern industrialists profited through slave labor. Northern investors owned and operated some of those slave ships. And yet the Civil War, which was about many things aside from slavery, became the victor's cover for their own culpability. And it's funny that the war was avoided until the South more closely partnered with the British in its sale of the commodity cotton. Then, and mostly then, the North got pissy.

The truth Miko is that both the North and South were involved in the slave trade, it's just that the South purchased the human beings the North transported, admittedly along with the Portuguese and some profiteering sea captains of other nations. Appomattox didn't absolve the North of its guilt. Reconstruction was just the rape of business opportunities in the South, something Lincoln wanted to curtail which has long been suspicioned as the motive for his assassination, and reconstruction had little to do with cleaning up the abuses of slavery. Yankee hypocrisy on that issue has remained a divisive issue in the mind of many in the South, especially those old enough to remember Northern sundown laws in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana which prohibited blacks from being in the city limits after dark and I witnessed those firsthand while living in the Northern Midwest of the early 60's. And the last bussing riots which involved desegregation were in Pontiac and Boston, and not in Birmingham and Atlanta.

Your position is nothing more than more excuse making and distancing from a national crime, rather than a regional one.

(10-31-2023 11:14 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 11:09 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 11:00 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:24 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people out there voting for and fighting for abortion have never had an abortion.

Doesn't mean they're right.

They weren't fighting so rich people could have slaves dumb***. They were fighting because they HAD TO FIGHT. It was basically fight or die.

You're defending the confederacy... but I'm the dumba$$.

Sounds like it was as hospitable in the confederacy for the poor whites as it was for the slaves. WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN.

He's not defending the Confederacy and you know it.

Another thing that is lost and almost never taught that goes along with Northern Aggression idea that folks in the South believed was that a large number of Lee's Soldiers refused to go to Pennsylvania. They were only interested in defending.

Defending what exactly?

Defending land that belongs to the American government?
Defending slavery?
Defending their homes that wouldn't need defending if they didn't secede?

If you haven’t noticed I’ll clue you in, when I want to have a discussion with a sounding board I’ll interact with you. I can get your views from any newspaper, news channel, or social site. So, until you actually have thoughts of your own and can actually understand others viewpoints your just a waste of time.

(10-31-2023 03:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 03:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  We're going in circle. If the friggin' POTUS at the time of the war said he'd keep the country together WITH slavery if possible, then I can't figure how anyone can say the reason for the war was to abolish slavery. Yes, I'll concede that it became a reason, but that was for pure political reasons to keep foreign powers out of the war. If Britain or France had joined the South, the US wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln didn't make it a moral fight out of the goodness of his heart, he only went that route to prevent being beaten. It worked. It was a brilliant political move.

I'm not a part of the discussion thread I pulled this from. However, I do think the ultimate root cause of the war was slavery. That said - it wasn't fought because the north wanted to abolish slavery. However, IMHO it ultimately came down to the south's lack of political power in the Federal gov't as a result of too many territories coming into the country as free states. While I fully understand the argument of states rights, i.e. being opposed to import/export controls that were designed to assist the north with industrializing while benefiting from the revenues of the southern cash crops, following connections that led to the south being it the position it was in and the economic development was due to slavery.

My understanding is the south seceded because those states felt their voices and POVs weren't addressed by the federal gov't. That was a result of the slave states not having sufficient political capital to have their policies enacted or at least compromises made to give the south some of what they wanted. They began losing that political capital over time due to 1) northern population growth compared to the south and 2) Territories choosing to enter the union as free states instead of as a balance between free and slave states. While the population growth situation was a loser for the south due to a lack of a diversified economy compared to the north - which was going to put them at a disadvantage in the House regardless - they still had a shot to keep parity in the senate until too many of the recent territories rejected slavery in their referendums and entered as free states. This was what ultimately "forced" them to secede. It wasn't the north wanting to abolish slavery, it was the south not having slavery expand to future territories in order to preserve enough political clout to get some of their issues addressed in the federal government.

Do you have a corporate job Miko? If you do you are indirectly involved in the slave trade, especially if your corporation uses sweatshops overseas. I'm not stating that a justification of what has passed, but as a jolt to the consciousness of contemporary moral crusaders involved with corporate multi-nationals. Sweatshops are essentially slave labor, human trafficking is still with us. Subsistence exchanged for labor are still with us. Sex trafficking is still with us. It's all an abomination and almost every American supports it whether through their unwitting stock portfolio, the corporation they are a part of, the products they obtain more cheaply, or the illicit activities some may engage in.

Now hoss, smoke that over and get back to me if you are sinless. Focusing on the cause of the Civil War is a common dodge that Northerners and corporate people take when they refuse to remove the log from their own eye, and 1865 is a speck in the vision of the contemporary. There are more forms of slavery today than at any point in human history. The Uyghurs are concentration camp slave labor in China. Warehoused women and children in Indonesia and other parts of Asia are slave labor. Those utilized by drug and sex trafficking anywhere are slave labor. Any forced labor under any kind of government are slave labor.

And something left out of your argument which I was content to let drop at the time is that New England sea captains trafficked slaves in hidden compartments of their merchant ships because it was more profitable. Northern industry traded with the slaveholding South, Northern sea captains profited through trafficking slaves. Northern investors owned and operated some of those ships. And yet the Civil War which was about many things aside from slavery, became the victors cover for their own culpability. And it's funny that the war was avoided until the South more closely partnered with the British in its sale of the commodity of cotton. Then the North got pissy.

The truth Miko is that both the North and South were involved in the slave trade, it's just that the South purchased the human being the North transported, admittedly along with the Portuguese and some profiteering sea captains of other nations. Appomattox didn't absolve the North of its guilt. Reconstruction was just the rape of business opportunities in the South, something Lincoln wanted to curtail which has long been suspicioned as the motive for his assassination, and reconstruction had little to do with cleaning up the abuses of slavery. Yankee hypocrisy on that issue has remained a divisive issue in the mind of many in the South, especially those old enough to remember Northern sundown laws in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana which prohibited blacks from being in the city limits after dark and I witnessed those first hand while living in the Northern Midwest of the early 60's. And the last bussing riots which involved desegregation were in Pontiac and Boston, and not in Birmingham and Atlanta.

Your position is nothing more than more excuse making and distancing from a national crime, rather than a regional one.

I've been waiting for you make that point ... I've intentionally stayed out of this ...

#irony

(10-30-2023 09:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 10:20 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  The executive actions taken by Lincoln in violation of the Constitution, particularly revoking habeus corpus (arresting and detaining opponents of the War), was clearly dictatorial and wrong. It is really surprising that some of the normally well-enlightened folks on this forum are ignorant of these facts.

If I were to rank Lincoln and Lee and Sherman (and I know direct decendents of both Generals), Lee would be ranked as the most moral and logical, with Lincoln and Sherman distant #2 and #3. Lincoln was no Saint and Sherman even worse.

At the same time, you can't judge people based on today's morals.

Sherman is still a 4 letter word in Georgia. He intended to "make Georgia howl." He did. And it would be a war crime today, but much of it was necessary to end the war.

Lincoln freed the slaves in the seceding states. He also wanted to ship them to Liberia instead of having them stay here.

First thought was South America.

The problem I see with Lincoln’s idea was that these Black folks had their culture erased and the only thing they really knew was life here. Thus, they had every right to be here.

How different and much better their lives would be today if Democrats would’ve actually cared about them instead of their value as voters.

Democrats = Social Decay of Society

Not to sound indifferent but the term African American is just a way to tell people what color they are. No one says European Americans.

(10-31-2023 04:47 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 03:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 03:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  We're going in circle. If the friggin' POTUS at the time of the war said he'd keep the country together WITH slavery if possible, then I can't figure how anyone can say the reason for the war was to abolish slavery. Yes, I'll concede that it became a reason, but that was for pure political reasons to keep foreign powers out of the war. If Britain or France had joined the South, the US wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln didn't make it a moral fight out of the goodness of his heart, he only went that route to prevent being beaten. It worked. It was a brilliant political move.

I'm not a part of the discussion thread I pulled this from. However, I do think the ultimate root cause of the war was slavery. That said - it wasn't fought because the north wanted to abolish slavery. However, IMHO it ultimately came down to the south's lack of political power in the Federal gov't as a result of too many territories coming into the country as free states. While I fully understand the argument of states rights, i.e. being opposed to import/export controls that were designed to assist the north with industrializing while benefiting from the revenues of the southern cash crops, following connections that led to the south being it the position it was in and the economic development was due to slavery.

My understanding is the south seceded because those states felt their voices and POVs weren't addressed by the federal gov't. That was a result of the slave states not having sufficient political capital to have their policies enacted or at least compromises made to give the south some of what they wanted. They began losing that political capital over time due to 1) northern population growth compared to the south and 2) Territories choosing to enter the union as free states instead of as a balance between free and slave states. While the population growth situation was a loser for the south due to a lack of a diversified economy compared to the north - which was going to put them at a disadvantage in the House regardless - they still had a shot to keep parity in the senate until too many of the recent territories rejected slavery in their referendums and entered as free states. This was what ultimately "forced" them to secede. It wasn't the north wanting to abolish slavery, it was the south not having slavery expand to future territories in order to preserve enough political clout to get some of their issues addressed in the federal government.

Do you have a corporate job Miko? If you do you are indirectly involved in the slave trade, especially if your corporation uses sweatshops overseas. I'm not stating that a justification of what has passed, but as a jolt to the consciousness of contemporary moral crusaders involved with corporate multi-nationals. Sweatshops are essentially slave labor, human trafficking is still with us. Subsistence exchanged for labor are still with us. Sex trafficking is still with us. It's all an abomination and almost every American supports it whether through their unwitting stock portfolio, the corporation they are a part of, the products they obtain more cheaply, or the illicit activities some may engage in.

Now hoss, smoke that over and get back to me if you are sinless. Focusing on the cause of the Civil War is a common dodge that Northerners and corporate people take when they refuse to remove the log from their own eye, and 1865 is a speck in the vision of the contemporary. There are more forms of slavery today than at any point in human history. The Uyghurs are concentration camp slave labor in China. Warehoused women and children in Indonesia and other parts of Asia are slave labor. Those utilized by drug and sex trafficking anywhere are slave labor. Any forced labor under any kind of government are slave labor.

And something left out of your argument which I was content to let drop at the time is that New England sea captains trafficked slaves in hidden compartments of their merchant ships because it was more profitable. Northern industry traded with the slaveholding South, Northern sea captains profited through trafficking slaves. Northern investors owned and operated some of those ships. And yet the Civil War which was about many things aside from slavery, became the victors cover for their own culpability. And it's funny that the war was avoided until the South more closely partnered with the British in its sale of the commodity of cotton. Then the North got pissy.

The truth Miko is that both the North and South were involved in the slave trade, it's just that the South purchased the human being the North transported, admittedly along with the Portuguese and some profiteering sea captains of other nations. Appomattox didn't absolve the North of its guilt. Reconstruction was just the rape of business opportunities in the South, something Lincoln wanted to curtail which has long been suspicioned as the motive for his assassination, and reconstruction had little to do with cleaning up the abuses of slavery. Yankee hypocrisy on that issue has remained a divisive issue in the mind of many in the South, especially those old enough to remember Northern sundown laws in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana which prohibited blacks from being in the city limits after dark and I witnessed those first hand while living in the Northern Midwest of the early 60's. And the last bussing riots which involved desegregation were in Pontiac and Boston, and not in Birmingham and Atlanta.

Your position is nothing more than more excuse making and distancing from a national crime, rather than a regional one.

I've been waiting for you make that point ... I've intentionally stayed out of this ...

#irony

I didn't feel like hammering it out until Miko kept pushing his Northern bullshite talking points. Yankees use the Civil War to excuse their own prejudices and abuses and I saw plenty of them with the Sioux reservations across the Northern Midwest and the sundown exclusions of blacks. And their racism against blacks is carefully covered by social class segregation in the North, hence the outrage over bussing in Pontiac and Boston in the early 70s.

My word for it isn't as much irony as hypocrisy. When I lived in Washington state the blacks were a novelty at that time. Chinese and Japanese were discriminated against. When I lived in San Antonio it was Mexicans and Mexican Americans that were discriminated against. In New York and New Jersey, it was blacks and Puerto Ricans. People pick their prejudices, and the upper middle-class liberal is one of the most hypocritical of all because they shelter themselves from minorities and then absolve themselves of blame when they criticize everyone else for racism when their own social life and associations are carefully arranged to avoid those they disdain. It is disguised racism. Show me a human being and I'll show you a critter which is prejudiced. Victims of racism are just as prejudiced as their victimizer. Blacks hate Asians and many depending upon the location hate Jews. And many hate whites. Claiming that your great, great grandaddy was abused isn't a justification for your own hatred, nor does it absolve them of prejudice.

What the Air Force life taught me, and my grandfather reinforced, was that good and bad people come in all colors and ethnicities. You discern who people are by watching what they do. I don't care what nationality somebody is, or what race, if they are honest, keep their word, and do their work. I promote those. Sheep dipped piss and moaners who are passive aggressive I fire or run off as quickly as possible, especially entitled little *****. Those are the shirkers of responsibility, the sappers of morale in an organization, the backstabbing liars and gossips, and the sewers of discord and confusion in the workplace.

IMO, the destruction of our society is directly laid at the feet of public education because they are churning these bastards out at an alarming rate. And none of them are fit for military service because they hate authority and don't know how to do damn thing, except complain.

(10-31-2023 04:42 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 11:14 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 11:09 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 11:00 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  They weren't fighting so rich people could have slaves dumb***. They were fighting because they HAD TO FIGHT. It was basically fight or die.

You're defending the confederacy... but I'm the dumba$$.

Sounds like it was as hospitable in the confederacy for the poor whites as it was for the slaves. WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN.

He's not defending the Confederacy and you know it.

Another thing that is lost and almost never taught that goes along with Northern Aggression idea that folks in the South believed was that a large number of Lee's Soldiers refused to go to Pennsylvania. They were only interested in defending.

Defending what exactly?

Defending land that belongs to the American government?
Defending slavery?
Defending their homes that wouldn't need defending if they didn't secede?

If you haven’t noticed I’ll clue you in, when I want to have a discussion with a sounding board I’ll interact with you. I can get your views from any newspaper, news channel, or social site. So, until you actually have thoughts of your own and can actually understand others viewpoints your just a waste of time.

Got it. Don't respond with my viewpoints unless they already agree with yours.

No worries, I rarely respond to you as it is, I doubt it will be an issue in the future

(10-31-2023 04:49 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 09:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 10:20 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  The executive actions taken by Lincoln in violation of the Constitution, particularly revoking habeus corpus (arresting and detaining opponents of the War), was clearly dictatorial and wrong. It is really surprising that some of the normally well-enlightened folks on this forum are ignorant of these facts.

If I were to rank Lincoln and Lee and Sherman (and I know direct decendents of both Generals), Lee would be ranked as the most moral and logical, with Lincoln and Sherman distant #2 and #3. Lincoln was no Saint and Sherman even worse.

At the same time, you can't judge people based on today's morals.

Sherman is still a 4 letter word in Georgia. He intended to "make Georgia howl." He did. And it would be a war crime today, but much of it was necessary to end the war.

Lincoln freed the slaves in the seceding states. He also wanted to ship them to Liberia instead of having them stay here.

First thought was South America.

The problem I see with Lincoln’s idea was that these Black folks had their culture erased and the only thing they really knew was life here. Thus, they had every right to be here.

How different and much better their lives would be today if Democrats would’ve actually cared about them instead of their value as voters.

Democrats = Social Decay of Society

Not to sound indifferent but the term African American is just a way to tell people what color they are. No one says European Americans.

There actually was a colony of freed American slaves in Liberia. Their descendants dominated the politics until recently. Hence the name Liberia and the capitol Monrovia.

(10-31-2023 05:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:47 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 03:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 03:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  We're going in circle. If the friggin' POTUS at the time of the war said he'd keep the country together WITH slavery if possible, then I can't figure how anyone can say the reason for the war was to abolish slavery. Yes, I'll concede that it became a reason, but that was for pure political reasons to keep foreign powers out of the war. If Britain or France had joined the South, the US wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln didn't make it a moral fight out of the goodness of his heart, he only went that route to prevent being beaten. It worked. It was a brilliant political move.

I'm not a part of the discussion thread I pulled this from. However, I do think the ultimate root cause of the war was slavery. That said - it wasn't fought because the north wanted to abolish slavery. However, IMHO it ultimately came down to the south's lack of political power in the Federal gov't as a result of too many territories coming into the country as free states. While I fully understand the argument of states rights, i.e. being opposed to import/export controls that were designed to assist the north with industrializing while benefiting from the revenues of the southern cash crops, following connections that led to the south being it the position it was in and the economic development was due to slavery.

My understanding is the south seceded because those states felt their voices and POVs weren't addressed by the federal gov't. That was a result of the slave states not having sufficient political capital to have their policies enacted or at least compromises made to give the south some of what they wanted. They began losing that political capital over time due to 1) northern population growth compared to the south and 2) Territories choosing to enter the union as free states instead of as a balance between free and slave states. While the population growth situation was a loser for the south due to a lack of a diversified economy compared to the north - which was going to put them at a disadvantage in the House regardless - they still had a shot to keep parity in the senate until too many of the recent territories rejected slavery in their referendums and entered as free states. This was what ultimately "forced" them to secede. It wasn't the north wanting to abolish slavery, it was the south not having slavery expand to future territories in order to preserve enough political clout to get some of their issues addressed in the federal government.

Do you have a corporate job Miko? If you do you are indirectly involved in the slave trade, especially if your corporation uses sweatshops overseas. I'm not stating that a justification of what has passed, but as a jolt to the consciousness of contemporary moral crusaders involved with corporate multi-nationals. Sweatshops are essentially slave labor, human trafficking is still with us. Subsistence exchanged for labor are still with us. Sex trafficking is still with us. It's all an abomination and almost every American supports it whether through their unwitting stock portfolio, the corporation they are a part of, the products they obtain more cheaply, or the illicit activities some may engage in.

Now hoss, smoke that over and get back to me if you are sinless. Focusing on the cause of the Civil War is a common dodge that Northerners and corporate people take when they refuse to remove the log from their own eye, and 1865 is a speck in the vision of the contemporary. There are more forms of slavery today than at any point in human history. The Uyghurs are concentration camp slave labor in China. Warehoused women and children in Indonesia and other parts of Asia are slave labor. Those utilized by drug and sex trafficking anywhere are slave labor. Any forced labor under any kind of government are slave labor.

And something left out of your argument which I was content to let drop at the time is that New England sea captains trafficked slaves in hidden compartments of their merchant ships because it was more profitable. Northern industry traded with the slaveholding South, Northern sea captains profited through trafficking slaves. Northern investors owned and operated some of those ships. And yet the Civil War which was about many things aside from slavery, became the victors cover for their own culpability. And it's funny that the war was avoided until the South more closely partnered with the British in its sale of the commodity of cotton. Then the North got pissy.

The truth Miko is that both the North and South were involved in the slave trade, it's just that the South purchased the human being the North transported, admittedly along with the Portuguese and some profiteering sea captains of other nations. Appomattox didn't absolve the North of its guilt. Reconstruction was just the rape of business opportunities in the South, something Lincoln wanted to curtail which has long been suspicioned as the motive for his assassination, and reconstruction had little to do with cleaning up the abuses of slavery. Yankee hypocrisy on that issue has remained a divisive issue in the mind of many in the South, especially those old enough to remember Northern sundown laws in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana which prohibited blacks from being in the city limits after dark and I witnessed those first hand while living in the Northern Midwest of the early 60's. And the last bussing riots which involved desegregation were in Pontiac and Boston, and not in Birmingham and Atlanta.

Your position is nothing more than more excuse making and distancing from a national crime, rather than a regional one.

I've been waiting for you make that point ... I've intentionally stayed out of this ...

#irony

I didn't feel like hammering it out until Miko kept pushing his Northern bullshite talking points. Yankees use the Civil War to excuse their own prejudices and abuses and I saw plenty of them with the Sioux reservations across the Northern Midwest and the sundown exclusions of blacks. And their racism against blacks is carefully covered by social class segregation in the North, hence the outrage over bussing in Pontiac and Boston in the early 70s.

My word for it isn't as much irony as hypocrisy. When I lived in Washington state the blacks were a novelty at that time. Chinese and Japanese were discriminated against. When I lived in San Antonio it was Mexicans and Mexican Americans that were discriminated against. In New York and New Jersey, it was blacks and Puerto Ricans. People pick their prejudices, and the upper middle-class liberal is one of the most hypocritical of all because they shelter themselves from minorities and then absolve themselves of blame when they criticize everyone else for racism when their own social life and associations are carefully arranged to avoid those they disdain. It is disguised racism. Show me a human being and I'll show you a critter which is prejudiced. Victims of racism are just as prejudiced as their victimizer. Blacks hate Asians and many depending upon the location hate Jews. And many hate whites. Claiming that your great, great grandaddy was abused isn't a justification for your own hatred, nor does it absolve them of prejudice.

What the Air Force life taught me, and my grandfather reinforced, was that good and bad people come in all colors and ethnicities. You discern who people are by watching what they do. I don't care what nationality somebody is, or what race, if they are honest, keep their word, and do their work. I promote those. Sheep dipped piss and moaners who are passive aggressive I fire or run off as quickly as possible, especially entitled little *****. Those are the shirkers of responsibility, the sappers of morale in an organization, the backstabbing liars and gossips, and the sewers of discord and confusion in the workplace.

IMO, the destruction of our society is directly laid at the feet of public education because they are churning these bastards out at an alarming rate. And none of them are fit for military service because they hate authority and don't know how to do damn thing, except complain.

simple short story from my PDX days ... for those that remember, sorry, I've told this one before...

back in my previous life, a liberal coworker and I, were headed to Vancouver, WA to play golf at his parent's CC ... as we're driving through farmland after crossing the state line, we see three 'coloreds' walking the street (one black, two latino) - it's important to note that being from the 'sip is "racisss' by default - as ol' boy chirps, "WTF are they doing out here?!!! Don't they realize they'll get shot!!!"

needless to say, the handful of years I listened to his BS-ism fell right into my lap at that very moment ... he never had a chance after that, nor on the course! ...

so yeah, the hypocrisy via muh irony still runneth the thicket under the brush of me skull cap ...

w/o question, JR, I couldn't give two shites about one's skin color ... it starts with the introduction; then we move from there....

@realLifeExample

ref: JR's sig line 2

(10-31-2023 03:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 03:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  We're going in circle. If the friggin' POTUS at the time of the war said he'd keep the country together WITH slavery if possible, then I can't figure how anyone can say the reason for the war was to abolish slavery. Yes, I'll concede that it became a reason, but that was for pure political reasons to keep foreign powers out of the war. If Britain or France had joined the South, the US wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln didn't make it a moral fight out of the goodness of his heart, he only went that route to prevent being beaten. It worked. It was a brilliant political move.

I'm not a part of the discussion thread I pulled this from. However, I do think the ultimate root cause of the war was slavery. That said - it wasn't fought because the north wanted to abolish slavery. However, IMHO it ultimately came down to the south's lack of political power in the Federal gov't as a result of too many territories coming into the country as free states. While I fully understand the argument of states rights, i.e. being opposed to import/export controls that were designed to assist the north with industrializing while benefiting from the revenues of the southern cash crops, following connections that led to the south being it the position it was in and the economic development was due to slavery.

My understanding is the south seceded because those states felt their voices and POVs weren't addressed by the federal gov't. That was a result of the slave states not having sufficient political capital to have their policies enacted or at least compromises made to give the south some of what they wanted. They began losing that political capital over time due to 1) northern population growth compared to the south and 2) Territories choosing to enter the union as free states instead of as a balance between free and slave states. While the population growth situation was a loser for the south due to a lack of a diversified economy compared to the north - which was going to put them at a disadvantage in the House regardless - they still had a shot to keep parity in the senate until too many of the recent territories rejected slavery in their referendums and entered as free states. This was what ultimately "forced" them to secede. It wasn't the north wanting to abolish slavery, it was the south not having slavery expand to future territories in order to preserve enough political clout to get some of their issues addressed in the federal government.

Do you have a corporate job Miko? If you do you are indirectly involved in the slave trade, especially if your corporation uses sweatshops overseas. I'm not stating that as a justification of what has passed, but as a jolt to the consciousness of contemporary moral crusaders involved with corporate multi-nationals. Sweatshops are essentially slave labor; human trafficking is still with us. Subsistence exchanged for labor is still with us. Sex trafficking is still with us. It's all an abomination and almost every American supports it whether through their unwitting stock portfolio, the corporation of which they are a part, the products they obtain more cheaply, or the illicit activities some may engage in.

Now hoss, smoke that over and get back to me if you are sinless. Focusing on the cause of the Civil War is a common dodge that Northerners and corporate people take when they refuse to remove the log from their own eye, and 1865 is a speck in the vision of the contemporary. There are more forms of slavery today than at any point in human history. The Uyghurs are concentration camp slave labor in China. Warehoused women and children in Indonesia and other parts of Asia are slave labor. Those utilized by drug and sex trafficking anywhere are slave labor. Any forced labor under any kind of government is slave labor.

And something left out of your argument which I was content to let drop at the time is that New England sea captains trafficked slaves in hidden compartments of their merchant ships because it was more profitable. Northern industry traded with the slaveholding South, Therefore, Northern industrialists profited through slave labor. Northern investors owned and operated some of those slave ships. And yet the Civil War, which was about many things aside from slavery, became the victor's cover for their own culpability. And it's funny that the war was avoided until the South more closely partnered with the British in its sale of the commodity cotton. Then, and mostly then, the North got pissy.

The truth Miko is that both the North and South were involved in the slave trade, it's just that the South purchased the human beings the North transported, admittedly along with the Portuguese and some profiteering sea captains of other nations. Appomattox didn't absolve the North of its guilt. Reconstruction was just the rape of business opportunities in the South, something Lincoln wanted to curtail which has long been suspicioned as the motive for his assassination, and reconstruction had little to do with cleaning up the abuses of slavery. Yankee hypocrisy on that issue has remained a divisive issue in the mind of many in the South, especially those old enough to remember Northern sundown laws in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana which prohibited blacks from being in the city limits after dark and I witnessed those firsthand while living in the Northern Midwest of the early 60's. And the last bussing riots which involved desegregation were in Pontiac and Boston, and not in Birmingham and Atlanta.

Your position is nothing more than more excuse making and distancing from a national crime, rather than a regional one.

LOL, I'm simply stating how things were leading up to the Civil War. Sure, New England and the Mid-Atlantic states were involved in the slave trade. They participated in slavery same as any other part of the colonies. Hell, they transported slaves to Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba and other parts of the Caribbean. The British engaged in the slave trade too and also brought slaves to the New World. Slave trade was abolished in 1807. Yet the south had more slaves than when the slave trade ceased in America. How did that happen? The Southern Royalty bred their slaves like cattle. Obvious, right? How else would the Southern Royal Families keep their economic model running?

I'm sure there isn't a single person that commented in this thread - regardless of their views - that think slavery is morally acceptable. I don't believe you are that type of person, JR. Saying all that, why are you so emotional about this subject? Read my posts again and you'll see that I laid out what I think led up to the Civil War in as logical and accurate assessment to the best of my knowledge. You state the secession movement was a matter of preserving the southern states rights and its economic future. I fully agree with that. That said, the southern interests were built upon slavery. Protecting slavery was within the south's economic interests and all of the past compromises for territories becoming states - like the Missouri compromise - was done to maintain the political power of the agrarian economy states. There's no disputing that or the original southern slave states wouldn't care if all of the future territories were free states. Therefore, more slave states meant more political power for the Plantation Owners in the federal gov't.

I never, ever stated in this thread that the root cause of the Civil War was so the North could have slavery abolished in the entire United States because it's a morally repugnant institution. I DID state that I think the Plantation Owners had their states secede from the Union because they felt they no longer had enough political power in the federal gov't to get what they wanted on the federal level. That loss of political capital was a combination of 3 things: 1) Greater population growth in the north due to more economic opportunities for immigrants vs what was offered in the south, 2) Losing the free vs slave state designations for territories becoming states and 3) When the slaves are to be counted as 3/5ths of a person rule in the Constitution (first time bringing this one up) - which goes to the loss of political power due to population differences over time as it pertains to representation in the Federal Legislature. This is why I think slavery is the root of it all - and it's not from the position of an abolitionist looking down his nose at the south.

Regarding your claims of hypocrisy you observed IRL and in history from the reconstruction thru the Civil Rights marches - IDGAF. Not saying that to be mean or dismissive, but I strongly mean that because the discussion I was engaged in had to do with what brought us to the Civil War. What came afterwards is not germane to the discussions about the Civil War. Personally and from a moral and just POV - you're absolutely correct in stating that racism was (still is) universal across all of the U.S. no matter what direction we are talking. KKK had a huge presence in Indiana in the early 20th century. I know the KKK still has a presence in PA.

Final words - maybe you aren't sure of what my position was with the original post...but I was AGAINST seeing the REL statue being melted down in secret. I think it should have been preserved and all of our history should be preserved regardless of how any people in the U.S. may look. Knowing who we are and were is critical to determining how we move forward as a country. So to me - accuracy in our history is important.

(10-31-2023 06:49 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 03:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 03:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  We're going in circle. If the friggin' POTUS at the time of the war said he'd keep the country together WITH slavery if possible, then I can't figure how anyone can say the reason for the war was to abolish slavery. Yes, I'll concede that it became a reason, but that was for pure political reasons to keep foreign powers out of the war. If Britain or France had joined the South, the US wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln didn't make it a moral fight out of the goodness of his heart, he only went that route to prevent being beaten. It worked. It was a brilliant political move.

I'm not a part of the discussion thread I pulled this from. However, I do think the ultimate root cause of the war was slavery. That said - it wasn't fought because the north wanted to abolish slavery. However, IMHO it ultimately came down to the south's lack of political power in the Federal gov't as a result of too many territories coming into the country as free states. While I fully understand the argument of states rights, i.e. being opposed to import/export controls that were designed to assist the north with industrializing while benefiting from the revenues of the southern cash crops, following connections that led to the south being it the position it was in and the economic development was due to slavery.

My understanding is the south seceded because those states felt their voices and POVs weren't addressed by the federal gov't. That was a result of the slave states not having sufficient political capital to have their policies enacted or at least compromises made to give the south some of what they wanted. They began losing that political capital over time due to 1) northern population growth compared to the south and 2) Territories choosing to enter the union as free states instead of as a balance between free and slave states. While the population growth situation was a loser for the south due to a lack of a diversified economy compared to the north - which was going to put them at a disadvantage in the House regardless - they still had a shot to keep parity in the senate until too many of the recent territories rejected slavery in their referendums and entered as free states. This was what ultimately "forced" them to secede. It wasn't the north wanting to abolish slavery, it was the south not having slavery expand to future territories in order to preserve enough political clout to get some of their issues addressed in the federal government.

Do you have a corporate job Miko? If you do you are indirectly involved in the slave trade, especially if your corporation uses sweatshops overseas. I'm not stating that as a justification of what has passed, but as a jolt to the consciousness of contemporary moral crusaders involved with corporate multi-nationals. Sweatshops are essentially slave labor; human trafficking is still with us. Subsistence exchanged for labor is still with us. Sex trafficking is still with us. It's all an abomination and almost every American supports it whether through their unwitting stock portfolio, the corporation of which they are a part, the products they obtain more cheaply, or the illicit activities some may engage in.

Now hoss, smoke that over and get back to me if you are sinless. Focusing on the cause of the Civil War is a common dodge that Northerners and corporate people take when they refuse to remove the log from their own eye, and 1865 is a speck in the vision of the contemporary. There are more forms of slavery today than at any point in human history. The Uyghurs are concentration camp slave labor in China. Warehoused women and children in Indonesia and other parts of Asia are slave labor. Those utilized by drug and sex trafficking anywhere are slave labor. Any forced labor under any kind of government is slave labor.

And something left out of your argument which I was content to let drop at the time is that New England sea captains trafficked slaves in hidden compartments of their merchant ships because it was more profitable. Northern industry traded with the slaveholding South, Therefore, Northern industrialists profited through slave labor. Northern investors owned and operated some of those slave ships. And yet the Civil War, which was about many things aside from slavery, became the victor's cover for their own culpability. And it's funny that the war was avoided until the South more closely partnered with the British in its sale of the commodity cotton. Then, and mostly then, the North got pissy.

The truth Miko is that both the North and South were involved in the slave trade, it's just that the South purchased the human beings the North transported, admittedly along with the Portuguese and some profiteering sea captains of other nations. Appomattox didn't absolve the North of its guilt. Reconstruction was just the rape of business opportunities in the South, something Lincoln wanted to curtail which has long been suspicioned as the motive for his assassination, and reconstruction had little to do with cleaning up the abuses of slavery. Yankee hypocrisy on that issue has remained a divisive issue in the mind of many in the South, especially those old enough to remember Northern sundown laws in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana which prohibited blacks from being in the city limits after dark and I witnessed those firsthand while living in the Northern Midwest of the early 60's. And the last bussing riots which involved desegregation were in Pontiac and Boston, and not in Birmingham and Atlanta.

Your position is nothing more than more excuse making and distancing from a national crime, rather than a regional one.

LOL, I'm simply stating how things were leading up to the Civil War. Sure, New England and the Mid-Atlantic states were involved in the slave trade. They participated in slavery same as any other part of the colonies. Hell, they transported slaves to Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba and other parts of the Caribbean. The British engaged in the slave trade too and also brought slaves to the New World. Slave trade was abolished in 1807. Yet the south had more slaves than when the slave trade ceased in America. How did that happen? The Southern Royalty bred their slaves like cattle. Obvious, right? How else would the Southern Royal Families keep their economic model running?

I'm sure there isn't a single person that commented in this thread - regardless of their views - that think slavery is morally acceptable. I don't believe you are that type of person, JR. Saying all that, why are you so emotional about this subject? Read my posts again and you'll see that I laid out what I think led up to the Civil War in as logical and accurate assessment to the best of my knowledge. You state the secession movement was a matter of preserving the southern states rights and its economic future. I fully agree with that. That said, the southern interests were built upon slavery. Protecting slavery was within the south's economic interests and all of the past compromises for territories becoming states - like the Missouri compromise - was done to maintain the political power of the agrarian economy states. There's no disputing that or the original southern slave states wouldn't care if all of the future territories were free states. Therefore, more slave states meant more political power for the Plantation Owners in the federal gov't.

I never, ever stated in this thread that the root cause of the Civil War was so the North could have slavery abolished in the entire United States because it's a morally repugnant institution. I DID state that I think the Plantation Owners had their states secede from the Union because they felt they no longer had enough political power in the federal gov't to get what they wanted on the federal level. That loss of political capital was a combination of 3 things: 1) Greater population growth in the north due to more economic opportunities for immigrants vs what was offered in the south, 2) Losing the free vs slave state designations for territories becoming states and 3) When the slaves are to be counted as 3/5ths of a person rule in the Constitution (first time bringing this one up) - which goes to the loss of political power due to population differences over time as it pertains to representation in the Federal Legislature. This is why I think slavery is the root of it all - and it's not from the position of an abolitionist looking down his nose at the south.

Regarding your claims of hypocrisy you observed IRL and in history from the reconstruction thru the Civil Rights marches - IDGAF. Not saying that to be mean or dismissive, but I strongly mean that because the discussion I was engaged in had to do with what brought us to the Civil War. What came afterwards is not germane to the discussions about the Civil War. Personally and from a moral and just POV - you're absolutely correct in stating that racism was (still is) universal across all of the U.S. no matter what direction we are talking. KKK had a huge presence in Indiana in the early 20th century. I know the KKK still has a presence in PA.

Final words - maybe you aren't sure of what my position was with the original post...but I was AGAINST seeing the REL statue being melted down in secret. I think it should have been preserved and all of our history should be preserved regardless of how any people in the U.S. may look. Knowing who we are and were is critical to determining how we move forward as a country. So to me - accuracy in our history is important.

You can sum it up with the word, "Truth". And as I said in another post in the Spin Room, where truth is lost, or no longer valued, tyranny sets up residence. But understand this, "Truth" is an onion it is a simple expression backed up by layers of complexity.

I don't know you, and can't discern your intent, or understand your nature, so I default to truth in all of it's glory and in light of all of the ugliness it shines upon with its light. The complexity of it is what schools should teach. We would have better people and a better nation.

(10-31-2023 06:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 06:49 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 03:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 03:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 02:39 PM)VA49er Wrote:  We're going in circle. If the friggin' POTUS at the time of the war said he'd keep the country together WITH slavery if possible, then I can't figure how anyone can say the reason for the war was to abolish slavery. Yes, I'll concede that it became a reason, but that was for pure political reasons to keep foreign powers out of the war. If Britain or France had joined the South, the US wouldn't have stood a chance. Lincoln didn't make it a moral fight out of the goodness of his heart, he only went that route to prevent being beaten. It worked. It was a brilliant political move.

I'm not a part of the discussion thread I pulled this from. However, I do think the ultimate root cause of the war was slavery. That said - it wasn't fought because the north wanted to abolish slavery. However, IMHO it ultimately came down to the south's lack of political power in the Federal gov't as a result of too many territories coming into the country as free states. While I fully understand the argument of states rights, i.e. being opposed to import/export controls that were designed to assist the north with industrializing while benefiting from the revenues of the southern cash crops, following connections that led to the south being it the position it was in and the economic development was due to slavery.

My understanding is the south seceded because those states felt their voices and POVs weren't addressed by the federal gov't. That was a result of the slave states not having sufficient political capital to have their policies enacted or at least compromises made to give the south some of what they wanted. They began losing that political capital over time due to 1) northern population growth compared to the south and 2) Territories choosing to enter the union as free states instead of as a balance between free and slave states. While the population growth situation was a loser for the south due to a lack of a diversified economy compared to the north - which was going to put them at a disadvantage in the House regardless - they still had a shot to keep parity in the senate until too many of the recent territories rejected slavery in their referendums and entered as free states. This was what ultimately "forced" them to secede. It wasn't the north wanting to abolish slavery, it was the south not having slavery expand to future territories in order to preserve enough political clout to get some of their issues addressed in the federal government.

Do you have a corporate job Miko? If you do you are indirectly involved in the slave trade, especially if your corporation uses sweatshops overseas. I'm not stating that as a justification of what has passed, but as a jolt to the consciousness of contemporary moral crusaders involved with corporate multi-nationals. Sweatshops are essentially slave labor; human trafficking is still with us. Subsistence exchanged for labor is still with us. Sex trafficking is still with us. It's all an abomination and almost every American supports it whether through their unwitting stock portfolio, the corporation of which they are a part, the products they obtain more cheaply, or the illicit activities some may engage in.

Now hoss, smoke that over and get back to me if you are sinless. Focusing on the cause of the Civil War is a common dodge that Northerners and corporate people take when they refuse to remove the log from their own eye, and 1865 is a speck in the vision of the contemporary. There are more forms of slavery today than at any point in human history. The Uyghurs are concentration camp slave labor in China. Warehoused women and children in Indonesia and other parts of Asia are slave labor. Those utilized by drug and sex trafficking anywhere are slave labor. Any forced labor under any kind of government is slave labor.

And something left out of your argument which I was content to let drop at the time is that New England sea captains trafficked slaves in hidden compartments of their merchant ships because it was more profitable. Northern industry traded with the slaveholding South, Therefore, Northern industrialists profited through slave labor. Northern investors owned and operated some of those slave ships. And yet the Civil War, which was about many things aside from slavery, became the victor's cover for their own culpability. And it's funny that the war was avoided until the South more closely partnered with the British in its sale of the commodity cotton. Then, and mostly then, the North got pissy.

The truth Miko is that both the North and South were involved in the slave trade, it's just that the South purchased the human beings the North transported, admittedly along with the Portuguese and some profiteering sea captains of other nations. Appomattox didn't absolve the North of its guilt. Reconstruction was just the rape of business opportunities in the South, something Lincoln wanted to curtail which has long been suspicioned as the motive for his assassination, and reconstruction had little to do with cleaning up the abuses of slavery. Yankee hypocrisy on that issue has remained a divisive issue in the mind of many in the South, especially those old enough to remember Northern sundown laws in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana which prohibited blacks from being in the city limits after dark and I witnessed those firsthand while living in the Northern Midwest of the early 60's. And the last bussing riots which involved desegregation were in Pontiac and Boston, and not in Birmingham and Atlanta.

Your position is nothing more than more excuse making and distancing from a national crime, rather than a regional one.

LOL, I'm simply stating how things were leading up to the Civil War. Sure, New England and the Mid-Atlantic states were involved in the slave trade. They participated in slavery same as any other part of the colonies. Hell, they transported slaves to Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba and other parts of the Caribbean. The British engaged in the slave trade too and also brought slaves to the New World. Slave trade was abolished in 1807. Yet the south had more slaves than when the slave trade ceased in America. How did that happen? The Southern Royalty bred their slaves like cattle. Obvious, right? How else would the Southern Royal Families keep their economic model running?

I'm sure there isn't a single person that commented in this thread - regardless of their views - that think slavery is morally acceptable. I don't believe you are that type of person, JR. Saying all that, why are you so emotional about this subject? Read my posts again and you'll see that I laid out what I think led up to the Civil War in as logical and accurate assessment to the best of my knowledge. You state the secession movement was a matter of preserving the southern states rights and its economic future. I fully agree with that. That said, the southern interests were built upon slavery. Protecting slavery was within the south's economic interests and all of the past compromises for territories becoming states - like the Missouri compromise - was done to maintain the political power of the agrarian economy states. There's no disputing that or the original southern slave states wouldn't care if all of the future territories were free states. Therefore, more slave states meant more political power for the Plantation Owners in the federal gov't.

I never, ever stated in this thread that the root cause of the Civil War was so the North could have slavery abolished in the entire United States because it's a morally repugnant institution. I DID state that I think the Plantation Owners had their states secede from the Union because they felt they no longer had enough political power in the federal gov't to get what they wanted on the federal level. That loss of political capital was a combination of 3 things: 1) Greater population growth in the north due to more economic opportunities for immigrants vs what was offered in the south, 2) Losing the free vs slave state designations for territories becoming states and 3) When the slaves are to be counted as 3/5ths of a person rule in the Constitution (first time bringing this one up) - which goes to the loss of political power due to population differences over time as it pertains to representation in the Federal Legislature. This is why I think slavery is the root of it all - and it's not from the position of an abolitionist looking down his nose at the south.

Regarding your claims of hypocrisy you observed IRL and in history from the reconstruction thru the Civil Rights marches - IDGAF. Not saying that to be mean or dismissive, but I strongly mean that because the discussion I was engaged in had to do with what brought us to the Civil War. What came afterwards is not germane to the discussions about the Civil War. Personally and from a moral and just POV - you're absolutely correct in stating that racism was (still is) universal across all of the U.S. no matter what direction we are talking. KKK had a huge presence in Indiana in the early 20th century. I know the KKK still has a presence in PA.

Final words - maybe you aren't sure of what my position was with the original post...but I was AGAINST seeing the REL statue being melted down in secret. I think it should have been preserved and all of our history should be preserved regardless of how any people in the U.S. may look. Knowing who we are and were is critical to determining how we move forward as a country. So to me - accuracy in our history is important.

You can sum it up with the word, "Truth". And as I said in another post in the Spin Room, where truth is lost, or no longer valued, tyranny sets up residence. But understand this, "Truth" is an onion it is a simple expression backed up by layers of complexity.

I don't know you, and can't discern your intent, or understand your nature, so I default to truth in all of it's glory and in light of all of the ugliness it shines upon with its light. The complexity of it is what schools should teach. We would have better people and a better nation.

Not sure how to interpret your latest comment. Are you saying you can’t discern my intent or understand my nature in a general sense due to not knowing me or are you being more specific by telling me that I’m too cryptic or erratic?

(10-31-2023 05:38 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:42 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 11:14 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 11:09 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 11:00 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  You're defending the confederacy... but I'm the dumba$$.

Sounds like it was as hospitable in the confederacy for the poor whites as it was for the slaves. WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN.

He's not defending the Confederacy and you know it.

Another thing that is lost and almost never taught that goes along with Northern Aggression idea that folks in the South believed was that a large number of Lee's Soldiers refused to go to Pennsylvania. They were only interested in defending.

Defending what exactly?

Defending land that belongs to the American government?
Defending slavery?
Defending their homes that wouldn't need defending if they didn't secede?

If you haven’t noticed I’ll clue you in, when I want to have a discussion with a sounding board I’ll interact with you. I can get your views from any newspaper, news channel, or social site. So, until you actually have thoughts of your own and can actually understand others viewpoints your just a waste of time.

Got it. Don't respond with my viewpoints unless they already agree with yours.

No worries, I rarely respond to you as it is, I doubt it will be an issue in the future

Those are not your viewpoints they are a regurgitation of what you’ve been spoon fed. Rarely do you have any original ideas or even attempt to understand anyone’s views.

(10-31-2023 05:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 04:49 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 09:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 10:20 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  The executive actions taken by Lincoln in violation of the Constitution, particularly revoking habeus corpus (arresting and detaining opponents of the War), was clearly dictatorial and wrong. It is really surprising that some of the normally well-enlightened folks on this forum are ignorant of these facts.

If I were to rank Lincoln and Lee and Sherman (and I know direct decendents of both Generals), Lee would be ranked as the most moral and logical, with Lincoln and Sherman distant #2 and #3. Lincoln was no Saint and Sherman even worse.

At the same time, you can't judge people based on today's morals.

Sherman is still a 4 letter word in Georgia. He intended to "make Georgia howl." He did. And it would be a war crime today, but much of it was necessary to end the war.

Lincoln freed the slaves in the seceding states. He also wanted to ship them to Liberia instead of having them stay here.

First thought was South America.

The problem I see with Lincoln’s idea was that these Black folks had their culture erased and the only thing they really knew was life here. Thus, they had every right to be here.

How different and much better their lives would be today if Democrats would’ve actually cared about them instead of their value as voters.

Democrats = Social Decay of Society

Not to sound indifferent but the term African American is just a way to tell people what color they are. No one says European Americans.

There actually was a colony of freed American slaves in Liberia. Their descendants dominated the politics until recently. Hence the name Liberia and the capitol Monrovia.

Yes, Liberia was a passage back for those blacks who wanted to return to Africa.

Teh melts in this thread sre greater than 100 statues.

Knowlegde scares prog filth. Mskes them uncomfortable that there world view (where the derive their identity) may be a little off

Hence the great universal reeeeeeee3

If this "repurposed" statue is anywhere around the RVA area, I'll make sure to drink heavily prior and bring my Corgi to piss all over it. Inclusivity is nothing more than favoritism to those groups deemed protected. Sorry, not playing.