If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Dread Scott, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Fugitive Slave Act, off the top of my head.
Only one of those address parity, and didn't provide it. By the time Kansas was decided (as a free state), there were three new free states and no new slave states.
The following question has nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of slavery.
Was the South mistaken in their belief the only way they would be able to keep slavery legal was through congressional parity?
Only one of those address parity, and didn't provide it.
Fair point. My counterpoint: Parity is meaningless when you're winning the battle.
Originally Posted by subego
Was the South mistaken in their belief the only way they would be able to keep slavery legal was through congressional parity?
Based on the past decade, yes. Particularly if it was going to require a constitutional amendment to outlaw. Also, hey south: Democracy – how does it work?
---
If future math was indeed the deciding factor, then what you're describing sounds to me like pre-emptive secession, which make 1860 even more absurd.
This is also where I run into mind-grinding issue like subego telling me the South was ****ed while Shaddim claimed slavery was on its way out even there.
Any reference material before say 1930? This is sounding more like blather from Chris Matthews. Keep up the revisionist BS. PLEASE DON'T READ ANY OLD NEWSPAPERS FROM THE TIMES YOU ARE DISCUSSING.
Any reference material before say 1930? This is sounding more like blather from Chris Matthews. Keep up the revisionist BS. PLEASE DON'T READ ANY OLD NEWSPAPERS FROM THE TIMES YOU ARE DISCUSSING.
You continue to be long on such claims and short on references. And are not the original secession documents themselves "reference material before say 1930"?
Fair point. My counterpoint: Parity is meaningless when you're winning the battle.
Based on the past decade, yes. Particularly if it was going to require a constitutional amendment to outlaw. Also, hey south: Democracy – how does it work?
---
If future math was indeed the deciding factor, then what you're describing sounds to me like pre-emptive secession, which make 1860 even more absurd.
No, problem, Mr. Polite. Honest answer: Secession is like a divorce on a grander scale (More lives affected, more repercussions, etc.). Pre-emptive divorce because you and your partner might not agree on things in a few years is crazy. Pre-emeptive secession when you have the upper hand is way more nuts.
I suppose it could be viewed as quitting a game before you lose, but that strikes me as an emotional action that is also absurd.
I mean, you're fairly arguing the writing was on the wall, but in that case you're restructuring an entire nation to prolong the inevitable. Which is really reminiscent of gay marriage, and makes me wonder if their push in 1850s didn't result in Radical Republicans gaining momentum.
I don't believe in absolutes, but I do think the negatives far outweigh the positives. Particularly in light of how it came back to prominence.
Seems like you're endorsing absolutes to me. Lately (since the early `00s) it came back to prominence because the federal gov't was becoming more authoritarian, when we started being stripped of our civil liberties.
It was not distorted. It was flying on state grounds (which everything I saw cited), and I would add that it was flying over the capital until the year 2000 so its not like this was along resolved issue, too.
I don't see how this is sanitizing history. No one is pretending it didn't exist and no is barring it from being displayed in historical or personal settings. Removing it from state grounds harm no one. Limits no ones speech. Changes no history.
Of course it's sanitizing history, because that's what progressivism is: "Let's change the past for a better tomorrow."
I think we need to be able to change the name of a ****ing NFL team before we can even consider that question.
The football team didn't murder >500k Native Americans, of all ages in the most savage ways, then force the rest on to federal prison camps. The USA did that, with the Stars and Stripes flying high over those conquests for >100 years. I missed where that happened to black people. Oh, that's right, the Rebel battle flag was officially only around for a few years, during military campaigns, and slaves weren't forced to look at it every day after their nation and culture was destroyed.
Let's not play that card because both sides have lobbies. This isn't vindictive. People have been consistently against this for years. Its just that it finally happened.
Obviously indians need better representation, because they don't get shit compared to blacks.
What finally happened is ignorance over the Rebel flag reached critical mass, likely due to the shit state of affairs with public schools and decades of teaching revisionist history.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No, problem, Mr. Polite. Honest answer: Secession is like a divorce on a grander scale (More lives affected, more repercussions, etc.). Pre-emptive divorce because you and your partner might not agree on things in a few years is crazy. Pre-emeptive secession when you have the upper hand is way more nuts.
I suppose it could be viewed as quitting a game before you lose, but that strikes me as an emotional action that is also absurd.
I mean, you're fairly arguing the writing was on the wall, but in that case you're restructuring an entire nation to prolong the inevitable. Which is really reminiscent of gay marriage, and makes me wonder if their push in 1850s didn't result in Radical Republicans gaining momentum.
If I understand correctly, the slave states considered the terms of the marriage more strict than you posit here. Parity was a non-negotiable term, and their participation in the Union up to that point had been contingent upon it. This is why the slave states would approve of Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act, but wouldn't consider them substitutes for lack of parity.
(
Last edited by subego; Jul 3, 2015 at 03:47 PM.
)
You continue to be long on such claims and short on references. And are not the original secession documents themselves "reference material before say 1930"?
OAW
That is because I've read over 6000 weekly news papers from that window of time doing research on the development of the railroads, and The depth and details of them would take me a month to explain them to you. Perhaps you might at least go to a library (They DO have libraries where you are??) and read through at least 50 or so. Pick a decade. Maybe I'm more curious than you are. Maybe I read faster than you. At least you won't be reading any revisionist BS. You'll find the advertisements to be a hoot.
No, problem, Mr. Polite. Honest answer: Secession is like a divorce on a grander scale (More lives affected, more repercussions, etc.). Pre-emptive divorce because you and your partner might not agree on things in a few years is crazy. Pre-emeptive secession when you have the upper hand is way more nuts.
I suppose it could be viewed as quitting a game before you lose, but that strikes me as an emotional action that is also absurd.
I mean, you're fairly arguing the writing was on the wall, but in that case you're restructuring an entire nation to prolong the inevitable. Which is really reminiscent of gay marriage, and makes me wonder if their push in 1850s didn't result in Radical Republicans gaining momentum.
To carry the marriage analogy out further, the slave states were "winning" the same way someone who has a nice house, car, and a partner who cheats is "winning". The part they're winning at doesn't necessarily act as acceptable compensation for the losses incurred.
That is because I've read over 6000 weekly news papers from that window of time doing research on the development of the railroads, and The depth and details of them would take me a month to explain them to you. Perhaps you might at least go to a library (They DO have libraries where you are??) and read through at least 50 or so. Pick a decade. Maybe I'm more curious than you are. Maybe I read faster than you. At least you won't be reading any revisionist BS. You'll find the advertisements to be a hoot.
And so you are hellbent on simply ignoring my point about the original secession documents huh? Ok.
BadKosh is contending that newspaper articles at the time paint a different story. Of what exactly I'm not sure. As is his style he tends not to elaborate. My point is that the original secession documents made it abundantly clear what the Civil War was all about. I'd need to see some serious references to make me believe that the authors secession documents in every single state Confederate State was just bullsh*tting. Just saying. ...
BadKosh is contending that newspaper articles at the time paint a different story. Of what exactly I'm not sure. As is his style he tends not to elaborate. My point is that the original secession documents made it abundantly clear what the Civil War was all about. I'd need to see some serious references to make me believe that the authors secession documents in every single state Confederate State was just bullsh*tting. Just saying. ...
OAW
Unless you actually understand, in context, you don't understand the culture, mindset, and attitudes of the people at the time. You might be interested in the arguments on both sides, how they were presented and what was important to them. Reading old weeklys from Pennsylvania are much different than those of North Carolina, or Virginia. You might temper your understanding by reading some.
Your statement "My point is that the original secession documents made it abundantly clear what the Civil War was all about." Is irritating because wasn't "ALL ABOUT" but just one of many reasons.
Unless you actually understand, in context, you don't understand the culture, mindset, and attitudes of the people at the time. You might be interested in the arguments on both sides, how they were presented and what was important to them. Reading old weeklys from Pennsylvania are much different than those of North Carolina, or Virginia. You might temper your understanding by reading some.
Your statement "My point is that the original secession documents made it abundantly clear what the Civil War was all about." Is irritating because wasn't "ALL ABOUT" but just one of many reasons.
OAW has cited and quoted primary sources in this thread fairly extensively to support his argument.
Are you unable or simply unwilling to do the same?
OAW has cited and quoted primary sources in this thread fairly extensively to support his argument.
You mean agenda? Because a little digging, and reading, shows that there were a myriad of different perspectives at the time, not just the one being pushed by the progressive establishment.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The modern equivalent of your average, mid-18th century, white Southerner isn't a white supremacist, it's a jihadist.
An 18th century, white Southerner would consider the proposition they're fighting for slavery similar to the way a modern jihadist would consider the proposition they're fighting for burqas. Perhaps technically correct, but missing the point.
Southerners back then were less concerned over religion than they are today. Also, Burqa ownership is common today, whereas slave ownership wasn't common then, and was often looked down upon and found distasteful in many circles (the underground railroad did in fact start in the South, after all).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The modern equivalent of your average, mid-18th century, white Southerner isn't a white supremacist, it's a jihadist.
An 18th century, white Southerner would consider the proposition they're fighting for slavery similar to the way a modern jihadist would consider the proposition they're fighting for burqas. Perhaps technically correct, but missing the point.
[Toss]
I'm not sure I fully understand your analogy: burquas are in the mind of a jihadist part and parcel to implementing Sharia law. So you are saying that the Southerners were fighting for a life style where slave ownership was an integral part of, although just one component of a bigger whole?
Originally Posted by BadKosh
Unless you actually understand, in context, you don't understand the culture, mindset, and attitudes of the people at the time.
The news paper articles as well as other sources just give you a very, very selective picture of how life was, namely from the perspective of white people. And that is the crux of the whole issue here: seen from the perspective of white people, to some the flag means more or something different than just slavery. But to others, this is very different.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Of course, there are some real gems out there in social justice, so the sources of many of the wacko opinions regarding slavery and the South (college professors) aren't too hard to find. One such example is Assistant Professor of Humanities Adam Kotsko at Shimer College in Chicago:
You aren't being being serious, right?
Okay then... You first, prof. Oh, you really were kidding? (After waiting 3 days, he made a retraction, which was posted on his site, not Twitter.)
After enduring several days of death threats and "hateful responses", he closed his Twitter account to the general public. Hey man, they were just trying to help you out, in case you didn't have the courage of your convictions to follow through on your end of the suicide pact.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm not sure I fully understand your analogy: burquas are in the mind of a jihadist part and parcel to implementing Sharia law. So you are saying that the Southerners were fighting for a life style where slave ownership was an integral part of, although just one component of a bigger whole?
That's part of it, along with how jihadists tend to get cut a certain amount of slack for being a product of their culture, while (modern) white supremacists are pretty explicitly counter-culture.
Southerners back then were less concerned over religion than they are today. Also, Burqa ownership is common today, whereas slave ownership wasn't common then, and was often looked down upon and found distasteful in many circles (the underground railroad did in fact start in the South, after all).
I would say Southerners back then were less interested over using religion as a vehicle for identity politics, but my understanding is they (for the most part) believed the shit at an equal or greater rate.
We're the major players in the Underground Railroad average white Southerners or the elites?
That's part of it, along with how jihadists tend to get cut a certain amount of slack for being a product of their culture, while (modern) white supremacists are pretty explicitly counter-culture.
Ah, so in that picture we would cut slack for the ignorant Southerner who feel some emotional attachment to the Confederate flag, right? (I just want to understand to what extent you want to extend the analogy.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
As far as a modern, non-racist person who has an emotional attachment to the flag, of which there are many, I'd cut them lots of slack, but I'd mention what I mentioned above: the things society has done which makes them feel an emotional attachment to the flag are essentially the same things society has done to the people the flag offends most.
They should consider letting go of that attachment out of a sense of fellowship with those who are in the same boat.
I would say Southerners back then were less interested over using religion as a vehicle for identity politics, but my understanding is they (for the most part) believed the shit at an equal or greater rate.
There's really no way to substantiate that.
We're the major players in the Underground Railroad average white Southerners or the elites?
Below the M-D line it was Southern whites, yes.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Why does it matter? I'd say it was more the average Southerner, which coincidentally, were the ones more likely to be soldiers and more likely to be waving the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (aka. the rebel flag) in the first place.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Why does it matter? I'd say it was more the average Southerner, which coincidentally, were the ones more likely to be soldiers and more likely to be waving the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (aka. the rebel flag) in the first place.
I'm trying to apply the argument the Southern efforts with the Underground Railroad demonstrate the mindset of the average white Southerner.
If the major players were elites, I posit it's not telling us much about the average white Southerner.
I assumed the major players were elites, because that's usually how this type of things work, but I could be completely wrong, and it's worthy of investigation.
Indeed. The people flying the Stars & Bars in remembrance of fallen Confederate soldiers (who are their ancestors) aren't praising the Southern elites who were profiting directly from slavery. The progressive narrative that the flag is a symbol of racism is simply cognitive dissonance, completely divorced from the reality of what it was like during the decades of war and Reconstruction. If the war was fought strictly over slavery (a laughable premise), then what kind of miscarriage of justice was it to punish a people who never owned (or ever desired to own) slaves in the first place? You think the wealthiest of people in the South, (you know, the actual slavers) were harmed by Reconstruction? Hell no, they all left for South America and Europe.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Indeed. The people flying the Stars & Bars in remembrance of fallen Confederate soldiers (who are their ancestors) aren't praising the Southern elites who were profiting directly from slavery. The progressive narrative that the flag is a symbol of racism is simply cognitive dissonance, completely divorced from the reality of what it was like during the decades of war and Reconstruction. If the war was fought strictly over slavery (a laughable premise), then what kind of miscarriage of justice was it to punish a people who never owned (or ever desired to own) slaves in the first place? You think the wealthiest of people in the South, (you know, the actual slavers) were harmed by Reconstruction? Hell no, they all left for South America and Europe.
That was Argentina and this was Brazil, but good point. I'll admit, I wouldn't stay and let my family come to harm either. We have the capacity to run pretty much anywhere, and would if the political atmosphere in the USA became toxic, but I've never ran concentration camps nor owned slaves. (Though in the twisted minds of certain extremists on the Left I'm probably just as bad. To wit, I say they can all go to hell.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm just going to put this out here since certain Neo-Confederates continue to talk sh*t. Did anyone happen to read my post where it spoke about the average income derived from the slavery economy among those whites who didn't even own slaves themselves? The ones that included references? Did that just disappear into the ether? Was I just talking? I mean I know some of us around here are inclined to dismiss these little things we call FACTS while harping about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (as if that's some kind of argument) ... but that is just so tired. Because it is based upon this erroneous presupposition that African-American public opinion is dictated by certain civil rights activists who are simply doing their job. A job that wouldn't even be necessary if it weren't for certain documentable facts that some among us would prefer went unmentioned. Like those original secession documents. Like certain sources that actually stated other than what some around here portrayed in a public forum that could be fact checked. But hey ... all you have to do is try to dismiss me as a "Social Justice Warrior" and that just completely erases obvious misrepresentation that was clearly visible in black and white right?
OAW
PS. Some people continue to try to convince themselves and others into thinking that I don't peep game. They would be sorely mistaken.
I'm just going to put this out here since certain Neo-Confederates continue to talk sh*t...
Go **** an anthill.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Indeed. The people flying the Stars & Bars in remembrance of fallen Confederate soldiers (who are their ancestors) aren't praising the Southern elites who were profiting directly from slavery. The progressive narrative that the flag is a symbol of racism is simply cognitive dissonance, completely divorced from the reality of what it was like during the decades of war and Reconstruction. If the war was fought strictly over slavery (a laughable premise), then what kind of miscarriage of justice was it to punish a people who never owned (or ever desired to own) slaves in the first place? You think the wealthiest of people in the South, (you know, the actual slavers) were harmed by Reconstruction? Hell no, they all left for South America and Europe.
Well, my spidey-senses tell me a middle-of-the-road approach is the one which fits best.
That poor, rural, Southern whites fought exclusively for slavery, or that slavery could rank for a poor white Southerner anywhere near having the Confederacy invaded... you're absolutely correct. The idea is preposterous.
OTOH, pretty much in every war ever, the elites whip the poor, uneducated, segment of the citizenry up into a frenzy... and the poor, uneducated citizenry buys into it, because they're, well... poor and uneducated. In this case, the elites were hammering on the poor citizenry's divine right of superiority over black people. If a significant portion didn't buy into it, I'm pretty sure that's a unique situation throughout all of history.
Here's a good one, out of the 2.6 million free men of voting age in the South, how many people voted in the Confederate presidential election? 47,057. What the hell? How can that be? Well, if you weren't a (significant) landowner, you couldn't vote. Not for president, not for congress, not in any federal election. So to the typical, average Southerner the much ballyhooed secession documents didn't mean shit. He didn't vote for the people who ratified them. Hell, he probably never saw his representative, the president, nor the damned document. They were simply told that the North was attacking their right to sovereignty and self-determination (there's some irony) and to arm themselves, so they did.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I don't think the secession documents are going to give you too much insight into the mind of the average white Southerner of the period (we really need an acronym for this BTW).
That said, many of the same elites who penned those documents, along with their partners in crime, engineered a truly epic propaganda machine to sing the praises of slavery. Perhaps propaganda was not the motive behind making their own church and installing themselves as the leaders, but they sure didn't let it go to waste.
Essentially every public authority was stumping the message "slavery is good". This had to have convinced no small segment of the non-elites, no?
Actually, no. They weren't singing that slavery was good, at least not to the commoners, they were singing that independence and self-governance was good (along with that lower taxes and less gov't interference). The average person didn't have slaves, didn't need slaves, and generally didn't even think about them much because they seldom saw them. Revenuers (the tax man) were much more of a concern, due to there not being a personal income tax and the feds relying on liquor taxes for 1/3rd of all their income, some years even more than that (and the South made a LOT of liquor). The rich folks voted and had slaves, those who fought and died for the Confederacy didn't. Again, the notion that the common man was fighting for something he could never have (slaves) is ridiculous, that's not how it was sold to them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Of all the battles for people to fight, this flag feels like a poor choice. Even if its origins were entirely innocent, it has clearly been co-opted to mean something hateful since and while I am aware that people sometimes feel all their heritage is being eroded one piece at a time, I really think this is a piece they ought to let go.
When you defend something that is now so clearly considered a symbol of hatred and oppression, you only come off in one of two ways. If you aren't particularly eloquent about it, you just come off as a dumbass racist. If you're smart enough to level a more reasoned set of arguments for your case, you come off as a racist who is smart enough to avoid getting caught actually being a racist, but who everyone strongly suspects is one anyway. Its perfectly true that you may not be one, but really only your fellow "smart racists" will give you much benefit of the doubt.
There are a great many similar arguments that happen in the UK over the English flag thanks to the National Front and the EDF. The result is that if you fly a George Cross and there isn't a World Cup on, you risk being accused of being racist.
So you might make some good, valid points in defence of this flag, but every point you make isn't really doing you many favours.
Removing the Dukes of Hazard from the air seems like a step too far to me. I think that show is probably old enough now to get away with dismissing the flag as 'acceptable at the time and place' but we all know its not any more.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
OAW has cited and quoted primary sources in this thread fairly extensively to support his argument.
Are you unable or simply unwilling to do the same?
I cannot cut n paste microfiche copies of old newspapers that exist in the counties main library. Thats why I suggested you try reading some of them. I did most of this research 10+ years ago with the emphasis on the development of thr mid atlantic railroads. Thats why I started at 1830.
I cannot cut n paste microfiche copies of old newspapers that exist in the counties main library. Thats why I suggested you try reading some of them. I did most of this research 10+ years ago with the emphasis on the development of thr mid atlantic railroads. Thats why I started at 1830.
So we either have to take your word for it or do the work to make your argument for you. Seems reasonable.
Top