Confederate flag still up at SC house.

31,787 Views | 354 Replies | Last: 8 yr ago by tbirdspur2010
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
...Which was a popular opinion in both the North and the South at the time.

Also... Being Vice President means he did not win.

Also, also... Why were there black slave owners?
tbirdspur2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
...Which was a popular opinion in both the North and the South at the time.

Also... Being Vice President means he did not win.

Also, also... Why were there black slave owners?
1.) Deflection. The Union (while most certainly not perfect and in their own way exploitative of minorities) did not base their cause upon "negro inequality."

2.) Irrelevant. I didn't assert that he won, only that he as a spokesman for the rebel government outlined the basis (re: "cornerstone") of the confederate struggle

3.) Several reasons, some of which were:

--Evidence of a society so jacked up that some had to resort to owning their own people in order to gain a modicum of social status (which, even so, would always be beneath that of their white counterparts)

--Some did it as a way to attempt to keep family units from fragmenting further



Slavery was most certainly a major issue with the Civil War.
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:

While I agree that technically you are correct (the war was about secession, not slavery), certainly you acknowledge that slavery was far and away the biggest issue that drove the southern states to secede, right?


No.
The shift of power away from the individual states to a central federal power that did not have the best interest of farther removed states was the driving issue of secession. Slavery was, unfortunately, one of those issues. However, you cannot view the issue through your own eyes and with your own feelings to have a conversation about it in a historical context. Right or wrong, neither the government of the North, nor the South viewed enslaved individuals as equally statured humans.

Once Lincoln's "Union" discovered that popular opinion had shifted against slavery, suddenly the propaganda machine found new cause for a dwindling war effort.

He then threw thousands of emigrants, from an endless suppl,y to their peril with the promise of citizenship in an effort to win by attrition.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
quote:

While I agree that technically you are correct (the war was about secession, not slavery), certainly you acknowledge that slavery was far and away the biggest issue that drove the southern states to secede, right?


No.
The shift of power away from the individual states to a central federal power that did not have the best interest of farther removed states was the driving issue of secession. Slavery was, unfortunately, one of those issues. However, you cannot view the issue through your own eyes and with your own feelings to have a conversation about it in a historical context. Right or wrong, neither the government of the North, nor the South viewed enslaved individuals as equally statured humans.

Once Lincoln's "Union" discovered that popular opinion had shifted against slavery, suddenly the propaganda machine found new cause for a dwindling war effort.

He then threw thousands of emigrants, from an endless suppl,y to their peril with the promise of citizenship in an effort to win by attrition.

If slavery was not the biggest issue that drove the southern states to secede, then why did several of these states declare that it was when they seceded?

Secession was probably the only way they felt they could avoid political irrelevancy, but the main implications of being irrelevant was the threat it posed to the institution of slavery.

Someone who implies that the north fought the south so they could abolish slavery is dead wrong. It was about secession but secession was largely (probably fair to say almost entirely) about slavery.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
South Carolina's document is much more philosophical than some of the others, but as soon as they move beyond philosophy and into specific examples they talk about slavery.
Quote:
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Read the last sentence again.

Also,

Do you believe politicians today? Do they do a great job of speaking for you?
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So far every single one of those says that the union of states was not a good fit for each of the seceding states.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Read the last sentence again.

Also,

Do you believe politicians today? Do they do a great job of speaking for you?

Not arguing that Lincoln was some flawless hero.

Not saying there weren't huge percentages of people who were basically totally unaffected by slavery that still fought for the south because they believed in the confederacy.

Just saying secession was mostly about slavery. When these states were saying why they were seceding, slavery is what they decided to bring up, at the very least as their primary example for the reasons of why they couldn't belong to the union anymore.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
So far every single one of those says that the union of states was not a good fit for each of the seceding states.

Yes. Because of slavery. Among other things but slavery is mentioned first and most often.
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The biggest one for Texas was actually the renege on the promise of protection from retaliation by Mexico. Once disconnected, it was one of the "guarantees" of statehood that could no longer be met.

Still seems to be a problem today.
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If you want to bring it into today's terms...

Change "slavery" for "firearms" everywhere in those documents. The whole documents, not just the first paragraph.
45-70Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Does this mean Hilary won't be elected. Please be yes

Wade_3
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why do people argue so vehemently over what is essentially splitting hairs?

If slavery had never existed, there would not have been a civil war. This whole thing smacks of, "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Because by teaching children that the war was over enslaving others one can teach that there was a clear good and evil. It's laziness. It would be too complex to answer questions about why anyone would give their life for such a thing...
Wade_3
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Because by teaching children that the war was over enslaving others one can teach that there was a clear good and evil. It's laziness. It would be too complex to answer questions about why anyone would give their life for such a thing...
And at the end of the day, the root cause was still slavery.

The big problem I have with these complex questions is that the blanket answer is "states rights" and then when pressed, the answer is normally, "something, something, tariffs, something, something, taxes" when we all know that it really had to do with slavery.

Its ok to say, yes, the war was about slavery while identifying/discussing ideas of loyalty and patriotism. But lets be real about the root cause...slavery.
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yet it wasn't.

At the end of the day, it was because states felt that being part of the "union" was not in their best interest.
marble rye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Funny/Unfunny

Fix every state flag
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/06/23/every-state-flag-is-wrong-and-here-is-why/
Seven Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Can we just use the Alabama flag?" Florida asked.
"No."
"How about if we put our seal on it?"
"Yeah. I guess, but "
"Great."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/06/23/every-state-flag-is-wrong-and-here-is-why/
marble rye
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GregZeppelin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Yet it wasn't.

At the end of the day, it was because states felt that being part of the "union" was not in their best interest.
Because of the North's stance on slavery.

We can play these games forever man, every cause you bring up as an alternative motive is really just another way of framing the dispute over slavery.

Economics = economic impacts of slavery and/or its abolition
States Rights = state's rights to keep slavery
Union no longer in our best interest = The northern states want to abolish slavery
Cultural differences = cultural acceptability of continuing the institution of slavery

There's a reason it's taught that the Civil War was over slavery. And that reason is because the Civil War was about slavery. Every other possible explanation comes right back to slavery. The Confederate states seceded first and foremost because of slavery, and the other reasons given were roundabout ways of citing slavery or its abolition. To deny that is to have you head completely in the sand as to the economic, cultural, and political realities of the time period.
B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Do you believe that the average foot soldier in the Alabama 25th infantry would say that he was fighting to keep slavery?
45-70Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The average guy probably thought I'm here because I have no other choice or might tell you states rights...........and most likely had no idea how that was being used or what it meant.

The average guy didn't start the war, wealthy mans fight to preserve slavery.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Why do people argue so vehemently over what is essentially splitting hairs?

If slavery had never existed, there would not have been a civil war. This whole thing smacks of, "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
I just don't know how you can say that.

The north was cool enough with slavery that they didn't kick the slaveholding states out of the union once the war started. So it isn't like the north was on some kind of righteous crusade to end slavery (which is why I don't think that simply saying "the Civil War was fought over slavery" is a very accurate statement). They didn't do anything until the southern states seceded, so if the southern states had seceded for some other reason (or if the western states had seceded for some reason, etc) then I think that would have caused a civil war.

If slavery hadn't existed then THE Civil War obviously wouldn't have happened, but A civil war might have gotten started for some other reason. I don't think we can know for sure, but it isn't unreasonable to assume that it's at least possible that some group of people somewhere would want to secede for some other reason at some point in our history. Given the federal government's reaction to the south seceding I think it's fair to assume they likely would've reacted similarly regardless of who seceded or why.
FOUR THIN INCHES
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Anyone who doesn't think SC should change their flag is a pro-slavery racist.
45-70Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the reason the north wasn't more aggressive in combatting slavery was due to trying to avoid a war.

Some things were tried with the Missouri compromise, compromise of 1850, ignoring the fugitive slave law

But as far as our only civil war that has occurred to date, the entire arguments for it are centered around slavery. Southern states didn't ask northern states to secede when they did..............because of slavery.
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Yet it wasn't.

At the end of the day, it was because states felt that being part of the "union" was not in their best interest.
This is like say there was some guy who filed for divorce after 25 years because it wasn't in his best interest to be part of the marriage anymore.

By the way, he came home from work early one day with flowers to surprise his wife on their anniversary and found her banging that guy from work that she was "just friends with."
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Anyone who doesn't think SC should change their flag is a pro-slavery racist.


You find this racist?
45-70Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Crescent moon = Muslim fanatics
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If every infidelity in marriage had resulted in divorce... Maybe. Plenty of marriages have survived one spouse cheating. If it "causes" divorce it's because it was one straw too many, or a scapegoat for other issues that cannot be communicated.
45-70Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A cheating spouse is a scapegoat? Lol


Maybe cheating just can't be tolerated on any level by some.


B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I think the reason the north wasn't more aggressive in combatting slavery was due to trying to avoid a war.

.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with cheap cotton, sugar, tobacco, etc..... Sort of how the US hates child labor and terrible labor conditions, but continues to get stuff from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China, etc.....
45-70Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
its a shame the south wasn't able to realize the full economic value of cash crops produced through slave labor.

The south was so mistreated. Lol
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.