The Confederacy - Erasing History

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

FYI...I completely agree with you on this @mrussel1 . On a separate note the only thing I would add (and maybe it's been written elsewhere but I have no time to go through all the posts) is that one of the main reasons reunification was able to take place after the civil war is that Lincoln was magnanimous in victory. Rightly or wrongly Lincoln understood that the only way "healing" could take place is by allowing the South to maintain some degree of nobility in defeat which included the honouring of confederate generals and soldiers. I put "healing" in quotes because you can imagine how this made those subjected to slavery feel and true "healing" didn't take place until 100 years after the end of the war and some would argue "healing" hasn't occurred at all. That being said would it be a trade that a newly freed slave and/or Union soldier would be willing to make during that time period? An end to slavery and a horrific war in exchange for a noble surrender and some retention of heritage for the defeated? I think most would have been ok with this outcome...at the time. Personally I am agnostic on confederate statutes...I see it as a states rights/local issue and I can see the argument on both sides. I see value in maintaining statues as a reminder of the potential of human ugliness so that history does not repeat itself...the gates of Auschwitz still stand for just this reason. I also recognize how a militant white supremacist fringe will try to claim these monuments as their own and use them to stir up a return to an uglier time. I guess the big question is where is the happy balance between these sentiments? Does this balance even need to be maintained at all? Has enough time passed that the former "South" can let go of these monuments because the need to "retain heritage for the defeated" is no longer necessary? This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. This whole topic really just drives me crazy because once again it seems like another issue being exploited by assholes "on both sides" to further their agendas instead of working towards "A more perfect union".

https://web.archive.org/web/20080608182717/http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/19/nation/na-obamatext19

(Obama's best speech IMO...enjoy it because you probably won't see me link to one of his speeches ever again)

mrussel1

^^ I completely agree with this entire post.  Lincoln was a true humanitarian, statesman and leader when he chose to limit the punishment of the South.  Of course once he dies and the Republican congress exercised its influence in Reconstruction, it didn't always play out that way.

The problem with teh statues and the stars and bars is they have become a symbol of racism, white supremacy and in previous generations, segregation.  If this country could reconcile with its racist past and the white supremacists were confined to the margins where they belong, there wouldn't be a debate.  

PJfanwillneverleave1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. 

It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.

dankind

Did someone say toast?

benjs

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. 

It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.

You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.

PJfanwillneverleave1

benjs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. 

It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.

You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.

No I meant assert.  When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations.  I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended.  It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer.  And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?  

JC29856

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

FYI...I completely agree with you on this @mrussel1 . On a separate note the only thing I would add (and maybe it's been written elsewhere but I have no time to go through all the posts) is that one of the main reasons reunification was able to take place after the civil war is that Lincoln was magnanimous in victory. Rightly or wrongly Lincoln understood that the only way "healing" could take place is by allowing the South to maintain some degree of nobility in defeat which included the honouring of confederate generals and soldiers. I put "healing" in quotes because you can imagine how this made those subjected to slavery feel and true "healing" didn't take place until 100 years after the end of the war and some would argue "healing" hasn't occurred at all. That being said would it be a trade that a newly freed slave and/or Union soldier would be willing to make during that time period? An end to slavery and a horrific war in exchange for a noble surrender and some retention of heritage for the defeated? I think most would have been ok with this outcome...at the time. Personally I am agnostic on confederate statutes...I see it as a states rights/local issue and I can see the argument on both sides. I see value in maintaining statues as a reminder of the potential of human ugliness so that history does not repeat itself...the gates of Auschwitz still stand for just this reason. I also recognize how a militant white supremacist fringe will try to claim these monuments as their own and use them to stir up a return to an uglier time. I guess the big question is where is the happy balance between these sentiments? Does this balance even need to be maintained at all? Has enough time passed that the former "South" can let go of these monuments because the need to "retain heritage for the defeated" is no longer necessary? This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. This whole topic really just drives me crazy because once again it seems like another issue being exploited by assholes "on both sides" to further their agendas instead of working towards "A more perfect union".

https://web.archive.org/web/20080608182717/http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/19/nation/na-obamatext19

(Obama's best speech IMO...enjoy it because you probably won't see me link to one of his speeches ever again)

The South seceded to preserve slavery, as a sovereign nation they were invaded by the North. From the article brlux posted, first sentence "With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United States in pursuit of a terrible cause." without any discussion of why that first volley of artillery was fired. The South were voluntary members of the Union and nothing prohibited them from secession. The South unsuccessfully attempted negotiation and compromise under the 10th amendment. The South seceded, legally separated from the Union and became a separate sovereign state. They instructed the North to remove all troops and military installations, the North refused. The South was now occupied territory, occupied militarily against their will by the North. Foreign military occupation was the first act of war, not the volley at Fort Sumter. Lincoln made the calculated decision (announced) that he would resupply Ft Sumter daring the South to attack or seize the US supply ship. Although Lincoln did not want war, he needed a reason to invade the South in order to get want he wanted more, Union preservation. The Confederates didn't wait for the supply ship to arrive and fired that first shot, the rest is history.
Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start.
Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!

The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.

BS44325

JC29856 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

FYI...I completely agree with you on this @mrussel1 . On a separate note the only thing I would add (and maybe it's been written elsewhere but I have no time to go through all the posts) is that one of the main reasons reunification was able to take place after the civil war is that Lincoln was magnanimous in victory. Rightly or wrongly Lincoln understood that the only way "healing" could take place is by allowing the South to maintain some degree of nobility in defeat which included the honouring of confederate generals and soldiers. I put "healing" in quotes because you can imagine how this made those subjected to slavery feel and true "healing" didn't take place until 100 years after the end of the war and some would argue "healing" hasn't occurred at all. That being said would it be a trade that a newly freed slave and/or Union soldier would be willing to make during that time period? An end to slavery and a horrific war in exchange for a noble surrender and some retention of heritage for the defeated? I think most would have been ok with this outcome...at the time. Personally I am agnostic on confederate statutes...I see it as a states rights/local issue and I can see the argument on both sides. I see value in maintaining statues as a reminder of the potential of human ugliness so that history does not repeat itself...the gates of Auschwitz still stand for just this reason. I also recognize how a militant white supremacist fringe will try to claim these monuments as their own and use them to stir up a return to an uglier time. I guess the big question is where is the happy balance between these sentiments? Does this balance even need to be maintained at all? Has enough time passed that the former "South" can let go of these monuments because the need to "retain heritage for the defeated" is no longer necessary? This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. This whole topic really just drives me crazy because once again it seems like another issue being exploited by assholes "on both sides" to further their agendas instead of working towards "A more perfect union".

https://web.archive.org/web/20080608182717/http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/19/nation/na-obamatext19

(Obama's best speech IMO...enjoy it because you probably won't see me link to one of his speeches ever again)

The South seceded to preserve slavery, as a sovereign nation they were invaded by the North. From the article brlux posted, first sentence "With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United States in pursuit of a terrible cause." without any discussion of why that first volley of artillery was fired. The South were voluntary members of the Union and nothing prohibited them from secession. The South unsuccessfully attempted negotiation and compromise under the 10th amendment. The South seceded, legally separated from the Union and became a separate sovereign state. They instructed the North to remove all troops and military installations, the North refused. The South was now occupied territory, occupied militarily against their will by the North. Foreign military occupation was the first act of war, not the volley at Fort Sumter. Lincoln made the calculated decision (announced) that he would resupply Ft Sumter daring the South to attack or seize the US supply ship. Although Lincoln did not want war, he needed a reason to invade the South in order to get want he wanted more, Union preservation. The Confederates didn't wait for the supply ship to arrive and fired that first shot, the rest is history.
Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start.
Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!

The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.

When somebody makes the foolish "it was the occupation" argument when they discuss the Civil War it usually means that there is another part of the world that they are far more concerned about.

BS44325

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

benjs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. 

It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.

You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.

No I meant assert.  When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations.  I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended.  It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer.  And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?  

I didn't have to back-up my opinion that way. I chose to in order to make fun of those who throw around the nazi word freely. I'm not concerned and need no disclaimer. 

PJfanwillneverleave1

BS44325 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

benjs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. 

It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.

You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.

No I meant assert.  When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations.  I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended.  It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer.  And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?  

I didn't have to back-up my opinion that way. I chose to in order to make fun of those who throw around the nazi word freely. I'm not concerned and need no disclaimer. 

ah, I see.  makes sense.  How did you use a small n?

benjs

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

benjs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. 

It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.

You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.

No I meant assert.  When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations.  I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended.  It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer.  And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?  

I believe that you feel that you need to walk on eggshells because you do not speak with an iota of clarity or pragmatism (in case my last comment wasn't direct enough). As a Jewish 'leftist'/progressive-type, I'd be just the kind of person you're insinuating BS would need to put this disclaimer on for. In spite of this, while reading his comment, I wasn't once thinking about it with any shock or horror, nor did BS' disclaimer have any impact on how I perceived what he wrote.

As for your autocorrect, have a word with your device's OS manufacturer and alter your settings if it so disturbs you.

oftenreading

BS44325 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

benjs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. 

It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.

You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.

No I meant assert.  When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations.  I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended.  It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer.  And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?  

I didn't have to back-up my opinion that way. I chose to in order to make fun of those who throw around the nazi word freely. I'm not concerned and need no disclaimer. 

So, is it appropriate to throw around the nazi word to describe those who wear swastikas, use the nazi salute, and admire Hitler? 

BS44325

oftenreading said:

BS44325 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

benjs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. 

It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.

You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.

No I meant assert.  When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations.  I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended.  It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer.  And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?  

I didn't have to back-up my opinion that way. I chose to in order to make fun of those who throw around the nazi word freely. I'm not concerned and need no disclaimer. 

So, is it appropriate to throw around the nazi word to describe those who wear swastikas, use the nazi salute, and admire Hitler? 

Certainly. This shouldn't be confusing.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion:
The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.

I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights.  Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV.  But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession?  In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate.  But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.  

I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause..  The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy.  So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause.  Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
.. and later..
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

FYI...I completely agree with you on this @mrussel1 . On a separate note the only thing I would add (and maybe it's been written elsewhere but I have no time to go through all the posts) is that one of the main reasons reunification was able to take place after the civil war is that Lincoln was magnanimous in victory. Rightly or wrongly Lincoln understood that the only way "healing" could take place is by allowing the South to maintain some degree of nobility in defeat which included the honouring of confederate generals and soldiers. I put "healing" in quotes because you can imagine how this made those subjected to slavery feel and true "healing" didn't take place until 100 years after the end of the war and some would argue "healing" hasn't occurred at all. That being said would it be a trade that a newly freed slave and/or Union soldier would be willing to make during that time period? An end to slavery and a horrific war in exchange for a noble surrender and some retention of heritage for the defeated? I think most would have been ok with this outcome...at the time. Personally I am agnostic on confederate statutes...I see it as a states rights/local issue and I can see the argument on both sides. I see value in maintaining statues as a reminder of the potential of human ugliness so that history does not repeat itself...the gates of Auschwitz still stand for just this reason. I also recognize how a militant white supremacist fringe will try to claim these monuments as their own and use them to stir up a return to an uglier time. I guess the big question is where is the happy balance between these sentiments? Does this balance even need to be maintained at all? Has enough time passed that the former "South" can let go of these monuments because the need to "retain heritage for the defeated" is no longer necessary? This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. This whole topic really just drives me crazy because once again it seems like another issue being exploited by assholes "on both sides" to further their agendas instead of working towards "A more perfect union".

https://web.archive.org/web/20080608182717/http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/19/nation/na-obamatext19

(Obama's best speech IMO...enjoy it because you probably won't see me link to one of his speeches ever again)

The South seceded to preserve slavery, as a sovereign nation they were invaded by the North. From the article brlux posted, first sentence "With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United States in pursuit of a terrible cause." without any discussion of why that first volley of artillery was fired. The South were voluntary members of the Union and nothing prohibited them from secession. The South unsuccessfully attempted negotiation and compromise under the 10th amendment. The South seceded, legally separated from the Union and became a separate sovereign state. They instructed the North to remove all troops and military installations, the North refused. The South was now occupied territory, occupied militarily against their will by the North. Foreign military occupation was the first act of war, not the volley at Fort Sumter. Lincoln made the calculated decision (announced) that he would resupply Ft Sumter daring the South to attack or seize the US supply ship. Although Lincoln did not want war, he needed a reason to invade the South in order to get want he wanted more, Union preservation. The Confederates didn't wait for the supply ship to arrive and fired that first shot, the rest is history.
Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start.
Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!

The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.

I think I was pretty clear when I said that the North fought to preserve the Union, the South fought to preserve slavery.  

Regarding the legality of it, that wasn't the debate at hand, but I think the legality was settled pretty clearly at a little courthouse close to me called Appomattox.  

brianlux

I think we're underestimating the influence of economics in the Civil War and all that here but none of that nor even slavery is the issue today.  Today it's about racism and jingoism.

oftenreading

Economics (of the time) can't really be separated from the issue of slavery, though. 

mrussel1

Exactly... slavery was the economic mechanism of the South

brianlux

oftenreading said:

Economics (of the time) can't really be separated from the issue of slavery, though. 

Of this time or that?  I mean of today.  Most blatant slavery occurs in third world countries and subtle slavery in first world countires like the U.S. 

But what I'm suggesting is that the subject at hand, today, is about racism and blind loyalty to ones geo/political background with little or no consideration for using reasoning or clear thinking.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

Economics (of the time) can't really be separated from the issue of slavery, though. 

Of this time or that?  I mean of today.  Most blatant slavery occurs in third world countries and subtle slavery in first world countires like the U.S. 

But what I'm suggesting is that the subject at hand, today, is about racism and blind loyalty to ones geo/political background with little or no consideration for using reasoning or clear thinking.

Agreed but I call it erhnocentrism..

mrussel1

Ethnocentrism..