So who is still mad about the civil war?

[SassyIrishLass]

What Robert E. Lee can teach us about Confederate memorials (Opinion) - CNN.com

After reading this article I figure that the left is still mad about it. I don't know of anyone who really pissed off about it other than 'liberals' in this country because whenever someone wants to show the confederate flag then the left gets upset. No one ever really cared if some guy had a memorial to a dead confederate soldier. According to this article General Lee thought all memorials should be torn down so as to not upset people. Do you know who is getting upset? It is the left because if there is some memorial out there dedicated to a dead confederate soldier then some 'liberal' somewhere wants to take it down. No one else ******* CARED in the entire world! It makes me wonder who is still pissed off about the civil war in this country.

Well, you ‘figured’ wrong, as usual.

Your thread fails as a straw man fallacy.

It's funny how every thread criticizing liberals is a straw man fallacy ...

It's the dope's standard response to everything

 

[Rustic]

Political correctness had made the word "racism" meaningless... Lol

Have to agree with that...but you're a racist for pointing it out!

Ok snowflake...

 

[eflatminor]

Political correctness had made the word "racism" meaningless... Lol

Have to agree with that...but you're a racist for pointing it out!

Ok snowflake...

Oh great. Now my banana needs a safe space...

 

[Boss]

True that almost all whites where racists by today's standards, but actually most northerners were against slavery. You don't have to not be a racist to oppose enslaving other races. And it was a bigger part of the war on both sides than you're giving it credit for being. Though certainly to your point it wasn't the only reason for the war. Also, Lincoln for sure wasn't championing the anti-slavery banner earlier on, but he did become more anti-slavery as the war progressed

Yes, there were a LOT of people opposed to slavery in the North AND South. It was something that everyone could see would eventually go away. But in 1860, the sentiment was sharply divided between people who had an interest in the cotton, tobacco and cane industry and those who didn't. I would say "MOST" northerners were simply indifferent to slavery one way or the other. For "MOST" southerners, slavery was tied directly or indirectly to their livelihood.

Slavery was the issue in which the South seceded. It wasn't the issue of the war. The war was declared in order to preserve the Union. That's in every public record on the subject. Lincoln was very much anti-slavery. He wanted to end slavery and send the former slaves off to some other country far away from white folks. Before the war, he was negotiating legislation that would have kept slavery legal in the South until 1911. It was the fact that he was SO anti-slavery which prompted Southern states to declare secession.

Lincoln's initial plan to end slavery was to add new states from the western territories as free states, giving them congressional seats and votes where slavery would soon be abolished entirely through legislation. He was working on a plan of what to do with all the free slaves when the states started seceding. Once the war started, he made it clear that his intentions were to keep the Union whole whether slaves were emancipated or not... he didn't care. It wasn't until the brutal death tolls at Antietam and elsewhere, that he found his army was in serious danger of losing it's morale. The public was simply not going to continue to support a senseless bloodbath, day in and day out... unless there was some larger-than-life moral cause... that's where the Emancipation Proclamation came in and the push to make the war about freeing the slaves.

 

[Rustic]

Meet ‘Generation Snowflake’ – the hysterical young women who can’t cope with being offended

 

[Boss]

The Constitution didn't actually say they had a right to own slaves It just as you said ended the slave trade and they didn't put in the language to end it to kick the slavery can down the road so they could get the South to agree to it. You're asking for precision from others, you should give it as well, Boss. We pretty much agree on the fundamental points you're making

Well we both know that the constitution "says" what the SCOTUS justices decide it says. They had decided it said slaves were property and could be owned. Don't ask me why... Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eflatminor]

The Constitution didn't actually say they had a right to own slaves It just as you said ended the slave trade and they didn't put in the language to end it to kick the slavery can down the road so they could get the South to agree to it. You're asking for precision from others, you should give it as well, Boss. We pretty much agree on the fundamental points you're making

Well we both know that the constitution "says" what the SCOTUS justices decide it says. They had decided it said slaves were property and could be owned. Don't ask me why... Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One other point: It's not the SC that gets the final say, it's the people. Hence, the right to nullification and the ultimate final say, the 2nd amendment.

Carry on...

 

[initforme]

Slavery ewas a disgusting black eye in american history. But the slave owners had the gall to call themselves Christians. That is hypocrisy at the highest level. Slaveowners were not patriots either.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution didn't actually say they had a right to own slaves It just as you said ended the slave trade and they didn't put in the language to end it to kick the slavery can down the road so they could get the South to agree to it. You're asking for precision from others, you should give it as well, Boss. We pretty much agree on the fundamental points you're making

Well we both know that the constitution "says" what the SCOTUS justices decide it says. They had decided it said slaves were property and could be owned. Don't ask me why... Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree, but it's still not actually there

 

[MarcATL]

So you're saying that America, as we know it today was built upon the backs of black slaves, correct?

A lot of it was. A lot of it was also built by immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. Slaves provided mostly labor on plantations. They were considered to be in the same category as the farmer's mule. And guess who's courts all the way up to the highest in the land had upheld this viewpoint as a matter of public law for more than 80-something years before any talk of a war? Guess who's founding fathers failed to address the issue when forging their nation? It certainly wasn't the CSA.

Slaves were property... so sayeth the court. So you have to understand, from the slave owner's perspective... this is my legal property and what business does the government have in taking it? There is a Bill of Rights with a 4th Amendment that specifically says they can't do that. The error is in the finding of the US courts that slaves were property... that's not the Southerner's fault. It's not the slave owner's fault.

I'm afraid when it comes to slavery, nobody gets a free pass. No one can escape culpability. I resent people who try to scapegoat the South and blame slavery on them as if they were doing something illegal or indifferent to public policy. People act like the plantation owner had some kind of alternative choice... the way you grew cotton, tobacco and sugar cane back then was to have slaves to harvest it... that's just how you had to do it.

What percentage would you say was built upon the backs of black slaves? How many Irish were ever used as slaves to develop this mighty nation?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The reality is, more than 300, 000 southern boys wasted their lives on nothing more than a lifestyle none of them could afford to live. What they should have done was rise up and kill the buttfuckers that were promoting slavery as a way of life.

No, jackass... the reality is quite different.

No one was promoting slavery as a way of life. We had outlawed slave trade 50 years before the war. Southerner's felt they had the right to own slaves as property because the SCOTUS said they did... it was constitutional. If you were a farmer in 1860 and you wanted to grow cotton, tobacco or sugar cane... you know, our three biggest export crops? Well... you needed slaves to harvest your crops. Northern textile industries profited just as much as the plantation owners. Export shipping merchants made tons of money out of Boston and New York. England paid well for sugar... they can't grow sugar cane in England.

Everything in the US economy was tied to slavery and slave labor. I'm sorry if that bursts your little bubble but it's just a plain old fact. And the Southern boys who died, did so defending their homeland from an attacking Northern aggressor.

So you're saying not to call the actual people racist for slavery, but the very Constitution itself as the racist party, or document, in this case. Is that correct?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

True that almost all whites where racists by today's standards, but actually most northerners were against slavery. You don't have to not be a racist to oppose enslaving other races. And it was a bigger part of the war on both sides than you're giving it credit for being. Though certainly to your point it wasn't the only reason for the war. Also, Lincoln for sure wasn't championing the anti-slavery banner earlier on, but he did become more anti-slavery as the war progressed

Yes, there were a LOT of people opposed to slavery in the North AND South. It was something that everyone could see would eventually go away. But in 1860, the sentiment was sharply divided between people who had an interest in the cotton, tobacco and cane industry and those who didn't. I would say "MOST" northerners were simply indifferent to slavery one way or the other. For "MOST" southerners, slavery was tied directly or indirectly to their livelihood.

Slavery was the issue in which the South seceded. It wasn't the issue of the war. The war was declared in order to preserve the Union. That's in every public record on the subject. Lincoln was very much anti-slavery. He wanted to end slavery and send the former slaves off to some other country far away from white folks. Before the war, he was negotiating legislation that would have kept slavery legal in the South until 1911. It was the fact that he was SO anti-slavery which prompted Southern states to declare secession.

Lincoln's initial plan to end slavery was to add new states from the western territories as free states, giving them congressional seats and votes where slavery would soon be abolished entirely through legislation. He was working on a plan of what to do with all the free slaves when the states started seceding. Once the war started, he made it clear that his intentions were to keep the Union whole whether slaves were emancipated or not... he didn't care. It wasn't until the brutal death tolls at Antietam and elsewhere, that he found his army was in serious danger of losing it's morale. The public was simply not going to continue to support a senseless bloodbath, day in and day out... unless there was some larger-than-life moral cause... that's where the Emancipation Proclamation came in and the push to make the war about freeing the slaves.

So you're saying to not consider slavery whatsoever in the equation of the war. Your position is that the succession was the one and only one reason for the Civil War. We are to just look at it in a vacuum and let that be the case. Slavery was just an afterthought or side note in the equation. Correct?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[kaz]

True that almost all whites where racists by today's standards, but actually most northerners were against slavery. You don't have to not be a racist to oppose enslaving other races. And it was a bigger part of the war on both sides than you're giving it credit for being. Though certainly to your point it wasn't the only reason for the war. Also, Lincoln for sure wasn't championing the anti-slavery banner earlier on, but he did become more anti-slavery as the war progressed

Yes, there were a LOT of people opposed to slavery in the North AND South. It was something that everyone could see would eventually go away. But in 1860, the sentiment was sharply divided between people who had an interest in the cotton, tobacco and cane industry and those who didn't. I would say "MOST" northerners were simply indifferent to slavery one way or the other. For "MOST" southerners, slavery was tied directly or indirectly to their livelihood.

Slavery was the issue in which the South seceded. It wasn't the issue of the war. The war was declared in order to preserve the Union. That's in every public record on the subject. Lincoln was very much anti-slavery. He wanted to end slavery and send the former slaves off to some other country far away from white folks. Before the war, he was negotiating legislation that would have kept slavery legal in the South until 1911. It was the fact that he was SO anti-slavery which prompted Southern states to declare secession.

Lincoln's initial plan to end slavery was to add new states from the western territories as free states, giving them congressional seats and votes where slavery would soon be abolished entirely through legislation. He was working on a plan of what to do with all the free slaves when the states started seceding. Once the war started, he made it clear that his intentions were to keep the Union whole whether slaves were emancipated or not... he didn't care. It wasn't until the brutal death tolls at Antietam and elsewhere, that he found his army was in serious danger of losing it's morale. The public was simply not going to continue to support a senseless bloodbath, day in and day out... unless there was some larger-than-life moral cause... that's where the Emancipation Proclamation came in and the push to make the war about freeing the slaves.

So you're saying to not consider slavery whatsoever in the equation of the war. Your position is that the succession was the one and only one reason for the Civil War. We are to just look at it in a vacuum and let that be the case. Slavery was just an afterthought or side note in the equation. Correct?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Are the voices in your head named "boss" too and you're confusing them?

 

[kaz]

So you're saying that America, as we know it today was built upon the backs of black slaves, correct?

A lot of it was. A lot of it was also built by immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. Slaves provided mostly labor on plantations. They were considered to be in the same category as the farmer's mule. And guess who's courts all the way up to the highest in the land had upheld this viewpoint as a matter of public law for more than 80-something years before any talk of a war? Guess who's founding fathers failed to address the issue when forging their nation? It certainly wasn't the CSA.

Slaves were property... so sayeth the court. So you have to understand, from the slave owner's perspective... this is my legal property and what business does the government have in taking it? There is a Bill of Rights with a 4th Amendment that specifically says they can't do that. The error is in the finding of the US courts that slaves were property... that's not the Southerner's fault. It's not the slave owner's fault.

I'm afraid when it comes to slavery, nobody gets a free pass. No one can escape culpability. I resent people who try to scapegoat the South and blame slavery on them as if they were doing something illegal or indifferent to public policy. People act like the plantation owner had some kind of alternative choice... the way you grew cotton, tobacco and sugar cane back then was to have slaves to harvest it... that's just how you had to do it.

What percentage would you say was built upon the backs of black slaves? How many Irish were ever used as slaves to develop this mighty nation?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Are you saying if any slaves were used to build the nation than all the nation was built by slaves?

Note: If your sarcasm detector isn't going off, you missed the point ...

 

[Deleted member 53821]

The only people who get mad about it are the left.

I know you wish that was true. I also know that you know its bullshit. I really don't understand this drive by retards like yourself in recent years to deny reality in so many ways.

There are many a redneck still pissed off about the Civil War. Just ask the next one you see with a "The South Will Rise Again" bumper sticker.

The only people who get upset at anything 'southern' are 'liberals'. No one else cares. When was the last time any liberal saw a monument to a civil war relic and didn't get upset at it. It is only 'liberals' who do this. It is not anyone else.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Can someone name me one conservative that has walked by a civil war memorial dedicated to the north and demanded it be taken down? Can you name me one southerner who wears the dixie flag and gets upset at a memorial dedicated to Linconln? There isn't any because the left went crazy with this issue.

 

[Boss]

Slavery ewas a disgusting black eye in american history. But the slave owners had the gall to call themselves Christians. That is hypocrisy at the highest level. Slaveowners were not patriots either.

Agree 100% with the first sentence. The rest of what you're saying is a result of your first sentence. People tend to make excuses for their deplorable behavior... or they try to cast the blame on someone else.

People do all kinds of things in the name of their religions.... good and bad. While some Christians DID justify slavery, some others formed the abolitionist movement. Did you get that? If not for Christians (Quaker ministers) who began the talk of abolition, slaves may have never been freed. So you can blame Christians for justifying it but you have to also credit Christians for leading the charge to end it.

As for slave owners being patriots.. I think it's dangerous any time you make a blanket statement about any group. If there had been an ACLU back then, they would have sided with the slave owners. According to SCOTUS ruling, it was fully constitutional for slave owners to own slaves outright as property. Now, knowing that fact, go and read the Fourth Amendment and tell us what it says about your property?

As disgusting as it is... as much of a black eye as it is... it WAS the law of the land in the US. You can't escape that fact, nor can you lay the blame for that on anyone else. But..... That's exactly what people do when they know they've behaved badly.

 

[Boss]

What percentage would you say was built upon the backs of black slaves? How many Irish were ever used as slaves to develop this mighty nation?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

It's really not worth getting into a pissing contest over. In terms of what they built, they are really no different than the Acadians who came from Canada to New Orleans and worked chopping sugar cane for virtually nothing. Or the countless Chinese men who's dead bodies pave the beds of our transcontinental railroad. Or the millions of Irish and Italian immigrants who were forced into slavery to repay their debts for coming here. Lots of people have contributed to "building the nation" and it disrespects them to hog all the credit, don't you think?

 

[Boss]

The Constitution didn't actually say they had a right to own slaves It just as you said ended the slave trade and they didn't put in the language to end it to kick the slavery can down the road so they could get the South to agree to it. You're asking for precision from others, you should give it as well, Boss. We pretty much agree on the fundamental points you're making

Well we both know that the constitution "says" what the SCOTUS justices decide it says. They had decided it said slaves were property and could be owned. Don't ask me why... Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree, but it's still not actually there

LOTS of things aren't actually there.

 

[Contumacious]

What Robert E. Lee can teach us about Confederate memorials (Opinion) - CNN.com

After reading this article I figure that the left is still mad about it. I don't know of anyone who really pissed off about it other than 'liberals' in this country because whenever someone wants to show the confederate flag then the left gets upset. No one ever really cared if some guy had a memorial to a dead confederate soldier. According to this article General Lee thought all memorials should be torn down so as to not upset people. Do you know who is getting upset? It is the left because if there is some memorial out there dedicated to a dead confederate soldier then some 'liberal' somewhere wants to take it down. No one else ******* CARED in the entire world! It makes me wonder who is still pissed off about the civil war in this country.

I am

The war of northern agression weakened the states concentrated power in DC , allowed fedgov the pretext to create paper money and impose an "income" tax

The war of northern agression

sounds like a bitter confederate

Yo Vern, did I say anything about slavery?

Was there a better way to abolish slavery without destroying the Constitution?


.