Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2 

 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
The only "Sane" Response heard


From Condoleezza Rice:

[sign in to see URL]


The sanitizing is not limited to the statues or street names, it is and has been occurring in text books, a editing to 'sanitize' history and the idiots doing so need to stop.

Last edited by cooter50, 8/22/2017, 11:47 am
8/22/2017, 11:28 am Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Noserose Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2954
Karma: 8 (+18/-10)
Reply | Quote
Re: The onlt "Sane" Response heard


It's certainly is a controversial problem. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue anymore.

---
--------------------------------------------------------------
"libido sciendi"..... the passion to know.
8/22/2017, 11:39 am Link to this post PM Noserose
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 656
Karma: 1 (+6/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: The onlt "Sane" Response heard


I certainly agree with Condoleeza that sanitizing history is a bad thing. But she's wrong about what it is that sanitizes history. It's putting the statues in places of honor, with plaques that praise their bravery, that sanitize history.
8/22/2017, 11:39 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The onlt "Sane" Response heard


Odd that when a woman of color decides this is a real issue the whites on the band wagon look at her differently. We had the same response from the St. Louis Mayor elect Lyda Krewson as to the African Americans deriding her efforts to remove the Forest Park statue.
8/22/2017, 11:44 am Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 656
Karma: 1 (+6/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


If you mean me, Cooter, I'm not looking at Condi differently because of her stand on the statues. This is exactly what I would expect from her.
8/22/2017, 11:51 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


My wife's blood nephew holds a masters in History as o a teaching accreditation, although he is NOT a teacher.

He and I have discussed this at length where "the text books issued today are so wrong as to the Civil War" as he put it. His Masters work was as to the actual causes and effects upon the southern states prior to 1859 both as to slavery and the use of Congress by the Northern states to impose sanctions against the southern states. The books are being sanitized, the actual facts of historic record being distorted to reinforce a level of context that does not follow the evidence in the National archives. This is what he was explained he would HAVE TO TEACH, he declined and left his first teaching post as he will NOT teach false or created or sanitized history. He now is a store manager for Harbor Freight. Sad days for school aged children.
8/22/2017, 11:55 am Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 656
Karma: 1 (+6/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


What do the textbooks say that your wife's nephew thinks is inaccurate?
8/22/2017, 11:57 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
John1959 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1021
Karma: 5 (+8/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The onlt "Sane" Response heard


quote:

Bellelettres wrote:
I certainly agree with Condoleeza that sanitizing history is a bad thing. But she's wrong about what it is that sanitizes history. It's putting the statues in places of honor, with plaques that praise their bravery, that sanitize history.



I totally agree.

The "sanitizing of history" occurred decades ago.

Tell me something; Were the Confederates wrong or not? Were they wrong to work so hard to maintain slavery or not? Were they wrong to secede from the Union or not? Were they wrong to start a civil war or not?

How many Americans even today see them as heroes, freedom fighting rebels, and honorable men rather than rather than those who tore this country apart to maintain a system of inequality?

And how much of that is fueled by the thousands of statues and memorials and the flying of their flag for all these years since the war ended?

---
“I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” - NRA president Karl T. Frederick, 1938
8/22/2017, 12:44 pm Link to this post PM John1959 Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


I consider the Southern States as to having been wrong in the demand to secede, I however also fault Lincoln and the Northern states/Congress for applying said pressures to force this hand. There was turmoil at all manner of conditions, economic tariff on products from the south, undue regulation, the placing of hardship against southern farm product providers(due to slaving) was not adequate response to stop the transgressions, no one worked to change the south just to forcibly alter the ability of the states to govern and administer themselves then added financial pressures.

The Northern states found themselves outnumbered politically so placed even more hardship upon the south where they expected blanket capitulation while they received an unexpected response, secession. To thwart that they engineered the Illegal act of conspiracy against the US in that secession which under the guise of illegal promoted even heavier sanctions. Pressure applied became the wedge that fully split the nation.

Everyone here thinks in a TODAY judgmental state as to the reasoning and equality toward those days, one would have to have lived then to be able to make that judgment call adequately where none of us have. All I see is 20/20 hindsight armchair quarterbacking.

As for my and my wife's nephew I fully support his claim as well his decision to cease teaching, the text books claim is that Slavery was being forced upon the North and the states coming into the Union to the West where they placed sanctions against the South(albeit not listed as to what sanctions) to stop the trade of slaves thus the South shelled the Ft. Sumter and started the War.

The depicted photos of Sumter for reference show the destruction of that Fort by the NORTHERN Army as the war was coming to an end NOT the damage inflicted by the South.

He kept that textbook to show off the inaccuracies as well to contest the technique in sanitizing history.
8/22/2017, 1:08 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 656
Karma: 1 (+6/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Wrong to secede but right to insist on their right to keep slaves, Cooter?

I keep wracking my brain trying to understand why the family of the African-American woman you dated didn't approve of you.
8/22/2017, 1:44 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Did not 'state' that either.

Their way of life was bad, they saw it being force ended while they were in the process of change anyway. Slaves were a expense and a growing investment expense where mechanization was a better alternative, they did understand that. The Cotton Gin was that first step where formerly the slaves deseeded each cotton bole by hand. Horse drawn cotton picking equipment was already under design, faster, cleaner, more effective and required no food, clothing, housing other than horses they already had.

The established method of the day for southern crops delivery was shipping thru a designated exporter set with tariff for each ton of material to those markets overseas or to the north. Those regulations were becoming untenable basically destroying any income from that product and setting a massive profit north to others IE shippers, middle men agents/agencies for exports, tariffs for the Fed. The regulations did not stop there, there added decrees over the course of decades up to 1859, the Dred Scott decision was one that did benefit as was the Missouri Compromise upon the new western territories but did not aid much as to the necessity to maintain slaves.
8/22/2017, 2:49 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 656
Karma: 1 (+6/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


So, since slavery was becoming uneconomical for slave-holders, and holding slaves would eventually fade away, was there any need for the 13th Amendment to the Constitution?
8/22/2017, 3:13 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
GoHawk Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 10-2015
Location: Lost in space
Posts: 742
Karma: 4 (+4/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


I must confess that I am terribly conflicted on this issue. On one hand I am definately opposed to sanitizing history, or sadly the all too often attempts to totally eliminate any vestige of history. Indeed I believe our responsibility is two fold. To preserve history. And to do so in a totally accurate and objective manner. And that accurate view of history includes all of the warts and blemishes. However, I also do not want to distort history to meet some self serving view of history that is objectionable to a large segment of society, not to mention presenting a distorted view of history. Basically everything has a time and place. And the sad fact is that for the past century and one half many of those statues and memorials have been put of place. And the time has long passed when those memorials and statues need to have been moved to museums and battlefield memorial parks (Gettysburg, Shiloah, etc). And doing so enmasse at this belated date becomes an open, yet unavoidable invitation for conflict of a terribly divided nation. Divided in countless ways. We need to move forward. But that movement probably needs to be in a bit more of an orderly fashion.

Last edited by GoHawk, 8/22/2017, 3:48 pm


---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long live the Free Territory of Trieste (1947 - 1954)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yxq951CSa0
8/22/2017, 3:41 pm Link to this post PM GoHawk Blog
 
John1959 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1021
Karma: 5 (+8/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


 It occurred to me that it is not possible to both worship at the altar of the Confederacy and fight for the liberation of people like me. That fact may seem obvious now, but for my white classmates who wore Confederate flag shirts to class, even as they assured me that “I’m not racist,” the idea that one could celebrate the heritage without the hate held currency. And I believe that even today, many of those old friends tell themselves just that.

[sign in to see URL]


The author has a point.

You cannot built monument and statues and wave their flag and praise people while condemning the cause for which they fought.

Either you see slavery and white supremacy for the abomination it was or you don't.

You cannot both claim that it was a good thing that slavery ended and admire the people that worked so hard to see it continue without being hypocritical.

---
“I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” - NRA president Karl T. Frederick, 1938
8/22/2017, 4:27 pm Link to this post PM John1959 Blog
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1397
Karma: -1 (+3/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Before we talk of sanitizing history we need to understand what is being memorialized.

Who erected the monuments when, and what political climate so the motives for doing so.
Is correcting past revisionism correcting or "sanitizing"
... so who are the real revisionists ?

The Real Story Behind All Those Confederate Statues – Mother Jones
[sign in to see URL]
7 days ago - Most of these monuments were not erected right after the Civil War. In fact, all the way to 1890 there were very few statues or monuments ...


Here's Why Robert E. Lee Opposed Putting Up Confederate Monuments
[sign in to see URL]
6 days ago - Here's Why Robert E. Lee Opposed Putting Up Confederate Monuments ... E. Lee's Civil War and His Decision That Changed American History ...

How The U.S. Got So Many Confederate Monuments - History in the ...
[sign in to see URL]
5 days ago - Most of these monuments did not go up immediately after the war's end in 1865. During that time, commemorative markers of the Civil War tended to be ... “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, ...

So what was the real purpose of erecting them ? To sanitize traitors just afraid that someone MIGHT end slavery, or to sanitize the Jim Crowe Laws ?
 
Which of those forms of revisionist sanitation is being supported by white supremacists right now ?


Last edited by Geezess, 8/22/2017, 5:12 pm
8/22/2017, 4:52 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
Geezess Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1397
Karma: -1 (+3/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--


--Log in or sign up to see linked image content--

Is there a connection ?

"1895-1915: With blacks disenfranchised and Jim Crow laws safely in place, Southern whites continue their campaign of terror against blacks. This era features continued lynchings, the growing popularity of “Lost Cause” revisionist histories, a resurgence of white supremacy organizations like the KKK, and the erection of Confederate statues and monuments in large numbers."

So what was the real purpose ?

Last edited by Geezess, 8/22/2017, 5:03 pm
8/22/2017, 4:59 pm Link to this post PM Geezess Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


An ENTIRE 40 Actually FORTY monuments so sacrilegious in the 1960's.

And no Most do not depict a gregarious society or profess the shortcomings or the benefits of any nationality they were raised as the unit at Arlington to honor those that died, nothing more. The few that honored the generals or the President of the Confederacy I would have issue as to the honoring part but the as the South lost they WERE reconciled, a act that none of you seem to accept or appreciate.

Those days are gone, allow the history to die with those bad days, the statues can stand as Mute testament to the horrid days so as never to repeat them, Oh but you all cannot forgive anyone, I keep forgetting that.
8/22/2017, 7:15 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 1503
Karma: 11 (+14/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The onlt "Sane" Response heard


quote:

Bellelettres wrote:

I certainly agree with Condoleeza that sanitizing history is a bad thing. But she's wrong about what it is that sanitizes history. It's putting the statues in places of honor, with plaques that praise their bravery, that sanitize history.



The plaques need to be replaced with accounts of the truth.
8/22/2017, 8:12 pm Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


That would serve yobbo, but the vast majority ignored these monuments until recently so the plaques would serve few.

I believe placing attention to them was bad but attempting to sanitize by removal and rename is worse yet.
 
8/22/2017, 8:41 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


John yours is the exaggerated version of someone wearing a flag of 'Rebellion' as to rebelling against societal norms not empowering slavery or denoting a return to Jim Crow laws or any of the ideals set forth by the Confederacy. Ask the kids and some of them dimwits as to their 'Why' they have to decorate the style with Confederate Battle Flags and they will allude to only that simplistic answer they feel "Rebellious". You exaggerate within your own overwhelming need to destroy any vestige of what YOU consider a issue or see as a moniker of enslavement, just YOUR opinion not theirs. Now address that to KKK or any other White supremacist group and yes you get to their vision or envisioned issue but those are a handful at best in the US. as to numbers.

Now as to those exaggerated concerns, doing such Noble Good Deeds and Showing off to the Media so the Do-Gooding persons can have their day in the Sun and noticed for doing more good by demonstrated tearing down those Evil Nasty statues than those about them these are attention seeking idiots and need be reigned in or removed from the streets as they cause ever more uncontrolled damage.
8/22/2017, 8:50 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 1503
Karma: 11 (+14/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Cooter, have you ever been alone, confronted by a couple of dozen blacks who call you obscene names and threaten to do unspeakable damage to your person?

I had occasion to be treated by whites in much the way I described. It is terrifying.
8/23/2017, 1:30 am Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


How many times do wish recounted. Worked as a mechanic for the electrical supplier in East St. Louis, Washington Park, Alorton, Sauget and other nasty sectors of that area of IL. Know at least two dozen names for White that do not contain ANY of those letters, know what it is like to have a dozen or more Blacks yelling and chanting as to 'Kill da whitey sumbich", had one very large obnoxious woman complaining the lineman (Also White) was not getting her power back on fast enough while I worked to free his truck from the mattress spring assembly laying in the waist high grass along her driveway where she hiked her skirt squatted beside the truck and attempted to pee ON me. Had men spit at and ON me, had bottle thrown on and at me, had to have IL State Troopers escort myself and two BLACK linemen into Washington Park to restore power to a disabled persons home when the gang banging meth heads nearby shot the transformer feeding their home as suspected it held a camera watching them, they shot twice at the troopers(ALSO Black men) while we worked.

Your point?
8/23/2017, 1:40 am Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Then there are these small, insignificant points of ponder

Jim Crow Laws were found to be illegal ending with the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Voting Act was the year after 1965

Schools desegregation found illegal by SCOTUS in 1954, forced busing has done nothing to cure this as populations still move away from those districts.

To which, how many of the protestors were EVEN Alive then, how many Black members of BLM were alive then? How many had opportunity HANDED to them and shot it into the gutter? How many DID take that opportunity and did make something of and for themselves other than squalling they need more FREE money?

How many Actually Voted in the last five elections?
8/23/2017, 2:45 am Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user (premium)

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 4548
Karma: 3 (+17/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


I was taught that tariffs and not slavery were the main cause of the Civil War. That was WI in the 1950s.

And while many consider secession illegal, it can't be.
The states were sovereign first, and created the federal government under strong restrictions. When the federal government violates it contract, it can always be fired.
The federal government has NO sovereign authority at all, but only borrow upon what is delegated to it.
That is easy to prove because the United States is not the original federal government. The Articles of the Confederation were, in 1776.
But they were decided to be too weak, were desolved, and replaced by an entirely different federal government later, in 1789.

{...
The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 original states of the United States of America that served as its first constitution.[1] Its drafting by a committee appointed by the Second Continental Congress began on July 12, 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification on November 15, 1777. The Articles of Confederation came into force on March 1, 1781, after being ratified by all 13 states. A guiding principle of the Articles was to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the states. The federal government received only those powers which the colonies had recognized as belonging to king and parliament.[2]

The Articles formed a war-time confederation of states, with an extremely limited central government. While unratified, the document was used by the Congress to conduct business, direct the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with foreign nations, and deal with territorial issues and Native American relations. The adoption of the Articles made few perceptible changes in the federal government, because it did little more than legalize what the Continental Congress had been doing. That body was renamed the Congress of the Confederation; but Americans continued to call it the Continental Congress, since its organization remained the same.[2]

As the Confederation Congress attempted to govern the continually growing American states, delegates discovered that the limitations placed upon the central government rendered it ineffective at doing so. As the government's weaknesses became apparent, especially after Shays' Rebellion, individuals began asking for changes to the Articles. Their hope was to create a stronger national government. Initially, some states met to deal with their trade and economic problems. However, as more states became interested in meeting to change the Articles, a meeting was set in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. This became the Constitutional Convention. It was quickly realized that changes would not work, and instead the entire Articles needed to be replaced.[3] On March 4, 1789, the government under the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the Constitution.[4] The new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government by establishing a chief executive (the President), courts, and taxing powers.
...}
8/23/2017, 4:04 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Nothing other than the legal 'Interpretations' of those that cannot envision a change in the United States actually states a state may not secede. There are dubious distinctive conceptions as to the forever binding or arbitrary binding of a acceptance to the Constitution as a rule of law and encompassing a strict attachment of that state into the Union.

Nowhere save the allowance of 'Revolution' does it state a state may or may not dissolve its partnership within the Union and is not that what the CSA performed?

[sign in to see URL]
8/23/2017, 11:45 am Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 656
Karma: 1 (+6/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Cooter, did you read the article at the link you gave us? Here is a paragraph from that article:

The Constitution does not directly mention secession.[55] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century, with Southerners often claiming and Northerners generally denying that states have a legal right to unilaterally secede.[56] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[55] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[57] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[58] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.[56][59]

[sign in to see URL]

Here's a description of a Supreme Court case declaring unilateral secession unconstitutional.

The [Supreme] court ruled [in Texas v. White in 1869] … that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[2]

[sign in to see URL]

You are aware, are you not, that the Supreme Court has the last word on what is constitutional and what is not. Unless the Supreme Court has rescinded that decision, in a later case, unilateral secession is still unconstitutional.
8/23/2017, 12:13 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
John1959 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1021
Karma: 5 (+8/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


So now we've moved on to arguing whether states had the right to secede.

How about we talk about WHY they seceded, which is because they didn't want the federal government telling them they could not have slavery.

---
“I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” - NRA president Karl T. Frederick, 1938
8/23/2017, 12:16 pm Link to this post PM John1959 Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 2667
Karma: 5 (+12/-7)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


Is NOT what occurred. What occurred was the active taxation, tariff and otherwise obtrusive nature of Congress against those southern states economies that was BASED on their slave ownership/use. The North never stated they would have to give them up they unfairly applied financial pressure of the day to make it less financially viable. Conspicuous applied unfair trade rules, regulations and tariffs with the inability of the southern states to effectively fight off the maligning northern politics in a political arena off balance to the power of the northern states.

They had right to rebel against a unfair tactic of financial burden/hardship.

While inserted throughout is the applied language of 'Slavery' the arguments return to those tariffs, taxes and processes placed arduously upon the southern states in regard to exports. The slavery aspect seemingly leads to nowhere even as the writer adds in to context continually, just the economic functions stand clear and pronounced in this note of history.

[sign in to see URL]

8/23/2017, 1:37 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
John1959 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1021
Karma: 5 (+8/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


quote:

cooter50 wrote:

Is NOT what occurred. What occurred was the active taxation, tariff and otherwise obtrusive nature of Congress against those southern states economies that was BASED on their slave ownership/use. The North never stated they would have to give them up they unfairly applied financial pressure of the day to make it less financially viable. Conspicuous applied unfair trade rules, regulations and tariffs with the inability of the southern states to effectively fight off the maligning northern politics in a political arena off balance to the power of the northern states.

They had right to rebel against a unfair tactic of financial burden/hardship.

While inserted throughout is the applied language of 'Slavery' the arguments return to those tariffs, taxes and processes placed arduously upon the southern states in regard to exports. The slavery aspect seemingly leads to nowhere even as the writer adds in to context continually, just the economic functions stand clear and pronounced in this note of history.

[sign in to see URL]



Bullcrap. That is exactly what occurred.

You and others simply do not want to accept it because it means the Confederates were fighting for slavery - which you know is wrong - but that's just what happened.

Only the issue of slavery was so important to the South - at least for those with wealth and power.

Only the issue of slavery was something the South knew they could not fight in Congress.

Only the issue of slavery was something they knew that if new states joined the union as non-slave states it would put them in the minority.

And only by seceding did they have any hope of continuing the institution of slavery into the foreseeable future.

As Georgia wrote when seceding;
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.

As Mississippi wrote;
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

As South Carolina wrote;
...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.

As Texas wrote;
...an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

[sign in to see URL]

---
“I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” - NRA president Karl T. Frederick, 1938
8/23/2017, 2:15 pm Link to this post PM John1959 Blog
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 656
Karma: 1 (+6/-5)
Reply | Quote
Re: The only "Sane" Response heard


I'm inclined to believe the states about their reasons for seceding, instead of believing Cooter.
8/23/2017, 2:30 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top