Chop the Confederacy, now?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 41 - 60 of total 141 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jan 21, 2019 - 10:04am PT
Uh, Larry, the pyramids were built by paid laborers.

And they invented beer in the process.

Win, win.
Gnome Ofthe Diabase

climber
Out Of Bed
Jan 21, 2019 - 10:05am PT

\











huh?
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Jan 21, 2019 - 11:15am PT
Uniforms or not, today's "liberal" college students resemble Hilter Youth much more so than any group of Trump supporters. Conservative speaker events on college campuses are frequently shut down or cancelled due to student protests. It's strong-armed censorship.

And then you have the antifa groups showing up and resorting to violence at peaceful conservative events. Sometimes, antifa shows up and there's no rightwingers. What do they do? They attack reporters and event security.

I know the Proud Boys have been involved in clashes with Antifa. But have they harassed peaceful leftwing protesters in a manner similar to Antifa's bullying?

Leftwing brownshirt tactics are fairly common. The new normal.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 21, 2019 - 11:30am PT
And, somehow, Mexicans in the USA that paste Mexican flag stickers on their cars and fly the Mexican flag are okey-dokey.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 21, 2019 - 01:07pm PT
^^^ Yeah, exactly like the "confederates."

See, what you seem to forget is that the HUMAN condition, throughout ALL of history, is that the winners get the land. Period. And that's as "moral" as it gets.

So, get off your high horse. It's lame and limping around in circles.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 21, 2019 - 03:28pm PT
^^^ Lame and limping around in circles.

The left perpetually wants to help itself to the very Judeo-Christian value system that it despises.

You are ignorant of political philosophy, and you defy historical (and biological) facts, but you hobby-horse a few catch-phrases and are thus wise in your own mind.

If you actually cared about biology, history, and political philosophy, you would acknowledge the FACT that is summed up in this quote by Black Hawk:


The "Confederates" AND the Mexicans got "whipped" (not to mention the indigenous population), and that's the way of the world. You don't get to cherry pick the "good" and the "bad" based on merely your preferences. FEDERALISM is what swept across this continent.

The "Confederates" were NO more "racist" than the North, and slavery was already effectively out the window by the time the Civil war happened. The Civil war was not about slavery, and IT did not free the slaves nor end racism in either the North or the South.

The "Confederates" didn't have a "platform of racism." They had a platform of anti-federalism, and that platform was widely held from even before the framing of our constitution. Slavery and "racism" are red herrings in a discussion of the Civil war and the Confederacy. Lincoln USED the slavery issue for strategic purposes, but Lincoln himself repeatedly said that he would abandon the slavery issue if he thought that the Union could be thus preserved. It had strategic value to him, nothing more.

And, as I say, the South would have voluntarily abandoned slavery within a few years anyway. The cost of keeping slaves had rendered slaves not an economical workforce. Already machines were in widespread use that were much less costly. This fact is well known by those not ignorant of history.

Edit: (BTW, it's not like Europeans were running all over Africa with big butterfly nets capturing "darkies" for the slave market. Inter-tribal warfare and the existing slave trade on the African continent going back as far as human history was the source of the slaves that ended up on the American continent. Blacks were enslaving other blacks for countless centuries before "colonialists" ever showed up on that continent. And brown/red-skins were slaughtering each other for countless centuries before "Europeans" ever showed up on the American continent.)

The most important point regarding the Confederacy is that its anti-federalism is now seeming much more prescient in our era of unlimited federal power, which even the federalist framers of our constitution never envisioned!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 21, 2019 - 03:56pm PT
^^^ That post is such a rambling, babbling mess that I literally can't decipher it enough to respond.

Look, there are simply historical and biological facts. Ignore/defy them at your own peril.

The "Confederacy" was not the same thing as the caricature of it that the left now portrays, and the North was not the saints that the left now portrays.

And this continent consisted of inter-tribal warfare, land "theft," and, yes, even slavery as far back as human history. Such are the human conditions.

And neither "the left" nor "the right" are doing ANYTHING different today. Both sides of the aisle believe in theft, and both have "moral principles" (not!) to "justify" their own version of it.

Nothing changes.
dirtbag

climber
Jan 22, 2019 - 07:52am PT
It would be just as fitting to put up statues of German generals and Nazi leaders in Israel.

WBraun

climber
Jan 22, 2019 - 08:02am PT
Israel is a fascist racist apartheid nazi state already ....
dirtbag

climber
Jan 22, 2019 - 08:08am PT
The "Confederates" didn't have a "platform of racism." They had a platform of anti-federalism, and that platform was widely held from even before the framing of our constitution.


Good lord, what a crock.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

From the first sentence of Georgia’s declaration of causes. Other states’ declarations have similar language. If you want to argue it was about a state’s rights to enslave human beings, I wouldnt dispute that. But countless documents (I found the above after about 12 seconds of googling) show one thing: it was a wretched war started by wretched men over a wretched cause. And yet, 150 years, some suckers still believe the white supremacist southern lost cause horsesh#t. Sad!

fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Jan 22, 2019 - 08:48am PT
All war is a racket run by profiteering sociopaths promoting palatable puppets masquerading as your "leaders". The civil war was ultimately profitable for banksters in the North as they gained a stranglehold on control of the entire southern region. The South had threatened secession in the 1850's when the North doubled their taxes. The whole facade of fighting for a higher moral purpose (like slavery) is almost always BS frosting on the propaganda cake. Like when any political movement is "for the children" it's always a lie.

Fritz

Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
Jan 22, 2019 - 09:04am PT
MB1? I agree with dirtbag's above post & my considerable reading of 19th century U.S. history has given me insights at odds with your "whitey-sanitizing" of the root cause of the American Civil War.

Slavery.

You posted:
The "Confederates" were NO more "racist" than the North, and slavery was already effectively out the window by the time the Civil war happened. The Civil war was not about slavery, and IT did not free the slaves nor end racism in either the North or the South.

The "Confederates" didn't have a "platform of racism." They had a platform of anti-federalism, and that platform was widely held from even before the framing of our constitution. Slavery and "racism" are red herrings in a discussion of the Civil war and the Confederacy. Lincoln USED the slavery issue for strategic purposes, but Lincoln himself repeatedly said that he would abandon the slavery issue if he thought that the Union could be thus preserved. It had strategic value to him, nothing more.

And, as I say, the South would have voluntarily abandoned slavery within a few years anyway. The cost of keeping slaves had rendered slaves not an economical workforce. Already machines were in widespread use that were much less costly. This fact is well known by those not ignorant of history.

Of course, a leading Christian intellectual like you, could not possibly admit to having been influenced by racist apologists for the Southern Cause.

Perhaps another installment of your famous "wall of words" will show us the errors in our reading of history?
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Jan 22, 2019 - 09:51am PT
So, the South seceded to preserve the right to own slaves.

What were the North's motivations to wage war against the South?

Was it a humanitarian effort to end slavery?

Or were the Northerns as self-interested the Southerners?
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jan 22, 2019 - 10:22am PT
What were the North's motivations to wage war against the South?

That is the question nobody seems to want to answer, isn't it. And while I don't know what the North's motivation was, it is worth repeating the words of Abraham Lincoln, during his debates with Stephen Douglas in the run-up to the presidential election in 1860:

“I am not now, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black race; I am not now nor have I ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I, as much as any man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Yeah, that was Lincoln. The Great Emancipator.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 22, 2019 - 10:25am PT
^^^ That.

It was "a factor," and nobody is denying it. But it was NOT what the South, or the war, was "about."

At this point, all left-wing references to Hitler and Nazis are so deflated in value as to be a complete joke.

The Confederacy was ABOUT anti-federalism. Slavery was listed among other issues as being States' rights issues. But, I repeat, slavery would have gone away in the South within a few years, war or no war.

And the monument that has y'all's panties in a wad honors men that Lincoln himself honored throughout the war and thereafter.

There were excesses on both sides of that war, and there were profoundly honorable men on both sides of that war. To call that fact, and other facts I've stated, "whitey sanitizing" is simply to reveal your own deep-seated racism.

It's pathetic, really, that the left thinks that white-hating is the necessary precondition to portraying themselves as "not racist."
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jan 22, 2019 - 10:32am PT
Well put, Ghost and MB. This thread is like some 7th grade social studies class.
stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Jan 22, 2019 - 10:36am PT
MB1 your arguments are usually pretty reasonable.
But multiple state declarations of secession have slavery as a primary reason why they are seceding.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

I haven't seen any reputable analysis that indicated slavery was going to stop any time soon. If anything, the establishment of Jim Crow laws after the Civil War would seem to argue the opposite. There still seemed to be plenty of desire in the South to remove the rights of blacks.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jan 22, 2019 - 11:08am PT
One argument I have heard is that the North's motivation for ending slavery was that without slave labor, the south's economy would collapse. That it was the economics of slavery, not the morality of slavery, that was the issue.

I don't know how much truth there is in that, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jan 22, 2019 - 11:13am PT
So you mean it wasn’t just a gangsta turf war?
stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Jan 22, 2019 - 11:13am PT
I'm not sure that the north wanted the south's economy to collapse before the war. There were plenty of folks in the north that benefited from that economy.
But there were definitely abolitionists in the North. And they wanted to be able to assist fleeing slaves. If you look those statements of secession, they do make points about federalism and states rights. But a lot of that is in the context of them not only wanting the right to own slaves, but in wanting the non-slave states in the north to be required to return any fleeing slaves(property).
Messages 41 - 60 of total 141 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta