demos
Legend
Posts: 9,211
|
Post by demos on Jul 16, 2020 15:08:54 GMT
1) Yes, conscription was a fact of life in both armies, but that doesn't diminish the fighting intensity and commitment of the typical Confederate. And you just made a point of mine; owners of 20 or more slaves WERE able to buy there way out, which means that the VAST majority of those who fought so well for the South were non slave owners and were obviously motivated by something else. Oops. And more than half of the 750,000 Confederates were volunteers, so don't pretend that they all had to be conscripted. Speaking of commitment, the Confederacy had some high desertion rates: see here and here. (One of my distant relatives deserted and joined the Union army, because his commanding officer kicked a plate of beans out of his hands; loads of commitment there). And no one ever said that "all" had to be conscripted, just that people had to be conscripted because they did not have enough volunteers. As for why various soldiers fought, this is a pretty good book drawing on letters, etc.: What They Fought For 1861-1865. And soldiers' reasons for fighting aren't necessarily the reasons political leaders sent them to fight and die in the first place (particularly when they don't volunteer). I'm sure. I grew up on what you're selling. I stopped buying, because I read a bunch of other sources (and finally heard family tales like that above); the most recent being The Half Has Never Been Told (in 2015 - I've been a Middle East and Central Asia history tear for a while). I am amenable to the idea of secession as peaceful means of separating oneself from the state. That amenability does not mean the Confederate reason for secession was noble, particularly as the cause was preserving the institution of slavery and economic system supported by it. Furthermore, in some cases, Confederate states prevented people from seceding; Tennessee sent troops to occupy Eastern counties wanting to secede from the state. Sure you have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 15:34:04 GMT
4) And yes, I have effectively countered everything here, whether you get that or not.
I don't think you have effectively countered a single thing. I believe your performance in this thread has been an embarrassment and has revealed how much of a religion this stuff is for you. You have no mind to consider any evidence or facts, no matter how conclusive, that cut against your chosen narrative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 15:38:26 GMT
Slavery was the main issue. The discussion of state's rights, sovereignty and all that is nothing but an argument about slavery. I do acknowledge that there were other issues but they were incidental to the issue of slavery. You can't read the South Carolina document and come away thinking slavery was only 20% of the disagreement. The whole document is about slavery. Your logic about the Corwin amendment has already been dealt with. The fight had devolved past the point of a legislative fix. The fight WAS about slavery and nothing about the Corwin amendment's fate calls that conclusion into question.
No, the South Carolina Declaration is still 20% about slavery and 80% about larger issues. If you think you can make the case, post the parts that you consider "all about slavery", but be prepared for the inevitable refutation.
No one with any credibility believes that. I already posted large portions of the document which make it clear that slavery is the issue. You couldn't respond to it then so what makes you think things will be different if I post it again? You can't refute a single thing being said. All you are doing is kicking sand, waving your hands, and shouting about how wrong everyone is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 16:52:33 GMT
First that a very simplistic understanding of party platforms.. Second you're moving the goal posts .. You said that there were no Progressives in the 1800s.. That is of course patently false. Mid 19th century Northern Free Soilers, Whigs and Northern Liberal Democrats formed the Republican Party. They pushed for an expansion of federal power used to prevent the expansion of slavery in new states among other goals. Southern Conservative Democrats deeply opposed the federal expansion.. HATED the prohibition of slavery in new Western states and in a dozen or more official state documents named this objection to the expansion of slavery as core to their acts of secession. There was a brief time that Republicans and Democrats both were enticing voters with big government ideas and populist plans. It's not until William Jennings Bryan that we begin to see the Democrats focus on social justice issues and shortly after the turn of the century we see such Progressive platform from Democrats..
You can whine about that until you turn blue but those are the facts.. and if you had ever actually read accounts from that period you'd know.
Yes.. You guys love to bring up Byrd.. I recently had to slap some sense into RWB about this very thing.
Byrd was elected as Conservative democrat... a thing you and P say cannot exist.. He left office a Moderate Democrat. But then we know that to you only Republicans are allowed to change their beliefs..
During his early days in the Senate—he was elected with the 1958 crop of Democrats who profited from President Eisenhower’s decline in popularity—Byrd took mostly easy, conservative positions. He railed against welfare cheaters and voted against major civil rights legislation, including the 1964 law; he came to have an unbroken record as a hawk on the Vietnam war and related international issues. He denounced student protesters and, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, took his turn worshipping at the altar of J. Edgar Hoover, even after the FBI director’s performance had begun to slip.
But by the time his senior colleague from West Virginia, Jennings Randolph, an old-time New Dealer, nominated him for whip when the Democratic caucus convened in 1971, Byrd had metamorphosed into a moderate and had enough progressive votes on his record—including support for open housing and gun control—to be acceptable across the spectrum. It amazes me that in this day and age we still have people that are so steadfastly tribal and ignorant of history as to reject out of hand the fact that Conservative and Republican or Liberal and Democrat are NOT interchangeable terms. I'll ask you the same question RWB ran away from .. Realizing that this will really put a strain the few brain cells still in your possession .. Just how does that work .. ? How does a Liberal.. someone who believes in civil rights and human rights.. believes in equal opportunities.. believes in secularism .. become a member of a Christian, segregationist movement .. ? You're a hoot. Republicans of the 19th and up to the mid 20th century were money grubbing filth...the neo-cons of their day. They were rarely abolitionists, and their motivations for wanting no slaves in new states and territories were both racist and political and not out of any concern for the wellbeing and plight of the slaves themselves. Here's Republican Lincoln's take on the real reasoning:
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…” - Abraham Lincoln
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 17:24:15 GMT
4) And yes, I have effectively countered everything here, whether you get that or not.
I don't think you have effectively countered a single thing. I believe your performance in this thread has been an embarrassment and has revealed how much of a religion this stuff is for you. You have no mind to consider any evidence or facts, no matter how conclusive, that cut against your chosen narrative. You seem to describing yourself rather than anyone else here. The left sure does love projecting. Evidence and facts point against your rather unoriginal defense of the Northern fairy tale. You are the one peddling a simplistic, almost cartoonish, narrative without any depth or breadth. It's the cult of "Slavery is the reason!" based on the Fallacy of the Magic Word/Phrase. Don't speak to me about religious fanaticism when I'm the one being labelled as a heretic for not accepting the PC narrative.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 16, 2020 19:33:35 GMT
I'm OK with people posting photos of others pulling down statues of racist traitors.
Not OK with Bert posting photos of himself after he's pulled down his pants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 6:56:44 GMT
I don't think you have effectively countered a single thing. I believe your performance in this thread has been an embarrassment and has revealed how much of a religion this stuff is for you. You have no mind to consider any evidence or facts, no matter how conclusive, that cut against your chosen narrative. You seem to describing yourself rather than anyone else here. The left sure does love projecting. Evidence and facts point against your rather unoriginal defense of the Northern fairy tale. You are the one peddling a simplistic, almost cartoonish, narrative without any depth or breadth. It's the cult of "Slavery is the reason!" based on the Fallacy of the Magic Word/Phrase. Don't speak to me about religious fanaticism when I'm the one being labelled as a heretic for not accepting the PC narrative. Revisionist arguments are not weighed in light of how different, radical or original they are. Its not enough to break with the official narrative. You also have to make good arguments and weigh the facts. And you have not done that in this thread. There isn't a poster here, left or right, who has found your arguments persuasive. That should be a clue.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,585
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 17, 2020 7:05:06 GMT
Wow. I seem to have to explain far too much to you. "Region" does NOT denote cause. Got it?
A full reading (rather than your cursory glance looking for your favorite trigger word) of the South Carolina Declaration shows that slavery was NOT the primary cause listed in that document. Here's where the pie graphs came from. This is not just my conclusion:
I'm actually the one fighting against the historical propaganda that you cling to. Set aside your subjectivity and look with me at the complexities and larger issues of that time that have unfortunately been rendered down for today's simpletons to the specious and rote chant "SLAVERY! SLAVERY! SLAVERY!"
Oh, so its just a coincidence that they mention the slave-holding states and not some other designation? You say a proper analysis suggests the South Carolina document was only 20% about slavery, with sovereignty and state's rights adding up to 57% of the cause. But when you read the document, the sovereignty passages are dealing with the fugitive slave act and the separate but equal statues (between the states) that was set up in the constitution. This "sovereignty" issue turns on the right to have property in slaves. And the states' rights concerns are about the Fugitive Slave Act and how its it not being enforced. I am tempted to say the South Carolina document is 100% about slavery. The following passage makes this clear. I don't read that and come away thinking slavery was 20% of the cause. I read it and come away thinking it was main issue. I know, silly me. Turns out, slavery wasn't such a big issue back before and during the Civil War. No. Turns out, it's the modern day liberal who's been making it a big deal now. But back then, in the mid 19th century? Nobody gave a shit about slavery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 7:13:58 GMT
Here is another example of incredibly relevant textual proof of the importance of slavery to the Civil War for our Paleo friends to ignore. From Alexander H. Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech": www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speechHe didn't say free trade is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy. Nor Christianity. It wasn't Mint Juleps, either. The Cornerstone was not the weeping willow tree, or a minstrel show set to Dixie. It was slavery, bro.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 7:23:56 GMT
Oh, so its just a coincidence that they mention the slave-holding states and not some other designation? You say a proper analysis suggests the South Carolina document was only 20% about slavery, with sovereignty and state's rights adding up to 57% of the cause. But when you read the document, the sovereignty passages are dealing with the fugitive slave act and the separate but equal statues (between the states) that was set up in the constitution. This "sovereignty" issue turns on the right to have property in slaves. And the states' rights concerns are about the Fugitive Slave Act and how its it not being enforced. I am tempted to say the South Carolina document is 100% about slavery. The following passage makes this clear. I don't read that and come away thinking slavery was 20% of the cause. I read it and come away thinking it was main issue. I know, silly me. Turns out, slavery wasn't such a big issue back before and during the Civil War. No. Turns out, it's the modern day liberal who's been making it a big deal now. But back then, in the mid 18th century? Nobody gave a shit about slavery. So true. Slavery just wasn't that big of an issue. It didn't bleed over into struggles over how new states would be admitted, or how slaves would impact population totals and house seats, or whether states had the right to offer sanctuary to people fleeing bondage. We're basically dealing with the 19th century equivalent to the War on Christmas- a minor issue at best. lol
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,585
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 17, 2020 7:25:52 GMT
Oh, so its just a coincidence that they mention the slave-holding states and not some other designation? You say a proper analysis suggests the South Carolina document was only 20% about slavery, with sovereignty and state's rights adding up to 57% of the cause. But when you read the document, the sovereignty passages are dealing with the fugitive slave act and the separate but equal statues (between the states) that was set up in the constitution. This "sovereignty" issue turns on the right to have property in slaves. And the states' rights concerns are about the Fugitive Slave Act and how its it not being enforced. I am tempted to say the South Carolina document is 100% about slavery. The following passage makes this clear. I don't read that and come away thinking slavery was 20% of the cause. I read it and come away thinking it was main issue. I know, silly me. Turns out, slavery wasn't such a big issue back before and during the Civil War. No. Turns out, it's the modern day liberal who's been making it a big deal now. But back then, in the mid 18th century? Nobody gave a shit about slavery. And the part about those modern day anarchist liberals goes double when it comes to the darker ones. Or triple. They are the worst. Liberals. The worst liberals. I clearly didn't mean anything bad about darker people. Just darker liberals. On that, I want the record to be clear.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,585
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 17, 2020 7:32:25 GMT
Turns out, slavery wasn't such a big issue back before and during the Civil War. No. Turns out, it's the modern day liberal who's been making it a big deal now. But back then, in the mid 18th century? Nobody gave a shit about slavery. So true. Slavery just wasn't that big of an issue. It didn't bleed over into struggles over how new states would be admitted, or how slaves would impact population totals and house seats, or whether states had the right to offer sanctuary to people fleeing bondage. We're basically dealing with the 19th century equivalent to the War on Christmas- a minor issue at best. lol When I was turning 15, all I wanted for my birthday was this one black girl. She was wild, to me anyway. People said she was 16, and oh, the way she danced! Anyway, Daddie wouldn't buy her for me. He blamed Lincoln, but I blamed him.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 17, 2020 7:38:03 GMT
So true. Slavery just wasn't that big of an issue. It didn't bleed over into struggles over how new states would be admitted, or how slaves would impact population totals and house seats, or whether states had the right to offer sanctuary to people fleeing bondage. We're basically dealing with the 19th century equivalent to the War on Christmas- a minor issue at best. lol When I was turning 15, all I wanted for my birthday was this one black girl. She was wild, to me anyway. People said she was 16, and oh, the way she danced! Anyway, Daddie wouldn't buy her for me. He blamed Lincoln, but I blamed him.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and guess your real last name isn't Trump.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,585
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 17, 2020 7:57:35 GMT
94% of Southerners who owned no slaves.
Yes.. I agreed with you some time ago that Grandmothers and toddlers seldom owned slaves..
On the other hand .. 49% of the families in Mississippi owned slaves.
Oops ..
And let me clue these backwoods Boogaloos as to why the numbers weren't even higher: You will notice that the concentration of slave holders seems to "concentrate" around the Heart of the Confederacy. Surely even you Confederates can figure that one out, no? So wherever an escaping slave could only escape into slave territory the "concentration" was the greatest, lessening in "concentration" as you radiate out from the Confederate center? So, had the slave owning states been allowed to continue expansion all the way to the Pacific, (as they wished), that area of greatest concentration would have also continued to expand, just as it had throughout the course of that wretched, dehumanizing institution known as American chattel slavery. Thus, contrary to the trumPian narrative, slavery didn't commit suicide. It was pushed. It was pushed into the dustbin of history, waiting for today's GOP to drag it out and dust it off. Way to go Cult 45! You're the best racists ever! But let's not pretend that slavery was all bad. It didn't only give us slavery. It gave us the traitorous Confederacy . It also gave us Jim Crow. And statues. Never forget those poor, innocent statues. Ripped from their states' rights statue wombs. Millions of them. Every year. God Damn Liberals!
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 17, 2020 8:11:36 GMT
94% of Southerners who owned no slaves.
Yes.. I agreed with you some time ago that Grandmothers and toddlers seldom owned slaves..
On the other hand .. 49% of the families in Mississippi owned slaves.
Oops ..
Well, that should set back the slavery apologists a few squares.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 13:07:28 GMT
You seem to describing yourself rather than anyone else here. The left sure does love projecting. Evidence and facts point against your rather unoriginal defense of the Northern fairy tale. You are the one peddling a simplistic, almost cartoonish, narrative without any depth or breadth. It's the cult of "Slavery is the reason!" based on the Fallacy of the Magic Word/Phrase. Don't speak to me about religious fanaticism when I'm the one being labelled as a heretic for not accepting the PC narrative. Revisionist arguments are not weighed in light of how different, radical or original they are. Its not enough to break with the official narrative. You also have to make good arguments and weigh the facts. And you have not done that in this thread. There isn't a poster here, left or right, who has found your arguments persuasive. That should be a clue. Wow, that's as specious as it gets. When is the last time that ANYONE here has changed their mind on ANY issue, regardless of the facts thrown at them? I've provide facts to back up everything that I've said on this thread as well as factually refuted the "official" (i.e., the politically correct fiction based on the "magic word) narrative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 13:21:32 GMT
Oh, so its just a coincidence that they mention the slave-holding states and not some other designation? You say a proper analysis suggests the South Carolina document was only 20% about slavery, with sovereignty and state's rights adding up to 57% of the cause. But when you read the document, the sovereignty passages are dealing with the fugitive slave act and the separate but equal statues (between the states) that was set up in the constitution. This "sovereignty" issue turns on the right to have property in slaves. And the states' rights concerns are about the Fugitive Slave Act and how its it not being enforced. I am tempted to say the South Carolina document is 100% about slavery. The following passage makes this clear. I don't read that and come away thinking slavery was 20% of the cause. I read it and come away thinking it was main issue. I know, silly me. Turns out, slavery wasn't such a big issue back before and during the Civil War. No. Turns out, it's the modern day liberal who's been making it a big deal now. But back then, in the mid 18th century? Nobody gave a shit about slavery. The mid 18th century? That would be the year 1750. I'm beginning to see why you aren't too versed on this subject.
But even a blind squirrel gets lunch occasionally.
Here's a mental exercise for you: first, think about the varying ideas about abortion today. Some think that it's slaughtering human beings, others think that it is a lifestyle choice to be robustly defended. It has been confirmed as legal by the courts for many decades, but still there are those who vehemently oppose the dehumanization and destruction of innocent children in that process. Most people don't like the idea of abortion but accept its legality.
That is EXACTLY the parallel to public sentiments related to slavery in the 19th century. I just wish we had the courage to secede over THAT issue today; too much bread and too many circuses for that type of thing to occur now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 13:48:06 GMT
Turns out, slavery wasn't such a big issue back before and during the Civil War. No. Turns out, it's the modern day liberal who's been making it a big deal now. But back then, in the mid 18th century? Nobody gave a shit about slavery. And the part about those modern day anarchist liberals goes double when it comes to the darker ones. Or triple. They are the worst. Liberals. The worst liberals. I clearly didn't mean anything bad about darker people. Just darker liberals. On that, I want the record to be clear. This one evidently enjoys being the court jester. He can't tell the 18th from the 19th century, but jokes? He's got a million of them!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 14:16:23 GMT
Here is another example of incredibly relevant textual proof of the importance of slavery to the Civil War for our Paleo friends to ignore. From Alexander H. Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech": www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speechHe didn't say free trade is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy. Nor Christianity. It wasn't Mint Juleps, either. The Cornerstone was not the weeping willow tree, or a minstrel show set to Dixie. It was slavery, bro. There you go again. Do you actually think that it is factually or statistically sound to take the Cornerstone Speech, a single POLITICAL diatribe by ONE MAN among the 1% elitists, as proof of the motivation of the other five million Southerners of that era? I guess that means that a speech by Mark Zuckerburg or Jeff Bezos or even Mike Pence represents proof that the majority of Americans believe exactly the same thing, right?
You made the same fallacious error with the small list of Declarations of Causes and the insignificant number of statue dedication speeches.
Your idea of what constitutes evidence needs work, "bro".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 14:57:48 GMT
Here is another example of incredibly relevant textual proof of the importance of slavery to the Civil War for our Paleo friends to ignore. From Alexander H. Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech": www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speechHe didn't say free trade is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy. Nor Christianity. It wasn't Mint Juleps, either. The Cornerstone was not the weeping willow tree, or a minstrel show set to Dixie. It was slavery, bro. There you go again. Do you actually think that it is factually or statistically sound to take the Cornerstone Speech, a single POLITICAL diatribe by ONE MAN among the 1% elitists, as proof of the motivation of the other five million Southerners of that era? I guess that means that a speech by Mark Zuckerburg or Jeff Bezos or even Mike Pence represents proof that the majority of Americans believe exactly the same thing, right?
You made the same fallacious error with the small list of Declarations of Causes and the insignificant number of statue dedication speeches.
You lame idea of what constitutes evidences needs work, "bro".
After a while, it becomes obvious that you will dismiss anything (and I do mean *anything*) which does not confirm your biases. It is clear that you are not discussing this in good faith. Regarding those millions of Southerners, let me remind you that there was a draft which forced those poor folks to fight and die for the Southern 1% and their slave economy. I believe you've made that point yourself. And now you want to ignore the reasons the elite gave for their war. You've made an art out of ignoring and dismissing the obvious. If we do year end awards again on the boards, I nominate you for the Ray Charles Poster of the Year.
|
|