Charlottesville riots

[kalm]

I agree, and history agrees.

We will never know any other possibility, because this intentional act by Lincoln started the war.
Lincoln just wanted to reunite the nation.

Slavery became an issue, and was an underlying current, but the war started over Ft Sumter, not the slaves. In any body's text book.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Well that's a bit of a "nuanced" view (klam's likes that)

But I've said many times on this forum - and since you are relatively new - I'll pull a JSO and repeat myself

Bruce Catton is one of my favorite Civil War historians because he had a singular gift of brevity and summary-

He said that the war had many causes, but if those, there was only one that if it had not existed, the war would not have happened - and that was slavery.

We got to the point of Fort Sumter because the South seceded

The South seceded because it felt an existential threat to its economy- propagated by economic policies generated in the largely abolitionist political class in northern states

The Southern economy, to a large degree, depended on cash crops made wildly profitable with slave labor.

The politics of Southern states were absolutely ruled by the planter class - much in the same way our own modern politics are ruled by the corporate class

The Civil War absolutely, at its core, could not have happened in the absence of chattel slavery

Every male ancestor of mine who was of fighting age during the war was a soldier in the confederacy. One buried his own brother at Seven Pines. Another was captured at Gettysburg and spent the rest of the war in point lookout MD and walked home to NC after he was paroled in 1865. I cart bookcases of books about the war all over the world, and I visit battlegrounds multiple times and explore every corner of them. I know just about everything there is to know about Lee and Jackson, and also Grant and Sherman.

If there is anyone who ought to be unreconstructed, it is me. But that war was about slavery, and it was prosecuted by men who profited from it. Lincoln's motivation was not about slavery at first- that much is correct - But that obscures the fact that the South most certainly WAS fighting for the preservation of the institutution

I'm an admirer of both Lee and Jackson and I want to see them memorialized for who they really were. But a lot of that is being obscured by the cause for which they ultimately fought

Lee and Jackson are Christmas figures in the South- that is an artifact of the Lost Cause - But also a tacit admission that they were noble warriors for a flawed country. I think in that vein they have one last sacrifice to make

[kalm]

No, it's not. Not even remotely. If a white person in any way, shape or form shows or intimates that they're proud of being white they are immediately labeled a racist. It does not matter WHAT form that "pride" takes.

This is the "fact" of the whole matter

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Ummmm......no.

Louis CK has a whole bit about how he likes being white and if given the choice would sign up again.

There are Scandinavian festivals through the Northwest.

[Pwns]

The Civil War absolutely, at its core, could not have happened in the absence of chattel slavery

This is the one part of your post that I can't agree with. When you've got two regions of the country that are as different as they are conflicts can emerge on any number of fronts.

It's like the EU's existential crisis...people can blame nativism by Eastern Europe or greed by Germany if they want to but ultimately it's hard to bring together a heterogeneous group of countries under one umbrella.

You might as well blame quantum mechanics for for an arson.

[kalm]

The Civil War absolutely, at its core, could not have happened in the absence of chattel slavery

This is the one part of your post that I can't agree with. When you've got two regions of the country that are as different as they are conflicts can emerge on any number of fronts.

Ok, but wasn't it about economics?

[CID1990]

The Civil War absolutely, at its core, could not have happened in the absence of chattel slavery

This is the one part of your post that I can't agree with. When you've got two regions of the country that are as different as they are conflicts can emerge on any number of fronts.

It's like the EU's existential crisis...people can blame nativism by Eastern Europe or greed by Germany if they want to but ultimately it's hard to bring together a heterogeneous group of countries under one umbrella.

You might as well blame quantum mechanics for for an arson.

Pwns- you're ignoring the fact that the country, just prior to the war, split into two countries. Ultimately over the question of slavery when you boil it all down - and that is the one and only issue that divided the country from even before it was a country

It isn't like the south was going to leave the union over disagreements about foreign policy or differences over sweet tea or grits vs cream of wheat. Keep in mind that both north and south cooperated perfectly well over just about everything else- including fighting a full blown war and invasion of another country (Mexico) less than two decades before the civil war. The slavery issue tainted American politics even at the signing of the Dec of Independence, and it had a direct effect on the ratification of the Constitution

The south was going to be forced - through the democratic process - to abandon slavery and therefore abandon its economic base, and its aristocracy.

No other issue would have driven the southern states to try to split from the union and strike off on their own -

[Bisonfanatical]

This is the "fact" of the whole matter

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Ummmm......no.

Louis CK has a whole bit about how he likes being white and if given the choice would sign up again.

There are Scandinavian festivals through the Northwest.

This isn't about once or twice a year functions.

The point is that if you have a large group of black males gathering under some sign or emblem who start an organization, and express pride in being black (why?) That is acceptable in our current society.

If you have a large group of white males gathering under some sign or emblem who start an organization, and express pride in being white (why?) That is NOT acceptable in our current society.

This thread is proof of that

There is a black congressional caucus ... so you see a white one?

Thru my life time these characters have went after every exclusive male/white male organization out there to dismantle it.

On fact look at the NAACP, the so called colored people happen to be black. The sad yet overlooked point is that ALL ethnicities are "colored people" ... try to join our find representation thru them.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[OL FU]

This is the one part of your post that I can't agree with. When you've got two regions of the country that are as different as they are conflicts can emerge on any number of fronts.

It's like the EU's existential crisis...people can blame nativism by Eastern Europe or greed by Germany if they want to but ultimately it's hard to bring together a heterogeneous group of countries under one umbrella.

You might as well blame quantum mechanics for for an arson.

Pwns- you're ignoring the fact that the country, just prior to the war, split into two countries. Ultimately over the question of slavery when you boil it all down - and that is the one and only issue that divided the country from even before it was a country

It isn't like the south was going to leave the union over disagreements about foreign policy or differences over sweet tea or grits vs cream of wheat. Keep in mind that both north and south cooperated perfectly well over just about everything else- including fighting a full blown war and invasion of another country (Mexico) less than two decades before the civil war. The slavery issue tainted American politics even at the signing of the Dec of Independence, and it had a direct effect on the ratification of the Constitution

The south was going to be forced - through the democratic process - to abandon slavery and therefore abandon its economic base, and its aristocracy.

No other issue would have driven the southern states to try to split from the union and strike off on their own -

First, I accept that you know a lot more about this than I do. So I ask for information and clarity.
Second, I understand and agree that the south seceded due to fear of losing 60% of its wealth which was comprised of slaves. So without slavery, the south would not have seceded. The occupation of Fort Sumter by Union troops would not have been an issue. So the first shots would never have been fired. therefore, no war.

But to the reasons individual soldiers fought, I think is a little more complicated (while admitting that ultimately, their fight was defending slavery.) I think one question might answer that question.

If Virginia had not seceded, would Lee have accepted Lincoln's request to lead the Union Army? If the answer to that question is yes, then it would seem, on an individual basis, the decision to fight may not have been driven by slavery at all (while still admitting that the fight was largely about slavery).

Of course maybe it is a moot point, but the argument, in my opinion, has always been were the soldiers fighting for their homeland or were they fighting to preserve slavery.

Interested in what you think.


PS, it is also my opinion that the statutes should come down (although not really that big of a deal to me). I really don't want to see the pain and suffering this is going to cause in the near term future.

[GannonFan]

This is the one part of your post that I can't agree with. When you've got two regions of the country that are as different as they are conflicts can emerge on any number of fronts.

It's like the EU's existential crisis...people can blame nativism by Eastern Europe or greed by Germany if they want to but ultimately it's hard to bring together a heterogeneous group of countries under one umbrella.

You might as well blame quantum mechanics for for an arson.

Pwns- you're ignoring the fact that the country, just prior to the war, split into two countries. Ultimately over the question of slavery when you boil it all down - and that is the one and only issue that divided the country from even before it was a country

It isn't like the south was going to leave the union over disagreements about foreign policy or differences over sweet tea or grits vs cream of wheat. Keep in mind that both north and south cooperated perfectly well over just about everything else- including fighting a full blown war and invasion of another country (Mexico) less than two decades before the civil war. The slavery issue tainted American politics even at the signing of the Dec of Independence, and it had a direct effect on the ratification of the Constitution

The south was going to be forced - through the democratic process - to abandon slavery and therefore abandon its economic base, and its aristocracy.

No other issue would have driven the southern states to try to split from the union and strike off on their own -

Yup, I agree with this. The South never would've left the Union if slavery didn't exist. We don't have a Civil War without slavery, just nothing would've risen to that level of contention. Individual people may have gone off to war without slavery in mind, but they wouldn't have had a war to fight in in the first place without slavery, at the core, driving the major disagreements in the country even going back to the founding.

[ASUG8]

Yup, I agree with this. The South never would've left the Union if slavery didn't exist. We don't have a Civil War without slavery, just nothing would've risen to that level of contention. Individual people may have gone off to war without slavery in mind, but they wouldn't have had a war to fight in in the first place without slavery, at the core, driving the major disagreements in the country even going back to the founding.

The thing is that people assume if you're white and from the south, your family owned slaves. That's patently false in either side of my parent's lineage and I'll bet 90%+ of the men who fought for the south didn't own slaves either. It's been called the rich man's war and a poor man's fight. Most of the soldiers weren't told they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, but rather to fight for state sovereignty and to protect their families and possessions from invaders from the north.

[GannonFan]

Yup, I agree with this. The South never would've left the Union if slavery didn't exist. We don't have a Civil War without slavery, just nothing would've risen to that level of contention. Individual people may have gone off to war without slavery in mind, but they wouldn't have had a war to fight in in the first place without slavery, at the core, driving the major disagreements in the country even going back to the founding.

The thing is that people assume if you're white and from the south, your family owned slaves. That's patently false in either side of my parent's lineage and I'll bet 90%+ of the men who fought for the south didn't own slaves either. It's been called the rich man's war and a poor man's fight. Most of the soldiers weren't told they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, but rather to fight for state sovereignty and to protect their families and possessions from invaders from the north.

And the state sovereignty was almost solely about being able to keep slavery legal. Don't need to go any further than I believe every state's articles of secession. I don't think that many people assume if you were white and from the south that you owned slaves - big wealthy plantations were the biggest location of slaves. But all the big disagreements since 1787 around government were centered around the question of slavery - was it legal, was it to be continued, and was it to be expanded into a growing United States. State sovereignty was almost always about slavery and the argument over whether the state or the federal government could decide on slavery. It's hard, at the root, to argue that the South was fighting for anything else.

[Grizalltheway]

Yup, I agree with this. The South never would've left the Union if slavery didn't exist. We don't have a Civil War without slavery, just nothing would've risen to that level of contention. Individual people may have gone off to war without slavery in mind, but they wouldn't have had a war to fight in in the first place without slavery, at the core, driving the major disagreements in the country even going back to the founding.

The thing is that people assume if you're white and from the south, your family owned slaves. That's patently false in either side of my parent's lineage and I'll bet 90%+ of the men who fought for the south didn't own slaves either. It's been called the rich man's war and a poor man's fight. Most of the soldiers weren't told they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, but rather to fight for state sovereignty and to protect their families and possessions from invaders from the north.

So like basically every war ever?

[kalm]

Ummmm......no.

Louis CK has a whole bit about how he likes being white and if given the choice would sign up again.

There are Scandinavian festivals through the Northwest.

This isn't about once or twice a year functions.

The point is that if you have a large group of black males gathering under some sign or emblem who start an organization, and express pride in being black (why?) That is acceptable in our current society.

If you have a large group of white males gathering under some sign or emblem who start an organization, and express pride in being white (why?) That is NOT acceptable in our current society.

This thread is proof of that

There is a black congressional caucus ... so you see a white one?

Thru my life time these characters have went after every exclusive male/white male organization out there to dismantle it.

On fact look at the NAACP, the so called colored people happen to be black. The sad yet overlooked point is that ALL ethnicities are "colored people" ... try to join our find representation thru them.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Here's what Z wrote and you agreed with...

"If a white person in any way, shape or form shows or intimates that they're proud of being white they are immediately labeled a racist."

I get the whole "we can't have a white pride whatever, kind of thing". As a white man who's fine with my skin color and cognizant of the past, I don't lose too much sleep over the unfairness and hypocrisy nor do I feel a huge need to unfurl my whiteness.

[ASUG8]

The thing is that people assume if you're white and from the south, your family owned slaves. That's patently false in either side of my parent's lineage and I'll bet 90%+ of the men who fought for the south didn't own slaves either. It's been called the rich man's war and a poor man's fight. Most of the soldiers weren't told they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, but rather to fight for state sovereignty and to protect their families and possessions from invaders from the north.

And the state sovereignty was almost solely about being able to keep slavery legal. Don't need to go any further than I believe every state's articles of secession. I don't think that many people assume if you were white and from the south that you owned slaves - big wealthy plantations were the biggest location of slaves. But all the big disagreements since 1787 around government were centered around the question of slavery - was it legal, was it to be continued, and was it to be expanded into a growing United States. State sovereignty was almost always about slavery and the argument over whether the state or the federal government could decide on slavery. It's hard, at the root, to argue that the South was fighting for anything else.

I'm not arguing that slavery wasn't a key component of the war, but rather that the rank and file weren't motivated by keeping the institution of slavery since they received very little direct benefit from it being non-owners. From what I've read the army makeup was about 75%/25% conscription to volunteers, and leaders had to appeal to their love and protection of home and family in order to keep their troops motivated to stay in the fight.

[Chizzang]

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.
Jean-Paul Sartre

Hecken, even the French knew this old chestnut

[Grizalltheway]

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.
Jean-Paul Sartre

Hecken, even the French knew this old chestnut

Also Black Sabbath

[kalm]

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.
Jean-Paul Sartre

Hecken, even the French knew this old chestnut

Also Black Sabbath

And probably Carl Spackler...

[Chizzang]

[89Hen]

Traitors, there is that nonsensical word again.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

If people that were in open rebellion against the United States doesn't meet your definition of traitors, then nothing does

Flag burners... traitors Jon?

[89Hen]

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.
Jean-Paul Sartre

Hecken, even the French knew this old chestnut

Also Black Sabbath

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

[Ibanez]

Traitors, there is that nonsensical word again.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

If people that were in open rebellion against the United States doesn't meet your definition of traitors, then nothing does

Just like open rebellion against King George.

[89Hen]

Neato. So next time I see somebody with whom I disagree, I can punch them in the face since it's irrelevant.

The white supremacists are repugnant and their speech is hateful. You still can't assault them.

Root and branch.

We settled this shit 70 years ago. Being proud of being white is fine. Wearing a kkk robe or waving a swastika flag isn't about being proud of being White, it's about something else entirely and everyone knows that.

Waving a swastika flag... is it illegal?

[Ibanez]

I don't think that the South firing on Fort Sumter was the reason for the war. I think the reason for the war is that the Union did not want to let the South go. There was going to be an invasion whether Fort Sumter was fired upon or not.

History recorded that the war started over Ft Sumter, that is a fact.

You could be right, Maybe there would have been an invasion anyway? Possible, we don't know.

There was a difference in opinion about slavery between the north and the south.

But my point remains that history records that the WAR started over Ft Sumter.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Wrong. The war BEGAN at Fort Sumter. As Cid mentined, when Lincoln sent the Star of the West to resupply the fort, the Confederates fired. They warned that any resupply would have been an act of war.

The root of the war was the economic and states rights issue of slavery.

[Grizalltheway]

If people that were in open rebellion against the United States doesn't meet your definition of traitors, then nothing does

Just like open rebellion against King George.

Yes but we won and have our own country. The Confederates lost and do not.

[Ibanez]

Fort Sumter was the "first shot" but, it didn't happen in a vacuum. "Any body's text book" chapter on the Civil War doesn't start with Ft. Sumter.

The winners write their history their way, but the war started at Ft Sumter, over illegal occupation of the fort. Not slaves.

Regardless of other underlying currents.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Now you say 'at' which is correct. The war was 100%, most certainly over slavery. Slavery was the States Right (and a huge economic issue for the North) that those 11 states seceded over.

[Ibanez]

Just like open rebellion against King George.

Yes but we won and have our own country. The Confederates lost and do not.

Agreed. And thank God....the Confederacy was a horrible form of government. I just mentioned The Revolution b/c Washington and Co. were are still traitors. The USA was built out of treason.