Charlottesville riots

[Ibanez]

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

Yes, the war was not "about" slavery, but slavery was a major underlying current.

I enjoyed reading your post. It was very informative. A rare commodity around here.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Read his post again...you missed the point.

[kalm]

Ibanez and CID have ripped the tits off this one.

[kalm]

How about directly quoting Sartre with "au revoir gophere"...

[CID1990]

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.

I think the average soldier in the south fought for all kinds of reasons, but primarily-

- the vast majority of men of fighting age where I come from were yeoman farmers. They were also ornery Scots Irish who don't need much goading to go off and fight someone... my folks have been fighting since Ulster in the 1500s and haven't missed an opportunity to shoot people ever since. The Scots Irish have been disproportionately over represented in every American war since the very first one

So in that respect, there was a sense of duty, and a willingness to fight early in the war due to a successful media and political campaign to paint a picture of northern invasion and destruction of property that was going to happen if men didn't sign up

But for many if these people there was also status - I think a lot of these guys knew that they were the bottom of the ladder. The only people below them in status were black slaves. I don't think they wanted to slip down a rung. That's an inconvenient reality, but one that I think does apply, and in many cases, at least to me, makes the argument of "my great great grandpappy didn't own slaves, he was a dirt farmer and he fought for his home" ring a little hollow. There certainly were dirt farmers who fought to preserve the status quo

Finally, in most states in the south, definitely in NC, there was conscription. And dodging the draft meant you had to face the Home Guard. The movie Cold Mountain is not inaccurate... especially in the western counties of NC - they would hang you from a tree. There is a very good book about the mini war that was fought during the civil war in the mountains of NC called "The War in the Mountains" by the UNC-CH press- it is a good read and goes a long way to explaining why many men fought- towards the end of the war it really wasn't a choice

In my family people run the gamut from lost causers to full on antifa- but all of those stances are just different reactions to the same thing- at least a deep down acknowledgment that "the cause" needs varying amounts of tweaking to get it right in your head or your conscience, and everybody does it differently

But to answer the specific question- I am fairly certain that Lee would not have accepted command of the Union armies under any circumstances, but if VA had not seceded I think he would have resigned and sat the whole thing out

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

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

Dback do you parrot left wing talking points like a ventriloquist dummy secretly hoping somebody sticks a fist up your ass? Seriously have an original thought once.....one fucking time without sounding like CNN.

[Pwns]

Marriages between incompatible people always work...until they don't.

[Bisonfanatical]

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.

Ok ... we all agree that there were other issues at play during this time period. The southern states left for various reasons.

We all get that

No disagreement that to abolish slavery and the economic impact that would follow were huge issues on why they LEFT the union.

I said that history records that the war was over Ft Sumter (not slavery), you state that it began (?) at Ft Sumter, yet you state the same resupply/ illegal occupancy reasons that I stated (not slavery).

This isn't about underlying reasons why the south left the union. This isn't abut what might have happened if not for Ft Sumter, It is only abut the reason for the war, which you are agreeing with .. in you disagreement.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[OL FU]

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.

I think the average soldier in the south fought for all kinds of reasons, but primarily-

- the vast majority of men of fighting age where I come from were yeoman farmers. They were also ornery Scots Irish who don't need much goading to go off and fight someone... my folks have been fighting since Ulster in the 1500s and haven't missed an opportunity to shoot people ever since. The Scots Irish have been disproportionately over represented in every American war since the very first one

So in that respect, there was a sense of duty, and a willingness to fight early in the war due to a successful media and political campaign to paint a picture of northern invasion and destruction of property that was going to happen if men didn't sign up

But for many if these people there was also status - I think a lot of these guys knew that they were the bottom of the ladder. The only people below them in status were black slaves. I don't think they wanted to slip down a rung. That's an inconvenient reality, but one that I think does apply, and in many cases, at least to me, makes the argument of "my great great grandpappy didn't own slaves, he was a dirt farmer and he fought for his home" ring a little hollow. There certainly were dirt farmers who fought to preserve the status quo

Finally, in most states in the south, definitely in NC, there was conscription. And dodging the draft meant you had to face the Home Guard. The movie Cold Mountain is not inaccurate... especially in the western counties of NC - they would hang you from a tree. There is a very good book about the mini war that was fought during the civil war in the mountains of NC called "The War in the Mountains" by the UNC-CH press- it is a good read and goes a long way to explaining why many men fought- towards the end of the war it really wasn't a choice

In my family people run the gamut from lost causers to full on antifa- but all of those stances are just different reactions to the same thing- at least a deep down acknowledgment that "the cause" needs varying amounts of tweaking to get it right in your head or your conscience, and everybody does it differently

But to answer the specific question- I am fairly certain that Lee would not have accepted command of the Union armies under any circumstances, but if VA had not seceded I think he would have resigned and sat the whole thing out

Thanks, don't disagree with any of that. Interesting on Lee. I had always heard that he would have accepted but a lot of what I have always heard has been wrong. Family lore had my father's side of the family as full on Irish Catholic potato blighters immigrating in the 1840s. Father researched and found out that we were scotch irish who landed in Charleston Harbor in the 1760s and yes, in the vain spoken about the scotch irish, My ancestors fought on both sides of the Civil War.

[dbackjon]

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?

Free Speech is not open rebellion. It's a piece of cloth.

[dbackjon]

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

Dback do you parrot left wing talking points like a ventriloquist dummy secretly hoping somebody sticks a fist up your ass? Seriously have an original thought once.....one fucking time without sounding like CNN.

Alpha do you parrot right wing talking points like a ventriloquist dummy secretly hoping somebody sticks a fist up your ass? Seriously have an original thought once.....one fucking time without sounding like Hannity

[Bisonfanatical]

Flag burners... traitors Jon?

Free Speech is not open rebellion. It's a piece of cloth.

Subjective reasoning about free speach? It was not always viewed that way prior to the supreme court decision.

To be in open rebellion against the United States (Union), you had to be a part of the United States (union).

They were their own sovereign country, and you can't change that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[mrklean]

Free Speech is not open rebellion. It's a piece of cloth.

Subjective reasoning about free speach? It was not always viewed that way prior to the supreme court decision.

To be in open rebellion against the United States (Union), you had to be a part of the United States (union).

They were their own sovereign country, and you can't change that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

BULLSHIT!!!!

[Bisonfanatical]

Subjective reasoning about free speach? It was not always viewed that way prior to the supreme court decision.

To be in open rebellion against the United States (Union), you had to be a part of the United States (union).

They were their own sovereign country, and you can't change that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

BULLSHIT!!!!

Well now, since you put it that way.

Lmfao

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

Mnuchin’s former Yale classmates ask him to resign from Treasury

Two hundred and ninety-three members of the Yale class of 1985 have signed a letter requesting that their former classmate, Treasury Sec. Steven Mnuchin, immediately resign from his job.

The letter claimed that President Trump has aligned himself with white supremacist fringe groups when he blamed "both sides" for the violence that erupted in the Charlottesville protests last week.

"We call upon you, as our friend, our classmate, and as a fellow American, to resign in protest of President Trump's support of Nazism and white supremacy. We know you are better than this, and we are counting on you to do the right thing," it read.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mnuchins-f ... -treasury/

[Ibanez]

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.

Ok ... we all agree that there were other issues at play during this time period. The southern states left for various reasons.

We all get that

No disagreement that to abolish slavery and the economic impact that would follow were huge issues on why they LEFT the union.

I said that history records that the war was over Ft Sumter (not slavery), you state that it began (?) at Ft Sumter, yet you state the same resupply/ illegal occupancy reasons that I stated (not slavery).

This isn't about underlying reasons why the south left the union. This isn't abut what might have happened if not for Ft Sumter, It is only abut the reason for the war, which you are agreeing with .. in you disagreement.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

How do you not get this? The southern state's did not leave for various reasons. It was one, main reason - SLAVERY!

History does NOT say the war wa over Fort Sumter. Show me a legitimate historian saying the United States went to war b/c of Fort Sumter. The United States when to war to bring the CSA to heel and return the 11 states to the Union. The war began AT Fort Sumter. The war didn't start because of it.


From the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union ":

"increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery

geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

Slavery is mentioned 5 or 6 times in the Declaration. It doesn't get any more crystal clear than that.

[dbackjon]

Free Speech is not open rebellion. It's a piece of cloth.

Subjective reasoning about free speach? It was not always viewed that way prior to the supreme court decision.

To be in open rebellion against the United States (Union), you had to be a part of the United States (union).

They were their own sovereign country, and you can't change that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

good lord you are dense.


They were still apart of the US. They were never a legitimate sovereign country. And that is a stone cold fact,

[AZGrizFan]

Subjective reasoning about free speach? It was not always viewed that way prior to the supreme court decision.

To be in open rebellion against the United States (Union), you had to be a part of the United States (union).

They were their own sovereign country, and you can't change that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

good lord you are dense.


They were still apart of the US. They were never a legitimate sovereign country. And that is a stone cold fact,

Hmmm...they had a president, a flag and a standing army. Sounds like a country to me.

[Grizalltheway]

good lord you are dense.


They were still apart of the US. They were never a legitimate sovereign country. And that is a stone cold fact,

Hmmm...they had a president, a flag and a standing army. Sounds like a country to me.

But not an airline. Gotta have an airline.

[AZGrizFan]

Hmmm...they had a president, a flag and a standing army. Sounds like a country to me.

But not an airline. Gotta have an airline.

Ah fuck. I KNEW I was forgetting something.

[Bisonfanatical]

Ok ... we all agree that there were other issues at play during this time period. The southern states left for various reasons.

We all get that

No disagreement that to abolish slavery and the economic impact that would follow were huge issues on why they LEFT the union.

I said that history records that the war was over Ft Sumter (not slavery), you state that it began (?) at Ft Sumter, yet you state the same resupply/ illegal occupancy reasons that I stated (not slavery).

This isn't about underlying reasons why the south left the union. This isn't abut what might have happened if not for Ft Sumter, It is only abut the reason for the war, which you are agreeing with .. in you disagreement.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

How do you not get this? The southern state's did not leave for various reasons. It was one, main reason - SLAVERY!

History does NOT say the war wa over Fort Sumter. Show me a legitimate historian saying the United States went to war b/c of Fort Sumter. The United States when to war to bring the CSA to heel and return the 11 states to the Union. The war began AT Fort Sumter. The war didn't start because of it.


From the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union ":

"increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery

geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

Slavery is mentioned 5 or 6 times in the Declaration. It doesn't get any more crystal clear than that.

Why are we running in circles?

South Carolina was the first state to leave, right on the heels of Lincoln winning the election in 1860. Their reasons were their own
By the time Lincoln was sworn in by March of 1861, 6 others had followed, on different dates, their reasons were their own.
WHERE did I state a disagreement with you about issues that caused those states to leave the union?
Of those issues, abolition of slavery and its economic impact was at the top.

ONCE AGAIN ... These were reasons for these states to leave, but there was no war yet, right?

Ft Sumter was the reason for the first battle, but at that point in history of the first battle, no one had an ouiji board to see where this was going to end, nor the cost on American lives.

At that point in time that battle was 100% about Ft Sumter.

The first battle ... which over which war continued... was 100 % NOT ABOUT SLAVERY.
War followed that battle which was 100% over Ft Sumter.


FROM PBS SITE (credible?):
On November 6, 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States -- an event that outraged southern states. The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform, and many southerners felt that there was no longer a place for them in the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By Febrary 1, 1861, six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- had split from the Union. The seceded states created the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi Senator, as their provisional president.

In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.

Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.



Interesting to say the least?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Bisonfanatical]

Subjective reasoning about free speach? It was not always viewed that way prior to the supreme court decision.

To be in open rebellion against the United States (Union), you had to be a part of the United States (union).

They were their own sovereign country, and you can't change that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

good lord you are dense.


They were still apart of the US. They were never a legitimate sovereign country. And that is a stone cold fact,

They are called the Confederate States of America in your history books?

Sounds legit

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Grizalltheway]

good lord you are dense.


They were still apart of the US. They were never a legitimate sovereign country. And that is a stone cold fact,

They are called the Confederate States of America in your history books?

Sounds legit

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

They were never recognized by a single other country as such.

[Bisonfanatical]

They are called the Confederate States of America in your history books?

Sounds legit

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

They were never recognized by a single other country as such.

First off ... the USA recognized the CSA

Second off ... Wars take money, I guarantee there was funding for both sides to some extent from some countries who recognized them both.

The USA and the CSA were in the same position as far as being credit risks



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

They were never recognized by a single other country as such.

First off ... the USA recognized the CSA

Second off ... Wars take money, I guarantee there was funding for both sides to some extent from some countries who recognized them both.

The USA and the CSA were in the same position as far as being credit risks



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

No, the US didn't trade ambassadors with the CSA because they didn't recognize them as a separate country. Yes, wars take money, and the CSA didn't have a lot of money because no one recognized them.
And no, the USA was always the heavy favorite to win the war (money, manufacturing, people, cause, etc) so they were always the better credit risk. The South had cotton. The world already had a lot of cotton. I.E. bigger risk.

And seriously, your contention that the war was because of Ft. Sumter may be the single biggest, non-JSO related dumb post I've ever seen on this board. We need that meme from "Billy Madison" since it's highly appropriate given the lack of intelligence in that argument.

[CAA Flagship]

Hmmm...they had a president, a flag and a standing army. Sounds like a country to me.

But not an airline. Gotta have an airline.