SultanOfSurreal wrote:
in fact there was not a single "states rights" issue at stake in the war other than slavery. so the entire concept of "states rights," already illusory and incorrect, is just a canard -- a red herring that is used as a distraction from the hard fact of the matter, which is that the south just really liked owning niggers
This is wrong for the simple reason that slavery was not actually at stake. There had not been any abolitionist legislation proposed and Lincoln had not endorsed the abolitionist cause prior to the war.
"If I could free all the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that. If I could free none of the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that. If I could free some slaves and leave others in place and save the Union, I would do that also."
- Abraham Lincoln
SultanOfSurreal wrote:
in fact there was not a single "states rights" issue at stake in the war other than slavery. so the entire concept of "states rights," already illusory and incorrect, is just a canard -- a red herring that is used as a distraction from the hard fact of the matter, which is that the south just really liked owning niggers
"Not a single states rights issue at stake other than slavery" - um, how about the right to secede? Talk about "illusory and incorrect" - is your ability to understand really that stunted? Are you unable to grasp the simple fact that the states in question had a constitutional right to leave the Union and were denied that right? Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word "secede", then look up the word "stoopid" (that should keep him occupied for the rest of the night).
SultanOfSurreal wrote:
in fact there was not a single "states rights" issue at stake in the war other than slavery. so the entire concept of "states rights," already illusory and incorrect, is just a canard -- a red herring that is used as a distraction from the hard fact of the matter, which is that the south just really liked owning niggers
"Not a single states rights issue at stake other than slavery" - um, how about the right to secede? Talk about "illusory and incorrect" - is your ability to understand really that stunted? Are you unable to grasp the simple fact that the states in question had a constitutional right to leave the Union and were denied that right? Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word "secede", then look up the word "stoopid" (that should keep him occupied for the rest of the night).
Honibaz
states don't have rights
they certainly don't have the right to secede
furthermore saying that they seceded to defend their right to secede is stupid and tautological. much like everything else you say, now that i think about it
The Neon Peon wrote:I live in Texas. As far as I can tell, Texas is too stupid to figure out that they are not the best in everything. We have some of highest crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, low overall education, most capital punishment, the dumbest board of education ever (they just voted down a bill proposing that certain parts of biology education have to be medically accurate)... but the the retards here still think that Texas is best.
Dude...you just said they were the...uh..."best" at all those things. <grin>
(It's all in the perspective...)
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
luns101 wrote:Well, it's not like you can just blow off the points made by "confederate apologists" (to use the words in the title). Both sides have a strong argument to make and that's why the debate still rages on...
An excellent, well thought out post. Thank you.
The leaders in the North all had to deny the slavery thing as a motivation for waging the war, but they certainly benefited from all of the abolitionists willing to die for their cause. An ancestor of mine shed his blood on the fields of Antietam, giving his life freely under the belief that his ancestors before him had fought for the freedom of all men, not just the privileged few.
I know this from reading his letters home.
The answer I was given in school was that the war was about many things, and many different things to different people. As all wars are.
To me, given my personal connection, the war was about fulfilling the promise of the Revolution, whatever those hot shots in power wrote be damned. It was about liberty for all.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
furthermore saying that they seceded to defend their right to secede is stupid and tautological. much like everything else you say, now that i think about it
and apparently you don't understand (or haven't read) the Constitution as well.
Your arguments are rooted in emotion, not logic fact or law.
furthermore saying that they seceded to defend their right to secede is stupid and tautological. much like everything else you say, now that i think about it
and apparently you don't understand (or haven't read) the Constitution as well.
Your arguments are rooted in emotion, not logic fact or law.
This explains your general lack of substance.
States have powers, not rights. Individuals have rights.
State "powers" are commonly referred to as states "rights."
There is a difference. A "right" implies that it is inherent, that we are entitled to it. A power (which is the wording the Tenth Amendment uses), does not.
I think the thing that sits in a lot of southerner's craws about this is that so many northerners want to wave this banner of "we fought against slavery" as some kind of moral indictment of southerners as a whole and proof of northern moral superiority.
When I say that the war was not fought over slavery, I am not denying that slavery was very much a part of what allowed the plantation system to work. However, that was just one piece of the cultural puzzle, one piece of the differences between the south and the north.
Slavery WAS evil. No mistake about that. However, if you condemn the south for slavery, then you have to also look at how blacks were treated in the north. While the truth is not a "Polly Anna" rose-colored heaven, it was also not "Uncle Tom's Cabin" for the most part. Any historian of the south notes the strange dichotomy that exists even today. On the one hand, white kids and black kids often played together on the plantation, kids were supervised (and had BETTER mind!) their black caregivers. There was (is) genuine and real affection and love between the groups. And yet.... it was OK to sell off these black folks. Kids playing together was one thing, but the white kids were expected to grow out of that, to mature beyond what the blacks could possibly achieve.
A lot of the harshest violence and the worst repression of blacks, historically, came not so much from the wealthy aristocrats who benefitted the most from the system, it came from the poorer whites. The poor whites who, well.. needed some other group to look down upon. "I may not be rich, I may not have much, but at least I ain't black...".
Yet, here is the thing. Those very same attitudes were found up north... and, often persist up north. There were groups of abolitionists up north, who wanted to free the slaves. However, even most of them would no more think of declaring that blacks were in any way equal to whites than declaring their dog equal.
Southern lynchings are famous. However, some of the worst and most widespread incidents of racism and racial violence actually occured up north. Columbus, etc... Those who revile the south often try to ignore the north's own ignomanious history.
The REAL truth is that one of the main reasons the north wanted the south to do away with slavery was basic labor and similar type issues. The north felt the south had an "undo advantage" by having slaves.
Granted, there was some pure altruism involved. The impact of Uncle Tom's cabin was widespread and helped to sway many people against the cause of slavery.
No one today will (well, should) say that slavery was a good thing, that freeing of the slaves was anything but a great moment in our history. However, to claim that the civil war was fought solely or even mostly to free blacks from the tyranny of ownership IS to deny real and true history.
There is an old saying.. the "good guys" always win, because the winners write the history books. I believe that the truth of southern slavery and the civil war is best understood by looking at the 100 years it took for something close to true and universal freedom to be finally achieved.
luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"
According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.
Yes, we do cover that during class, BK. You're talking about the Constitutional process of secession, not the purpose.
And let's just be honest...you hate people who voted for George W. Bush and are going to argue with anything I post no matter what the subject matter. I could be arguing in favor of gravity and you'd still be trolling around looking for bits of my posts to howl over.
luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"
According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.
[/quote]
I think you are both somewhat correct here.
The south did see the Constitution as allowing states to voluntarily withdraw. However, the implications of that were/ would be far reaching. If any state were allowed to just withdraw when they disagreed with the federal government, the union would dissolve. The result would be people left in a limbo of unknown. Would idividuals be able to just move to states where they agree? (among other issues).
So, the truth is that while the south wanted the right to succeed and while some scholars (especially in the south for some strange reason) say it is a Constitutional right to this day, the war was fought and won to say otherwise.
You cannot say the states have a Constitutional right to secede. If they secede, the Constitution grants them absolutely no protection, because they are no longer part of the Union.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I think the thing that sits in a lot of southerner's craws about this is that so many northerners want to wave this banner of "we fought against slavery" as some kind of moral indictment of southerners as a whole and proof of northern moral superiority.
When I say that the war was not fought over slavery, I am not denying that slavery was very much a part of what allowed the plantation system to work. However, that was just one piece of the cultural puzzle, one piece of the differences between the south and the north.
Slavery WAS evil. No mistake about that. However, if you condemn the south for slavery, then you have to also look at how blacks were treated in the north. While the truth is not a "Polly Anna" rose-colored heaven, it was also not "Uncle Tom's Cabin" for the most part. Any historian of the south notes the strange dichotomy that exists even today. On the one hand, white kids and black kids often played together on the plantation, kids were supervised (and had BETTER mind!) their black caregivers. There was (is) genuine and real affection and love between the groups. And yet.... it was OK to sell off these black folks. Kids playing together was one thing, but the white kids were expected to grow out of that, to mature beyond what the blacks could possibly achieve.
A lot of the harshest violence and the worst repression of blacks, historically, came not so much from the wealthy aristocrats who benefitted the most from the system, it came from the poorer whites. The poor whites who, well.. needed some other group to look down upon. "I may not be rich, I may not have much, but at least I ain't black...".
Yet, here is the thing. Those very same attitudes were found up north... and, often persist up north. There were groups of abolitionists up north, who wanted to free the slaves. However, even most of them would no more think of declaring that blacks were in any way equal to whites than declaring their dog equal.
Southern lynchings are famous. However, some of the worst and most widespread incidents of racism and racial violence actually occured up north. Columbus, etc... Those who revile the south often try to ignore the north's own ignomanious history.
The REAL truth is that one of the main reasons the north wanted the south to do away with slavery was basic labor and similar type issues. The north felt the south had an "undo advantage" by having slaves.
Granted, there was some pure altruism involved. The impact of Uncle Tom's cabin was widespread and helped to sway many people against the cause of slavery.
No one today will (well, should) say that slavery was a good thing, that freeing of the slaves was anything but a great moment in our history. However, to claim that the civil war was fought solely or even mostly to free blacks from the tyranny of ownership IS to deny real and true history.
There is an old saying.. the "good guys" always win, because the winners write the history books. I believe that the truth of southern slavery and the civil war is best understood by looking at the 100 years it took for something close to true and universal freedom to be finally achieved.
man that sure is a lot of words to write when a simple "tu quoque!!" would have sufficed
furthermore saying that they seceded to defend their right to secede is stupid and tautological. much like everything else you say, now that i think about it
and apparently you don't understand (or haven't read) the Constitution as well.
Your arguments are rooted in emotion, not logic fact or law.
This explains your general lack of substance.
States have powers, not rights. Individuals have rights.
you jerkazoid, i was going to have a lot of fun stringing gabon along before finally leading him by the hand to the correct answer
luns101 wrote:
And let's just be honest...you hate people who voted for George W. Bush and are going to argue with anything I post no matter what the subject matter. I could be arguing in favor of gravity and you'd still be trolling around looking for bits of my posts to howl over.
Waa waa waa. Pretty sad martyr complex you have there luns. Anyone who's read my posts knows that this subject matter is one of my pet peeves, which is probably why my friend sultan started the thread.
I don't "hate people who voted for Bush" - i hate Bush, and i pity the morons who voted for him. You do however piss me off more than most, as there is a phoniness about your persona that seems to really chap my ass. That farewell speech of yours topped it off - " you won't be seeing me around for a while because a good friend of mine has muscular dystrophy and i have to tend to his needs" - what was that Jesus said about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who love to do their alms to be seen of men? And i see you're already back after what? A couple weeks?
So yeah, i guess i tend to jump on you more than the average member here, but i've never hit "search user's posts" for you, and you flatter yourself if you think i follow you around. Cheers.
State "powers" are commonly referred to as states "rights."
There is a difference. A "right" implies that it is inherent, that we are entitled to it. A power (which is the wording the Tenth Amendment uses), does not.
Actually you're wrong because the Constitution is supposed to grant certain inalienable rights to both people and states. The Tenth Ammendment is not the only place where such a power is granted.
A state's powers are supposed to be inherent, although they are not always in practice.
You can support states rights without supporting slavery. Many states joined America with the understanding that they could leave any time. As for slavery, tell me who first came up with the idea of importing hundreds of thousands of African laborers into America and I'll gladly denounce him as the worst president in American history.
State "powers" are commonly referred to as states "rights."
There is a difference. A "right" implies that it is inherent, that we are entitled to it. A power (which is the wording the Tenth Amendment uses), does not.
Actually you're wrong because the Constitution is supposed to grant certain inalienable rights to both people and states. The Tenth Ammendment is not the only place where such a power is granted.
A state's powers are supposed to be inherent, although they are not always in practice.
will you stop conflating rights and powers you dumb fucking log of a person
