|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 |
Can't understand why this exchange is still going on. Birdwatcher threw in the towel way back here. Should a free people have the right to peacefully separate from a government? Indeed they should. Class is over.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898 |
BTW - your hypothesis is complete horseschit, but I'm learning to not expect much else from you.
My position on what the Southern states did is well stated. You aren't intellectually, or at this point morally, honest enough to address them on point. Speaking of logical inconsistencies.... We have already established that the major State's Right the collective South was concerned about was their freedom to practice African slavery. So much so they wrote and and adopted perverted (in the non-sexual sense) version of the US Constitution specifically to perpetuate it. Estimates of the enslaved population of the South in 1860 run as high as 4 million. Let us assume two million children. Most of these children, in part through the various slave codes, were systematically denied even the most rudimentary education. All of these children were subject to permanent separation from their mothers and sale to strangers at the whim or financial needs of their masters. This also applies to their fathers too but the role of the father was necessarily limited among slaves beginning with the fact that he was powerless to provide any real authority or protection to his family, neither could he prevent sexual access of his wife or daughter by the Master or a family member of the same. No slave "marriage" had any legal standing. No enslaved woman or girl, since their bodies were the legal possession of their masters, had any real say in whom they could be coerced into sexual relations with. OF COURSE sexual abuse and rape was not uncommon. At least a few cases of the homosexual rape of boys were likewise reported. No enslaved woman or girl had any real choice with respect to the number of children she could be forced to bear. After the importation of slaves became illegal, slaves became increasingly expensive and the pressure put upon slave women to bear more children increased. And I haven't even gotten into the horrors of a lifetime of forcible confinement and stolen labor. People are gonna say this is not what the South was about. Well it was for one out of every three Southerners in 1860. And the South's own Constitution of 1861 confirms that yep, indeed this WAS what the South was about. To any American living today the Antebellum South would seem absolutely frickin' unreal. 4ager, despite your obvious reasons for not answering, there is no way in Hell that you or anyone else here could see their way through to defending that. Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898 |
What does the Klan have to do with the War of Secession?
Actually I'm disappointed that you haven't taken the time to open that guy's book you mentioned and list his main points cogent to this thread.
I think the most likely reason is that the guy didn't actually write the specific points you had in mind. This is a common problem for those who have read very many books.
In the meantime, how does repetitive snideness elevate you personally?
Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
"We have already established that the major State's Right the collective South was concerned about was their freedom to practice African slavery."
No, Mike. What we have established is that the "collective South" had as its vast majority persons that owned no slaves.
The North made slavery an issue because of the new states being admitted. They couldn't allow the new states the freedom to choose something that ALL the existing states had.
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898 |
That the War of Northern Aggression was based purely on slavery and all Confederates fought the war for slavery, whilst all Yankees fought to oppose the same. Speaking of falsehoods... OK, now where did I say these things? 50 pages here is a lot already, so I can save you the time and tell you you won't find it anywhere.
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898 |
No, Mike. What we have established is that the "collective South" had as its vast majority persons that owned no slaves. ...who accepted and defended a Constitution specifically designed to perpetuate slavery, and all five States where the reasons for secession were formally listed, slavery was front and center. The other thing is.... every Southerner's nightmare was the prospect of a slave insurrection, especially in those areas (and even whole states) where slaves actually outnumbered free folk. Nearly as worrisome to everyone, whether they had slaves or not, was the prospect of four million slaves set free by abolition. And they were right, popular revulsion against slavery in the Free States was such that it is possible abolition might have been eventually imposed on the South as the slave-free territories became new states.. ....something that ALL the existing states had. Are you seriously suggesting that slavery was still legal in all 50 States in 1860? If so, all our politicians back then had sure wasted a lot of time over the previous 70 years or so painstakingly crafting precarious compromises. And the Supremes coulda just punted on that whole Dredd Scott thing. Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 |
Only 33 states existed in 1860.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898 |
If the South had written into their Constitution several Articles that condoned and enabled child abuse, what would your own position be then? Not addressed at me but I would have condemned it. But it is an apples/oranges question. One was legal, the other not so much, even though it happened a lot. miles Miles, the body of a slave was also the legal possession of the Master. Slave Codes and laws varied, in at least one state a White guy who raped or otherwise had sex with another man's slave could be charged with something akin to trespassing. If a pregnancy resulted some potential for useful work during the pregnancy would be lost, but this would be offset by the fact that the economically valuable child would also be the property of the Master.
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898 |
"Ahem", all 33 States. Thanks.
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 37,898 |
I'd be interested to get feedback on this... http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htmlOne half of all Southerners in 1860 were either slaves themselves or members of slaveholding families. These elite families shaped the mores and political stance of the South, which reflected their common concerns. Foremost among these were controlling slaves and assuring an adequate supply of slave labor....
The rural nature of antebellum slavery had unintended negative effects on the Southern economy. The investment of so much capital in land and slaves discouraged the growth of cities and diverted funds from factories. This meant that the South lacked the industrial base it needed to counter the North when the Civil War began. Indeed, in 1860, the South had approximately the same number of industrial workers (110,000), as the North had industrial plants.
Other detrimental effects arose from the South's devotion to rural slavery. Wealthy planters liked to claim they were living out the Jeffersonian ideal of an agrarian democracy. In truth, the South was agrarian because slave owners found that the best way to maintain their wealth and contain their slaves.
Moreover, its "democracy" was very limited because the planters had enormous influence over how white yeomen cast their votes. Except in remote areas of the South with few slaves or plantations, it was the needs and beliefs of the planter class that shaped Southern politics on the local, state, and national levels.
The consequences of this planter dominance was seen in many aspects of the society. The South failed to develop a varied economy even within the agricultural realm. All the most fertile land in the South was owned by slaveholders who chose to grow high-profit staple crops--cotton, tobacco, sugar. That left only marginal land for the vast majority of white farmers.
This problem was compounded by the dominance of the planters image as the social ideal. Alternative means of advancement were unavailable, so yeomen farmers aspired to become planters themselves. They used some of their land to grow food for their family's consumption and devoted the rest to cash crops like cotton. Their hope was to produce enough to save, buy a few slaves, produce yet more, and, ultimately, accumulate the wealth that would elevate them to planter status. For most, this was a futile dream, but they remained committed to it, thereby neglecting other possible avenues for economic advancement.
One reason for the yeomen farmers lack of aspirations was ignorance. The antebellum South neglected to provide for the education of its people. Planters controlled the governmental revenues that could have financed public education, but they saw no need to do so. Their slaves were forbidden to learn; their own children were educated by private tutors or in exclusive and expensive private academies.
As a result, most white yeomen were left without access to education. A few lucky ones near towns or cities could sometimes send their children to fee schools or charity schools, but many were too poor or too proud to use either option.
In a similar vein, the dominating slaveholding class saw no need to create the means to produce inexpensive consumer goods for ordinary whites or to build an infrastructure by which such goods could be moved from production sites to markets in the countryside. Wealthy planters acquired what they wanted by importing expensive European or Northern goods. Thus poor whites were left to their own minimal resources and were deprived of goods they might have bought, had they been available.
This lack of consumer production and markets also retarded the growth of Southern transportation. Highways, canals, and railroads were constructed to move crops to ports and bring in luxury items for the planter class. The need of yeomen farmers to transport their crops to local markets was ignored. As a consequence, it was usually cheaper for plantation owners to import food from the North or upper South than to purchase it from white farmers in the same region. This deficiency in the Southern transportation system proved a serious liability for the Confederacy during the Civil War.
Slavery in the antebellum South, then, made a minority of white Southerners--owners of large slaveholdings--enormously wealthy. At the same time, it demeaned and exploited Southerners of African descent, left the majority of white Southerners impoverished and uneducated, and retarded the overall economic, cultural, and social growth of the region. Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
Speaking of logical inconsistencies....
We have already established that the major State's Right the collective South was concerned about was their freedom to practice African slavery.
So much so they wrote and and adopted perverted (in the non-sexual sense) version of the US Constitution specifically to perpetuate it.
See, this is why 4ager heckles you and your intellectual honesty. You have established it, in your mind, not we. Basing your epiphany on a few people who were in a position to craft a few documents, (that were not destroyed, revised, or otherwise perverted) and that had a concern about slavery, is a little presumptuous. By your reasoning, you support Obama dealing with Iran, welfare, non criminality for looting, illegal immigration, reduced sentences for drug dealers, and increased taxes etc because the USA supports it, because politicians have wrote and and adopted perverted laws specifically to perpetuate it. And maybe not all people do, but you are in the majority of people that do, I'm sure...
Last edited by RWE; 06/30/15. Reason: pre coffee grammer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 27,692 |
What does the Klan have to do with the War of Secession?
Actually I'm disappointed that you haven't taken the time to open that guy's book you mentioned and list his main points cogent to this thread.
I think the most likely reason is that the guy didn't actually write the specific points you had in mind. This is a common problem for those who have read very many books.
In the meantime, how does repetitive snideness elevate you personally?
Birdwatcher I have no need for personal elevation nor affirmation from you or your like. I do it because I have zero respect for lock step liberal HS teachers like you. You have no use nor respect for actual research or honest and fair analysis. You only spout the PC party line as dictated by the current mewlings of the education "professionals" and look at things through your narrow emotionally driven lens. Simply stated, you are just not worth the effort.
Last edited by hillbillybear; 06/30/15.
Member: Clan of the Turdlike People.
Courage is Fear that has said its Prayers
�If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.� Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 |
What does the Klan have to do with the War of Secession?
Actually I'm disappointed that you haven't taken the time to open that guy's book you mentioned and list his main points cogent to this thread.
I think the most likely reason is that the guy didn't actually write the specific points you had in mind. This is a common problem for those who have read very many books.
In the meantime, how does repetitive snideness elevate you personally?
Birdwatcher I have no need for personal elevation nor affirmation from you or your like. I do it because I have zero respect for lock step liberal HS teachers like you. You have no use nor respect for actual research or honest and fair analysis. You only spout the PC party line as dictated by the current dictates of the education "professionals" and look at things through your narrow emotionally driven lens. Simply stated, you are just not worth the effort. Good Job!
"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 26,524 |
and speaking of a logical inconsistency: People are gonna say this [slavery] is not what the South was about. Well it was for one out of every three Southerners in 1860. And the South's own Constitution of 1861 confirms that yep, indeed this WAS what the South was about. you state that only 1 in 3 southerners in 1860 thought it was about slavery, so that means it was all about slavery? What kind of common core mathematics is that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
So, let's sum this up...
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
It has further been established that slavery - while undeniably odious - was both Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore legal as well.
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
Birdwatcher has at least implicitly agreed with all of these established facts.
Yet, he continues to support the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Lincoln against the very premise of self-determination he says he supports. He even acknowledges that such support is illogical, yet remains steadfast in keeping such an illogical position. The justification for that has now devolved to "it's for the children" and "rich people were/are evil".
Just stop and think about that for a second. Under Birdwatcher's justification of an illogical, illegal, unconstitutional series of actions, all that is needed is for the central Federal gov't to decide/decree that another free people's actions are "immoral" or "unethical", that such actions are driven by "evil rich people", and that to overthrow them is best "for the children".
Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens (MD example), including the arrest and detention of duly elected representative government, suspension of habeas corpus and all other rights, confiscation of firearms and other lawfully held personal property, and threat of military bombardment of a civilian population.
Moreover, under his same "Crusade", the same pitiful excuse is all that is needed in order to launch a full military campaign and invasion of another sovereign nation, complete with conscription of soldiers to fight said war; and tacit or explicit endorsement of "total war" (i.e., war against all parties in that now invaded nation, including against civilians).
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children" and "rich people are evil".
I have no doubt that Birdwatcher will be reminded of this here at every turn when those like Hussein, Clinton, Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Soros, and all their ilk tell us what freedoms we need to give up because of "evil rich people" and because doing so is "for the children". Likewise, I know that Birdwatcher will be among the first to give up his freedoms, perhaps today, in support of those same "moral Crusades" to protect the children from the evil rich.
Furthermore, I hope Birdwatcher will rejoin us to let us all know which sovereign nations we should invade with such force of will as to reinstitute the draft and wage "total war" against because they, too, might be governed by a handful of "evil rich" and because such an invasion would be "for the children". I've no doubt such a list would be quite long and lead to an imperialist "moral Crusade" the likes of which the world has never known. Yet, it will be completely justifiable, according to Birdwatcher, because the "evil rich" must be vanquished "for the children". Perhaps Birdwatcher, as he said he would do were he alive in 1861, will be among the first to volunteer and lead such a "moral Crusade" to save the world's children from the evil rich?
Last edited by 4ager; 06/30/15.
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,742
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,742 |
Bw
Who was treated worse
Indians or blacks?
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered."
― George Orwell, 1984
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 23,453 |
Bw
Who was treated worse
Indians or blacks? The Federal gov't invaded, waged total war against, and subjugated them, too... "for the children". Therefore, under Birdwatcher "logic", it was completely permissible and in fact the "morally right thing to do".
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,802
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,802 |
The preamble to Delaware’s Act of 1767 conveys one prevalent view: “[I]t is found by experience, that freed [N]egroes and mulattoes are idle and slothful, and often prove burdensome to the neighborhood wherein they live, and are of evil examples to slaves.”Sometimes views are prevalent because...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,530
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,530 |
So, let's sum this up...
Birdwatcher has stated and agreed with the premise that a free people have the right to break away from a gov't that no longer represents them. That is a fundamental human right.
It has been established that the Southern states did exactly that, and for exactly that reason.
It has further been established that slavery - while undeniably odious - was both Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution and therefore legal as well.
It has even further been established that Lincoln had no authority whatsoever under the law or the Constitution to take any actions that he did; including arresting and detaining US citizens in MD and elsewhere, detaining and replacing the MD legislature and governor, turning cannons on the city of Baltimore, and/or invading the now free and independent Southern states or any states at all.
Birdwatcher has at least implicitly agreed with all of these established facts.
Yet, he continues to support the illegal, unconstitutional actions of Lincoln against the very premise of self-determination he says he supports. He even acknowledges that such support is illogical, yet remains steadfast in keeping such an illogical position. The justification for that has now devolved to "it's for the children" and "rich people were/are evil".
Just stop and think about that for a second. Under Birdwatcher's justification of an illogical, illegal, unconstitutional series of actions, all that is needed is for the central Federal gov't to decide/decree that another free people's actions are "immoral" or "unethical", that such actions are driven by "evil rich people", and that to overthrow them is best "for the children".
Under such a "moral Crusade", Birdwatcher would unabashedly endorse and support the subjugation of American citizens (MD example), including the arrest and detention of duly elected representative government, suspension of habeas corpus and all other rights, confiscation of firearms and other lawfully held personal property, and threat of military bombardment of a civilian population.
Moreover, under his same "Crusade", the same pitiful excuse is all that is needed in order to launch a full military campaign and invasion of another sovereign nation, complete with conscription of soldiers to fight said war; and tacit or explicit endorsement of "total war" (i.e., war against all parties in that now invaded nation, including against civilians).
Thus, when one distills out the remainder of Birdwatcher's position, the fundamental rights to freedom and self-determination are crushed under the boot heel of tyranny with no more justification than "it's for the children" and "rich people are evil".
I have no doubt that Birdwatcher will be reminded of this here at every turn when those like Hussein, Clinton, Pelosi, Sarah Brady, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Soros, and all their ilk tell us what freedoms we need to give up because of "evil rich people" and because doing so is "for the children". Likewise, I know that Birdwatcher will be among the first to give up his freedoms, perhaps today, in support of those same "moral Crusades" to protect the children from the evil rich.
Furthermore, I hope Birdwatcher will rejoin us to let us all know which sovereign nations we should invade with such force of will as to reinstitute the draft and wage "total war" against because they, too, might be governed by a handful of "evil rich" and because such an invasion would be "for the children". I've no doubt such a list would be quite long and lead to an imperialist "moral Crusade" the likes of which the world has never known. Yet, it will be completely justifiable, according to Birdwatcher, because the "evil rich" must be vanquished "for the children". Perhaps Birdwatcher, as he said he would do were he alive in 1861, will be among the first to volunteer and lead such a "moral Crusade" to save the world's children from the evil rich? Spot on
|
|
|
|
|
120 members (14idaho, 10gaugemag, 1beaver_shooter, 24HourCampFireGuy50, 16penny, 19 invisible),
1,420
guests, and
1,013
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,864
Posts18,478,665
Members73,948
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
