New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Fact -When the Civil War started, Lincoln asked Robert E Lee to lead all Union troops

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Slavery would have been preserved longer if they hadn't gone to war. In 1860 the issue was NOT preservation, but expansion.
Not according to the articles of secession and those were the reasons sold to the average southerner...the people who did the fighting.

Slavery would have lasted longer if they'd won.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Not according to the articles of secession and those were the reasons sold to the average southerner...the people who did the fighting.

Slavery would have lasted longer if they'd won.
Well, I'm pretty much done here. The articles of secession were, as I've said already numerous times, propaganda. They were a corporate mission statement, they encompassed an "issue" by avoiding the real issue. Do you think Trump gives a flying eff about illegal immigrants, one way or another? No, but he sees that as an issue that rallies the people that put him the White House. Same thing.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Well, I'm pretty much done here. The articles of secession were, as I've said already numerous times, propaganda. They were a corporate mission statement, they encompassed an "issue" by avoiding the real issue. Do you think Trump gives a flying eff about illegal immigrants, one way or another? No, but he sees that as an issue that rallies the people that put him the White House. Same thing.
You were done quite a while back. You still think the documents of secession were propaganda, but have no evidence. Even if the authors of those documents, quite dishonestly, stated those as reasons, the reasons were eagerly adopted by those who actually went to war.
 

trapdoor

Governor
You were done quite a while back. You still think the documents of secession were propaganda, but have no evidence. Even if the authors of those documents, quite dishonestly, stated those as reasons, the reasons were eagerly adopted by those who actually went to war.
Well, I meant to be done. I probably shouldn't have continued. Yes, I think the documents of secession were "public statements." You know, "I'm resigning to spend more time with my family." "PPoland has directed its attacks against the Free City of Danzig." "Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President. I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country." "I am not a crook."

Most Southerners didn't own slaves. Shelby Foote provides an object argument for the poor man's war in his Civil War trilogy. A CSA POW, bedraggled, obviously a poor man with no slaves, was asked why he was fighting. He replied, "I'm fightin' ya 'cause your down here." People fight for a lot of reasons, even political ones.
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
So then I have your permission to think that those who fought a war to preserve slavery for black Americans were racists...gee, thanks. :rolleyes:
Are you saying that Northerners weren't racist? They were. After the war, they very quickly put up signs saying that blacks weren't welcome. Lynchings in the north were quite common.
 
No one disputes the south approved of slavery. But so did the north. That's why lincoln asked Lee to lead his troops. And that's why we should not condemn Lee unless we condemn all Americans from that time. THINK
Forcibly Integrating Genetically Incompatible Groups Divides in Order to Conquer

The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops. The North had no moral superiority. It wanted to free the slaves in order to bring them up North to become cheap and submissive labor. They knew they couldn't keep Whites for very long from unionizing and standing up for themselves. The Africans, however, turned out to be not worth employing even at the lowest wages. So the ruling class had to finally open up the West as an outlet for the proud to escape to.

Explaining the 1960s as much as the 1860s is the suppressed fact that the hereditary plutocracy hates and fears all other White people. The Yankee aristocracy replaced the British one, which used the backward and vicious Indians in an attempt to defeat the Whites and keep them in their place for when the nobility's younger sons would take over the colonies. Self-righteous cries of "racism" have only snob value, virtue-signaling within a class that has no right to exist. We should reject the value judgments that vicious class makes in their air-conditioned ethics. There is nothing automatically wrong with racism. In a democracy, it is an informed judgment based on a group's general behavior. So are "prejudice" and "discrimination."
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
Forcibly Integrating Genetically Incompatible Groups Divides in Order to Conquer

The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops. The North had no moral superiority. It wanted to free the slaves in order to bring them up North to become cheap and submissive labor. They knew they couldn't keep Whites for very long from unionizing and standing up for themselves. The Africans, however, turned out to be not worth employing even at the lowest wages. So the ruling class had to finally open up the West as an outlet for the proud to escape to.

Explaining the 1960s as much as the 1860s is the suppressed fact that the hereditary plutocracy hates and fears all other White people. The Yankee aristocracy replaced the British one, which used the backward and vicious Indians in an attempt to defeat the Whites and keep them in their place for when the nobility's younger sons would take over the colonies. Self-righteous cries of "racism" have only snob value, virtue-signaling within a class that has no right to exist. We should reject the value judgments that vicious class makes in their air-conditioned ethics. There is nothing automatically wrong with racism. In a democracy, it is an informed judgment based on a group's general behavior. So are "prejudice" and "discrimination."
Your statements are laughably archaic and woefully inaccurate. The only reason blacks were not integrated into society is that they were not properly given the chance.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Forcibly Integrating Genetically Incompatible Groups Divides in Order to Conquer

The South had slavery, the North had sweatshops. The North had no moral superiority. It wanted to free the slaves in order to bring them up North to become cheap and submissive labor. They knew they couldn't keep Whites for very long from unionizing and standing up for themselves. The Africans, however, turned out to be not worth employing even at the lowest wages. So the ruling class had to finally open up the West as an outlet for the proud to escape to.

Explaining the 1960s as much as the 1860s is the suppressed fact that the hereditary plutocracy hates and fears all other White people. The Yankee aristocracy replaced the British one, which used the backward and vicious Indians in an attempt to defeat the Whites and keep them in their place for when the nobility's younger sons would take over the colonies. Self-righteous cries of "racism" have only snob value, virtue-signaling within a class that has no right to exist. We should reject the value judgments that vicious class makes in their air-conditioned ethics. There is nothing automatically wrong with racism. In a democracy, it is an informed judgment based on a group's general behavior. So are "prejudice" and "discrimination."
Way to go. Racism, as practiced by the south in the brutal practice of slavery were merely acting on an informed judgement. Wow. You've set a new low for racist posts here.
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
No, that isn't what I said at all.
My point is that very few Northerners (joined by a few Southerners) actually had the best interests of the slaves at heart. To me, it's a misrepresentation of the facts to use this war to paint the North as "liberators." They were more guilty than the south IMHO due to the fact that they saw the negroes as people and they turned their backs on them.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
My point is that very few Northerners (joined by a few Southerners) actually had the best interests of the slaves at heart. To me, it's a misrepresentation of the facts to use this war to paint the North as "liberators." They were more guilty than the south IMHO due to the fact that they saw the negroes as people and they turned their backs on them.
Why do you think that is relevant? The South fought the war to preserve slavery...the abolition of which they saw as the unconstitutional taking of property. Some in the North were indifferent to slavery, some thought negroes best kept as slaves and some were fervently for abolition. The war from the northern standpoint was to preserve the Union.

Back to the point of the thread...statues honoring those who fought to destroy the United States in order to keep the institution of slavery intact is an odd and objectionable practice.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Why do you think that is relevant? The South fought the war to preserve slavery...the abolition of which they saw as the unconstitutional taking of property. Some in the North were indifferent to slavery, some thought negroes best kept as slaves and some were fervently for abolition. The war from the northern standpoint was to preserve the Union.

Back to the point of the thread...statues honoring those who fought to destroy the United States in order to keep the institution of slavery intact is an odd and objectionable practice.
What's odd about it? I believe Cromwell is still honored by statues in England. The bulk of the statues across the American south were erected about 1900, by CSA veterans organizations. That was 40 years after the war and the old men who had fought in it where holding reunions and feeling nostalgic. The same phenomena happened with Union military organizations.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
What's odd about it? I believe Cromwell is still honored by statues in England. The bulk of the statues across the American south were erected about 1900, by CSA veterans organizations. That was 40 years after the war and the old men who had fought in it where holding reunions and feeling nostalgic. The same phenomena happened with Union military organizations.
You equate the motivation for the English civil war with the American one?
 

trapdoor

Governor
You equate the motivation for the English civil war with the American one?
The motive of the war isn't the point, is it? It's whether or not you have statues in honor of those who fought on the losing side. From the standpoint of the royal family, Cromwell is a murderous regicide, beyond redemption. As for the issue of slavery -- Cromwell practiced slavery, enslaving nearly 100,000 Irish and expanding the practicing, sending Irish slaves to the Carribean to the point that Ireland was significantly depopulated.

But again, I didn't think the motive of the various sides in the Civil War was under discussion. The motive of those who erected the statues is under discussion. You think a statue of Robert E. Lee, erected by CSA veterans in 1899 is a deplorable emblem of racism that should be destroyed. I think it's very little different from a statue of Grant erected by Grand Army of the Republic members in the same year -- an object of nostalgia that now, because of its longevity, has a history of its own that shouldn't be destroyed because we've attempted to apply a 21st century sense of morality to 19th century men.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The motive of the war isn't the point, is it? It's whether or not you have statues in honor of those who fought on the losing side. From the standpoint of the royal family, Cromwell is a murderous regicide, beyond redemption. As for the issue of slavery -- Cromwell practiced slavery, enslaving nearly 100,000 Irish and expanding the practicing, sending Irish slaves to the Carribean to the point that Ireland was significantly depopulated.

But again, I didn't think the motive of the various sides in the Civil War was under discussion. The motive of those who erected the statues is under discussion. You think a statue of Robert E. Lee, erected by CSA veterans in 1899 is a deplorable emblem of racism that should be destroyed. I think it's very little different from a statue of Grant erected by Grand Army of the Republic members in the same year -- an object of nostalgia that now, because of its longevity, has a history of its own that shouldn't be destroyed because we've attempted to apply a 21st century sense of morality to 19th century men.
Yes, the motive for the war is exactly the point.

Cromwell fought to create a republic and to destroy a monarchy. That, in and of itself, can be taken as an honorable goal. What good was there in the southern cause?
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
Why do you think that is relevant? The South fought the war to preserve slavery...the abolition of which they saw as the unconstitutional taking of property. Some in the North were indifferent to slavery, some thought negroes best kept as slaves and some were fervently for abolition. The war from the northern standpoint was to preserve the Union.

Back to the point of the thread...statues honoring those who fought to destroy the United States in order to keep the institution of slavery intact is an odd and objectionable practice.
I don't keep repeating something just because I am asked to.

The North was not as benevolent as history is attempting to present them. They only wanted to free slaves if they stayed down south, they were not welcome in the communities up north and no efforts were made to help slaves find work or proper housing.

The North freed the slaves? Sure they did.

Freedom is entirely subjective, friend.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I don't keep repeating something just because I am asked to.

The North was not as benevolent as history is attempting to present them. They only wanted to free slaves if they stayed down south, they were not welcome in the communities up north and no efforts were made to help slaves find work or proper housing.

The North freed the slaves? Sure they did.

Freedom is entirely subjective, friend.
Which has what to do with erecting statues to honor those who led armies intent on destroying the country in order to preserve slavery?
 

trapdoor

Governor
Yes, the motive for the war is exactly the point.

Cromwell fought to create a republic and to destroy a monarchy. That, in and of itself, can be taken as an honorable goal. What good was there in the southern cause?
Oh, there are any number of good ideas expressed in the CSA constitution. There's no point in discussing them. You don't care that Cromwell supported slavery, but all you care about when it comes to the CSA leadership is slavery. But even if their motives were as completely impure as you would have them be, what does that have to do with statues erected 40 years later, that have now been in place for 100 years? They motives of the people who put those up were largely no different from their counterparts who put up statues to their former leaders.
 
Top