Roots on History

[iceberg]

Fair point, and I would be stereotyping saying that when it is brought up (slavery throughout history) it is equal to minimizing the present topic, etc. I'm used to hearing it in that manner/context and that is subjective to my US experience when debating the topic; not everyone's. I live in a District of the US, not a state

we all tend to speak from our own perspective. the key is to take the time to at least understand where the other is coming from - not just saying it's wrong. differencs of opinions are to be explored, not hated. hope we get back to those times soon enough.

 

[BigStar]

we all tend to speak from our own perspective. the key is to take the time to at least understand where the other is coming from - not just saying it's wrong. differencs of opinions are to be explored, not hated. hope we get back to those times soon enough.

And I generally make it a point to take on that perspective (understand where the other is coming from) but when one piece of information comes up (ind. serv. for ex) always leading to an historically relative scenario that "one ups" the present topic at hand; in this case US black slaves, you sense a trend of where the discussion is leading and that is to divert attention from the OP instead of actually discussing it. Veering the debate to one's agenda basically. Black slaves had it terrible, BUT when you compare it to the Roman days of 2,000 years ago, etc. is just a way to avoid the topic at hand; not enhance the discussion/debate.

 

[iceberg]

And I generally make it a point to take on that perspective (understand where the other is coming from) but when one piece of information comes up (ind. serv. for ex) always leading to an historically relative scenario that "one ups" the present topic at hand; in this case US black slaves, you sense a trend of where the discussion is leading and that is to divert attention from the OP instead of actually discussing it. Veering the debate to one's agenda basically. Black slaves had it terrible, BUT when you compare it to the Roman days of 2,000 years ago, etc. is just a way to avoid the topic at hand; not enhance the discussion/debate.

it can be argued that opening up the persepctive *is* enhancing the debate/discussion. also, it depends on the view of the person driving the discussion. are they trying to focus on black slavery in america or slavery through all of mankind that still exists even today in the world? nothing can ever "make it right" for the ******** things this country has done in it's history. but these days we're literally rewriting the past as we go to cater to the mindset of today - losing all the bad *and* good from those times.

even i drifted in that simple line of thought and people will do that. drift from thought to thought. i didn't do it it minimize a thing, i just did it in the course of convo and caught myself since it was *what* we are talking about.

but to your point - if there is a personal tie to any given area that will almost always rise in significance *to you* but it still has it's place in time - to all. doesn't mean less respect or less empathy for the times - just that the other person has gone through their own set of challenges and trying to rate your views over their own - well that's where most arguments tend to get nasty. when people do it to me i tend to just walk away cause it's not worth the struggle, fight or effort.

in this case, i'm glad i we've talked as i have a better idea of what drive you behind this type of a conversation and i can certainly respect that, agree or not.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

You are quite obtuse.

"We must not disturb slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution, and peace of the country, both forbid us" ~ Abraham Lincoln

please, child. You have no idea what you are talking about.

your sophomoric black and white version is good for 3rd graders, but isn't in any way a reflection of what actually happened.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

wow, your ignorance is amazing. they didn't need to leave to keep slaves. No laws were threatened to be passed that would of made it illegal for the southern states to have slaves.

No, but without the expansion of slavery, slave states would have been out numbered by a lot and it would have only been a matter of time before a law was passed. Obviously losing the civil war hastened the end of slavery, but that was the reason the south wanted to secede. You can say the civil war was about states rights if you want, and the ability to secede, but secession was about slavery.

 

[iceberg]

No, but without the expansion of slavery, slave states would have been out numbered by a lot and it would have only been a matter of time before a law was passed. Obviously losing the civil war hastened the end of slavery, but that was the reason the south wanted to secede. You can say the civil war was about states rights if you want, and the ability to secede, but secession was about slavery.

secession was about not being told what to do or how to live by the north, who also had slaves.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

No, but without the expansion of slavery, slave states would have been out numbered by a lot and it would have only been a matter of time before a law was passed. Obviously losing the civil war hastened the end of slavery, but that was the reason the south wanted to secede. You can say the civil war was about states rights if you want, and the ability to secede, but secession was about slavery.

it would of required an amendment, not just any old law.

 

[Bigdog]

We don't even teach kids about the Korean/Vietnam Wars and the McCarthy era witch hunt, US Japanese citizens being hauled into prison camps during WWII, etc.; wonder why? US education picks and chooses its revisionist history.

True. One of the biggest ethnic group that was enslaved that is not even mentioned in the history books were the Irish who was brought over here by the British. It was cheaper to buy an Irish man, woman, or child than an African-American. They were brought over as indenture servants but really never got out of this.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

We don't even teach kids about the Korean/Vietnam Wars and the McCarthy era witch hunt, US Japanese citizens being hauled into prison camps during WWII, etc.; wonder why? US education picks and chooses its revisionist history.

sometimes history needs revised. the McCarthy era witchhunt is one such example. classified documents proved Mcarthy right - and he was not part of the witch hunt singling out non-governmental workers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

 

[jnday]

After all we never get to read American books on the topic.

There are always the wilfully blind who think if they repeat it wasn't about slavery they won't have to dis their ancestors.

I never said it wasn't about slavery, but my family lived it and I have much more access other than books to gain knowledge on the subject. I lost a grandfather when Sherman took Atlanta and many more ancestors. Slavery was an issue , but not the only issue. I have access to books about Canada, but I am sure you have more knowledge about your country.

 

[jnday]

And I generally make it a point to take on that perspective (understand where the other is coming from) but when one piece of information comes up (ind. serv. for ex) always leading to an historically relative scenario that "one ups" the present topic at hand; in this case US black slaves, you sense a trend of where the discussion is leading and that is to divert attention from the OP instead of actually discussing it. Veering the debate to one's agenda basically. Black slaves had it terrible, BUT when you compare it to the Roman days of 2,000 years ago, etc. is just a way to avoid the topic at hand; not enhance the discussion/debate.

The point about the Romans and others was just an example of other countries/empires that used slavery. They was much harsher and it lasted much longer than slavery in this country. The point being is that slavery in the USA was horrible, but it was even close to slavery during other times in history. Even today in Africa, slavery is still going strong. Wherevis the outrage?

 

[iceberg]

I never said it wasn't about slavery, but my family lived it and I have much more access other than books to gain knowledge on the subject. I lost a grandfather when Sherman took Atlanta and many more ancestors. Slavery was an issue , but not the only issue. I have access to books about Canada, but I am sure you have more knowledge about your country.

to me, slavery was a focus, but it was more "stop telling us how to live" and other major issues of the times. i also hate that period of our history but it doesn't and shouldn't change what happened.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

there's an article over 5 reasons for the war and #3 is slavery. however, the south didn't feel represented properly and didn't want "federal" powers coming over them. (same issues today oddly enough). the war was to stop the south from exiting the union for the most part as i understand things.

 

[jnday]

to me, slavery was a focus, but it was more "stop telling us how to live" and other major issues of the times. i also hate that period of our history but it doesn't and shouldn't change what happened.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

there's an article over 5 reasons for the war and #3 is slavery. however, the south didn't feel represented properly and didn't want "federal" powers coming over them. (same issues today oddly enough). the war was to stop the south from exiting the union for the most part as i understand things.

I agree 100%. The South just wanted out of the Union and wanted away from the big government taxes. Many of us Southerners feel the same way today. The North couldn't stand to lose the tax dollars so they invaded the South. This whole period of history is very complicated, but modern history has been revised to say that the evil South fought only to keep men in slavery and the avoid North was the heros that fought in the name of equality for all men. It is BS . There was only men fighting men with money being a huge factor as always.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Here is the "Cornerstone Speech" given by the VP of the Confederate states And if you don't like that link or think it is somehow bias...just google search Cornerstone speech by Andrew Stephens



If you can read that and not come to the conclusion that Slavery was a VERY IMPORTANT part of why the southern states succeeded from the Union...I don't know what else to tell you. We can label it states's rights and the south not wanting the North to tell them what to do...which is ok if you state that they did not want to be told by those in the north who are "anti-slavery fanatics" to tell them what to do...hmmm anti-slavery fanatics...hmmm and that in their new constitution and government...."Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."



Slavery was a VERY important part of the reason they succeeded...not just some side reason like they try to allude to and cover up with terms like states rights and the idea of the north not telling us what to do.

 

[Eric_Boyer]

Here is the "Cornerstone Speech" given by the VP of the Confederate states And if you don't like that link or think it is somehow bias...just google search Cornerstone speech by Andrew Stephens



If you can read that and not come to the conclusion that Slavery was a VERY IMPORTANT part of why the southern states succeeded from the Union...I don't know what else to tell you. We can label it states's rights and the south not wanting the North to tell them what to do...which is ok if you state that they did not want to be told by those in the north who are "anti-slavery fanatics" to tell them what to do...hmmm anti-slavery fanatics...hmmm and that in their new constitution and government...."Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."



Slavery was a VERY important part of the reason they succeeded...not just some side reason like they try to allude to and cover up with terms like states rights and the idea of the north not telling us what to do.

slavery was absolutely why they left. But if the south left, and immediately made slavery illegal, would it of prevented the Union from waging war?

saying the war was about slavery is as accurate as saying WW2 was about concentration camps

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

slavery was absolutely why they left. But if the south left, and immediately made slavery illegal, would it of prevented the Union from waging war?

saying the war was about slavery is as accurate as saying WW2 was about concentration camps

The south would not have left and made slavery illegal...they left to keep it legal to them and specifically (as the speech I provided a link to says made it part of their new constitution and government) So I have no clue why you would even make the argument of that what if as it flies in contrast to what DID not what IF happened.

Would there even be a civil war if they did not succeed from the union?

 

[Eric_Boyer]

The south would not have left and made slavery illegal...they left to keep it legal to them and specifically (as the speech I provided a link to says made it part of their new constitution and government) So I have no clue why you would even make the argument of that what if as it flies in contrast to what DID not what IF happened.

they did not leave to keep it legal. no laws were being pursued to make it illegal in the south. this fight was about gerrymandering. As more territories became states, the south worried they would lose power and prestige in congress.

Would there even be a civil war if they did not succeed from the union?

it would of made it a civil war at-least. the original meaning of civil war was to fight over control of government, which this was nothing about. this was a fight to be free from government, not a fight to control the government

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

they did not leave to keep it legal. no laws were being pursued to make it illegal in the south. this fight was about gerrymandering. As more territories became states, the south worried they would lose power and prestige in congress.

When they succeeded...they specicially made it legal in their constitution for their new government because they did not want the ANIT-SLAVERY FANATICS for the north telling them that slaves were equal to the white man.

You said...what if they left and made it illegal...which was a stupid argument on your part because they said they wanted it to remain legal and keep it legal as stated in his corner stone speech.


Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[

 

[Eric_Boyer]

When they succeeded...

you do know the south lost, right?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

you do know the south lost, right?

No...Really...They Lost?!!?!?!

Secedes
Seceded
Secession

Lord forbid I spell a word wrong to debunk your terrible argument. But hey...you won the spelling war, You succeeded...so you got that going for you...which is nice.