Obama will observe Confederate Memorial

[Jarod]

He did the wrong thing. Are the Southern troops not traders? Did they not rise up in arms against the United States of America? Are they not nuthing more than a group of home grown terrorists?

 

[Cancel10]

Are the Southern troops not traders?

Of course they were traders. That is why they were so adamantly opposed to the tariffs levied by the Federal government, one of the leading causes of secession.

Did they not rise up in arms against the United States of America?

No, they didn't. It was a peaceful secession.

Are they not nuthing more than a group of home grown terrorists?

If Washington, Jefferson and Adams were terrorists, then yes, according to your logic.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

He did the wrong thing. Are the Southern troops not traders? Did they not rise up in arms against the United States of America? Are they not nuthing more than a group of home grown terrorists?

tell me....what is the definition of a civil war?

 

[Socrtease]

Of course they were traders. That is why they were so adamantly opposed to the tariffs levied by the Federal government, one of the leading causes of secession.

I hear this over and over yet there is very little in ANY secession document that indicates this. As I recall only ONE of the documents spends any time at all on tariffs. All the others spend the vast majority of time discussing slavery. Slavery was THE primary issue. The words states rights got adopted AFTER the war mostly so people could distance themselves from the Slavery argument.

 

[christiefan915]

Bad move....the whole concept of the "confederacy" treats the issue of slavery as a mere formality that would have eventually been solved (and besides, it wasn't all that important to the southern economy/way of life, and it wasn't as bad as people made it out to be). It's going to be real interesting to see if anyone is going to get a public platform to state this, and what Obama's explanation/justification will be.

I guess he's just doing what every president's done since the memorial was first erected.

What I don't get is why this wasn't an issue when bush or the others did it.

 

[Cancel10]

I hear this over and over yet there is very little in ANY secession document that indicates this. As I recall only ONE of the documents spends any time at all on tariffs. All the others spend the vast majority of time discussing slavery. Slavery was THE primary issue. The words states rights got adopted AFTER the war mostly so people could distance themselves from the Slavery argument.

Be that as it may, my response to Jarod was more a play on his typo than an actual argument. It was written in jest.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

He did the wrong thing. Are the Southern troops not traders? Did they not rise up in arms against the United States of America? Are they not nuthing more than a group of home grown terrorists?

The word is "traitor" not "trader" you illiterate moron. And NO, they were not traitors, they were standing up for the principles of the Constitution and US Law, not subverting or obstructing them. They were demanding what every single American has the right to demand, and that doesn't make you a traitor or terrorist.

You may disagree with what they wanted, history may have deemed "wrong" what they sought, but at the time and under the circumstances, they merely wanted what was rightfully theirs, and didn't feel the federal government had a right to take. It was not illegal to own slaves or use slave labor, in fact, the US Supreme Court had made several rulings over the years, and "slaves" were deemed "property" by the US FEDERAL court and the US Congress, not Southerners, and not the CSA. They were merely playing by the rules as they stood at the time. To fault them for this, is unfair and unscrupulous.

 

[Socrtease]

The word is "traitor" not "trader" you illiterate moron. And NO, they were not traitors, they were standing up for the principles of the Constitution and US Law, not subverting or obstructing them. They were demanding what every single American has the right to demand, and that doesn't make you a traitor or terrorist.

You may disagree with what they wanted, history may have deemed "wrong" what they sought, but at the time and under the circumstances, they merely wanted what was rightfully theirs, and didn't feel the federal government had a right to take. It was not illegal to own slaves or use slave labor, in fact, the US Supreme Court had made several rulings over the years, and "slaves" were deemed "property" by the US FEDERAL court and the US Congress, not Southerners, and not the CSA. They were merely playing by the rules as they stood at the time. To fault them for this, is unfair and unscrupulous.

And as even you have several times pointed out, in an attempt to smear Lincoln, he had NO intent to end slavery. If anything he was going to try to help foster the slow road to manumission and repatriation rather than the extreme of emancipation. The south wrongly left the union under the mistaken belief that Lincoln was going to serupticiously end slavery.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I hear this over and over yet there is very little in ANY secession document that indicates this. As I recall only ONE of the documents spends any time at all on tariffs. All the others spend the vast majority of time discussing slavery. Slavery was THE primary issue. The words states rights got adopted AFTER the war mostly so people could distance themselves from the Slavery argument.

It doesn't matter what they "spent their time discussing" you moron. Yes, slavery was part of the deal, yes, slaves were owned personal property according to your federal courts! Is THAT the fault of those who did purchase and maintain slaves? Step away from your idiot perspective of seeing this as a "civil rights" issue (which it never was), and understand what the ISSUE was, and still is, in some cases. The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have power and control over the states. In fact, it was the other way around, the states and people retain the power in all but a few limited instances, which are clearly defined in the Constitution.

Slavery was an important part of this, not because Southerners didn't want to free black people from the bonds of slavery, and not because Northerners wanted freedom and equality for black Americans. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with racial equality or rights. On one hand, it was about money... cotton growers had purchased slaves, they had an investment in property, the federal government simply doesn't have the right to come take your property away and not compensate you. Again, the CSA didn't determine the slaves were property, that was the determination previously made by the US Supreme Court. On the other hand, it was about the principles of Federalism vs. Confederacy, or "states rights" and the Constitutional aspect of it.

So, slavery was part of it, just not in the way liberals want to dream of it and rewrite it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The word is "traitor" not "trader" you illiterate moron. And NO, they were not traitors, they were standing up for the principles of the Constitution and US Law, not subverting or obstructing them. They were demanding what every single American has the right to demand, and that doesn't make you a traitor or terrorist.

You may disagree with what they wanted, history may have deemed "wrong" what they sought, but at the time and under the circumstances, they merely wanted what was rightfully theirs, and didn't feel the federal government had a right to take. It was not illegal to own slaves or use slave labor, in fact, the US Supreme Court had made several rulings over the years, and "slaves" were deemed "property" by the US FEDERAL court and the US Congress, not Southerners, and not the CSA. They were merely playing by the rules as they stood at the time. To fault them for this, is unfair and unscrupulous.

LMAO....nice one jarod!!!

 

[Minister of Truth]

It doesn't matter what they "spent their time discussing" you moron. Yes, slavery was part of the deal, yes, slaves were owned personal property according to your federal courts!

My point exactly, they were clearly not your Courts, as you were a separate, albeit inferior, nation. Btw, I still don't agree with MY federal courts, but I don't up and run off like a fucking child. Rather than act as a man with NO honor, I uphold my commitment to the Constitution I'm sworn to protect and defend, much unlike the military officers of the South who had no honor and reneged on their sacred oaths.

And if slavery was such a small part, why does it take up most of the text of the secession documents?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Bad move....the whole concept of the "confederacy" treats the issue of slavery as a mere formality that would have eventually been solved (and besides, it wasn't all that important to the southern economy/way of life, and it wasn't as bad as people made it out to be). It's going to be real interesting to see if anyone is going to get a public platform to state this, and what Obama's explanation/justification will be.

I guess he's just doing what every president's done since the memorial was first erected.

What I don't get is why this wasn't an issue when bush or the others did it.

I guess a lot of people believe that because he's partly of African descent, then he should use his authority to send a message to those of the mindset of a righteous Confederacy that this country will no longer legitimize that. Like I said, his actions and justifications will be real interesting.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

My point exactly, they were clearly not your Courts, as you were a separate, albeit inferior, nation. Btw, I still don't agree with MY federal courts, but I don't up and run off like a fucking child. Rather than act as a man with NO honor, I uphold my commitment to the Constitution I'm sworn to protect and defend, much unlike the military officers of the South who had no honor and reneged on their sacred oaths.

And if slavery was such a small part, why does it take up most of the text of the secession documents?

See, this is where your profound bigoted prejudice toward the South clouds your judgment. The CSA "up and ran off like a fucking child" because the Constitution was not being adhered to! If you are truly committed to the Constitution, you should be willing to stand up and defend what it says, and demand it not be subverted! It takes nothing more than a chicken shit liberal moron pacifist to go along with whatever the federal government decides to do, regardless of whether it's in accordance to the Constitution or not.

Let's clarify a couple of distinctions. The issue of human enslavement, was not the issue in which the South seceded or the North advocated. Slaves were deemed "property" by the US courts, and as such, the government doesn't have a right to your property. That has absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not it was morally right or wrong to enslave humans. As I said before, 97% of white America, did not support or desire black slaves being integrated into society. The Civil War was not about whether we should or shouldn't enslave people, and if you want to believe that, or make it out to be about that, you are just being ignorant or dishonest.

Slavery was indeed mentioned in secession documents, not because Southerners thought it was morally right to enslave black people and Northerners didn't, but because Southern plantation owners had a great deal of money invested in what the US court had already told them was personal property. As a matter of fact, slaves represented the single largest asset of any American business of the time.

Now, I know, in your bigoted judgmental mind, you feel the Southern plantation owners should have just thrown up their hands and surrendered their property to the federal government without question, and just absorbed the loss for the sake of what would be considered morally right in 2009. But, at the time, America was very prejudiced, very racist, and very bigoted in their racism. This was the case both north and south of the Mason-Dixon line. It wasn't about "slavery" in the sense of social equality or morality, it was about the institution of "slavery" condoned and sanctioned by the US government and the economic ramifications of emancipation.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Can ANYONE point to a single document of Secession where Slavery was not the overwhelming cause mentition for Secession? South Carolina talks most of the document about the history of the US and that the constitution was a contract which they could breach when they felt the ends of the government are destructive to the people of South Carolina and they they talk about nothing but slavery, how the northern states violate the Fugitive Slave Act, how slavery is a state issue how Lincoln is hostile to slave states.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html


Mississippi's document literally can't get through 3 sentences without saying that Slavery is the reason they are leaving.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_mississippi.html

This is the FIRST LINE of the Georgia document: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_georgia.html

By the third Paragraph of the Texas document they are on slavery.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html

The issue of slavery was the ONLY overwhelming issue that the south thought was a "State's rights issue" even though the term state's rights was rarely if EVER used early in the conflict.

.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I would like to further point out that the South's Constitutional rights were not being threatened, while those of the North were being threatened via the Fugitive Slave Laws and the Dred Scot decision, which undermined the sovereignty of every free state.

The North was attempting to use Constitutional methods to move the country in a direction where slavery would eventually be done away with.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I would like to further point out that the South's Constitutional rights were not being threatened, while those of the North were being threatened via the Fugitive Slave Laws and the Dred Scot decision, which undermined the sovereignty of every free state.

The North was attempting to use Constitutional methods to move the country in a direction where slavery would eventually be done away with.

Please, tell us which landmark actions "the north" (aka: US Congress, Supreme Court, President) took prior to the war, to move the country in the direction of ending slavery?

* crickets chirping * ...That's right... NADDA!

In EVERY case, in EVERY instance, when the issue of slavery came up, the United States of America failed to take the country in that direction, opting to do the more economically sound and rational thing, and maintain the institution of slavery where it already existed. In legal case after legal case, the SCOTUS found that slaves were property, and the Constitution clearly protects our property rights. You simply want to paint a picture of something that never was, and act as if that was the reality. A very small portion of liberal northeast America, mostly religious Quakers, advocated for abolition of slavery, the vast majority of America, including the justices of the Supreme Court, did not view a slave as much more than an animal owned by its master.

Your problem is, you want to pass your racist guilt off on the South, and make them your scapegoat. So you create these lies based on myths and misconceptions, even though you have studied history and know the truth. That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. I debate the Civil War with a lot of different people, and I don't have much of a problem with those who are just misinformed products of our public school system, but it pisses me off when someone who seems to have a grasp of history, wants to lie and distort the truth like you always try to do with this.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Please, tell us which landmark actions "the north" (aka: US Congress, Supreme Court, President) took prior to the war, to move the country in the direction of ending slavery?

* crickets chirping * ...That's right... NADDA!

In EVERY case, in EVERY instance, when the issue of slavery came up, the United States of America failed to take the country in that direction, opting to do the more economically sound and rational thing, and maintain the institution of slavery where it already existed. In legal case after legal case, the SCOTUS found that slaves were property, and the Constitution clearly protects our property rights. You simply want to paint a picture of something that never was, and act as if that was the reality. A very small portion of liberal northeast America, mostly religious Quakers, advocated for abolition of slavery, the vast majority of America, including the justices of the Supreme Court, did not view a slave as much more than an animal owned by its master.

Your problem is, you want to pass your racist guilt off on the South, and make them your scapegoat. So you create these lies based on myths and misconceptions, even though you have studied history and know the truth. That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. I debate the Civil War with a lot of different people, and I don't have much of a problem with those who are just misinformed products of our public school system, but it pisses me off when someone who seems to have a grasp of history, wants to lie and distort the truth like you always try to do with this.

First they abolished slavery in their own region. Then they began to spread the ideology of free land out West to territories such as California and Kansas. The doctrine of Popular Sovereignty was overtaking the earlier doctrine of free and slave states based upon geographic location, allowing for every single Western state to become free, and ultimately make the pro-slavery cause a weak one politically.

Your argument also pretends that the South was not a part of the prewar political culture, and did not elect presidents from Jefferson to Buchanan into office, all of whom appointed federal judges and signed laws which often came from Southern dominated Congresses.

As a professed conservative, its also surprising that you argue that the lack of radical action and change, prewar, invalidates the entire ant-slavery movement from 1776-1861 as a pretentious idea, when conservatives are usually opposed to radical change in the pursuit of political goals.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

First they abolished slavery in their own region. Then they began to spread the ideology of free land out West to territories such as California and Kansas. The doctrine of Popular Sovereignty was overtaking the earlier doctrine of free and slave states based upon geographic location, allowing for every single Western state to become free, and ultimately make the pro-slavery cause a weak one politically.

Your argument also pretends that the South was not a part of the prewar political culture, and did not elect presidents from Jefferson to Buchanan into office, all of whom appointed federal judges and signed laws which often came from Southern dominated Congresses.

As a professed conservative, its also surprising that you argue that the lack of radical action and change, prewar, invalidates the entire ant-slavery movement from 1776-1861 as a pretentious idea, when conservatives are usually opposed to radical change in the pursuit of political goals.

Cotton doesn't grow in Kansas or California, so there was no need for slave labor. Washington D.C. abolished slavery because they were not a state but a district, and therefore, had the ability to legislatively abolish it without much opposition. You can tap dance all you like, the fact is, before 1861, the idea of complete emancipation for slaves was never in the immediate future of America. Lincoln originally planned to extend the practice of slavery to 1911! And, yes the southern states had great influence and did elect southerners who supported slavery, I have not once indicated the South was innocent, just that they are not completely to blame, as you want to indicate. Our entire nation condoned, supported, and tolerated slavery, for generations! It was a way of life, it was how things were back then.

Again, the times were changing, importation of slaves had ceased, technology had advanced, our social consciousness was awakening, and even the most profoundly ignorant person would have realized that eventually slavery would come to an end, because it would no longer serve a purpose. People in the South did not have any delusions about this, it was abundantly clear. The issue was much more complicated, how to get from here to there. Of course they wanted to keep something that had been legal for 100 years, and a system of labor they had invested great wealth in... what the hell do you expect? It wasn't because they just liked keeping the black man down!

In order to objectively evaluate the South's position in the events leading to the Civil War, you have to check your 21st Century political correctness at the door, and understand the sentiments of the time period. You have to realize how people thought, and what they felt about black slaves and the issue itself. There were many deeply and devoutly racist people, who supported abolition. They did not believe the black man to be equal to the white man, even Abraham Lincoln admitted this. So, to construct this mythical fantasy about the racist South who just wanted to keep the slaves enslaved, and the glorious North, who fought courageously to bestow liberty and freedom upon the African-American..... it's just absurd!

 

[blackascoal]

In the mid-1800's, the #1 leading American product and exportable, was cotton. Advancements in technology and civilization, were rendering slave labor obsolete, and it could most clearly understood that slavery would eventually end because of this. Indeed, all importing of new slaves had ceased, and the predominate issue of the day was, what to do with slaves when they were freed.

Because of the climate, the deep south was the best place to grow cotton. If cotton could be grown in Boston, there would have been a lot of slaves there, because that is how cotton was harvested, and it was our #1 product and export. There was absolutely no difference in the general social opinion of the slaves, about 97% of white America agreed, they didn't want the slaves integrated into their society. Some favored shipping them off to far away places, like Haiti or Liberia, including one Abraham Lincoln.

As for the economics, the United States was benefiting from cotton in a huge way. Through tariffs on exports, often used to offset tariffs paid for imports to support the growing industries in the north. Cotton also fueled the textile industries of northern states, and again, one of our leading commodities as a nation. Cotton was at the core of our economy as much as oil is today. So, it wasn't simply racist southern plantation owners who profited from slave labor. Every shop owner who sold a pair of blue jeans, from Maine to California, profited from slave labor, and had no problem with it.

If you wish to talk about murder on blacks in unspeakable ways, please remember to include the worst examples, which followed emancipation of the slaves and the Civil War...

In Springfield, Illinois, during August 1908, a three-day riot took place, initiated by a white woman,s claim of violation by a Negro. Inflamed by newspapers’ sensationalism, crowds of whites gathered around the jail demanding that the Negro, who had been arrested and imprisoned, be lynched. When the sheriff transferred the accused and another Negro to a jail in a nearby town, white mobs headed for the Negro section and attacked homes and businesses. Two Blacks were lynched, others were dragged from their houses and streetcars and beaten. By the time the National Guardsmen reached the scene, six persons were dead—four whites and two Negroes. This riot, in the home town of Abraham Lincoln, shocked white liberals, who met the following year in New York City, with several prominent Blacks, to form the NAACP “to promote equality of rights and eradicate caste or race prejudice...”

The East St. Louis, Illinois riot in 1917 was touched off by the fear of white working men that Negro advances in economic, political and social status were threatening their own status. When the labor force of an aluminum plant went on strike in April, the company hired Negro workers. Although the strike was crushed by a combination of militia, injunctions, and both Black and white strike breakers, the union blamed its defeat on the Blacks. A union meeting in May demanded that “East St. Louis must remain a white man’s town.” A riot followed, sparked by a white man, during which mobs demolished buildings and Blacks were attacked and beaten. Policemen did little more than take the injured to hospitals and disarm Negroes. Harassments and beatings continued through June.

On July 1, some whites in a Ford drove through the main Negro district, shooting into homes. Blacks armed themselves. When a police car, also a Ford, drove down the street to investigate, the Blacks fired on it, killing two policemen. The next day, as reports of the shooting spread, a new riot began. Streetcars were stopped, Blacks were pulled off, stoned, clubbed, kicked and shot. Other rioters set fire to Black homes. By midnight the Black section was in flames and Blacks were fleeing the city. The official casualty figures were nine whites and thirty-nine Blacks, hundreds wounded, but the NAACP investigators estimated that between one hundred to two hundred Blacks were killed.14 Over three hundred buildings were destroyed.

The worst of the post-War race riots took place in Chicago, Illinois. It began late in July 1919 when a young Black “encroached” upon a swimming area that the whites had marked off for themselves, and was stoned until he drowned. By the time the riot ended, thirteen days later, thousands of both races had been involved in a series of frays, fifteen whites and twenty-three Negroes were killed, and 178 whites and 342 Blacks were injured. More than one thousand families, mostly Blacks, were left homeless due to the burnings and general destruction of property.
~~SOURCE


To pretend that 1860s America was, in any way, similar in social viewpoint regarding race, to the viewpoints of today, is absurd. To pretend the South was a bunch of racists who wanted to deny civil rights, and the North was sophisticated and educated, and had this righteous enlightenment that black men were equal to white men, is preposterous. It was not like that!

Southern farmers used what the United States laws and courts had ruled and determined to be, legitimate property, to do a legitimate deed and grow a legitimate crop, and make a legitimate profit! Acting as if they were somehow defying the United States to do this, or the will of the people, or exploiting some loophole... those are just not factual or realistic arguments.

Because of the civil manner in which you presented your perspective, I'll say this as respectfully as I possibly can.

The institution of slavery as practiced in the American south was nothing short of barbarism and ungodly evil. Completely devoid from your interpretation are all the things that I mentioned in the post you responded to. Somehow you ignored the indisputable unspeakable horrors and turned ungodly evil into a simple business arrangement.

You've ignored the suffering and horror as if it meant nothing. In the almost 600 words you typed of revisionist history, you didn't type one single word about the horrors of innocent people in the south. You seek to run away from your own past and shift blame to those who died ending the horrors of southern slavery. You talk about mobs in the north, but not a single word about the Klan, not a single word about a Reconstruction, not a single word about Jim Crow and dixiecrat laws.

The horror of southern slavery existed in this country for 246 years and was immediately followed by another 100 years of the terrorism of Jim Crow .. all of which took place in the south.

With all due respect, you validate my opinion of southerners. You demonstrate no humaness or spirituality, no compassion for enslaved people, no introspective, no remorse for the ugliest shit stain on American history.

You ignore that African-Americans ESCAPED to the north. Led by the heroism of people like Harriet Tubman, and aided by whites in the NORTH, they escaped from HELL and began a journey that has led us to today.

There is a world of truth and history that you don't know, and from what I can see, aren't interested in. I have no desire to try to teach you what you can't interpret.

But what you seek is absolution, not truth. I am not a priest so I can't help you find redemption. However, what I am is an African-American with a strong sense, knowledge, and understanding of history, particularly as it relates to my own people. You should save your revisionist non-human perspective of southern history for other people who seek absolution.

The good news is the shitstain of southern history is recognized for what it was .. even by you. Thus you resort to trying to shift blame and hide from your own evil past. The good news is the idiotic notion of white supremacy is rapidly shrinking into little shit balls that will soon all be flushed down the toliet. I like the visualization of that.

Feel free to interpret his-story anyway you choose. I'll keep talking about history.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Somehow you ignored the indisputable unspeakable horrors and turned ungodly evil into a simple business arrangement.

.

Hey, just like globalization zealots.