When Will We Recover From The Civil War? Now Is The Time.

[PoliTalker]

Hello anonymoose,

It has to do with the OP.

All of this racial violence is the manifestation of our continuance of the Civil War in our minds.

We need to make it a goal to end racism, figure out a method to do that, and enact it.

Any ideas?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

Soooo, according to you, because one state, South Carolina, fired on a Federal fort but didn't kill anyone, that's justification to invade the South and kick off a war costing the lives of 2% of the American population?

Since you just did by putting the entire blame of the Civil War on the South, it looks like we're not beyone labels.

The south did cause the Civil War by clinging to a failed economic model.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Hello Geeko Sportivo,



President Obama inflamed the haters who are hung up on race simply by becoming president. There is this mass denial that the slave-holding southern economy was a huge mistake and a failure, as exemplified by the way the northern economy flourished as the southern economy was limited by it's repressive model that did not allow many individuals to excel. That mass denial has morphed into today's racism. Blacks are blamed for the problems in our current society that were actually caused by slavery. The inequality and the limited economic success is not because blacks are 'stupid,' it is because slavery made other jobs and economic growth impossible.

Racists need to admit that the economic model of the old south was a failure and stop taking that failure out on the descendants of those repressed by hatred of blacks which is really self-hatred for being descendant from the cruelty of slavery.

Racists, it is OK to admit the old south was a mistake. You do not have to keep the self-loathing of the slave-owners alive in your own hatred. There is a far better world without hatred. Your hatred is holding you back. It holds our country back. The rest of us are tired of it. Let it go. It is time to move forward to a brighter future.

I am still amazed at the hatred expressed towards Obama and his family. I never understood it. But then again, I never understood the hatred expressed towards the Clintons or Jimmy Carter either!

I think what we are dealing with are just hateful people!

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Penderyn,

There is a very good, long article about this in this week's Economist. The training of the police as 'warriors', the grotesque over-arming of so many with advanced military weapons, the huge power of the police unions to prevent expulsion of racist killers and the way in which lawyers are afraid to bring cases against them and risk all future police co-operation are all mentioned, as is the tremendous success of the town called Camden, where they reorganised them to be useful instead of murderous.

Civil Wars hang on: a man taught history in Irish pubs had an article in the i today wanting to get rid of the statue of the Lord Protector, which it took a long struggle to get put up against heavy tory bullying, but I don't think any group is really offended by it. I think the great trick is never to keep on fighting old wars. There seems to be general agreement in our Senedd that we should get rid of any statues, busts and whatever of such of our people as held office in slavish English possessions, which is our right, but we wouldn't want even decent ones if a minority objected, I think. The point is that a sizeable minority in the South objects to statues of racists, not that they are 'enemies'. Are there any statues of Lincoln, Grant or Sherman in the South?

Slowly, American history is replacing southern history in the American south. They are just having a very hard time admitting that slavery and the confederacy were huge mistakes. We have to help them and let them know it is OK to let go of that. It is OK to admit your ancestors made terrible mistakes. That doesn't make you any less of a person. There is so much ego involved in this.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Cypress,

Thanks.

I seriously doubt Lincoln or Grant have any prominent public memorials in the South

Lincoln and the American army should be saluted for defeating a rebel insurrection bent on defending a slave economy, and thus preserving the Union.

But to me, the real heroes of that era were the abolitionist Fredrick Douglas, Sojourner Truth, et al.

If the South really wanted to come to terms with their history of chattel slavery, they would replace all public monuments of rebel soldiers who fought to defend slavery, with memorials to prominent abolitionists

Precisely.

It is long overdue time to welcome the liberation of the south by the northern army.

There should be a huge new holiday and yearly festival celebrating it!

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Hello Penderyn,



Slowly, American history is replacing southern history in the American south. They are just having a very hard time admitting that slavery and the confederacy were huge mistakes. We have to help them and let them know it is OK to let go of that. It is OK to admit your ancestors made terrible mistakes. That doesn't make you any less of a person. There is so much ego involved in this.

if you forget history it repeats. that's the real agenda of the elites, to reinstitute slavery by deleting history.

 

[anonymoose]

Hello anonymoose,



All of this racial violence is the manifestation of our continuance of the Civil War in our minds.

We need to make it a goal to end racism, figure out a method to do that, and enact it.

Any ideas?

I personally believe there is little racism amongst like minded folks. E.g, wife and I play lotsa golf and get paired with strangers frequently. She mentioned how overall blacks and asians seem to be consistently the nicest. For some reason we meet a real mixed bag with whites - too serious, too slow , pleasant, etc. Maybe because percentage wise there's so many more.
Go into a housing project in New Orleans I'm sure you'd find the blacks there are generally undesirable. Go into a trailor park in eastern Oregon where you see guys with mullets wearing wife beaters - you just look at them and immediately form a bad opinion of them. That may not be racism but it's prejudice based on appearances. They could be the nicest folks you'd want to meet.

 

[anonymoose]

if you forget history it repeats. that's the real agenda of the elites, to reinstitute slavery by deleting history.

Not in the strict sense of course but I agree. They definitely want to keep them on their plantation , not considering them equal but less so.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Geeko Sportivo,

I am still amazed at the hatred expressed towards Obama and his family. I never understood it. But then again, I never understood the hatred expressed towards the Clintons or Jimmy Carter either!

I think what we are dealing with are just hateful people!

There is one explanation propelling all that hatred.

It is big money and greed.

There are super-rich super-greedy people in this country who are so obsessed with wealth acquisition that they feel it is their God-given right to do anything to anybody in the effort to further their own wealth. That includes funding hatred through propaganda outlets. They do this because it divides the left and the right, gets the two sides fighting against one another, which prevents the left and the right from uniting against the corruption of big money influence over government.

The best thing we could possibly do is to educate the masses to the situation, foment the frame of mind which would allow the left and the right to unite against the corruption of big money in government.

I would suggest that the left and the right agree to unite against this common enemy first, eliminate that one thing that hurts both sides, then return to settling the other differences between the left and right.

It is OK to disagree, but the way to do that is to focus on why the ideas of your side are better. If your whole motivation is avoiding what you see as the downside of the other side, then that is what poisons debate.

Because of all this negativity, it allows the super-rich, powerful and greedy to co-opt the struggle to keep the two sides divided and fighting against each other, lest they focus their overwhelming combined numbers against the few who hold the most power.

Such an alliance between the American left and the American right is the one thing the super-rich and greedy power-junkies fear the most. That would be the one thing they could not control with all their wealth. The prospect terrifies them. It is why people like the Koch brothers fund so much propaganda.

It is remarkable that when the Floyd protests began, there was a day or two before things turned violent. That was the amount of time it took for the instigators to travel to the area after receiving their marching orders from the propaganda funders. Then, after it was made public knowledge that the violence was not associated with the protests, the violence dissipated. That's because it doesn't work when the public has the knowledge of what was really driving the violence.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello anonymoose,

I personally believe there is little racism amongst like minded folks. E.g, wife and I play lotsa golf and get paired with strangers frequently. She mentioned how overall blacks and asians seem to be consistently the nicest. For some reason we meet a real mixed bag with whites - too serious, too slow , pleasant, etc. Maybe because percentage wise there's so many more.
Go into a housing project in New Orleans I'm sure you'd find the blacks there are generally undesirable. Go into a trailor park in eastern Oregon where you see guys with mullets wearing wife beaters - you just look at them and immediately form a bad opinion of them. That may not be racism but it's prejudice based on appearances. They could be the nicest folks you'd want to meet.

What an interesting point.

A lot of it is situational.

Two people meet in one situation and they are shouting at one another, in another situation they are pleasant and cordial.

Remarkable!

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Hello anonymoose,



What an interesting point.

A lot of it is situational.

Two people meet in one situation and they are shouting at one another, in another situation they are pleasant and cordial.

Remarkable!

maybe looking at people according to the groups YOU assign to them isn't the best way.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Hello Geeko Sportivo,



There is one explanation propelling all that hatred.

It is big money and greed.

There are super-rich super-greedy people in this country who are so obsessed with wealth acquisition that they feel it is their God-given right to do anything to anybody in the effort to further their own wealth. That includes funding hatred through propaganda outlets. They do this because it divides the left and the right, gets the two sides fighting against one another, which prevents the left and the right from uniting against the corruption of big money influence over government.

The best thing we could possibly do is to educate the masses to the situation, foment the frame of mind which would allow the left and the right to unite against the corruption of big money in government.

I would suggest that the left and the right agree to unite against this common enemy first, eliminate that one thing that hurts both sides, then return to settling the other differences between the left and right.

It is OK to disagree, but the way to do that is to focus on why the ideas of your side are better. If your whole motivation is avoiding what you see as the downside of the other side, then that is what poisons debate.

Because of all this negativity, it allows the super-rich, powerful and greedy to co-opt the struggle to keep the two sides divided and fighting against each other, lest they focus their overwhelming combined numbers against the few who hold the most power.

Such an alliance between the American left and the American right is the one thing the super-rich and greedy power-junkies fear the most. That would be the one thing they could not control with all their wealth. The prospect terrifies them. It is why people like the Koch brothers fund so much propaganda.

It is remarkable that when the Floyd protests began, there was a day or two before things turnedThere violent. That was the amount of time it took for the instigators to travel to the area after receiving their marching orders from the propaganda funders. Then, after it was made public knowledge that the violence was not associated with the protests, the violence dissipated. That's because it doesn't work when the public has the knowledge of what was really driving the violence.

There possible could be a Deep State behind the hatred, but I believe it just boils down to hateful people.

I know many of the Obama/Hillary/Carter haters personally, and it is just pure unwarranted hatefulness!

I noticed it happening just after Nixon ended his presidency. Republicans have become more and more bitter as time went on.

They have all but turned politics into a civil war!

That's probably next!

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Geeko Sportivo,

There possible could be a Deep State behind the hatred, but I believe it just boils down to hateful people.

I know many of the Obama/Hillary/Carter haters personally, and it is just pure unwarranted hatefulness!

I noticed it happening just after Nixon ended his presidency. Republicans have become more and more bitter as time went on.

They have all but turned politics into a civil war!

That's probably next!

Could be?

Ever hear of the Powell Memo?

"The memo called for corporate America to become more aggressive in molding society's thinking about business, government, politics and law in the US. "

And now we have The Heritage Foundation, and the like. Big money fueled propaganda generators. Making hatred worse, for profit.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Southerners are stupid, and the first battle of the war took place at an American fort.

Actually, you'd be wrong. The various Southern states started rebelling and seceding almost from the day after Lincoln was elected. Between December 1860 and April 1861, numerous other US forts and arsenals across the South were taken by rebel forces. Fort Sumner SC, was manned when Union troops fell back from Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie (both near Sumner) and taken by Southern rebels.
Fort Pickens at Pensacola Florida had been under siege by rebel forces for almost three months when the shooting at Sumner started. The only reason it hadn't been taken by force was Stephen Mallory, who would become the Confederate Secretary of the Navy, negotiated a truce that held.

It was the dithering non-response of Buchanan that allowed all this to happen between Lincoln's election and his inauguration into office.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

Actually, you'd be wrong. The various Southern states started rebelling and seceding almost from the day after Lincoln was elected. Between December 1860 and April 1861, numerous other US forts and arsenals across the South were taken by rebel forces. Fort Sumner SC, was manned when Union troops fell back from Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie (both near Sumner) and taken by Southern rebels.
Fort Pickens at Pensacola Florida had been under siege by rebel forces for almost three months when the shooting at Sumner started. The only reason it hadn't been taken by force was Stephen Mallory, who would become the Confederate Secretary of the Navy, negotiated a truce that held.

It was the dithering non-response of Buchanan that allowed all this to happen between Lincoln's election and his inauguration into office.

What could/should Buchanan have done?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Southerners are stupid, and the first battle of the war took place at an American fort.

Another reason why you libs are not representative of American heritage. Only political dipshits like Biden and Trump would call what happened a "battle". It was a warning shot...well, a few of them. No one was killed by the South Carolinians and the fort occupents were allowed to evacuate the fort when they were ready to do so.

OTOH, I can see why Yankees want to say it was a "battle" to bolster their believe that invading Virginia was justified by the "battle" South Carolina fought with the Federal troops. It's like Hillary's claim about "sniper fire" and "who cares?" Labeling it something it was not gives the person claim to be more justified in their actions.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

What could/should Buchanan have done?

Buchanan could have pulled a Trump. Yea, that's getting a bit modern politics, but bear with me. Buchanan could have used the Insurrection act at the first signs of Southern rebellion and ordered the US Army--such as it was-- to take back US property and put the rebels down. He could have authorized US coast defense forts to ready themselves for defense and sent supplies and reinforcements immediately to them.

Buchanan did nothing. He let US arsenals across the South fall into rebel hands giving them the arms and ammunition they needed to raise an army. He let them take forts and ships where they could meaning they were able to provide masses of cannon and even a fledgling navy to fight with. By the time Lincoln actually took office he was left with no choice but civil war to put the rebellion down.

The "pull a Trump" would be to order the Army and call up the Militia (at that time that was the equivalent of the National Guard) to move in and put down the rebellion before it gained traction. I give Trump some credit for doing it quickly as it did put an end to almost all of the looting and violence. The protesters figured that out PDQ.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Another reason why you libs are not representative of American heritage. Only political dipshits like Biden and Trump would call what happened a "battle". It was a warning shot...well, a few of them. No one was killed by the South Carolinians and the fort occupents were allowed to evacuate the fort when they were ready to do so.

OTOH, I can see why Yankees want to say it was a "battle" to bolster their believe that invading Virginia was justified by the "battle" South Carolina fought with the Federal troops. It's like Hillary's claim about "sniper fire" and "who cares?" Labeling it something it was not gives the person claim to be more justified in their actions.

Sumter was a battle. The commander of Fort Sumter, Major Robert Anderson, held fire for two hours while the Confederates bombarded the fort. Then he ordered only the casemate guns (the lower two tiers of guns) be manned and engage the Confederates. Fort Moultrie was chosen to get the brunt of the return fire. A Union relief squadron of ships outside the harbor were unable to come in and land their 1,000 + troops and supplies to assist Sumter.
After something like a day of combat, with many of the buildings on the parade ground in flames, Anderson surrendered the fort to Confederate forces.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, slavery is wrong...

...The reason the Civil War began was because of slavery. Slavery is wrong...Slavery was wrong....

Yes, slavery is wrong. That's not the point. The point is it wasn't it worth killing 2% of the population with war. Wouldn't it have been better to use other methods to abolish slavery rather than threatening to renege on a Constitutional agreement?

About half of the Founders were slave-owners. Most subscribed to the "White domination over the black man" ideology although that does't require slavery. Lincoln himself is a racist by modern standards. Erasing all of the Founders who were racists, condoned slavery or were actual slave owners would see the Thomas Jefferson and Washington monuments reduced to rubble. For the most part, anything over 150 years old in the Eastern United States would see their monuments destroyed because it's all tainted, one way or another, with slavery.

Slavery has existed for all of written history. It existed in the Americas before the Euros arrived. It was the Euros who used slaves and indentured servants upon arrival. They were the ones who invented the Slave Triangle in the late 1500s.

The US and Britain banned the international slave trade in 1807. Britain didn't ban slavery in the British Empire until 1833. The US did it 32 years later after killing 2% of it's citizens. Slavery still exists on on the African and Indian continents and elsewhere. It's wrong, but it's not worth nuking a country over or starting a Civil War.

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

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...he-most-people-living-in-slavery-infographic/

 

[Dutch Uncle]

When the defeated political party is finally vanquished, that will be a good start toward moving on from the Civil War.

You mean the Republicans? Because, through some very weird acrobatics of history, the Democrats of 1860 are the Republicans of today and vice versa.