IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I understand your POV and do not object to it.
What I object to is the misguided notion that "Northern Men were moral men who believed in Equality for All. Southern Men believed in White Supremacy." That is demonstrably false. Even the vaunted Abraham Lincoln was a White Supremacist.

Can we please not lie about this? Can we not pretend that there are no racists north of the Mason-Dixon? They are legion. Based upon my own experience, I'd say particularly in the Mid-West.

The statues should be gone from all public spaces and, only perhaps, relocated to museums. I don't think angry mobs should tear them down. I think the States who erected them should have to pay to remove them. But simply removing them is not a panacea. Not with the monsters we have in the White House and DOJ. I heard Michael Moore say that he thought, "The overwhelming majority of Trump's supporters liked what he said [yesterday]." And he's right. I know. I live among them and I am no longer in the South.

Some here need to be told to get off their Northern Superiority kick and remember that Donald J. Trump is a Northerner, too.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Who (other than you) is saying it's a Northerners/Southerners thing?
--

Drew
New I'm sorry. That statues aren't of Southern Generals?
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Find me a statue of a northern general who fought to defend slavery
I'll support taking that one down, too.

See? It's not about where they're from. It's about what they did.
--

Drew
New I know it's not what we like to say in polite company, but, ...
the Civil War was fought for the same reason every war is fought: acquisition of wealth, land and power.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New No
Short excerpt from the long answer:
The Civil War was not fundamentally about "states rights". Asserting a state's right to secede doesn't speak to why the state wants to secede. Steven's citation of reasons in his answer only serve to underline this. When the northern states were threatened by the War of 1812, they considered secession. When South Carolina was threatened by a tariff, they attempted to nullify the law. When a state's self interests come into play, they'll take advantage of whatever political mechanism they can imagine to assert that self interest, up to and including nullification, secession, and war.

The real story is not in the political mechanics but the underlying interest in preserving slavery that forced the South to become so hell bent on their "states rights". If Northern states had seceded over the War of 1812, we wouldn't assert the fundamental cause was a debate over state's rights. Rather we'd say it was their opposition to the War of 1812. The same applies for the South's secession as well. Their interest in preserving slavery drove them to use untested constitutional mechanism and eventually go to war.


Short answer:
--

Drew
Expand Edited by drook Aug. 16, 2017, 12:44:09 PM EDT
New Read Foote's volumes and get back with me.
He knew a bit more about it than some pasty skinned IT worker.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New (sigh)
T.N. Coates:

[...]

Thus in 1861, when the Civil War began, the Union did not face a peaceful Southern society wanting to be left alone. It faced an an aggressive power, a Genosha, an entire society based on the bondage of a third of its residents, with dreams of expanding its fields of the bondage further South. It faced the dream of a vast American empire of slavery. In January of 1861, three months before the Civil War commenced, Florida secessionists articulated the position directly:

At the South, and with our People of course, slavery is the element of all value, and a destruction of that destroys all that is property. This party, now soon to take possession of the powers of the Government, is sectional, irresponsible to us, and driven on by an infuriated fanatical madness that defies all opposition, must inevitably destroy every vestige or right growing out of property in slaves.

Gentlemen, the State of Florida is now a member of the Union under the power of the Government, so to go into the hands of this party.

As we stand our doom is decreed.


Not yet. As the Late Unpleasantness stretched from the predicted months into years, the very reason for the Confederacy’s existence came to threaten its diplomatic efforts. Fighting for slavery presented problems abroad, and so Confederate diplomats came up with the notion of emphasizing “states rights” over “slavery” — the first manifestation of what would later become a plank in the foundation of Lost Cause mythology.


Read the whole thing.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Slaves were the key to the wealth of the South. HTH.
If you think that the North was opposed to slavery on moral grounds, you're deluding yourself. Had it not been for the disproportionate amount of wealth funneling to the South due to slave labor the North (comprised mainly of White Supremacists itself) wouldn't have given a tinker's damn about slavery.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Whatever the reason...
The North opposed expanding slavery, while the South went to war to do so.

That's the bottom line, for me anyway.

YMMV.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I don't really disagree with that.
The North opposed expanding slavery, while the South went to war to do so.

Yes, the North objected to slavery and the South wanted it continued. But both held their respective positions exclusively out of a concern for wealth; who got it and where. Just like all other wars, that war was about wealth, power and territory. This is not to be misread as some sort of white-washing of slavery. I'm merely pointing out the true motivation for the war.

And even this is overly simplistic. For instance, in writing about a book he recommends, "Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South" by Ira Berlin, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. writes:
Here’s where the monolith falls apart, however. As critical as Berlin’s findings about the North and South was his revelation that the South really consisted of “two Souths”: an Upper and a Lower, distinguished, among other things, by their histories, geographies and outlooks.

The Upper South (think Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and later Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and D.C.) had been marked by its earlier history of manumission following the Revolution; it also had a more negative outlook about slavery’s future as a result of its increasingly inhospitable soil (for more on this, see Amazing Fact, “What Was the Second Middle Passage?”).

The Lower South (think Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South, Carolina and Texas), by contrast, had never embraced manumission fever, and because there was still so much money to be made off the cotton trade (see Amazing Fact, “Why Was Cotton King?”), it never wavered in its commitment to the slave economy.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/free-blacks-lived-in-the-north-right/

I've never read Berlin's book, but upon reading Gates, I'm inclined to pick it up.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Ah. Not a White Supremacist then, only a Confederate Apologist. (Hyuuuuge difference.)
New Yet another miss.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New So it's just coincidence that you're pushing their arguments, word-for-word exactly? Yeah, riight...
New Reference? Links? Never mind. Check the other forum for reply.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Now THAT conflation smacks mightily of
..that which you Despise in the BOx's oft-meandering fulminations. I deem ^this^ smack-dab amidst that level of (misplaced) puffery.

It's just simple-defamation. Pity.
Do better or ... turn in your epaulets.
New he can, but if you look at the time stamp he hadnt had his bran muffin yet
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
     Car (apparently) deliberately plows into anti-fascist rally at Charlottesville. - (Another Scott) - (28)
         The driver is in custody. - (malraux) - (1)
             yeah, bet he is crying for his rights about now -NT - (boxley)
         Nah, what he did was to blame the victims just as much as the Nazi terrorists. - (CRConrad) - (3)
             It's looking as if his (twice-repeated "from all sources") Weasel-phrase has galvanized ..lots. - (Ashton)
             And with his and his family's history, this surprises whom? - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                 And you didn't even mention the full page ad in 4 newpapers he paid for. - (a6l6e6x)
         And, Drumpf doubles-down. - (mmoffitt) - (21)
             "And Lee is just like Washington and Jefferson." - (Another Scott) - (20)
                 WRT White Supremacy, he almost has a point. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                     He wasn't talking about historical figures -NT - (drook)
                     For me, it's not whether the US was founded on slavery. - (Another Scott) - (17)
                         I understand your POV and do not object to it. - (mmoffitt) - (16)
                             Who (other than you) is saying it's a Northerners/Southerners thing? -NT - (drook) - (15)
                                 I'm sorry. That statues aren't of Southern Generals? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                                     Find me a statue of a northern general who fought to defend slavery - (drook) - (13)
                                         I know it's not what we like to say in polite company, but, ... - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                             No - (drook) - (11)
                                                 Read Foote's volumes and get back with me. - (mmoffitt) - (10)
                                                     (sigh) - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                         Slaves were the key to the wealth of the South. HTH. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                             Whatever the reason... - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                                                 I don't really disagree with that. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                                                     Ah. Not a White Supremacist then, only a Confederate Apologist. (Hyuuuuge difference.) -NT - (CRConrad) - (5)
                                                                         Yet another miss. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                             So it's just coincidence that you're pushing their arguments, word-for-word exactly? Yeah, riight... -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                                 Reference? Links? Never mind. Check the other forum for reply. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                         Now THAT conflation smacks mightily of - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                             he can, but if you look at the time stamp he hadnt had his bran muffin yet -NT - (boxley)

An eye is upon you!
168 ms