Objectivity

Not to troll too hard here Camp, but what were you taught that the other reasons for the Civil War were?

MC2 5678F589 wrote

The Civil War was about slavery.

Suggesting that it wasn't about slavery is certainly an opinion, and it just so happens to be the same opinion of White Supremecists and traitors.

Those monuments are part of the false narrative that there was something praiseworthy about the Confederacy. The idea that it was about something other than slavery is part of the false narrative. Taking statues down doesn't immediately solve problems, but it works to undermine the false narrative. It is not erasing history, it is restoring the truth.

Now they are not just Southern symbols. They have been adopted by Nazis, and, worse, the president had not unequivocally condemned the Nazis. That made the issue exponentially more important.

mm

witch hobble wrote

Not to troll too hard here Camp, but what were you taught that the other reasons for the Civil War were?

I'd like to know the answer to this, too.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

witch hobble wrote

Not to troll too hard here Camp, but what were you taught that the other reasons for the Civil War were?

I'd like to know the answer to this, too.

I've been waiting for you MC

I'm not answering. Just like you do. I'm not in the mood for the spin. Like I said yesterday it gets tiresome.

So, you're saying the Civil War was all about slavery, and the monuments to Confederate leaders represent slavery? Good. Glad we're all on the same page here.

LOL

You are to the spin move what Allen Iverson is to the cross over. It's impressive

campgottagopee wrote

I'm not answering. Just like you do. I'm not in the mood for the spin. Like I said yesterday it gets tiresome.

By not answering a fairly direct question (from me, not MC), you leave a vacuum for us to fill with speculation.

Most people who think the war wasn't only about slavery fall back on it being about "the Southern economy", "state's rights", or "the War of Northern Aggression".

Are any of these what you were implying?

Territory
Politics
Religion

All of which can be tied to slavery. I'm assuming that's where you're heading??

Figured I would answer in an attempt to not stoop to MC's level

Well....you answered I guess. But where MC sometimes goes too deep on his point by point rebuttals and rehashing old battles, maybe puts too fine a point on it, your answer is a bit of a broad stroke dodge.

But yes....obviously all of those answers, including Religion unfortunately, be tied to their desire for the slave economy to continue.

It would be interesting to see the battle lines in the current tension be redrawn if the statue in discussion was Jefferson instead of Lee.

Oh, you bet it was a dodge! You were teeing me up and I'll be damned if I'll fall for that.

 

A number of states in this country have legalized marijuana while it's still illegal at the federal level (I think).

If the current AG comes down on those states, in such a way that would "force" those states to outlaw it again, wouldn't that be a somewhat interesting parallel to the issue of slavery in the 1800's? (PLEASE don't think I'm trying to draw a parallel between the morality of slavery & smoking pot!!!)

They are both "morality" issues (to some degree), and in both cases, it would be the federal government using the "morality" argument to step on "state's rights".

Just an interesting thought ...

Any feedback?

Face4Me wrote

A number of states in this country have legalized marijuana while it's still illegal at the federal level (I think).

If the current AG comes down on those states, in such a way that would "force" those states to outlaw it again, wouldn't that be a somewhat interesting parallel to the issue of slavery in the 1800's? (PLEASE don't think I'm trying to draw a parallel between the morality of slavery & smoking pot!!!)

They are both "morality" issues (to some degree), and in both cases, it would be the federal government using the "morality" argument to step on "state's rights".

Just an interesting thought ...

Any feedback?

Throwing marijuana offenders in jail could be seen as a form of slavery or at least something just as cruel if not more inhumane then slavery. We have the private prison industry these days and in a lot of ways it's just another way to rid us of the less desirables, you know- them unsightly, minority colored and poor folk.

Haha. You teed yourself up bud.  I was just repositioning you a bit, maybe working on my backswing!

witch hobble wrote

Haha. You teed yourself up bud.  I was just repositioning you a bit, maybe working on my backswing!

campgottagopee wrote

MC2 5678F589 wrote

  Those monuments were put up as a big middle finger to black people.

Simply not true but you're welcome to think that

Here's a map of all the Confederate Statues in the United States:



And here's a map of the population density of black people:



(Source: http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/confederate-monuments-statues-and-symbols-in-the-south/)

Probably a huge coincidence.

I had no idea the black population was so concentrated in the US.

Amazing maps.  I had no idea of the concentrations either. MC is a wealth of information.  Keep it coming bro. CampSeeingDaLight!.

Objectivity:

I have always heard the Civil War was about more than slavery, but I was never taught what "more" was. So I just googled it. Below is from the top result, who knows if this is correct. It is a source I respect, but admittedly known to be liberal, pbs.org:

What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America?

A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.

In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.

A key issue was states' rights.

The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.

Another factor was territorial expansion.

The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.

Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.

The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.

Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.

It's interesting that in a thread entitled Objectivity you bring emotion into it simply because I disagree with the original intent of Confederate monuments.

The Civil War was fought over money and power with slavery as it's machine. That said, if it takes bringing down every single monument, re-naming every single school, to teach these dumb fuck KKK and white supremacist racist scumbags that the war is over then that's what needs to be done. They're way of life is over. Yes part of me still feels that we are erasing our history but I also realize some don't look as objectively as I do at things like this.

I'll stand by and wait for the spin.