Antifa [Mod Warning on post #1 - updated 08/08/19]

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

Again: why no Hitler or Stalin statues? If we are just celebrating great military minds

There are lots of Stalins and Lenin's left all over Eastern Europe ///

mynamejeff

Brian? wrote: »

It was the primary cause.

@overheal also and 20cent

https://www.ducksters.com/history/civil_war/causes_of_the_civil_war.php

primary school level source

https://learnodo-newtonic.com/american-civil-war-causes

high school level source

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

general source

in the north slavery was used as a major cause for the war, in the south it was not ,

if you cant be bothered to read and learn the historical facts then please dont debate a subject , its really annoying to people who bothered to learn

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah, so why don’t you stop spreading it? Because slavery was one of and the primary cause for the civil war.

Do you understand that this sentence is both incorrect factually and a contradiction ?

There has got to be a required level of intelligence to become involved in a debate FFS

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

It was their duty to rebel against their own government when there was a chance Slavery was going to be made illegal. That’s a funny sort of duty to honour.

Not every soldier joined primarily to keep slavery. Duty to their states was higher on their agenda.

The South used the Constitution as a reason for secession. The Constitution prevents tyranny by dividing powers between central and state government, dividing powers between the branches of government, using checks and balances and lastly, in the Legislative Branch, there is equal representation from all the states. Many in the south believed the Federal government was becoming to powerful, against the wording of the Constitution, and began yielding control over the southern states over issues that they felt were stated rights (which was an incorrect assumption on their part). Bottom line though is history records the issue of slavery not being allowed in new territories as the primary reason for secession, although it is often argued that the primary cause was actually taxation or the principle of States' Rights.

Overheal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There are lots of Stalins and Lenin's left all over Eastern Europe ///

Not relevant. The claim was made about America having a culture of celebrating military leaders “even our enemies”

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

Not relevant. The claim was made about America having a culture of celebrating military leaders “even our enemies”

ohh right, America does not celebrate its enemies, who said that, thats madness. If anything they trot out their own losers as if they were the victors in wars.

Tony EH

Overheal wrote: »

You haven’t made the case for what was the alternate primary cause in your thesis.

The overriding issue for the Southern States secession was about State rights and their individual decisions on the direction of their own future, independent of a central control and, yes, that included the right to use slaves. But, it wasn't just about that.

The seceding States, which didn't all withdraw from the Union at once, felt that this was better achieve within a loose confederacy than in a tighter controlled Union. This was mostly due to the nature of how States view themselves at the time. The "United States" didn't really exist. It was only a concept. Some say it still is. But, back then, States viewed themselves as separate countries or "territories", not as entities within a single country. So, the idea of being "controlled" by a central body was abhorrent to a lot of people.

But, even at the outbreak of the war, the Northern States were more about bringing back the Southern States into the Union than about merely fighting over slaves rights. A concept that didn't even enter the majority of Union soldiers heads in 1861. In fact, most of the people in the North shared the same racist views on blacks as did their Southern counterpart. Even the idea of allowing blacks to serve as soldiers in the Union Army was outright rejected by the majority of Northerns, such was their view on them. It was only during the war, that the likes of the 54th Massachusetts was even considered and even then it was met with a lot of opposition, they were treated like crap, always in the second line and often didn't receive payment.

It's an absolute fallacy to suggest that the American Civil War was some glorious conflict fought by egalitarian, right thinking, angels in the North and vicious, slave owning, racists-to-a-man in the South and reducing the war down to such a simplistic level as slavery, does that.

Even after the war, the North did little for the slaves they freed. They basically cast them to the wind. Andrew Johnson had no "use" for them and, in fact, even opposed giving them citizenship.

Overheal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ohh right, America does not celebrate its enemies, who said that, thats madness. If anything they trot out their own losers as if they were the victors in wars.

Notobtuse did :pac:

mynamejeff

Tony EH wrote: »

The overriding issue for the Southern States secession was about State rights and their individual decisions on the direction of their own future, independent of a central control and, yes, that included the right to use slaves. But, it wasn't just about that.

The seceding States, which didn't all withdraw from the Union at once, felt that this was better achieve within a loose confederacy than in a tighter controlled Union. This was mostly due to the nature of how States view themselves at the time. The "United States" didn't really exist. It was only a concept. Some say it still is. But, back then, States viewed themselves as separate countries or "territories", not as entities within a single country. So, the idea of being "controlled" by a central body was abhorrent to a lot of people.

But, even at the outbreak of the war, the Northern States were more about bringing back the Southern States into the Union than about merely fighting over slaves rights. A concept that didn't even enter the majority of Union soldiers heads in 1861. In fact, most of the people in the North shared the same racist views on blacks as did their Southern counterpart. Even the idea of allowing blacks to serve as soldiers in the Union Army was outright rejected by the majority of Northerns, such was their view on them. It was only during the war, that the likes of the 54th Massachusetts was even considered and even then it was met with a lot of opposition, they were treated like crap, always in the second line and often didn't receive payment.

It's an absolute fallacy to suggest that the American Civil War was some glorious conflict fought by egalitarian, right thinking, angels in the North and vicious, slave owning, racists-to-a-man in the South and reducing the war down to such a simplistic level as slavery, does that.

Even after the war, the North did little for the slaves they freed. They basically cast them to the wind. Andrew Johnson had no "use" for them and, in fact, even opposed giving them citizenship.

posted three links of varying levels to try to help them understand to no avail .

some people just cant learn new things i guess

Brian?

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm sure both you and I and everyone else could dig up a lot of quotes from Confederate personnel that showed they supported slavery. But it still wouldn't make it the the cause of the start of the Civil War.

It, bluntly, just wasn't that simple Brian.

I didn’t say I could dig up quotes showing they supported slavery. The said themselves they went to war to maintain the right to own slaves.

Brian?

mynamejeff wrote: »

@overheal also and 20cent

https://www.ducksters.com/history/civil_war/causes_of_the_civil_war.php

primary school level source

https://learnodo-newtonic.com/american-civil-war-causes

high school level source

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

general source

in the north slavery was used as a major cause for the war, in the south it was not ,

if you cant be bothered to read and learn the historical facts then please dont debate a subject , its really annoying to people who bothered to learn

I actually listed these earlier. Did you miss that?

Tony EH

mynamejeff wrote: »

posted three links of varying levels to try to help them understand to no avail .

some people just cant learn new things i guess

To be fair, slavery was a big part of the war, which is borne out by your links too and, frankly, most people think that that's what it was all about because it has been reduced to such for many years.

A consequence of boiling years of history down to easily digestible titbits, unfortunately.

notobtuse

Overheal wrote: »

Notobtuse did :pac:

We do celebrate certain foreign and enemy great military minds in the US. Erwin Rommel, Georgy Zhukov, Chiang Kai-shek, Napoleon Bonaparte, Stonewall Jackson, Erich Von Manstein, Bernard Montgomery, Isoroku Yamamoto, Guy Simonds, Konstantin Rokosovsky and Tomoyuki Yamashi ta are some examples. We may not erect statues of them (although I do have a bust of Winston Churchill in my home) but we do make many documentaries dedicated to them to keep their history alive.

George Patton had great respect for Rommel’s tactics and strategy, going so far as the have Rommel’s book translated to English so he could read it.

Brian?

Tony EH wrote: »

The overriding issue for the Southern States secession was about State rights and their individual decisions on the direction of their own future, independent of a central control and, yes, that included the right to use slaves. But, it wasn't just about that.

The seceding States, which didn't all withdraw from the Union at once, felt that this was better achieve within a loose confederacy than in a tighter controlled Union. This was mostly due to the nature of how States view themselves at the time. The "United States" didn't really exist. It was only a concept. Some say it still is. But, back then, States viewed themselves as separate countries or "territories", not as entities within a single country. So, the idea of being "controlled" by a central body was abhorrent to a lot of people.

But, even at the outbreak of the war, the Northern States were more about bringing back the Southern States into the Union than about merely fighting over slaves rights. A concept that didn't even enter the majority of Union soldiers heads in 1861. In fact, most of the people in the North shared the same racist views on blacks as did their Southern counterpart. Even the idea of allowing blacks to serve as soldiers in the Union Army was outright rejected by the majority of Northerns, such was their view on them. It was only during the war, that the likes of the 54th Massachusetts was even considered and even then it was met with a lot of opposition, they were treated like crap, always in the second line and often didn't receive payment.

It's an absolute fallacy to suggest that the American Civil War was some glorious conflict fought by egalitarian, right thinking, angels in the North and vicious, slave owning, racists-to-a-man in the South and reducing the war down to such a simplistic level as slavery, does that.

Even after the war, the North did little for the slaves they freed. They basically cast them to the wind. Andrew Johnson had no "use" for them and, in fact, even opposed giving them citizenship.

As I said earlier:

What was at the heart of the state v federal rights: slavery.

Why was it so important to the south? Their economy was based on agricultural slaves

Did the north start the war to free slaves? Absolutely not. They went to war to maintain the union. But the South left the union because they wanted to maintain slavery. Which was why the right to own slaves was in the confederate constitution.

I’m not oversimplifying it. It was extremely complicated in how it ended up as a civil war. But the main issue behind it was slavery.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

We do celebrate certain foreign and enemy great military minds in the US. Erwin Rommel, Georgy Zhukov, Chiang Kai-shek, Napoleon Bonaparte, Stonewall Jackson, Erich Von Manstein, Bernard Montgomery, Isoroku Yamamoto, Guy Simonds, Konstantin Rokosovsky and Tomoyuki Yamashi ta are some examples. We may not erect statues of them (although I do have a bust of Winston Churchill in my home) but we do make many documentaries dedicated to them to keep their history alive.

George Patton had great respect for Rommel’s tactics and strategy, going so far as the have Rommel’s book translated to English so he could read it.

So then we shouldn’t erect or maintain statues of traitors. Took you long enough.

notobtuse

Overheal wrote: »

So then we shouldn’t erect or maintain statues of traitors. Took you long enough.

Golden Books as your basis for critical thinking should not be your friend.

20Cent

mynamejeff wrote: »

@overheal also and 20cent

https://www.ducksters.com/history/civil_war/causes_of_the_civil_war.php

primary school level source

https://learnodo-newtonic.com/american-civil-war-causes

high school level source

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

general source

in the north slavery was used as a major cause for the war, in the south it was not ,

if you cant be bothered to read and learn the historical facts then please dont debate a subject , its really annoying to people who bothered to learn

All those links say slavery?????
The southeners didn't want to lose their free workforce. They would have to pay a fair wage or do the hard work themselves.

mynamejeff

20Cent wrote: »

All those links say slavery?????
The southeners didn't want to lose their free workforce. They would have to pay a fair wage or do the hard work themselves.

what was it posted in reply to ?

PRIMARY CAUSE

pointless conversing with underbridgedwellers anyway

20Cent

mynamejeff wrote: »

what was it posted in reply to ?

PRIMARY CAUSE

pointless conversing with underbridgedwellers anyway

Spit it out then.

Disingenuous linking to loads of sites and expecting people to read them all and come up with thr same conclusions you did.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

I can’t say I’ve been fully following the argument here but it seems to be that the southern confederate statues need to go as they were traitors.

Wouldn’t leftwingers though more properly argue that they were racists, and if so why not get rid of nearly all US 19C political statues and many 20C statues?

Brian?

Tony EH wrote: »

The overriding issue for the Southern States secession was about State rights and their individual decisions on the direction of their own future, independent of a central control and, yes, that included the right to use slaves. But, it wasn't just about that.

The seceding States, which didn't all withdraw from the Union at once, felt that this was better achieve within a loose confederacy than in a tighter controlled Union. This was mostly due to the nature of how States view themselves at the time. The "United States" didn't really exist. It was only a concept. Some say it still is. But, back then, States viewed themselves as separate countries or "territories", not as entities within a single country. So, the idea of being "controlled" by a central body was abhorrent to a lot of people.

But, even at the outbreak of the war, the Northern States were more about bringing back the Southern States into the Union than about merely fighting over slaves rights. A concept that didn't even enter the majority of Union soldiers heads in 1861. In fact, most of the people in the North shared the same racist views on blacks as did their Southern counterpart. Even the idea of allowing blacks to serve as soldiers in the Union Army was outright rejected by the majority of Northerns, such was their view on them. It was only during the war, that the likes of the 54th Massachusetts was even considered and even then it was met with a lot of opposition, they were treated like crap, always in the second line and often didn't receive payment.

It's an absolute fallacy to suggest that the American Civil War was some glorious conflict fought by egalitarian, right thinking, angels in the North and vicious, slave owning, racists-to-a-man in the South and reducing the war down to such a simplistic level as slavery, does that.

Even after the war, the North did little for the slaves they freed. They basically cast them to the wind. Andrew Johnson had no "use" for them and, in fact, even opposed giving them citizenship.

Alexander Stephens (VP of the confederate states), bolder part in particular.

Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material — the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory. The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws.

Have a read of the secession statements here. All specifically cite slavery as the reason they are seceding.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_7639988?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmllLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACQUixrD9XSV4hTXXOCErP2ueGX3RAm6wwSNkysy4OrFhgqQ0-DkzLAl0-ZAZsvRYCBBzIUaK_B4gqW7MooCwYyrGa2U3iy0Zf-RxNWF2oAl-vMBQQem8ncoTDq_XbByYG3rnIgVBXqc2nijd9NO2ZdM98K-CZ4cjMk_mBVgqTi2&guccounter=2

If you don’t believe the actual secessionists, I don’t know what to do.

Brian?

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I can’t say I’ve been fully following the argument here but it seems to be that the southern confederate statues need to go as they were traitors.

Wouldn’t leftwingers though more properly argue that they were racists, and if so why not get rid of nearly all US 19C political statues and many 20C statues?

They were traitors and racists.

Odhinn

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I can’t say I’ve been fully following the argument here but it seems to be that the southern confederate statues need to go as they were traitors.

Wouldn’t leftwingers though more properly argue that they were racists, and if so why not get rid of nearly all US 19C political statues and many 20C statues?

Most of them date well past the war, to remind the "coloureds" just whose country they were in as much as anything else.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

We do celebrate certain foreign and enemy great military minds in the US. Erwin Rommel, Georgy Zhukov, Chiang Kai-shek, Napoleon Bonaparte, Stonewall Jackson, Erich Von Manstein, Bernard Montgomery, Isoroku Yamamoto, Guy Simonds, Konstantin Rokosovsky and Tomoyuki Yamashi ta are some examples. We may not erect statues of them (although I do have a bust of Winston Churchill in my home) but we do make many documentaries dedicated to them to keep their history alive.

George Patton had great respect for Rommel’s tactics and strategy, going so far as the have Rommel’s book translated to English so he could read it.

You and Trump.
You know Churchill was a racist right? I won't tell, you keep your bust

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Brian? wrote: »

They were traitors and racists.

Why are you so concerned with their traitorousness though?

And it’s primarily because they are racists that we oppose them today, if the southern states had other reasons to secede then they would not be so despised.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Odhinn wrote: »

Most of them date well past the war, to remind the "coloureds" just whose country they were in as much as anything else.

Oh I know that, nevertheless the point stands.

If we start getting rid of the statues of racists there would be few left.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Golden Books as your basis for critical thinking should not be your friend.

What is golden books?

James Brown

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Why are you so concerned with their traitorousness though?

And it’s primarily because they are racists that we oppose them today, if the southern states had other reasons to secede then they would not be so despised.

It stemmed from Notobtuse claiming statues, such as General Lee's were often erected in admiration of being a great military tactician and they'd even celebrate enemies in a similar manor :rolleyes:

Like a Hitler statue might be about interesting mustaches.

notobtuse

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I can’t say I’ve been fully following the argument here but it seems to be that the southern confederate statues need to go as they were traitors.

Wouldn’t leftwingers though more properly argue that they were racists, and if so why not get rid of nearly all US 19C political statues and many 20C statues?

On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. They were to receive amnesty and the return of property to those who would take an oath of allegiance. There were 12,652 pardons issued by June 5, 1866.

There were fourteen excepted classes, though, and members of those classes had to make special application to the President. Confederate government officials, officers with the rank of colonel and above from the Confederate army or lieutenant and above from the Confederate navy, and people owning more than $20,000 worth of property had to apply for individual pardons.

Robert E Lee sent an application to President Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865: On October 2, 1865, the same day that Lee was inaugurated as president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, he signed his Amnesty Oath, thereby complying fully with the provision of Johnson's proclamation. But Lee was not pardoned, nor was his citizenship restored. And the fact that he had submitted an amnesty oath at all was soon lost to history. More than a hundred years later, in 1970, an archivist at the National Archives discovered Lee's Amnesty Oath among State Department records (reported in Prologue, Winter 1970). Apparently Secretary of State William H. Seward had given Lee's application to a friend as a souvenir, and the State Department had pigeonholed the oath. In 1975, Lee's full rights of citizenship were posthumously restored by a joint congressional resolution effective June 13, 1865. At the August 5, 1975, signing ceremony, President Gerald R. Ford acknowledged the discovery of Lee's Oath of Allegiance in the National Archives and remarked: "General Lee's character has been an example to succeeding generations, making the restoration of his citizenship an event in which every American can take pride."

President Jimmy Carter officially restored the full citizenship rights of former Confederate president Jefferson Davis.

Seems all but a few Confederates who were guilty of horrendous crimes and hung were forgiven and all rights restored.

notobtuse

Overheal wrote: »

What is golden books?

Children's books publisher