Trumped

[Taylor]

3 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

Lol. Isn't that admitting it was a peaceful protest he tear gassed for his photo op with a Bible? 

The national guard stooped the protestors so Troomp could have his photo oop.

[Kevin]

2 hours ago, Lhalo said:

They are there to remind us of monumental events of the past.

A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Kevin said:

A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.

"embiggens" is now in the dictionary

[Rico]

Republicans struggling having to pick between the United States and the Confederacy.

[Taylor]

I wonder if Germany has an issue with people still flying the Nazi flag and claiming it represents "heritage."

[tdawg87]

I named my bastard "Adolf".

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

I named my bastard "Adolf".

Poor dog.

[Lou]

4 minutes ago, Franklin Bluth said:

I wonder if Germany has an issue with people still flying the Nazi flag and claiming it represents "heritage."

It's illegal 

[Taylor]

Just now, Lou said:

It's illegal 

Good.

[AngelsLakersFan]

23 minutes ago, Lou said:

It's illegal 

But like... what if it wasn’t illegal... would they have any problem with it?

[Brandon]

Always makes me laugh how people still think the Civil War was simply "aBuot Tha slAvez"

I don't care about monuments, statues, or the name of a military base. But people need to get their facts straight on this shit they are arguing about.

It had more to do with succession and individual state rights opposed to federal rights. Slavery also had more to do with economical impact and expansion into the west with slaves, but wasn't the primary focus.

Get your shit together guys. Here is a very brief synopsis and feel free to do your own Googling.

https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/

[Tank]

*secession

[Brandon]

7 minutes ago, Tank said:

*secession

Yeah, not sure why that auto corrected since I've never seen or talked about the tv show. But likewise, I don't type or talk about states breaking away from the union either.

[tdawg87]

33 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Always makes me laugh how people still think the Civil War was simply "aBuot Tha slAvez"

I don't care about monuments, statues, or the name of a military base. But people need to get their facts straight on this shit they are arguing about.

It had more to do with succession and individual state rights opposed to federal rights. Slavery also had more to do with economical impact and expansion into the west with slaves, but wasn't the primary focus.

Get your shit together guys. Here is a very brief synopsis and feel free to do your own Googling.

https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/

I think you mean to say that the civil war wasn't fought because one side was pro slavery and the other side was against it. But "slavery" was absolutely the focus of the civil war. I mean, "Individual states rights" what do you think those "rights" were? It says in the link you posted:

Quote

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

Think about what that's saying. The "economics of slavery". The economic impact that owning other human beings had on the country. And the political control. The politics of owning human beings.

No, it wasn't a morality issue. The North still very much wanted slaves. And I think this is closer to the point you were trying to make. The Confederacy wasn't the Nazi Germany of the Civil War. Although FROM a morality standpoint, the North were certainly "the good guys". But the idea that all these Confederate Generals and leaders all represented Slavery is disingenuous at best.

It was a horrible time and everyone sucked. But nothing has changed in that regard. No need to vilify people who died 150 years ago through false narratives. 

[Kevin]

1 hour ago, Brandon said:

Always makes me laugh how people still think the Civil War was simply "aBuot Tha slAvez"

I don't care about monuments, statues, or the name of a military base. But people need to get their facts straight on this shit they are arguing about.

It had more to do with succession and individual state rights opposed to federal rights. Slavery also had more to do with economical impact and expansion into the west with slaves, but wasn't the primary focus.

Get your shit together guys. Here is a very brief synopsis and feel free to do your own Googling.

https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/

While some union soldiers were abolitionists to some varying degree, many volunteered for preservation of the union above all else, whether slavery was intact or not.

I agree with a few things you said Brandon like the economic situation behind slavery was more dominating than the moral side (although that existed for some). But slavery was always at the forefront and tension had been building for eighty years. From the Missouri compromise, Kansas-Nebraska act, Dred Scott, John Brown’s war and so on. Again it’s based on economics, morals, territorial expansion, industry vs. agricultural and representation in Washington.

Lincoln evolved on what to do with blacks as time wore on (from shipping them back to Africa to full citizenship and everything in between) but one thing he was consistent on is being morally opposed to it and didn’t want it expanding (he was strongly opposed to the Mexican War because he knew the real justification behind it). He was willing to let slavery die out on its own but the South acted first before he even took office. And they made it pretty clear why in their secession ordinances.

 

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
 

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

[tdawg87]

[Brandon]

20 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

I think you mean to say that the civil war wasn't fought because one side was pro slavery and the other side was against it. But "slavery" was absolutely the focus of the civil war. I mean, "Individual states rights" what do you think those "rights" were? It says in the link you posted:

Think about what that's saying. The "economics of slavery". The economic impact that owning other human beings had on the country. And the political control. The politics of owning human beings.

No, it wasn't a morality issue. The North still very much wanted slaves. And I think this is closer to the point you were trying to make. The Confederacy wasn't the Nazi Germany of the Civil War. Although FROM a morality standpoint, the North were certainly "the good guys". But the idea that all these Confederate Generals and leaders all represented Slavery is disingenuous at best.

It was a horrible time and everyone sucked. But nothing has changed in that regard. No need to vilify people who died 150 years ago through false narratives. 

 

19 minutes ago, Kevin said:

While some union soldiers were abolitionists to some varying degree, many volunteered for preservation of the union above all else, whether slavery was intact or not.

I agree with a few things you said Brandon like the economic situation behind slavery was more dominating than the moral side (although that existed for some). But was slavery was always at the forefront and tension had been building for eighty years. From the Missouri compromise, Kansas-Nebraska act, Dred Scott, John Brown’s war and so on. Again it’s based on economics, moral, expansion, industry vs. agricultural and representation in Washington.

Lincoln evolved on what to do with blacks as time wore on (from shipping them back to Africa to full citizenship and everything in between) but one thing he was consistent on is being morally opposed to it and didn’t want it expanding (he was strongly opposed to the Mexican War because he knew the real justification behind it). He was willing to let itself die out but South acted first before he even took office. And they made it pretty clear why in their secession ordinances.

 

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
 

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

Valid and solid points gents. I agree, but didn't want to write a thesis that no one would read or care about and simply put an easy link.

The gist of my post was in regards to people pulling down statues or wanting to rename military bases. I shouldn't be surprised at how dumb and uneducated we are, but seeing all the news, Tweets, articles, interviews, etc. and it simply saying "it was because of slavery" it's just not completely accurate. It's a component, but the Civil War had to do with more than that and I can tell people are missing that or simply doing that dumb shit thing of reading some bloggers Twitter feed, seeing the headline, and taking it as fact when it's not giving the complete story. I mean shit, even black people owned slaves.

I like these kind of discussions and appreciate insight (I'm not a history major, but know a thing or two) from others. I think you dudes get my context, so I won't expound on it, but wish others in society would simply get a little more educated before they protest or Tweet ignorant stances.

[Brandon]

Side note, just saw this and didn't want to created a new thread for it or what not. Didn't this dude pass away a while back?

 

[Rico]

They were a bunch of traitors that killed Americans.  That is on top of really liking slavery.

[Brandon]

2 minutes ago, Rico said:

They were a bunch of traitors that killed Americans.  That is on top of really liking slavery.

And this, sir, is exactly why I made the post I did.

[Crampknees]

23 hours ago, calscuf said:

KC, now that I've found you
I won't let you go
I build my world around you
I need you so, KC even though
You don't need me

After reading that I was all double tear drop 

[tdawg87]

27 minutes ago, Rico said:

They were a bunch of traitors that killed Americans.  That is on top of really liking slavery.

Rico I'm out here on the front lines defending your ass and then you go and say something like this.

[UndertheHalo]

The civil war was complex but it was very much principally about slavery.  Many of the leaders of the confederacy explicitly stated such. It’s in their correspondence that we have.  All over it.  The lost cause bullshit has been incredibly effective.  Its just revisionist garbage. 

if you want to discuss whether the statues should be torn down or not, sure have at it.  But we don’t need to debate whether the civil war was about some libertarian tiny government principles and slavery was just incidentally related to that.  It was about the southern rich fuck heads who wanted to keep their minimal cost labor and all the arguments they came up with to justify that doesn’t change the original primary motivator.  
 

also, I’ll point out that tons of these odes to confederate hero’s were put up with the explicit purpose of showing n******* exactly where their place was and who was in charge.  So, with that in mind I guess decide how important you think this “heritage” is. 

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by UndertheHalo

[angelinkc]

8 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

The civil war was complex but it was very much principally about slavery.  Many of the leaders of the confederacy explicitly stated such. It’s in their correspondence that we have.  All over it.  The lost cause bullshit has been incredibly effective.  Its just revisionist garbage. 

if you want to discuss whether the statues should be torn down or not, sure have at it.  But we don’t to debate whether the civil war was about some libertarian tiny government principles and slavery was just incidentally related to that.  It was about the southern rich fuck heads who wanted to keep their minimal cost labor and all the arguments they came up with to justify that doesn’t change the original primary motivator.  
 

also, I’ll point out that tons of these odes to confederate hero’s were put up with the explicit purpose of showing n******* exactly where their place was and who was in charge.  So, with that in mind I guess decide how important you think this “heritage” is. 

 

Some good points. We shouldnt marginalize slavery was the driving factor. My biggest issues with libs is you can't separate the democratic party from the rebel flag. If we are going remove these items the dems need to lead the way. a name change and remove all the libraries and tributes built in honor of the party of slavery. the so called switch theory is bullshit. Mr Byrd was a card carrying klansman who filabustered the civil rights act and gave a very lengthy speech in  the process. He also served until 2010 after doing so. 

[Tank]

one of the interesting things I came across recently was how northern abolitionists treated freed slaves. they worked non-stop to bring about an end to slavery, but when it came to where the newly freed blacks would live, northern abolitionists had no desire for them to live in their white communities and neighborhoods. blacks weren't really welcomed with open arms after their struggle to gain their freedom by the very people who worked to help them gain it.