as far as im concerned defending the confederacy, the confederate flag or confederate statues makes a person a racist. and someone who should be met with mocking and derision
1 Like
conan
June 24, 2020, 12:42am
392
How about books? Burn them too?
How about those that fly the flag…arrest them and throw em into concentration camps?
Self correction isn’t always pretty. Hold on to your fainting couches, this is gonna be a bumpy ride.
Jezcoe
June 24, 2020, 1:18am
395
Ben_Natuf:
Didn’t say England, I said Europe, I also didn’t say it was “the” issue, just as slavery was not “the” issue. There were a lot of issues, trade policy and slavery among them. Both of which were big issues at the time. The same declarations of secession which cite slavery also cite these other grievances. Slavery was part of the basis for the southern economy, trade law was too. If southern growers had been allowed to sell raw products overseas instead of being forced to sell them to northern industrialists for a pittance of what they could have gotten then their “economies” would have been more prosperous. Perhaps slavery could have gone out with a whimper instead of a bang. The northern states were anti slavery (rightfully so!), they wanted to end it, and then they instituted trade policies which guaranteed it must continue for their sources of raw materials to remain economically viable. This is not to say that anyone in the south was arguing to end slavery, they weren’t. Just conjecture of my own. Makes me wonder, the north, which mostly was against slavery, put through trade policies which made it economically nonviable to end, at the same time they pursued policies with new territories that guaranteed it would. The south was put into a situation where it could not survive no matter what it did. Seems to me, the better course would have been to allow the south an “out” so they could end slavery and still survive economically. Then again, perhaps it was incumbent on the southern states to devise and propose the “out” for themselves.
There was no way in hell the South was going to end slavery.
They were actively working to expand it.
No issue was more divisive, more of a strain on the Republic nor required so many kick the can compromises than slavery.
It was THE issue of the first half of the 1800’s
Every major issue from 1848 to the war was basically about slavery.
It wasn’t going away on it’s own.
It was the reason why the South seceded.
It was THE major cause that led to war.
1 Like
JayJay
June 24, 2020, 1:22am
396
Whose property they are on is irrelevant to “feelings” about the statue.
This has been explained enough times that one begins to think you don’t want to see that.
Jezcoe
June 24, 2020, 1:24am
397
Ben_Natuf:
LOL, you took the two most egregious parts, post them and say the others are similar. typical.
Next time try posting the whole document instead of exerpts and you can see the other reasons for yourself… of course that wouldn’t support your argument.
The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.
Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.
The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
Virginia’s doesn’t even mention it. Texas lists the failure to aid in the territorial defense of Texas from outside invasions first and foremost. The other 7 states issued no declarations and declaring slavery as “the” reason is mere conjecture. Of the four that did declare, 1 doesn’t mention it, and one mentions it only after the other grievances.
It was A reason, not THE reason
Dude… the Virginia secession document lists the grievance of Federal oppression of Southern Slave holding states.
We don’t need to read between the lines to understand why they seceded.
conan
June 24, 2020, 1:31am
400
Right…I must view the world through your eyes…I’m I right Jay?
Sorry pal…left-wing hypocrisy is on full display here.
Jezcoe
June 24, 2020, 1:31am
401
The full quote is this.
Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this.
It was in reference to federal mandate of busing. He didn’t think that it would work, that it would be a band aid that would cause racial resentment.
He was advocating that in order to solve racial animus that neighborhoods needed to be racially integrated and nothing would be solved by the forceful integration of schools through busing.
There is the full quote and the context.
You can disagree with his policy, but his motive was clear.
1 Like
WuWei
June 24, 2020, 1:33am
402
Jezcoe:
The full quote is this.
Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this.
It was in reference to federal mandate of busing. He didn’t think that it would work, that it would be a band aid that would cause racial resentment.
He was advocating that in order to solve racial animus that neighborhoods needed to be racially integrated and nothing would be solved by the forceful integration of schools through busing.
There is the full quote and the context.
You can disagree with his policy, but his motive was clear.
Yes, his motive was clear. The full quote makes it worse.
But ok, if you say so. I’m feeling a little intellectually intimidated today.
JayJay
June 24, 2020, 1:40am
403
Huh?
All five declarations mention slavery as the first grievance.
Georgia and Mississippi mention it within the first few sentences.
South Carolina rambles on in general about how the Federal Government violated the compact that was the Constitution, but their first mentioned specific grievance was repeated violations of the Fugitive Slave Act.
Texas’ first listed grievance was that the North was setting it up so that slavery would not be able to expand into the territories from the Rockies to the Pacific. Then they complained about how slaveholders in Kansas were unfairly treated…then they got around to mentioning how the Feds had failed to defend their state against Indian attacks. But that was an interlude…they spend the rest of their articles accusing the abolitionists of stirring up strife amongst the peoples of the United States, invading Texan lands and stealing slaves. Oh and even in the interlude, they said the reason the Feds failed to defend Texas is because they were under the control of the “unnatural sectional enemies”…i.e. the abolitionists.
Virginia didn’t mention any specific grievance regarding slavery but stated their reason for secession was due to the oppression of the “Southern SLAVEHOLDING states”.
So where you got this idea that all five of these declarations didn’t list slavery as the chief cause…even to the point of trying to pretend some of them didn’t even mention slavery…is beyond me.
1 Like
and suddenly black people will all be upper middle class, educated, productive, families with mothers and fathers, and the urban ghettos will be empty.
1 Like
Jezcoe
June 24, 2020, 1:44am
405
WuWei:
Jezcoe:
The full quote is this.
Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this.
It was in reference to federal mandate of busing. He didn’t think that it would work, that it would be a band aid that would cause racial resentment.
He was advocating that in order to solve racial animus that neighborhoods needed to be racially integrated and nothing would be solved by the forceful integration of schools through busing.
There is the full quote and the context.
You can disagree with his policy, but his motive was clear.
Yes, his motive was clear. The full quote makes it worse.
But ok, if you say so. I’m feeling a little intellectually intimidated today.
He argued that busing was counter productive to the aims of building racial equity.
Now one can disagree with him on that, but since he was simultaneously advocating for policies that would expand affordable housing into suburbs as a better solution to integrating schools and society at large, it becomes harder To level a racist claim against him on this issue.
JayJay
June 24, 2020, 1:44am
406
Well…if you’re asking people what they think…and I mean, HONESTLY asking them what they think…then yeah…you kind of have to listen to what they say.
If you don’t…if you then insist on your own subjective opinion of what they actually think over what they told you they think…then you weren’t honestly asking them what they think.
So let’s … not get rid of racist imagery?
WuWei
June 24, 2020, 1:55am
408
By saying his kids would grow up in a racial jungle.
JayJay
June 24, 2020, 1:57am
409
He said that would be the result…he wasn’t making a value judgement on blacks.
WuWei
June 24, 2020, 2:00am
410
Sure, sure. Racial “jungle”. Corn pop just stumbled on jungle.
Let Trump say racial jungle in any context at all. The exploding heads would be epic.
But keep Bidensplaining.
1 Like
