Irony in our Nation

[Guilds]

@Meriweather

There is a problem when those in power (or those who want power) insist that everyone see things through the eyes of a single viewpoint/perspective. And, that certainly goes for both sides…those who want War of Northern Aggression and those who insist on Civil War.

Like I stated earlier…the Daughters of the Confederation have done a masterful job of changing the reality of the Civil war, why it was fought, and why it is still defended today.

Mostly on the premise there are 2 sides to everything.

Carry that torch.

[WuWei]

@Guilds

In the south, many schools do not teach the atrocities of slavery

Well, that’s not true. I was taught them 55 years ago.

Are the atrocities of slavery taught in northern schools? Are they taught any differently?

[Meriweather]

@Guilds

Like I stated earlier…the Daughters of the Confederation have done a masterful job of changing the reality of the Civil war, why it was fought, and why it is still defended today.

Mostly on the premise there are 2 sides to everything.

Carry that torch.

Nah, don’t need it. I’m not a fan of remaking history when genealogy is more enlightening. Look, both sides want to clean up and polish what was. I would rather get down into the big mess and explore, because while it may be messy, it is definitely more interesting than the clean and shining.

[Meriweather]

@WuWei

Well, that’s not true. I was taught them 55 years ago.

Are the atrocities of slavery taught in northern schools? Are they taught any differently?

That I don’t know. What I mourn about teaching history these days is how quickly we have to go through each topic to go onto the next. We seem to teach very little about a whole lot. This not a slap at our teachers, but our curriculum. Everyone means well, but the world is a big place, and history spans eons.

[WuWei]

@Meriweather

@WuWei

Well, that’s not true. I was taught them 55 years ago.

Are the atrocities of slavery taught in northern schools? Are they taught any differently?

That I don’t know. What I mourn about teaching history these days is how quickly we have to go through each topic to go onto the next. We seem to teach very little about a whole lot. This not a slap at our teachers, but our curriculum. Everyone means well, but the world is a big place, and history spans eons.

I agree.

[party-free]

Is a drug-addict who decides to clean up their life morally superior to the drug addict who continues to steal and hurt people to feed their habit?

The south left the union in order to form a nation that maintained slavery. Yeah, the north was morally superior.

[zantax]

@party-free

Is a drug-addict who decides to clean up their life morally superior to the drug addict who continues to steal and hurt people to feed their habit?

The south left the union in order to form a nation that maintained slavery. Yeah, the north was morally superior.

The north didn’t go to war to end slavery. But you know that right? Like I said, the people in the north were every bit the moral villains the people in the south were right up until they outlawed slavery, because they also lived in nation that had legal slavery.

[party-free]

@zantax

right up until they outlawed slavery,

@party-free

Is a drug-addict who decides to clean up their life morally superior to the drug addict who continues to steal and hurt people to feed their habit?

Carefully avoided.

[zantax]

@party-free

@zantax

right up until they outlawed slavery,

@party-free

Is a drug-addict who decides to clean up their life morally superior to the drug addict who continues to steal and hurt people to feed their habit?

Carefully avoided.

Cleaning up his act doesn’t excuse his previous immorality. They were no more virtuous until they outlawed slavery. Prior to that they were still shooting up and hurting other people to maintain their habit.

[Borgia_dude]

@Meriweather

Think of being a Southerner who was not a slave owner, having their home, their farm, their business, their town, their products being confiscated, looted, and burned by Northern armies. They weren’t slave holders, but it didn’t matter did it? The North came for them anyway. And they were aggressive.

Many southern non-slaveowners aspired to become slave owners. Many feared the thought of suddenly emancipated slaves in a state where blacks outnumbered them.

[Borgia_dude]

@Meriweather

@Guilds

Like I stated earlier…the Daughters of the Confederation have done a masterful job of changing the reality of the Civil war, why it was fought, and why it is still defended today.

Mostly on the premise there are 2 sides to everything.

Carry that torch.

Nah, don’t need it. I’m not a fan of remaking history when genealogy is more enlightening. Look, both sides want to clean up and polish what was. I would rather get down into the big mess and explore, because while it may be messy, it is definitely more interesting than the clean and shining.

Didn’t you say the Civil War was not fought over slavery? That sounds like polishing.

[WuWei]

@party-free

Is a drug-addict who decides to clean up their life morally superior to the drug addict who continues to steal and hurt people to feed their habit?

The south left the union in order to form a nation that maintained slavery. Yeah, the north was morally superior.

On the face of it, that is an interesting post. I don’t think it is accurate.

The two drug addicts were not addicted to the same drug.

[markdido]

@Borgia_dude

@Meriweather

Think of being a Southerner who was not a slave owner, having their home, their farm, their business, their town, their products being confiscated, looted, and burned by Northern armies. They weren’t slave holders, but it didn’t matter did it? The North came for them anyway. And they were aggressive.

Many southern non-slaveowners aspired to become slave owners. Many feared the thought of suddenly emancipated slaves in a state where blacks outnumbered them.

What southern non-slave owners are you channeling?

Pure conjecture on your part.

[Borgia_dude]

@markdido

@Borgia_dude

@Meriweather

Think of being a Southerner who was not a slave owner, having their home, their farm, their business, their town, their products being confiscated, looted, and burned by Northern armies. They weren’t slave holders, but it didn’t matter did it? The North came for them anyway. And they were aggressive.

Many southern non-slaveowners aspired to become slave owners. Many feared the thought of suddenly emancipated slaves in a state where blacks outnumbered them.

What southern non-slave owners are you channeling?

Pure conjecture on your part.

Are you denying human nature to get ahead? Slaves were a status symbol of wealth in the South.

In the arguments for slavery at the time they mentioned the chaos and unrest that would result from suddenly freeing the slaves. It’s all out there.

[markdido]

@Borgia_dude

@markdido

@Borgia_dude

@Meriweather

Think of being a Southerner who was not a slave owner, having their home, their farm, their business, their town, their products being confiscated, looted, and burned by Northern armies. They weren’t slave holders, but it didn’t matter did it? The North came for them anyway. And they were aggressive.

Many southern non-slaveowners aspired to become slave owners. Many feared the thought of suddenly emancipated slaves in a state where blacks outnumbered them.

What southern non-slave owners are you channeling?

Pure conjecture on your part.

Are you denying human nature to get ahead? Slaves were a status symbol of wealth in the South.

In the arguments for slavery at the time they mentioned the chaos and unrest that would result from suddenly freeing the slaves. It’s all out there.

You made a declarative statement as if it was fact.

Back it up with something other than your opinion.

[Meriweather]

@Borgia_dude

That sounds like polishing.

Okay.

[Borgia_dude]

@markdido

@Borgia_dude

@markdido

@Borgia_dude

@Meriweather

Think of being a Southerner who was not a slave owner, having their home, their farm, their business, their town, their products being confiscated, looted, and burned by Northern armies. They weren’t slave holders, but it didn’t matter did it? The North came for them anyway. And they were aggressive.

Many southern non-slaveowners aspired to become slave owners. Many feared the thought of suddenly emancipated slaves in a state where blacks outnumbered them.

What southern non-slave owners are you channeling?

Pure conjecture on your part.

Are you denying human nature to get ahead? Slaves were a status symbol of wealth in the South.

In the arguments for slavery at the time they mentioned the chaos and unrest that would result from suddenly freeing the slaves. It’s all out there.

You made a declarative statement as if it was fact.

Back it up with something other than your opinion.

Sure.

The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]

Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob’s “rule of terror” during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society.

[party-free]

@zantax

Cleaning up his act doesn’t excuse his previous immorality. They were no more virtuous until they outlawed slavery. Prior to that they were still shooting up and hurting other people to maintain their habit.

You continue making an irrelevant point. The north had the moral high ground over the south. The south left to continue slavery while the north ended it.

Throw in all the caveats, buts, untils, and exceptions that you please-it doesn’t change the fact that the north fought to end it, and the south fought tooth and nail to continue their superior way of live over “the negro” for the next hundred years via Jim Crow, the Southern Strategy, etc.

It’s amazing this even needs to be discussed. The north had absolute moral authority over the south on the issue of slavery.

[party-free]

Use whatever immoral act you want. One side stopped the immoral act, one fought to continue it-so on the issue of whether one side had moral authority over the other on the issue of which we are speaking, yes, one had moral high ground over the other.

[zantax]

@party-free

@zantax

Cleaning up his act doesn’t excuse his previous immorality. They were no more virtuous until they outlawed slavery. Prior to that they were still shooting up and hurting other people to maintain their habit.

You continue making an irrelevant point. The north had the moral high ground over the south. The south left to continue slavery while the north ended it.

Throw in all the caveats, buts, untils, and exceptions that you please-it doesn’t change the fact that the north fought to end it, and the south fought tooth and nail to continue their superior way of live over “the negro” for the next hundred years via Jim Crow, the Southern Strategy, etc.

It’s amazing this even needs to be discussed. The north had absolute moral authority over the south on the issue of slavery.

Except that isn’t why they fought, they fought to stop the secession, not to end slavery. So spare me their fictional moral superiority.