Wasn’t the only factor and you know it.
The ownership of another person is not “self-determination.” Maybe it’s “other-determination.” Or…there’s a shorter word for it…slavery.
State right to self-determine. Actually at the time, it was.
To self-determine ___________________. (The answer is owning slaves. And we don’t even have to pretend that’s not the answer, because they told us that was the answer when they drafted articles stating why they were leaving the union, Texas included).
No, at no time did it ever align with the fundamental rights ALL men are endowed with, as described in the declaration of nationhood of this great country. The south fought the war despite the very thing they were fighting for being against the very principles on which the nation was founded.
Yes, but not exclusively. I already said that.
No, it didn’t. It also wasn’t illegal and therefore fell under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Sure. But it was certainly the prime factor.
Never said it wasn’t. It’s just annoying to me as some people shout you down and try to shut down the conversation the second you mention states rights. (Not accusing you of that)
Ok. Thanks. I think the shouting down occurs because there is a contingent of people who try to downplay the role of slavery in the conflict and they typically lead their argument off with “states rights”. Not accusing you of that but I’m sure you know what I am talking about. I’m sorry that you get tarred unjustifiably in those shouting matches.
So the other “state rights” they were fighting for were ________________.
Look, you don’t need to lecture me that the fine, God-fearing heroes of the confederacy did not consider “the negro” to be people, but rather inferior creatures that were not covered under “all men” in the DoI, and were willing to die over that because “it wasn’t illegal” and “self-determination” and “state’s rights.” The fine, God-fearing gentlesirs of the south made that quite clear for decades to come:
Self-determination on everything.
Then I’m glad I didn’t.
Wallace. Ironic.
So the “shouting down” is justified?
Is that what you got from my post? No.
Yes. I’m glad I asked. So what should I get from your post.
In this case I think the agitators are wrong. I mean, I get it with the statues in public squares totally, and I laughed when the slave trader statue went in the water. But the actual battleground seems like the place where they would be appropriate. Maybe they think it glorifies them. I guess it depends on the stature and it’s setting etc.
Yea, and the Republicans used to be pro-Union.
The statues signify positions those soldiers were ar during battle. It was interesting, the ones on horses were higher ranking officers. If the horse poses had three legs on the ground that was where that officer was wounded or killed. Four legs on the ground meant that officer was at that position and survived.
Yeah I dont think I would be so apprehensive towards removal public Confederate statues if that meant it was limited to solely that arena and not battlefields.
That sounds fascinating.
can’t glorify the confederacy … dig up Arlington?
No, the war was over for many decades before most of those statues went up.
Yes. WWI.
