Racism and Living in the Past

[Pommer]

They can't answer either.

Not to your satisfaction, no.
Not now, not ever!
Good night.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not to your satisfaction, no.
Not now, not ever!
Good night.

I can't solve a problem that can't be explained.

I hate to break it to you, but you can't either.

If I'm asked to accept it on faith, I reject it outright.

People pushing for groupthink are an actual problem.

 

[RBPerry]

Last night I was able to have a conversation with an old friend that is a retired history professor from UCLA. Since history isn’t and never has been one of my main interests or studies, I decided to get his insights.

My question to him. I am engaged in a debate, was the civil war started due to slavery?

He laughed, and said I know where these types of debates are headed. You want to know the truth; it was over separation of the confederacy with the union and taxation. However today many are claiming it was strictly over slavery.

What you need to look at is recruitment of the military. If you had told the average northern that they were going to fight to free the slaves most wound not have volunteered. If you had told the average southern, they were going to fight to keep slaves, they would not have volunteered. When Lincoln realized we were headed for war with the south, most recruitments were about the Indian problems. Yes, Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, but he also knew that could not be the battle cry. My friend claims to have some copies of recruitment posters from that era, when he sends me copies I will post them.

I must stand by my belief that the civil war started due to other issues than slavery even though that was one of the main political issues.

Remember less then a century before we fought England, and taxation was the catalyst that started that war.

 

[SummerMadness]

Last night I was able to have a conversation with an old friend that is a retired history professor from UCLA. Since history isn’t and never has been one of my main interests or studies, I decided to get his insights.

My question to him. I am engaged in a debate, was the civil war started due to slavery?

He laughed, and said I know where these types of debates are headed. You want to know the truth; it was over separation of the confederacy with the union and taxation. However today many are claiming it was strictly over slavery.

What you need to look at is recruitment of the military. If you had told the average northern that they were going to fight to free the slaves most wound not have volunteered. If you had told the average southern, they were going to fight to keep slaves, they would not have volunteered. When Lincoln realized we were headed for war with the south, most recruitments were about the Indian problems. Yes, Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, but he also knew that could not be the battle cry. My friend claims to have some copies of recruitment posters from that era, when he sends me copies I will post them.

I must stand by my belief that the civil war started due to other issues than slavery even though that was one of the main political issues.

Remember less then a century before we fought England, and taxation was the catalyst that started that war.

No one said it was strictly because of slavery, but it was the primary reason. There were other contributing factors, but slavery was the main issue. The desire of people to erase the past is just so amazing. If slavery did not play such a central role to the Civil War, the century of terrorism that followed should not have happened.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Last night I was able to have a conversation with an old friend that is a retired history professor from UCLA. Since history isn’t and never has been one of my main interests or studies, I decided to get his insights.

My question to him. I am engaged in a debate, was the civil war started due to slavery?

He laughed, and said I know where these types of debates are headed. You want to know the truth; it was over separation of the confederacy with the union and taxation. However today many are claiming it was strictly over slavery.

What you need to look at is recruitment of the military. If you had told the average northern that they were going to fight to free the slaves most wound not have volunteered. If you had told the average southern, they were going to fight to keep slaves, they would not have volunteered. When Lincoln realized we were headed for war with the south, most recruitments were about the Indian problems. Yes, Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, but he also knew that could not be the battle cry. My friend claims to have some copies of recruitment posters from that era, when he sends me copies I will post them.

I must stand by my belief that the civil war started due to other issues than slavery even though that was one of the main political issues.

Remember less then a century before we fought England, and taxation was the catalyst that started that war.

Rich men often start wars that poor men fight for reasons they don't totally understand or agree with.

The south was about to lose a lot of wealth, economically speaking, that was directly tied to slaves.

They made a fight over it and lost.

I'd like to point out this is part of the problem with revisionist history. It needs to be based upon facts....not some narrow minded singular viewpoint.

The version of the civil war you're telling....while plausible....is an almost entirely self serving southern invention called neo-confederalism. It was taught as historical truth in the south so people could feel better about their past.

In that way....it's just like the 1619 project. It's written for the exact same reason....and it's entirely self serving and false.

 

[RBPerry]

There is no question that economics played a large part in the souths position, why would you want to give up almost free labor. How many of the southern and northern soldiers really understood what was at stake and the true motivation for the war, I would suspect very few.
Since my friend and I grew up in California, southern educational viewpoints weren't taught here. What I was told about the recruitment makes a great deal of sense to me.
I went through the Vietnam era, we were told that we needed to stop communism, reality we took over from the French in another countries civil war, and there were economic reasoning behind as well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is no question that economics played a large part in the souths position, why would you want to give up almost free labor. How many of the southern and northern soldiers really understood what was at stake and the true motivation for the war, I would suspect very few.
Since my friend and I grew up in California, southern educational viewpoints weren't taught here. What I was told about the recruitment makes a great deal of sense to me.
I went through the Vietnam era, we were told that we needed to stop communism, reality we took over from the French in another countries civil war, and there were economic reasoning behind as well.

I wasn't actually talking about free labor....I was actually talking about the slaves themselves. I think I once looked up the price of a Grade A young adult male slave (yes they were graded like cattle) and if I remember right he was about 1500-1800$ back then. That's what....30,000-40,000 right now?

So imagine that apart from the free labor....you had invested in a particular "product" to the tune of several hundreds of thousands of dollars....and it's about to just disappear and become free.....and legally there's nothing you can do about it.

Yeah, they didn't want to give up their slaves. Yeah, they lied to men to convince them to fight. Yeah, they were racists....just like everyone else.

If it sounds like a moral judgement....it's not. It what was normal and acceptable to them. It had been their entire lives. Morality doesn't really add anything worthwhile to history. Our lives are too far removed from theirs to really understand them.

 

[RBPerry]

You are correct, we are too far removed from the nineteenth century southern mentality. I can certainly understand why many people are offended by the confederate flag, or statues memorializing southern leaders during the civil war period.

As for the post the issue I have is labels, I do not put labels on people, skin color, religion, political beliefs mean little, or should mean little. The people in our nation need to start looking at each other without putting on a label. Every human being should matter, and every human should be able to compete on a level playing field.

What I am hearing with many people today is they are getting fed up with special interests’ groups demanding special treatment, and I can understand it. We need more fairness in universities, employment, and advancements needs to be on qualification basis and not a quota basis.

 

[SummerMadness]

You are correct, we are too far removed from the nineteenth century southern mentality. I can certainly understand why many people are offended by the confederate flag, or statues memorializing southern leaders during the civil war period.

They're not offended by the Civil War period, they're offended by the continued use of those symbols as the banners of terrorism in the century that followed.

Arguing that the Confederate battle flag is all about a 4-year failed state while ignoring the 100+ years that symbol was used murder, lynch, bomb, terrorize and attack a population due to their skin color is completely disingenuous and deliberate obtuseness.

 

[RBPerry]

They're not offended by the Civil War period, they're offended by the continued use of those symbols as the banners of terrorism in the century that followed.

Arguing that the Confederate battle flag is all about a 4-year failed state while ignoring the 100+ years that symbol was used murder, lynch, bomb, terrorize and attack a population due to their skin color is completely disingenuous and deliberate obtuseness.

Anyone that knows the history of what has happened in the south, knows full well that African American people were treated terribly, and I'm surprised that not all didn't migrate to the North where they would have been treated differently.

Also even in California in the sixties and early seventies there was discrimination in education, hiring, and promotions. I sat on a review board of people applying for jobs with a particular police department. The department was all white, and other nationalities that applied were disqualified for one reason or another. Many of the people applying in my opinion just weren't mentally qualified to have that kind of authority, but were hired anyway. There is no question back then the minorities didn't get a fair shake, can't change that, but lets not go the other way because all that will do is create more division, lets keep it fair for all.

 

[SummerMadness]

Anyone that knows the history of what has happened in the south, knows full well that African American people were treated terribly, and I'm surprised that not all didn't migrate to the North where they would have been treated differently.

Also even in California in the sixties and early seventies there was discrimination in education, hiring, and promotions. I sat on a review board of people applying for jobs with a particular police department. The department was all white, and other nationalities that applied were disqualified for one reason or another. Many of the people applying in my opinion just weren't mentally qualified to have that kind of authority, but were hired anyway. There is no question back then the minorities didn't get a fair shake, can't change that, but lets not go the other way because all that will do is create more division, lets keep it fair for all.

Go the other way? Like police departments of all black people? Stop-and-frisk white people by police on the street? Redlining white neighborhoods and not giving them access to all mortgage options?

 

[RBPerry]

You want to know the truth, black police officers are generally harder on blacks than white officers. So are you avocation all black police departments, now that would be racist.

 

[SummerMadness]

You want to know the truth, black police officers are generally harder on blacks than white officers. So are you avocation all black police departments, now that would be racist.

You just said you don't want to have things go the other way, I'm asking if you are saying that the things mentioned above will happen? Perhaps the other way will also involve dropping bombs from planes onto white communities.

 

[RBPerry]

Sorry, your comment isn't worth responding to.

 

[Pommer]

Sorry, your comment isn't worth responding to.

Thanks.