Celebrate Lee and Jackson in January, Not MLK

[billy.pilgrim]

okay, I give up - here - this time, but I continue to believe without doubt that lincoln's war was just as wrong as bush's war and the vietnam war and a long list of others. what good came from those wars is far overshadowed by the destruction and the consequences of forced change

also, there is a certain amount of self-righteousness by the winners in any war - you know - the whole god (or morality) was on our side - that doesn't sit well with me. and verde, your inability to see the differences in new york and the south and expecting the south to follow immediately behind new york makes no sense to me

maybe it takes growing up in the south to see that slavery was politics "then" to most involved in the argument

who knows, we may look back on these times a hundred years from now and be horrified by abortion. sure, I consider abortion a personal decision, as do most, but the clinic bombers and the many others believe with the same fever as john brown that it is murder

perspective and context

[billy.pilgrim]

new jersey had slaves in 1860 and new york until about 1837

your and my views on abortion do reflect our times


context and perspective

[Bungalow Bill]

Usually both sides believe they have God on their side. After all the Confederate
motto was Deo Vindice, God will vindicate or something along those lines. Guess
they got fooled on that one. The Civil War did free millions of human beings from
slavery, so that's better than most outcomes.

[O Really]

Throughout most of history, issues among people and countries have always been settled either by law or by force. If there was a dispute as to whether it was Constitutional to secede from the US, it has been settled by force, even if one disagrees with the settlement by law. To continue to argue the point seems pointless. I can't think of any instances where the losers get to rewrite the history written by the winners. Of course, Parti and his SC friends should have great sympathy for the Palestinians, however, since the principle is the same.

[O Really]

Ironically, MLK got his day for the one reason that he fought against during his lifetime.....he has a holiday because of the color of his skin.

If that were all there was, then every black person in the country would have their own holiday, wouldn't they? I'd say that MLK did much of what he did because of his race, but that the extraordinary recognition is for his work, not his race.

And c'mon, for someone of your political persuasion and beliefs to say that FDR and Jimmy Carter should have holidays before MLK - makes one wonder whether it's actually you who's the one using skin color as a criteria.

[billy.pilgrim]

it always makes me feel kinda creepy even tangentially agreeing with partly, but as much as you want to make that war about good vs evil, it wasn't, not any more so than lil bush's war to defeat the evil sadam


the civil war was not fought by the wonderful northerners to defeat the evils of slavers of the south and the more the left falls for that bs, the more we become like partly

slavery sucked and still does - in all it's forms and the south did have slaves and slavery was the foundation of the division between north and south

but look back a few years and the north had slaves - britian had slaves, france had slaves, most areas of the world had slaves and gradually, as societies grew up they recognized and abandoned slavery, as the south would have, if given time or, more importantly, if given opportunity

that war, like all war was fought for money


I believe we lost a lot in that war and with all my heart I believe lincoln's war was as wrong as bush's. imagine how different the south would be today, had slavery been allowed to die naturally

maybe this country wouldn't have become the huge military giant it is, bullying it's way through events claiming newt's exceptionalism, if lincoln had allowed the secession and if other secessions and mergers had taken place

reckon I just don't see many circumstances where war has ever worked - lincoln's didn't - just look at the redneck trash it still produces 150 years later


and party - tell me why we shouldn't celebrate MLK Day - the dude shook the world - he gets a day from me

Pilgrim, it creeps me out as well when we agree, but it is also is gratifying to see a liberal stumble onto the truth occasionally. I disagree, however that the ACW was not a fight of good vs. evil....your own statements make it clear which side was evil (by your comparison to Bush's illegal wars). The North was the aggressor and acted illegally, regardless of the noble or less than noble reasons on either side (money was actually the cause on both sides, just as you said)

Slavery would have died out naturally without such a war due simply to the revolution in mechanical farming that exploded after the ACW, as well as the pressure that would have been diplomatically applied to an independent South by other nations. Many Confederate leaders opposed slavery to some degree at the time of the war, including Davis, Lee, Jackson and Johnston.

As far as a day for MLK, even the tyrant Lincoln no longer gets his own day. Only Columbus (little observed) and Jesus Christ (distorted by commercialism) get holidays as individuals. Before MLK was even considered, every President, all Medal of Honor winners, and every Founding Father should be ahead of MLK in line. Ironically, MLK got his day for the one reason that he fought against during his lifetime.....he has a holiday because of the color of his skin.

MLK day is well deserved. it's not the man, so much as the change, that is celebrated; I'll give him and the change my support.

you should be tickled that Lincoln lost his day but then, partly can find something wrong with everything

you are right and verde is so so wrong about the end of slavery - time was near
industrialization brought slavery to a close in the north and so many give the north credit for some sort of moral high ground
the same industrialization was moving south

oh yeah, I believe jeff davis proposed emancipation before lincoln's proclamation

[billy.pilgrim]

...Slavery would have died out naturally

Speculation without evidence. The South resisted abolition for 84 years and even became more entrenched.
but only 84 years longer than the thousands of years the northerners and their forefathers resisted
without such a war due simply to the revolution in mechanical farming that exploded after the ACW,

On the contrary, the invention of the cotton gin was one of the things that made the slavers more dependent on slaves.
what? utter bullshit - who picked out the seeds before the gin - machinery has reduced farm labor to almost nothing
as well as the pressure that would have been diplomatically applied to an independent South by other nations.

Speculation without evidence. The abolition movement cemented the slavers intransigence.

Many Confederate leaders opposed slavery to some degree at the time of the war, including Davis, Lee, Jackson and Johnston.

On the contrary, the rise of the abolition movement and increasing tensions made it impossible for most southerners to speak out against slavery without grave risk when they had been able to do so years before.

...Ironically, MLK got his day for the one reason that he fought against during his lifetime.....he has a holiday because of the color of his skin.

Dumb, there are millions of black Americans without a holiday. Ironically, Partisan62 claims to speak for MLK, Jr.

We all know what this is about, Partisan62 has made his racism clear:

Obama is still a Kenyan and you are still a stupid bastard. Still waiting on you to challenge the truth of Obama as Kenyan.

Again, I have not challenged your backtrack, you stupid bastard. I have challenged your racist appellation and your continuing hypocritical inability to apply the same standard to Mitten.

You are a liar when you call me a racist;

Right, non-racists defend slavers.

but that is a redundant accusation, since you lie constantly.

Find one, not counting your unprovable self-image. Good luck.

Again, was George Romney born to a Hispanic? Or just born in a Hispanic location?

Ah, so it is about your racism (we all knew it). George Romney was born to 'Mexican by choice' parents. That's less American. "Hispanic" is irrelevant unless, as we've been saying, by "Kenyan" you really disparagingly mean "black". You just busted yourself better than I could have dreamed of doing. Thank you.

Was Obama born to a Kenyan?

And an American of British decent, things you neglect to ever mention.

Does he look like his Kenyan father?

As much as Mitten looks like his Mexican father. Get it yet? (just kidding, we know you never do)...

http://blueridgedebate.com/phpBB3/viewt ... ard#p10258

Opps.

[billy.pilgrim]

so mid-19th century - that would be what? say just about in time to end slavery without a war


ya got me on the cotton gin - but all that northern demand for more and more cotton may have contributed as well

kinda like them iphones and tube socks we love so much being produced with what might as well be called slave labor

verde - ain't no-body's hands clean, least of all those who promote war to impose their own sense of morality

lil bush and millions of faux watchers are still claiming that he freed the iraqi people

war generally sucks

the south fought a defensive war almost to the end

lincoln sought to beat the south into submission by destroying the south

[Bungalow Bill]

So the good side was the one that owned millions of people and the evil side was
the one that, however belatedly, finally freed them? Anybody still doubting that
the neo-Confederates are about as nutty as can be?

An interesting article on the idea of so-called Confederate emancipation.:


http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by ... n%E2%80%9D

[billy.pilgrim]

So the good side was the one that owned millions of people and the evil side was
the one that, however belatedly, finally freed them? Anybody still doubting that
the neo-Confederates are about as nutty as can be?

An interesting article on the idea of so-called Confederate emancipation.:


http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by ... n%E2%80%9D

I sure hate getting beat up for things I never said. in no way did I say the south was justified in the evil practice of slavery, I just said war sucks and the results of lincoln's war, like most war, far outweigh the accomplishments

but I reckon I understand, if you two want to carry your greatness of the union over the evil south to a logical conclusion, you will have to start defending lil bush and his glorious war to free the downtrodden iraqi people - else you is flip flopin in your battle between good and evil

I just said war sucks, ask a poor vietnamese or iraqi or southern american farmer

[Bungalow Bill]

That was my fault. I should have made it clear that the only person who thought
the South was good and the North evil was Partisan62. There is no perfect side
in any war, so one has to go with what one has, and I'd go with the imperfect
North. It did free millions of slaves, it's unfortunate that the cost of that was so
high, but it's hard to see how, under the circumstances of the time, it could have
been avoided.

The cotton gin did lead to more slaves. It made the profits on cotton so good that
more folks wanted to use their land for cotton. That required even more slaves to
plant and pick the cotton.

[mike]

...Jefferson Davis firmly rejected the idea that summer and continued to do so through most of the war—until November of 1864. At that point, about five months before his government collapsed, the Confederate president abruptly reversed course, suggesting that the South prepare to bring slaves into its armies and offer freedom to those who joined...

Is that like the idea of granting citizenship to illegal immigrants, today, if they serve in the military?

[Stinger]

so mid-19th century - that would be what? say just about in time to end slavery without a war

You're trying the old canard about machines would have replaced slaves? Ludicrous.

I grew up on a farm. I still live on the farm. My neighbor has the largest farm in the county. We had "slaves" when I was a kid -- blacks who worked in hot fields all day long for a dollar an hour or less. A drink of water every few hours whether they needed it or not. No restrooms. A sandwich-- bologna and two slices of bread -- and a hot soda for lunch. Some of them stayed in shacks on the farm. A bare bulb in the house. A pitcher pump out front. An outhouse out back.

This was the 1960's, not the 1860's.

My neighbor has "slaves" today -- Mexicans who work in fields all day for low wages.

To claim that machinery would have magically displaced the need for slaves is only made by those who know little or nothing of farming.

The first gas tractor came along in the 1890's. It replaced mules, not slaves, and that took quite a while. There were plenty of farmers still using mules during the early 20th century. Machinery gradually lessened the need for slaves, but it has never eliminated the need for cheap labor.

[billy.pilgrim]

so mid-19th century - that would be what? say just about in time to end slavery without a war

You're trying the old canard about machines would have replaced slaves? Ludicrous.

I grew up on a farm. I still live on the farm. My neighbor has the largest farm in the county. We had "slaves" when I was a kid -- blacks who worked in hot fields all day long for a dollar an hour or less. A drink of water every few hours whether they needed it or not. No restrooms. A sandwich-- bologna and two slices of bread -- and a hot soda for lunch. Some of them stayed in shacks on the farm. A bare bulb in the house. A pitcher pump out front. An outhouse out back.

This was the 1960's, not the 1860's.

My neighbor has "slaves" today -- Mexicans who work in fields all day for low wages.

To claim that machinery would have magically displaced the need for slaves is only made by those who know little or nothing of farming.

The first gas tractor came along in the 1890's. It replaced mules, not slaves, and that took quite a while. There were plenty of farmers still using mules during the early 20th century. Machinery gradually lessened the need for slaves, but it has never eliminated the need for cheap labor.

stinger - I grew up on the same farm. I was making the point that industrialisation reduced the need for slaves in the north and would have done so it the south - given time. slavery was dying around the world and there is no reason to believe that the southern united states would be any different

and thank you for supporting the point I've been trying to make from the beginning of this thread - lincoln's war did nothing - sure the slaves were freed on paper - by law, but that was about it. free to share crop for about the same life they had as slaves, free to fear the kkk, free to live in shacks, free to live under jim crow, free to live apart from society, free to be called boy, free to not drink from the white only water fountain, free to move up north and live apart from the rest of society, free to be treated differently by law enforcement

lincoln's war fueled hatred in the south along with the destruction of homes and farms and railroads
lincoln's war created the corruption of reconstruction
lincoln's war lingers today


I keep imagining on this thread that I'm arguing with a bunch of right-wing war mongers

[O Really]

Most of the worst pillaging and burning wreaked on the southern states occurred after it should have been obvious to all that the cause was lost. When the war began, everybody - on both sides - believed it to be something that would be quickly over. By summer of 1863 at Gettysburg, it was apparent to all that it was going to continue for some time, but also it was clear that the Confederacy wasn't going to get recognition or support from outside the US. Once Chattanooga fell, there was a clear shot to Atlanta and beyond. So let's say that recognizing their butts were toast, the Confederates decided to cut their losses and surrender after Chattanooga. No Sherman march. No total destruction of towns, cities, and crops. Probably no harsh "reconstruction." But nooooo. Only after letting large portions of the Confederacy get torched did Davis approach Lincoln with a peace overture and that one had what should have been expected to be a deal-killing requirement that the US recognize the Confederate independence. Right. Now we know where the Black Knight story in "Holy Grail" comes from. "It's only a flesh wound!" The Confederates started the armed conflict, and could have ended their own destruction with a surrender. It's not like the signs of sure defeat weren't there. So sure, call Sherman an animal if you like, but if you want to fix blame on who was responsible for the eventual devastation of the south, blame the leaders who kept up the fight long after they had clearly lost.

[billy.pilgrim]

Most of the worst pillaging and burning wreaked on the southern states occurred after it should have been obvious to all that the cause was lost. When the war began, everybody - on both sides - believed it to be something that would be quickly over. By summer of 1863 at Gettysburg, it was apparent to all that it was going to continue for some time, but also it was clear that the Confederacy wasn't going to get recognition or support from outside the US. Once Chattanooga fell, there was a clear shot to Atlanta and beyond. So let's say that recognizing their butts were toast, the Confederates decided to cut their losses and surrender after Chattanooga. No Sherman march. No total destruction of towns, cities, and crops. Probably no harsh "reconstruction." But nooooo. Only after letting large portions of the Confederacy get torched did Davis approach Lincoln with a peace overture and that one had what should have been expected to be a deal-killing requirement that the US recognize the Confederate independence. Right. Now we know where the Black Knight story in "Holy Grail" comes from. "It's only a flesh wound!" The Confederates started the armed conflict, and could have ended their own destruction with a surrender. It's not like the signs of sure defeat weren't there. So sure, call Sherman an animal if you like, but if you want to fix blame on who was responsible for the eventual devastation of the south, blame the leaders who kept up the fight long after they had clearly lost.

I never called sherman an animal

my only point. war sucks and is generally unnecessary - lincoln's invasion of the south was unnecessary and caused much more harm than the good it accomplished

a lot of wars go on after all the signs point to defeat - sometimes countries start wars when defeat is a sure bet - viet nam and afghanistan come to mind - in no way under no circumstances were we ever going to win either but 3,000,000 lives later we tucked tail in vietnam and will soon do so in afghanistan - but only after causing more harm than good.
the black knight lives as long as right-wing politics continue to push aggressive war as a solution

[O Really]

I never called sherman an animal
Didn't mean you personally, but many have - and worse names including some such as Parti, here.
my only point. war sucks and is generally unnecessary - lincoln's invasion of the south was unnecessary and caused much more harm than the good it accomplished

a lot of wars go on after all the signs point to defeat - sometimes countries start wars when defeat is a sure bet - viet nam and afghanistan come to mind - in no way under no circumstances were we ever going to win either but 3,000,000 lives later we tucked tail in vietnam and will soon do so in afghanistan - but only after causing more harm than good.
the black knight lives as long as right-wing politics continue to push aggressive war as a solution

Agreed.

[O Really]

.
and thank you for supporting the point I've been trying to make from the beginning of this thread - lincoln's war did nothing - sure the slaves were freed on paper - by law, but that was about it. free to share crop for about the same life they had as slaves, free to fear the kkk, free to live in shacks, free to live under jim crow, free to live apart from society, free to be called boy, free to not drink from the white only water fountain, free to move up north and live apart from the rest of society, free to be treated differently by law enforcement

Try imagining (actually, you don't have to) that none of us are cheerleading for war. The most any of us has said is that it was inevitable given the slavers' intransigence.

And to come back to the original thread topic, who was it that had a pivotal role in improving conditions and reducing the prevalence of a lot of those things. Oh yeah, that would be Martin Luther King, who got recognized by a holiday only because he was black.

[O Really]

Since it arose above - Just to be clear, all, O Really's post and especially the last phrase is a poke at Partisan62, not billy.pilgrim.

True that. Thanks.

[GoCubsGo]

Explain how secession was unconstitutional by showing us specifically in the document where this is stated. Such sweeping nonsense definitely demonstrates that you are a Yankee. [/quote]

Article 1
Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

WTF Dumbass?