Race, lets make this serious! It is nearly 2013.

[O Really]

To be fair, there are almost no blacks in that area of Tennessee.

Pulaski: White: 74.16% Black or African American: 21.54% Two or more races: 3.78% Other race: 0.47%

But anyway, the all-white jury might have been okay if they didn't have that traitor memory wall.

[Vrede too]

Note: O Really beat me to it with a very slightly different stat, but since I'm providing a link . . .

To be fair, there are almost no blacks in that area of Tennessee.

Sarcasm?
Pulaski, Tennessee Black or African American (non-Hispanic) 1,828 21.77%

[billy.pilgrim]

Not to be in violation of Godwin's Rule, but did you ever wonder why Germans of an age of say 20-70 whose fathers/grandfathers/uncles, etc. fought for Nazi Germany don't ever wear a Nazi T-shirt as rightly representative of their "heritage"? Other than it's illegal in Germany, of course, like the traitor/slaver flag should have been in the US since 1866 or so. Sure one can make the argument that their Georgia plantation owner ancestors were gallantly fighting to defend their homes against the evil Sherman, but they can't get out of the fundamental fact that Georgia et.al., were in open armed rebellion against the people and the lawful government of the United States.

Slavery aside

Weren't most people more loyal to their own state in the early 1800s?
Wasn't the South fighting a defensive war against an invading federal government?

I think we play a little too loosely with history.

Most southerners weren’t Georgia plantation owners, but many were fighting to protect their homes.

Many more southerners were like Inman in the novel Cold Mountain than were like Ashley in Gone With the Wind.

[billy.pilgrim]

Note: O Really beat me to it with a very slightly different stat, but since I'm providing a link . . .

To be fair, there are almost no blacks in that area of Tennessee.

Sarcasm?
Pulaski, Tennessee Black or African American (non-Hispanic) 1,828 21.77%

10% in Giles County.

[billy.pilgrim]

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/gilescountytennessee

The jury pool is County wide, isn't it?

[billy.pilgrim]

To be fair, there are almost no blacks in that area of Tennessee.

Pulaski: White: 74.16% Black or African American: 21.54% Two or more races: 3.78% Other race: 0.47%

But anyway, the all-white jury might have been okay if they didn't have that traitor memory wall.

The wall sucks for sure. I can't believe it hasn't been front and center news for years.

[Vrede too]

Slavery aside

Weren't most people more loyal to their own state in the early 1800s?
Wasn't the South fighting a defensive war against an invading federal government?

I think we play a little too loosely with history.

Most southerners weren’t Georgia plantation owners, but many were fighting to protect their homes.

Many more southerners were like Inman in the novel Cold Mountain than were like Ashley in Gone With the Wind.

"Slavery aside"?!

If gullible poor Southerners were duped by well-off ones into fighting to defend slavery - the Southern states said it was the reason for their treason in their secession declarations - with the deceptive story that they were defending "against an invading federal government" that in reality had every right to suppress traitors, how is that not their own fault?

The slavers were the threat to their homes, not the Union.

[O Really]

Yes, one could describe a Confederacy that was invaded by the federal government, but again, that was only one point on a continuum of cause/effect. Would those "invaders" have been there absent a mass succession? And certainly not everybody was fighting for the same reason. Some were fighting because they got bushwhacked and required to fight or be shot. Others were surely fighting to protect their own homes and land. But the rebellion leadership started the fight to protect slavery.

I think when South Carolina announced their succession, the US should have let them. Then secure the borders and refuse to trade in/with the country of South Carolina.

[billy.pilgrim]

Yes, one could describe a Confederacy that was invaded by the federal government, but again, that was only one point on a continuum of cause/effect. Would those "invaders" have been there absent a mass succession? And certainly not everybody was fighting for the same reason. Some were fighting because they got bushwhacked and required to fight or be shot. Others were surely fighting to protect their own homes and land. But the rebellion leadership started the fight to protect slavery.

I think when South Carolina announced their succession, the US should have let them. Then secure the borders and refuse to trade in/with the country of South Carolina.

The rebellion leadership did in fact secede due to slavery.
And I agree, they should have been left on their own to wither and die. If only the North hadn't wanted all that slave grown cotton for their mills.

[billy.pilgrim]

Slavery aside

Weren't most people more loyal to their own state in the early 1800s?
Wasn't the South fighting a defensive war against an invading federal government?

I think we play a little too loosely with history.

Most southerners weren’t Georgia plantation owners, but many were fighting to protect their homes.

Many more southerners were like Inman in the novel Cold Mountain than were like Ashley in Gone With the Wind.

"Slavery aside"?!

If gullible poor Southerners were duped by well-off ones into fighting to defend slavery - the Southern states said it was the reason for their treason in their secession declarations - with the deceptive story that they were defending "against an invading federal government" that in reality had every right to suppress traitors, how is that not their own fault?

The slavers were the threat to their homes, not the Union.

Other than the rich, few people were fighting to persevere slavery.

[Vrede too]

Other than the rich, few people were fighting to persevere slavery.

Your contention is that poor Southerners didn't know why well-off ones took them into war? If so, whose fault is that?

[billy.pilgrim]

Other than the rich, few people were fighting to persevere slavery.

Your contention is that poor Southerners didn't know why well-off ones took them into war? If so, whose fault is that?

Their state was invaded. They fought back.

How is that different than the revolution when England invaded their colonies for rebellion?

Edit:

As O Really said, Lincoln could have cut them off without his war.

[O Really]

Other than the rich, few people were fighting to persevere slavery.

The reasons individuals, or groups of individuals fight in a war are irrelevant. The war exists for the purposes created by those who wage it, not by those who fight it. I'm pretty sure there were a lot of people who joined the US military to kill off as many Muslims as possible. That doesn't mean that that was the real objective in Iraq/Afghanistan (although I suppose it could have been.) Paint all the other contributing factors as you will, there wouldn't have been a war without the specific desire to protect slavery as a legal institution.

[Vrede too]

Other than the rich, few people were fighting to persevere slavery.

Your contention is that poor Southerners didn't know why well-off ones took them into war? If so, whose fault is that?

Their state was invaded. They fought back.

That's not really an answer to my question.

It is not possible for a nation to invade itself. That's like a terrorist militia calling it an "invasion" when their compound is raided.

How is that different than the revolution when England invaded their colonies for rebellion?

First, the colonies won while the slaver/traitors got their asses kicked. Then, I would never argue that England didn't have a right to try to retain its colonies. It was just unable to do so and got its ass kicked.

Note: I would not say this about a colony where a race has been subjugated like South Africa or India. In those instances England's assertion of a right is shakier.

Edit:

As O Really said, Lincoln could have cut them off without his war.

O Really is being flip, he referred to SC only, and this was the slaver/traitors' war rather than Lincoln's war. Not counting KS/MO, the South even fired first.

[O Really]

Lincoln made the decision as to how to respond to the traitors. It became his war pretty quickly.

[billy.pilgrim]

Other than the rich, few people were fighting to persevere slavery.

Your contention is that poor Southerners didn't know why well-off ones took them into war? If so, whose fault is that?

Their state was invaded. They fought back.

That's not really an answer to my question.

It is not possible for a nation to invade itself. That's like a terrorist militia calling it an "invasion" when their compound is raided.

How is that different than the revolution when England invaded their colonies for rebellion?

First, the colonies won while the slaver/traitors got their asses kicked. Then, I would never argue that England didn't have a right to try to retain its colonies. It was just unable to do so and got its ass kicked.

Note: I would not say this about a colony where a race has been subjugated like South Africa or India. In those instances England's assertion of a right is shakier.

Edit:

As O Really said, Lincoln could have cut them off without his war.

O Really is being flip, he referred to SC only, and this was the slaver/traitors' war rather than Lincoln's war. Not counting KS/MO, the South even fired first.

There was no attack by the South on the North.

I guess I just don't understand why you can't accept that both sides benefited from slavery, or that the North wanted the South's cotton for only themselves.

Or why so many people judge that war from their own 21th century morals.

[O Really]

All those things are true, although to say there was no attack by the South by the North is to count only state land and doesn't consider whose facility Fort Sumpter was. But sure, everybody benefitted from slavery, except for the slaves, and the cotton mills in New England worked much less expensively by getting slave-produced cotton.

[Ulysses]

I saw the mention in this thread of a Fort Bragg, NC. There is also a Fort Bragg in Northern California, named after the same Confederate general.

Here's a little discussion on that from the LA Times:

...
Sierra Wooten, a Fort Bragg resident and spokesperson for MendoCoast BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color), said she preferred to see a task force of diverse voices over a ballot measure on the name change. The city’s name, she said, ideally could be used to teach people about the ugly history behind it. She envisions an educational center and murals, among other things.

“The racism and hate is still here. Changing the name isn’t going to change everything,” Wooten, who is Black and Mexican American, told The Times.

Javier Silva, a member of the Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians, asked the council to listen to tribal members who “never ceded this land.”

“I don’t agree with the name,” he said. “I don’t like the name myself, but I just want it to be a reminder that this was a place of oppression, not because of Bragg, not because of that, but because of the Native Americans that were here, the first peoples here. .... We have never been given a voice, and when we have gotten a voice, it’s never gone anywhere.”

California city named for a Confederate general will not put name change on November ballot

I currently have no position on the Fort Bragg, CA., matter.

However, I'll have to say that I am finding myself mostly in agreement with Vrede in this thread.

[Vrede too]

There was no attack by the South on the North.

Fort Sumter was a federal fort with federal troops, and secession was an attack on the Union.

I guess I just don't understand why you can't accept that both sides benefited from slavery, or that the North wanted the South's cotton for only themselves.

We're not discussing whether "both sides benefited from slavery", that's a straw man. The South, not the North, went to war to preserve slavery and if any Southerners believed otherwise that's on their voluntary ignorance or on the slavers that duped them. Again, whose fault is that?

Or why so many people judge that war from their own 21th century morals.

Abolitionism was an 18th century moral. The South and the US were backwards.

[O Really]

I don't doubt that most of those who fought in or supported that war were doing so with the best intent of their families and what they considered their country. Of course, that can also be said about Nazis and most every other bunch of insurrectionists that have taken up arms.