No statue for Robert E Lee but black ex-con Marion Barry gets one.

Text Drivers are Killers said:
Of course. It wasn't really a "civil" war since you didn't have two sides fighting for control of the country. The south just wanted to secede and form their own country.
Click to expand...

It's still a civil war. There are two main types of civil wars it seems to me - ones in which one part of the country is fighting to rule the country/overthrow the government, and the other when part of the country wants to secede and is not allowed to.

Sometimes the rebels are more justified - and the south had some legitimate grievances - and sometimes they're less justified.

And for that matter there is no clear global standard for when a group should be allowed to secede. These issues are usually resolved by force more than principle.

Is every group - even individual - supposed to be allowed to 'secede' if they want, taking some of the land of a nation (usually, they can 'secede' by leaving).
 
Mason Michaels said:
The south wanted the freedom to keep a third of their citizens in bondage.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. You get dumber by the minute. The CW was not about slavery, you fool. The Union had 4 slave states of it's own during the war - KY MD MO DE. They stayed in the Union and lincoln let them practice their slavery. 300,000 slaves in those 4 states. Plus there were many Union generals who were slave owners during the war.. Hell - lincoln offered slave-owner Robert e Lee command of all the Union forces!!!!

The idea that the CW was about slavery is not just wrong, it's absurd.
 
Craig234 said:
And for that matter there is no clear global standard for when a group should be allowed to secede. These issues are usually resolved by force more than principle.
Click to expand...

During the 1900s much of africa seceded from the european countries that owned them and usually without a civil war. Turned out to be a bad idea for those countries. Blacks everywhere have proven incapable of managing themselves. Not just in africa. Look at american cities like detroit and baltimore.
 
Craig234 said:
Actually, there is something of a real analogy between the colonies leaving England and the south leaving the US. The biggest difference is that the colonies (with France helping) won the war.

We need to be fair - the south's intention was not 'treason' or to attack the US - the conflict at the start was simply over a US fort in the now-seceded south. As I recall, Lincoln orchestrated where the south would attack it, so they fired the first shot.

The debate over states' rights to secede is not black and white, one-sided - there's a real case for secession and self-determination as a right. The Kurds and the Catalonians are fighting that same battle right now.

The condemnation of the south lies mostly in their support of slavery - and arguably their willingness to see hundreds of thousands killed in their desire to secede, but that cuts both ways. There is blame to be had as well in the north treating the south
unfairly and abusing their majority power in the government - not entirely unlike the English abusing their power over the colonies.

The South never wanted to rule the north, and I think because they simply wanted to leave, that the label of traitor is either the wrong word or at least needs a big asterisk. But they've done a lot of harm to the country with their politics since the civil war.
Click to expand...

To your last paragraph, yes, I agree that the south was not attempting to rule America. Hence, it is improper to call it the American Civil War. England, Russia, and China had legitimate civil wars, for example.

Now, you can't blame Lincoln for southerners being of inferior intelligence to Americans. The "oh, he tricked them into attacking Sumter" line isn't even an argument. The CSA should have had the sense not to attack a greater power, and the decency not to seize what did not rightfully belong to them. Period. The north did not hold majority rule in government for much of the 19th Century up to that point. When the south left, they did so with their own man still in the white house. I blame the south more for 400k dead American troops than for slavery.

Finally, you are either an American patriot or you are not. If so, then you hold American values above those of the English crown and the Confederacy. The three nations cannot all be viewed as equally worthy of one's devotion to a true patriot.
 
Craig234 said:
It's still a civil war. There are two main types of civil wars it seems to me - ones in which one part of the country is fighting to rule the country/overthrow the government, and the other when part of the country wants to secede and is not allowed to.

Sometimes the rebels are more justified - and the south had some legitimate grievances - and sometimes they're less justified.

And for that matter there is no clear global standard for when a group should be allowed to secede. These issues are usually resolved by force more than principle.

Is every group - even individual - supposed to be allowed to 'secede' if they want, taking some of the land of a nation (usually, they can 'secede' by leaving).
Click to expand...

The south had zero legitimate grievances. From 1801-1861, they had the following presidents in office for all but 12 years: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan. Additionally, they liked the administration of Fillmore, and Tyler wound-up favoring southern interests, and joined the CSA at the end of his life. John Quincy Adams for four years was about all the north got in that span.
 
It's simple the South took part in the 1860 election, it didn't go their way.
So they tried to steal part of the USA,in the end,they lost their honor,integrity, and their slaves.
And Lee should have lost his shit when his sphincter opened as the noose tightened!:-)
 
Craig234 said:
That's a false analogy in the other direction. 'Leaving their house' doesn't include 'leaving to own slaves'. And while admittedly the civil war was not primarily about ending slavery, is also doesn't include the idea of a nation that would be divided, the legal and economic implications of a nation split in half, even the question whether the two halves could defend themselves from foreign threats. It leaves out the real issues in the situation.
Click to expand...

The real issue was the 11 Confederate States simply wanting to leave. The remaining States said they couldn't. A war ensued.
 
Mason Michaels said:
It's simple the South took part in the 1860 election, it didn't go their way.
So they tried to steal part of the USA,in the end,they lost their honor,integrity, and their slaves.
And Lee should have lost his shit when his sphincter opened as the noose tightened!:-)
Click to expand...

That describes the lefties after the 2016 election. They took part and it didn't go their way. In the end, they lost what little honor and integrity they had, if they even had any.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
During the 1900s much of africa seceded from the european countries that owned them and usually without a civil war. Turned out to be a bad idea for those countries. Blacks everywhere have proven incapable of managing themselves. Not just in africa. Look at american cities like detroit and baltimore.
Click to expand...

You're a racist, an idiot, and ignorant. How many of those African countries that gained independence from European colonizers agree with you it was a 'bad idea' and asked them back? Zero. How much do you understand the oppression aimed at those countries? I'd say it's pretty clear not at all.

Black people aren't perfect. They elected, for example, Marion Berry. Berry did not shut down their main bridge for days out of spite like white guy Chris Christie did to his own state. But your racism will make you say that's no big deal - but if Berry had done it you'd be ranting how it was proof to attack black people. Nixon wasn't a black guy - just a white mobbed-up guy who killed a million people for his own power. A black guy didn't do that.

In contrast, who looks better - the black leadership of Flint who are fighting for their people or the white leaders of their state who wrongfully caused the poisonous water, were corrupt, committed crimes?

Who looks better - the non-white Congresswoman with the gold star family defending them, the non-white Mayor in San Juan fighting for her people - or white guy trump who 'met with the president of the Virgin Islands' and threw some paper towels?
 
CFM said:
That describes the lefties after the 2016 election. They took part and it didn't go their way. In the end, they lost what little honor and integrity they had, if they even had any.
Click to expand...

You are correct for those that bitched about the E.C.,Hillary knew the rules going in like him or not Trump won the election.Whether the Russians were a factor, we will find out.
 
Threedee said:
The south had zero legitimate grievances. From 1801-1861, they had the following presidents in office for all but 12 years: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan. Additionally, they liked the administration of Fillmore, and Tyler wound-up favoring southern interests, and joined the CSA at the end of his life. John Quincy Adams for four years was about all the north got in that span.
Click to expand...

"For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War."

http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
 
Mason Michaels said:
You are correct for those that bitched about the E.C.,Hillary knew the rules going in like him or not Trump won the election.Whether the Russians were a factor, we will find out.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with bitching about the E.C. It's anti-democracy. No one said trump didn't win. We probably won't exactly 'find out' how much effect the Russians had, because it's hard to measure how votes were affected.
 
Craig234 said:
There's nothing wrong with bitching about the E.C. It's anti-democracy. No one said trump didn't win. We probably won't exactly 'find out' how much effect the Russians had, because it's hard to measure how votes were affected.
Click to expand...

Quit bitching you whiner.
 
Craig234 said:
That's pretty correct. It's just not like someone leaving a house.
Click to expand...

That's 100% correct.

It's exactly like someone leaving a house and being told no. Would you fight back if someone told you that you couldn't leave their house?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top