The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

[Al-O-Meter]

Why did those states want to secede?

You'd have to go state by state to dive in to who did what and for what reason. I believe six of them included some mention of slavery as a motivating factor, but notice now you are arguing the cause of secession, not the cause of the Civil War. That tactic of switching subjects is common in this debate because the primary cause of the Civil War is inarguable. The primary issue was secession. As mentioned earlier, there were slave owning states fighting on the side of the Union against the seceding states.

 

[fishonjazz]

You'd have to go state by state to dive in to who did what and for what reason. I believe six of them included some mention of slavery as a motivating factor, but notice now you are arguing the cause of secession, not the cause of the Civil War. That tactic of switching subjects is common in this debate because the primary cause of the Civil War is inarguable. The primary issue was secession. As mentioned earlier, there were slave owning states fighting on the side of the Union against the seceding states.

You do have to realize that if the civil was due to secession and secession was due to slavery then........


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You do have to realize that if the civil was due to secession and secession was due to slavery then........

The problem logically with what you are trying to do there is that it doesn't address the motivation of the anti-secessionist side, which we know wasn't slavery because there were slave-owning states fighting on the anti-secessionist side. There were 37 states involved in the US Civil War and 31 of them said absolutely nothing about slavery being the cause for their choosing to go to war. The Civil War was between secessionist and anti-secessionist states. That is as far as the blanket statements can be honestly stretched.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

You do have to realize that if the civil was due to secession and secession was due to slavery then........


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

But the distinction is the war was not started to abolish slavery, and secession wasn't either. It was about economic and political control, including whether slavery should be expanded West, particularly in Kansas. South Carolina broke away after a Republican was elected, a party the South abhorred and not one of their voted were for him (the North immediately pulled in Kansas after secession by the South under the idea they now had the votes). It actually shows how scary some of Trumps rhetoric can me, as our country is so divided, I'm not sure how far either "side" pushes until there is chaos. The Capitol riot shows how crazy people can be. While I hope for Trump to be convicted, I also hope there is not backlash from MAGA zealots.

That is not to say the North wanted slavery to stick around, but the feeling from most was to let the South continue to have what was then protected under the law.

The tides began to change as the war went on, and the Emancipation Proclimation was the result, but keep in mind it was somewhat symbolical at the time regarding slaves freedome (only affected the North in this regard), at least until the states reunified after the South lost. However, it did tie the war directly to abolition at that time, and also allowed black soldiers to fight for the Union, which was a huge help to Union forces.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Do those who try to say the Civil War wasn’t about slavery know they are parroting white nationalist, KKK, Nazi skinhead rhetoric? It’s wide out in the open now, and many don’t study the roots of these arguments. Straight from the pecker wood playbook.

I understand most normal *** conservatives don’t realize this. I grew up around these assholes, going to punk shows all my life. They’ve been saying these things for decades. It’s just new to them because many don’t remember the civil rights era and never heard an actual Nazi spew their garbage in real life. It’s now part of popular conservative talking points. It’s insane. They used to hide it with gaslighting and innuendo, now they have millions saying it all out loud.

If you don’t think this is serious and cant go south very easily, I got a book for you.

History doesn’t repeat, it rhymes.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I grew up around these assholes, going to punk shows all my life.

I’m sure while you were pounding a flammable cross into the new Black family’s lawn at the punk show, your compatriots said “Chattel slavery was evil and it was messed up how involved the United States was in the Atlantic slave trade. They say we fought the Civil War over it but there are some facts that don’t quite fit. I’m thinking maybe it is just something we say to see ourselves as good people.”

Then later when you’re in your polo shirt and marching with lit tiki torches to the punk show, your compadre stops chanting about who won’t replace him to say “A Presidential candidate at a campaign event isn’t going to educate anyone on a complex issue like the US Civil War and really shouldn’t venture into the minefield even if she is a person of color and has bonafides such as removing the Confederate flag from the state capitol building.”

That sounds totally plausible.

 

[Sardines]

I’m sure while you were pounding a flammable cross into the new Black family’s lawn at the punk show, your compatriots said “Chattel slavery was evil and it was messed up how involved the United States was in the Atlantic slave trade. They say we fought the Civil War over it but there are some facts that don’t quite fit. I’m thinking maybe it is just something we say to see ourselves as good people.”

Then later when you’re in your polo shirt and marching with lit tiki torches to the punk show, your compadre stops chanting about who won’t replace him to say “A Presidential candidate at a campaign event isn’t going to educate anyone on a complex issue like the US Civil War and really shouldn’t venture into the minefield even if she is a person of color and has bonafides such as removing the Confederate flag from the state capitol building.”

That sounds totally plausible.

I have the feeling you missed the point?

 

[One Brow]

The gigantic problem with these types of arguments is that it ignores, and by necessity it has to ignore, the single biggest piece of evidence. When the Civil War started it was NOT between the Union and all slave holding states. A number of slave holding states fought on the side of the Union. The Civil War was between the anti-secession and the secession states. The primary issue was secession

What was the primary reason for secession? This is like saying cancer doesn't kill anyone.

 

[fishonjazz]

The problem logically with what you are trying to do there is that it doesn't address the motivation of the anti-secessionist side, which we know wasn't slavery because there were slave-owning states fighting on the anti-secessionist side. There were 37 states involved in the US Civil War and 31 of them said absolutely nothing about slavery being the cause for their choosing to go to war. The Civil War was between secessionist and anti-secessionist states. That is as far as the blanket statements can be honestly stretched.

But why were they seceding?
Find that denominator
Get down to the roots.
Go deeper than secession.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I’m sure while you were pounding a flammable cross into the new Black family’s lawn at the punk show, your compatriots said “Chattel slavery was evil and it was messed up how involved the United States was in the Atlantic slave trade. They say we fought the Civil War over it but there are some facts that don’t quite fit. I’m thinking maybe it is just something we say to see ourselves as good people.”

Then later when you’re in your polo shirt and marching with lit tiki torches to the punk show, your compadre stops chanting about who won’t replace him to say “A Presidential candidate at a campaign event isn’t going to educate anyone on a complex issue like the US Civil War and really shouldn’t venture into the minefield even if she is a person of color and has bonafides such as removing the Confederate flag from the state capitol building.”

That sounds totally plausible.

Funny thing is they’re everywhere. Where I saw them they dressed a very specific way, wore specific patches and tattoos. They definitely stood out and were usually dispatched and removed. We didn’t tolerate their **** and they usually would just leave. The dumb ones got their heads stomped.

Now they dress like you! They don’t wear combat boots or sport SS tattoos. They wear polos and khakis, suits even. They work with you, they’re your neighbors, they go to your church, you voted for them. If you were aware of their tactics and plans over the decades, you would know this is exactly where they want to be. No longer fringe, relegated to looking silly on the news and getting beat up at concerts. They have assimilated amongst people like you. You don’t know any better and their extreme and bigoted political views have always aligned with conservative cultural values once fringe now main stream. You know when you have to just skip over the super racist comments on The Hill, Breitbart, Fox News, etc? Notice how many more there are now? You don’t cut and paste those comments here for some reason.

You’re using their language now and they have you fighting for their cause. You’re seriously trying to argue that the Civil War wasn’t purely about slavery. Why dude? Why die on this hill? To justify or prove what? Your goal is to blur the lines and sow doubt about slavery? Even if it’s not your intent, it’s what your argument achieves. Good job I guess?

You making fun of me and my experience is telling. You use racist white nationalist arguments, I just gave you some context to what you’re saying that you haven’t thoroughly researched. I’ve been around Nazi’s and you say the same things they do. Do with that what you will. But understand the things you’re parroting tell many people a lot about you.

I beg you to do some reading about the contemporary neo-Nazi and white nationalists movements in America and Europe. You’ll see how far they’ve come and how close they are.

To be clear. I’m not calling you a Nazi. You’re definitely not a Nazi. I don’t think you’re a racist, but you say racist stuff. You’re just slowly drifting towards fascism and I’m just giving you a heads up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

But why were they seceding?
Find that denominator
Get down to the roots.
Go deeper than secession.

They were seceding to self rule. The seceding states wanted to rule themselves and the Union wanted to maintain dominion over them. They went to war over it.,

I know the answer you want to be true, and are so sure is true because how could teachers have lied to you your whole life, but it simply isn't true. Abraham Lincoln told the slave holding states they could keep slavery if they'd stay in the Union. The seceding states all said the ability to self rule was more important than having slavery assured by the Union. The desire to rule themselves is the common denominator and it doesn't go deeper than that.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

But why were they seceding?
Find that denominator
Get down to the roots.
Go deeper than secession.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

I believe they call it BASED.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

What was the primary reason for secession? This is like saying cancer doesn't kill anyone.

What was the primary reason for the Union attacking the southern states? The south didn't want a war. They wanted to leave. It was the Union that was the belligerent party in the Civil War so you really have to look there for the cause of the Civil War. Hint: the Union didn't go to war to wipe out slavery.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

What was the primary reason for the Union attacking the southern states? The south didn't want a war. They wanted to leave. It was the Union that was the belligerent party in the Civil War so you really have to look there for the cause of the Civil War. Hint: the Union didn't go to war to wipe out slavery.

Four States Articles of Secession, out of the original 7 states, call out the preservation of slavery. If it wasn’t under attack, then why would they need to protect it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I beg you to do some reading about the contemporary neo-Nazi and white nationalists movements in America and Europe.

No thank you. Not interested. That is all you.

Your goal is to blur the lines and sow doubt about slavery?

My goal is to not white wash American history. The US Civil War was not the moral crusade we paint it as. The arguments I'm making are ones made in advanced level Black history courses where they examine how much of an ally Abraham Lincoln actually was. There is no ambiguity in anything I've written regarding my personal belief that chattel slavery was evil and it was messed up how involved the United States was in the Atlantic slave trade.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

No thank you. Not interested. That is all you.

My goal is to not white wash American history. The US Civil War was not the moral crusade we paint it as. The arguments I'm making are ones made in advanced level Black history courses where they examine how much of an ally Abraham Lincoln actually was. There is no ambiguity in anything I've written regarding my personal belief that chattel slavery was evil and it was messed up how involved the United States was in the Atlantic slave trade.

Ok, just a suggestion. Willfull ignorance is easier. I get it.

Dude, arguing that the Civil War wasn’t, at its core, about slavery…..is white washing. Who makes this argument? White secession -apologists. White washing the role of slavery is to minimize its impact on our country and culture at every opportunity to excuse white, racist, southern heritage.

I know you think slavery is awful. But your argument is “Slavery wasn’t the main reason, the infringement of the South’s economy and sovereignty was the bigger issue.” works to diminish the role of slavery in their decision to secede.

Again, what’s your end game here? Because telling both sides of the story doesn’t make the Civil War not about slavery at its roots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Who makes this argument?

Advanced level Black history courses where they examine how much of an ally Abraham Lincoln actually was.

I know you think slavery is awful. But your argument is “Slavery wasn’t the main reason, the infringement of the South’s economy and sovereignty was the bigger issue.” works to diminish the role of slavery in their decision to secede.

First, I never said the quote you are attributing to me. You and others have repeatedly asked for a common denominator among the secessionist states. You found slavery mentioned in four. It is mentioned in a few more but you missed them. That said, here is what is in all of them:

Mississippi: “a free, sovereign, and independent State”
Florida: “a sovereign and independent nation”
Alabama: “a Sovereign and Independent State”
Georgia: “a free and independent State”
Louisiana: “a free and independent State”
Texas: “a separate sovereign State”
Virginia: “a free and independent State”
Arkansas: “a free and independent State”
North Carolina: “a free and independent State.”
Tennessee: “a free, sovereign, and independent State.”
Missouri: “a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth”
Kentucky: “a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties”

Furthermore, in his letter to Horrace Greeley dated August 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln wrote:

“If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it”
--Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Advanced level Black history courses where they examine how much of an ally Abraham Lincoln actually was.

Oh I have no doubt Lincoln was a piece of ****. He was a politician and played both sides trying to avoid war. Bombshell. This doesn’t excuse your behavior tho.

First, I never said the quote you are attributing to me. You and others have repeatedly asked for a common denominator among the secessionist states. You found slavery mentioned in four. It is mentioned in a few more but you missed them. That said, here is what is in all of them:

Mississippi: “a free, sovereign, and independent State”
Florida: “a sovereign and independent nation”
Alabama: “a Sovereign and Independent State”
Georgia: “a free and independent State”
Louisiana: “a free and independent State”
Texas: “a separate sovereign State”
Virginia: “a free and independent State”
Arkansas: “a free and independent State”
North Carolina: “a free and independent State.”
Tennessee: “a free, sovereign, and independent State.”
Missouri: “a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth”
Kentucky: “a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties”

You’re correct, I was not directly quoting you, I summarized your argument more clearly to illustrate my point.

I said 4 states out the original 7 states, a majority, call out the preservation of slavery. The other coward states hid behind sovereignty and independence. Sovereignty and independence to do what? Own slaves, man! Again, they use code words for what they really mean. You ignore their true meaning to support your weird stance.

Furthermore, in his letter to Horrace Greeley dated August 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln wrote:

“If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it”
--Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley

Politicians politic bro. Not much has changed huh? Conservatives continue to placate to racists and fascists so they don’t hurt their feelings. Our country didn’t squash this **** out properly at each step, which is why it comes back over and over again. We’re here, again, and I’ve picked my side. Understand which side you’ve chosen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You’re correct, I was not directly quoting you, I summarized your argument more clearly to illustrate my point.

You substituted my argument for the argument you wanted me to have been making. I never, not once, mentioned the southern state's economies.

Sovereignty and independence to do what?

To rule as a nation. To be the big swinging dick. To be in a position to take kickbacks. To show up to international diplomatic gatherings with equal standing to the leaders of France, Germany, or the UK. The leaders of these states weren't all motivated by a vision of what they perceived as better for their greater society. They were the same rotten narcissistic egomaniac politicians out for themselves that we've always had.

They already had slavery. Abraham Lincoln told them at every opportunity that he wasn't going to take slavery away from them. What they wanted, what they REALLY wanted, was power. All the rest of it is stories we've made up afterwards to paint the winners as the good guys. The best we can do is be glad the result was to see the end of chattel slavery in the United States and not scratch too deep beyond the pretty veneer plastered atop the events to find the real motivations for why things were really done.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

You substituted my argument for the argument you wanted me to have been making. I never, not once, mentioned the southern state's economies.

No, I outlined the end result of your argument you clearly haven’t thought through to conclusion. I know your argument, again Nazi rhetoric, so I skipped ahead to economic justification, the next illogical step in your argument. Sorry, trying not to waste time on this garbage.

To rule as a nation. To be the big swinging dick. To be in a position to take kickbacks. To show up to international diplomatic gatherings with equal standing to the leaders of France, Germany, or the UK. The leaders of these states weren't all motivated by a vision of what they perceived as better for their greater society. They were the same rotten narcissistic egomaniac politicians out for themselves that we've always had.

They already had slavery. Abraham Lincoln told them at every opportunity that he wasn't going to take slavery away from them. What they wanted, what they REALLY wanted, was power. All the rest of it is stories we've made up afterwards to point the winners as the good guys. The best we can do is be glad the result was to see the end of chattel slavery in the United States and not scratch too deep beyond the pretty veneer plastered atop the events to find the real motivations for why things were really done.

Yes, it was a power struggle. Where did the south’s power derive from? Your argument eventually points to economic power and independence (sound familiar) which in the south was built by slavery. But don’t ignore that their “moral independence” was at stake as well (sound familiar). They wanted the freedom to own humans they saw as cattle. This overshadows every argument you’re trying to make. You’re focused on trees, instead of the forest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk