Social Confederate Robert E Lee statue of Charlottesville Melted Down to create new 'art'.

[Mr. Shickadance]

Playing stupid now did I hurt your feeling by insulting your life work to right the wrong lol I mean you and others like you you.lost all your credibility when go around and saying slave in black hands is classist but in white hand is classist and racist I mean you can not be honest and fair to put blame on everybody

How can I be offended by someone with a learning disability? But no I am not. I more filled with sadness at the fact that you are so angry but don’t know how to properly communicate your ideas. So I’m sure many conversations are very frustrating for you and whoever has to listen to you.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Wat?

I thought you said you were well-read on the Civil War. The Confederacy seceded because they didnt like the election results that brought Lincoln to power. Then they immediately began seizing Forts in their territory. The seizing of Fort Sumter by Military Force was an act of War committed by the Confederacy. The US didnt immediately declare War merely due to the secession. Buchanan didnt even oppose the secession because he didnt think Congress had the power to compel unwilling States to remain.

Slavers absolutely viewed slaves as cheap labor. Machinery existed before and during the industrial revolution, suggesting there was a consideration of humans as machines is absurd. Slaves were a work force land owners didnt need to pay wages to.

Umm, they dissolved their partnership with the states. - hint "United" STATES of America. They left and became the CSA.

And southerners didn't call it the war of northern aggression on a whim. All of the early battles were Union troops attacking CSA territory.

Perhaps you didn't understand the crude analogy. Sure, slaves were "cheap" labor at $1000 or more a piece, but the slavers viewed slaves much the same way a farmer today views a piece of machinery - an investment - a slave cost more than a white field hand would make in 5 years.

You might find it hard to believe, but some slave owners would go broke and sell off the slaves to recoup the losses.

The difference between a tractor today and a slave in the 1800s was that you bought 2 slaves and they multiplied, and the new offspring slaves were free labor. But it wasn't like a farmer just went out and bought a few slaves and watched the money roll in from free labor.

 

[fica]

How can I be offended by someone with a learning disability? But no I am not. I more filled with sadness at the fact that you are so angry but don’t know how to properly communicate your ideas. So I’m sure many conversations are very frustrating for you and whoever has to listen to you.

Lol come on let begrown adults.i ask you simple question why you.opsesed what slaves whites had and how that was different from Brazil and Africa a d Caribbean. Slave trade and you go childish these other were wrong to have slaves blacks are ok to have black slaves. Come just answer something with honesty and truthfulness not with childish I am right you are wrong

 

[Sinister]

Umm, they dissolved their partnership with the states. - hint "United" STATES of America. They left and became the CSA.

And southerners didn't call it the war of northern aggression on a whim. All of the early battles were Union troops attacking CSA territory.

Perhaps you didn't understand the crude analogy. Sure, slaves were "cheap" labor at $1000 or more a piece, but the slavers viewed slaves much the same way a farmer today views a piece of machinery - an investment - a slave cost more than a white field hand would make in 5 years.

You might find it hard to believe, but some slave owners would go broke and sell off the slaves to recoup the losses.

The difference between a tractor today and a slave in the 1800s was that you bought 2 slaves and they multiplied, and the new offspring slaves were free labor. But it wasn't like a farmer just went out and bought a few slaves and watched the money roll in from free labor.

You're suggesting Confederate propaganda was the cause of the War? Lol They called it "the War of Northern Aggression" to attract more States. They initiated the aggression. Prior to the secession South Carolina had been pushing for States' abilities to overturn Federal Laws they didnt like. If you declare yourself a separate Country, and then attack Forts in your territory that are only now on "your territory" because you dissolved your relationship with a larger Government, that is an act of War. The early battles were Union troops attempting to reclaim those Forts that were theirs lol

I understood the analogy, it's just inaccurate. A labor force isnt the same as a machine. It's an investment of a different type. Land owners were very aware of the difference.

 

[emefer]

Does it help your case constantly Butch and moan how white supremacy is keeping blacks down lol I mean nobody around the world cares and people here less and less care

Your not caring has been made abundantly clear by your non stop posting here. That’s sarcasm

 

[Sinister]

Dude, I'm not saying that some didn't fight to end slavery, but no, most didn't. Ending slavery wasn't even really on the table when the war started.

The majority of the union army were enlisted before the war, another 10% were draftees, and as with all wars many young men joined simply for excitement.

I don't think you have a basis for making that claim. You're using a "small fires" approach to this by suggesting some Irish immigrants may not have been fighting to end slavery (though that's a weird contention considering how many claims exist that the Irish were slaves, youd think theyd vehemently defend freedom against such an institution), or that there was still racism in the North. That doesnt change the fact that THE laws the Southern States wanted changed were laws of abolishing slavery, and abolishment of it was listed in almost every declaration of secession by the Southern States. The North, unquestionably fought for the abolishment of it.

You cant say it wasnt on the table when it was the reason the Confederacy came to be lol

 

[fica]

Your not caring has been made abundantly clear by your non stop posting here. That’s sarcasm

Do we have to go through this again childish behavior now I need to show I do not care like I care what you have to say other then topic at hand

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Yes it was, it was always seen as a traitor's flag. The effort to whitewash (pun intended) its meaning is modern.

The battle flag was used by veteran groups since the end of the war. It wasn't considered racist until 1922 when the kkk adopted it as their flag.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I don't think you have a basis for making that claim. You're using a "small fires" approach to this by suggesting some Irish immigrants may not have been fighting to end slavery (though that's a weird contention considering how many claims exist that the Irish were slaves, youd think theyd vehemently defend freedom against such an institution), or that there was still racism in the North. That doesnt change the fact that THE laws the Southern States wanted changed were laws of abolishing slavery, and abolishment of it was listed in almost every declaration of secession by the Southern States. The North, unquestionably fought for the abolishment of it.

You cant say it wasnt on the table when it was the reason the Confederacy came to be lol

You're putting the cart before the horse. Just because the south ceceeded over the fear of the end of slavery doesn't mean that the north fought to abolish it.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a war tactic and ending slavery was never really considered before then.

But to hear you tell it, the northern slave states were fighting to end slavery in their own states. A feat they could have accomplished without fighting.

In fact one might think that those northern slave states would have ended slavery in their own states before fighting to end it in the South. Just an obvious observation from anyone that realizes that 4 slave states fought for the north.

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

Lol come on let begrown adults.i ask you simple question why you.opsesed what slaves whites had and how that was different from Brazil and Africa a d Caribbean. Slave trade and you go childish these other were wrong to have slaves blacks are ok to have black slaves. Come just answer something with honesty and truthfulness not with childish I am right you are wrong

Grown adults know how to write a sentence.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

When I first read 1984 I really didn't understand it because I had faith in my fellow man and never though they would comply to such nonsense and such draconian rule but a few months into the "Pandemic"..I was.

Slow learner I guess. I came to that realization a couple of months into Trump's administration.

 

[jefferz]

You do realize that even the Confederate Battle Flag wasn't controversial until the 1920s when the klan adopted it?

Ok. And?

 

[fica]

Ok. And?

Lol really that os your answer AND. It just shows this so called south is racist came to be when people start to adopt it rebellious items as their own

 

[PainIsLIfe]

You're suggesting Confederate propaganda was the cause of the War? Lol They called it "the War of Northern Aggression" to attract more States. They initiated the aggression. Prior to the secession South Carolina had been pushing for States' abilities to overturn Federal Laws they didnt like. If you declare yourself a separate Country, and then attack Forts in your territory that are only now on "your territory" because you dissolved your relationship with a larger Government, that is an act of War. The early battles were Union troops attempting to reclaim those Forts that were theirs lol

I understood the analogy, it's just inaccurate. A labor force isnt the same as a machine. It's an investment of a different type. Land owners were very aware of the difference.

Only 1 of the first 20 battles involved a fort (Sumter) - there was a minor skirmish in Missouri, but that involved state guards attacking a recruiting center and there was a boat attacking a gun battery on the shore in VA, but it wasn't a military fort and I'm fairly certain that it was never a federal facility.

As for northern aggression; I need to check again, but outside of Missouri and Kentucky (states with a civil war within a civil war) there weren't any battles fought in the North the entire first 2 years of the war.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Ok. And?

And??? Great covo. Read the thread - he said the flag was always an issue.

You guys know jack squat about history and make pronouncements like it was always an issue without having an ounce of knowledge of the subject.

 

[Mack Yancy]

Only 30% of the confederate soldiers owned slaves. Maybe even less. Many of those men were convinced to fight out of fear of the North.

Considering that only 2% of America owned slaves (and slaves were goddamn expensive). 30% is an insanely high amount, when you consider the average southerner wasn't exactly rolling in money.

This is an argument for the idea that the south was disproportionately invested in slavery, not against it.

 

[tastaylvr]

Slavers viewed slaves the same way we view machinery. It it wasn't cheap labor, it was an expensive investment. And their solution to maximize the investment was to make slaves of the slave's offspring as well.

What are you even trying to argue here? That slave masters who viewed black people in the same vein as objects did so out of greed and not racism?

Is this your aha gotcha moment??

Jfc lol

 

[Frank Kain]

it’s significant because it’s not opinion. It’s reality. It says a lot about how people back then, thought.

Considering that only 2% of America owned slaves (and slaves were goddamn expensive). 30% is an insanely high amount, when you consider the average southerner wasn't exactly rolling in money.

This is an argument for the idea that the south was disproportionately invested in slavery, not against it.

And if that was the point I was making, that would mean something. 70% didn’t own slaves…so if it was just all about slavery, what were they fighting for? Racial Superiority? Really? Probably wasn’t the first reason for the Wehrmacht, either. German pride was probably what those men were chanting.

The point is…people are willing to kill/die for their own, not ‘freedom for all.’ Most Southerners thought their community was under siege from the northerners. Northerners had to be paid or not a lot of volunteers. The southerners started this, ‘they are starting a rebellion..they are rebels.’ Don’t get me wrong, there are exceptions / volunteers, but the majority, no.

Any difference today? Eh, no… heck, today’s politics is no different…’a border out of control’. An ‘unsafe country,’ our ‘communities in ruins…’. Rampant crime. Build that fear.

 

[Source]

-Grant rented-out 3 slaves ( Dan, John. And Eliza) "belonging" to his wife throughout and after the war. Oh, and she also kept 1 with her named Jules while Grant was off at war and she returned home.

- this statue was erected in 1890. Funds started being collect in 70's and was commissioned in 1886. And it wasn't an issue at the time, at least none that I can find mentioned. I have no idea where you get the later date, but I assume it has to do with the racial tensions from the 1920s.

-It was a Sherman/Stanton military order that applied to 1 specific state.

- I mostly agree with you here. The 2 countries would have probably went to war eventually even if they had just let them leave.

McIntire was an unabashed racist. He commissioned the statues with the purpose of promoting “the lost cause”. I provided a source for this. If you’re unfamiliar with the lost cause I suggest you do some research and reading before responding.




The Lee and Jackson statues date to the early twentieth century. Paul G. McIntire, a Charlottesville graduate of the University of Virginia, commissioned them—Lee in 1917 and Jackson in 1919—and purchased the lands upon which they currently reside. Once completed, the statues were unveiled at Confederate reunions.

About | Charlottesville Statues

The Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson statues in Charlottesville, Virginia garnered national attention in 2017. Given this widespread interest, the Charlottesville Statues Legal History Research Guide provides resources for those interested in the statues' past and present. It...

statues.law.virginia.edu

History of Paul Goodloe McIntire | Department of Art

art.as.virginia.edu

 

[Sinister]

Only 1 of the first 20 battles involved a fort (Sumter) - there was a minor skirmish in Missouri, but that involved state guards attacking a recruiting center and there was a boat attacking a gun battery on the shore in VA, but it wasn't a military fort and I'm fairly certain that it was never a federal facility.

As for northern aggression; I need to check again, but outside of Missouri and Kentucky (states with a civil war within a civil war) there weren't any battles fought in the North the entire first 2 years of the war.

Again, the Confederacy took forts with Military force after declaring themselves a separate Country. Right this second of Virginia declared themselves a separate Country the Federal Government would first attempt to negotiate. If Virginia went on to send their National Guard to occupy Langley, a base of the Federal Government, that is an act of War. The first "battles" are often counted as traditional land battles. When they took Forts, they were waging War. Their President and Vice President said as much. And of course battles weren't initially fought in the North, the South wasn't reclaiming territory, the North were.