Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818

I ask you to cite some sources for your claims and you tell me to do research? OK, thanks but no thanks. They're your claims, surely you can back them up. One thing I haven't seen is a single justification for secession by any Southern state that does not mention slavery. For your reference, the specific claim I'm looking for evidence for is the first two sentences in your post.

Then tell me why if the Union was all about ending slavery

Who said the Union was all about ending slavery? Did I make that argument somewhere without knowing it? I'm pretty sure the North went to war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. Slavery was headed out the door anyway, due to the fact that no new states could be slaveholding states. The percentage of slaveholders in the legislature was decreasing and it was only a matter of time. No reason to start a war over that, from the North's point of view anyway (the South had a different point of view). In fact, the North didn't start the war at all.

Comment Re:Um, what about history? (Score 1) 818

Shall we remove all confederate items from museums?

No, that's where they belong actually. We should move them there, in fact.

Shall we rewrite the history books so the civil war never happened?

No, that's a stupid idea and you're stupid for asking.

If we remove the confederate flag from everywhere, will that mean slavery never happened?

Obviously not, and thankfully people aren't stupid enough that anyone feels the need to clarify this. Until now.

Removing some flags will not advance the goal of eliminating racism.

That depends, actually. If you're removing the flags from government-owned buildings, so that it no longer appears that the government is sanctioning or sponsoring racism, then it might actually make an impact. Just like the names of streets, schools, parks, etc. If black people didn't have to attend a school that was named after someone who fought specifically to stop them from being able to attend school, or if they didn't have to drive down a street named after someone who fought specifically to stop them from being allowed to drive down that street, then that might also have an effect. Similarly, if white people weren't going to Stonewall Jackson High School, and instead attended Booker T. Washington High School, then maybe they wouldn't feel like they have some innate superiority over black people. If white kids weren't playing in Nathan Bedford Forrest National Park then maybe they wouldn't think so highly of the KKK.

Instead of quibbling about a flag that some people find offensive, why don't we work to fight actual racism.

I agree. A fantastic first step is to remove symbols of racism from government-owned places, and to stop glorifying people who fought to keep slavery in place.

Fighting so hard over symbols while we are mostly ignoring the reality of racism in the US seems counterproductive.

Part of the reality of racism in the US is the fact that racist symbols and people are openly glorified and praised. It's time we move on from that period in our history, let's get those things out of the general public and into a museum where they belong.

Comment Re:Double standard pandering (Score 1) 818

If I want a small Confederate Flag for a historical display, or a re-enactment, or other event these retails think I shouldn't be able to get it?

I don't think the retailers really give a shit what you have, they just don't want you to buy this particular thing from them. If you were an entrepreneur you might see an opportunity here.

Comment Re:I hate and despise - but they should still be s (Score 1) 818

But do people actually believe someone who flies the flag is saying bring back slavery or a succession from the Union?

For me personally, if I see a truck drive by with a Confederate flag flying from the back of it I don't think "wow, that guy must really be into states' rights", or "wow, that guy must be a huge Dukes of Hazzard fan". I think "wow, that guy is really proud to be racist". It might not be fair but, yeah, that's the first thing that pops into my head.

Also, please stop talking about "succession" or "succeeding" or whatever. That's not the word.

Comment Re:Boo hoo... (Score 1) 818

What freedom of expression are you referring to? The freedom of a state to celebrate a racist history? Does the bill of rights even apply to a state in general? I'm pretty sure they only apply to people. Government speech is regulated differently. I'm not seeing any laws being passed that limit an individual's right of expression here.

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818

Look, secession was about slavery, yes. That doesn't mean that's why the Civil War was fought.

Uh, well, I guess you're technically correct. The South seceded because of slavery, and the war was fought to preserve the Union (because the South was leaving, because of slavery).

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was primarily intended to keep Britain out of the war.

How do you figure? Britain had already outlawed slavery decades before, their people were not about to join a war on the side of a nation fighting to keep slavery as an institution. The US Navy already whipped the British Navy (twice), you think the British Navy was going to try to bust through American lines to help the South (and risk losing Canada)? No. If Britain was going to join the war they would have joined it on the side of the US. They didn't want to do that either, though.

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818

It was because you can't have a "Union" unless there was the right to succeed. Many of the supporters in the North supported the South because if the government became too oppressive, they too wanted the right to succeed.

Stop it, you're making my eyelid twitch. A state has never "succeeded" from the US. The South definitely did not succeed in the war.

Comment Re:Those evil enemy oppressors (Score 1) 818

All of that hand-waving and justification without a single primary source to back up any claim. Well done sir!

FYI - there is not a single person living who was alive at the time this all happened. The best and only sources we have are primary documents from politicians, generals, and state legislatures. If you want to prove your claims, cite the primary sources that back you up. No one is interested in stories they heard from their grandfather about what his grandfather told him about was his father did. We already have plenty of writings from the time explaining exactly why they decided to secede, so let's stick to those sources.

As I said, slavery was a bit of a political talking point because it sounded so much better than a dispute over tariffs, on both sides. (from your reply below)

Right, because taxes and tariffs never angered and pushed Americans to do anything, did they?

Comment Re:Confederate soldiers in fact fought for slavery (Score 1) 818

The confederate 99% didn't make the decision to go to war, you are partially correct that they were generally not economically vested in slavery and most likely not willing to risk their lives to defend slavery. So the 1% had to sell the war to the 99% using different arguments.

One argument I saw was that the existence of an inferior race was necessary for Southern white society. There might have been poor members of white society, but to the elites they were still white, they were still better than the black people, so the elites would still stand up for the poor white people as being "like them". In their view this held society together. If there was not an inferior race then the poor white people would be equal to the black people and would be left out of society. So, they sold the war by saying that, if slavery is outlawed, you're going to be no better than the black people. They contrasted their society with the north, where people of any race might be "greasy mechanics" or whatever, not the "refined gentlemen" that you find in the South. The mechanic in the South was still better than all of the black people he had working for him.

Comment Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score 3) 818

Basically it was offer to the South to keeep their slaves, if only they would not leave the Union!

They still fought the war to leave, so it was not "all about slavery", more about tariffs.

Stop being a revisionist douche. If you're claiming that the South seceded because of tariffs, you better be prepared to show ample firsthand evidence. For you, I've got the Cornerstone Speech by the CSA's Vice President (emphasis is mine):

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions - African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it - when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

You'll need to point out where he talks about tariffs, because I'm not seeing it.

Although you're right about Lincoln deciding that he would preserve the Union without freeing a single slave if it were possible to do that. Obviously, that didn't happen though. One of the major reasons the Southern states seceded, and you can verify this in their statements of justification for secession, is because they were upset that the Northern states were no longer following the Fugitive Slave Act where a Northern state would have to return a fugitive slave to their Southern owner. In fact, several Northern states specifically criminalized the return of a fugitive slave. Many Southern states stated that, without that clause in the Constitution, the Southern states would not have agreed to it at all. Now that the Northern states were no longer doing their part to keep slavery around, the South wanted out. More than one state cited estimates of $3 or $4 billion in lost property that this would inflict on their economy. And, of course, when they said "property" they were referring to "people".

Another major reason were the laws which outlawed slavery in new states admitted to the Union. Since the slaveholding states were not able to increase their numbers then their percentage of representation in the Federal government was bound to fall and the writing was already on the wall with regard to the end of slavery. So, they wanted out, they wanted to return to being sovereign nations free to continue practicing their God-given rights to rule over and legally own black people.

It had fuck all to do with tariffs, so don't act like it did.

Even so, the Confederate Battle Flag died out as a symbol until the racist "Dixiecrat" party ran Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate in 1948, and they brought the flag back as the symbol of their party. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s leading up to the surge in the civil rights movement, white Southerners opposed to civil rights seized upon the flag as a symbol of their opposition (helped in no small part by the KKK also using the flag). So, if a white Southerner opposed civil rights for black people, do you think the reason for their opposition had anything to do with tariffs and taxes, or was it just because they were a bunch of racist dickheads who didn't like black people and felt justified because their great-grandparents also didn't like black people?

Comment Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score 4, Informative) 818

You left out the Cornerstone Speech, specifically:

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
- Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America
Savannah, Georgia; March 21, 1861

Comment Re:obvious solution (Score 5, Insightful) 176

You probably wouldn't even need firearms -- maybe some kind of EMP pulse and let the drone fall into the fire.

Right, because an EMP is so much easier to create, more portable, and less likely to cause collateral damage than a beanbag fired from a shotgun.

Or a non-lethal shotgun round designed to take out propellers.

Or a beanbag that carries enough kinetic energy to knock it down no matter where you hit it.

a big tangle if nylon fishing line

Right, let's launch loads of plastic all over the place.

I wonder if there's some kind of compromise. Like, drones can scout out the situation until aircraft are deployed, and then must leave the area or risk destruction and/or heavy fines.

Fine, let the fire department fly their scout drones to recon the fire before moving in. As far as civilians are concerned, stay the fuck away and let the professionals do their jobs.

Slashdot Top Deals

Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death. -- James F. Byrnes

Working...