Church Shooting

[DC Tom]

I don't disagree with any of this. Especially because we all know or should know that if it meant no secession and the Union could be preserved without a war even if it meant not a single slave was made free, Lincoln and most others would have gladly signed on to that.

 

But we continue to pussyfoot around the subject.

 

States' rights for what?

 

Secession for what?

 

Let's all stop pretending we don't know what the central theme of the day was about. Let's not ignore the volumes of written words and speeches, especially by the politicians of the south at the time. Let's pretend the very 'Constitution of the Confederate States of America" didn't specify the what.

 

Let's not pretend the founders themselves didn't foresee what the central "come to Jesus" issue was going to be about either.

 

Seems people BEFORE, DURING, and SHORTLY after didn't pussyfoot around the grand issue. Why we insist on doing that today is an interesting study into the human psyche. I have my theories.

 

If I'm pussyfooting around it, it's because I've seen more nuanced primary sources.,

 

I'll say it again. The historiography is defined the same was as the politics was: by the extremes. There's a hell of a lot of nuance that gets ignored by the overly simplistic "slavery vs. abolition" interpretation.

 

1/4th of the total number of slaves brought across the Atlantic since the trade began in the late 1400s came after 1808.

 

And again...the census data does not bear that out. Look at the census data.

[K-9]

The absence of Federal power to prevent secession is what permits it. The Constitution was designed as a cage on Federal powers.

 

The argument that the Founders never imagined a senario in which the participating states might wish to exit the Union is an absurd one, given the context of the Constitution.

As if that premise has never been tested, either. But I understand the point.

 

I thought the allusion to the Articles of Federation a bit of a stretch myself. Not only hadn't the Founders never imagined such a scenario, there were several actual threats by states to secede previously in their lifetimes, like the New England states in the late 1790s, early 1800s.

 

There was also precedent for Congress to authorize the use of force against a state if it refused to adhere to federal law. Andrew Jackson issued a Proclamation of Force to South Carolina when it refused to abide by new federal tariffs in 1832, for example.

 

Compromise was reached previously so these Constitutional tests never advanced far enough in the legal chain to be fully established as precedent. Did the states have a perceived right to secede? Sure. Did the federal government have a perceived duty to preserve the Union? Yes.

 

Perhaps the Supreme Court should settle the issue once and for all.

[Rob's House]

I don't recall having addressed it with Tom. Or are we all to assume that because a poster has an exchange with another he has it with everyone on specific issues? If you found it redundant, I don't care. But please don't act as though you don't attempt to make the same points over and over to different people, either.

 

Acting like I had not? Wrong. Simply making it again.

A little touchy. You seemed to suggest we were all pussyfooting around the big issue. I was pointing out that some of us have taken it head on and you knew it. I didn't realize you were just referring to Tom.

 

Thanks, I am enjoying the debate and am a history nerd, so I don't often get to really discuss this kind of stuff in my day to day life anymore. Sadly my personal library is in storage so I don't have a lot of specific titles I can link you to off the top of my head, but one of the better books is "Inhuman Bondage" I just forget who wrote it.

 

Wait, thanks to the slow loading time of the site right now for me I found a good overview of the increased numbers I was talking about, though this is more about the ineffectiveness of the 1808 banning of the trans Atlantic trade. It brings up a lot of the numbers I rattled off. The book is worth checking out in full, though, I do not agree with all of their conclusions. I'll get you a better list soon.

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/the-transatlantic-slave-trade-and-the-civil-war/?_r=1

Cool, thanks.

[K-9]

 

If I'm pussyfooting around it, it's because I've seen more nuanced primary sources.,

 

I'll say it again. The historiography is defined the same was as the politics was: by the extremes. There's a hell of a lot of nuance that gets ignored by the overly simplistic "slavery vs. abolition" interpretation.

Sometimes your arrogance is hard to tolerate.

 

Nuance is futile unless basic premises can be understood and accepted. Any moron should know that history IS nuance. What morons don't know is that nuance can't be parsed without the proper framework and context. I'm insulted by the insinuation that I don't appreciate that.

 

If you don't agree that their own words, over the course of decades on the subject offer a STARTING point to understanding their motives and perhaps creates a better ability to understand the issues on a deeper (sorry, more nuanced level), then perhaps I've over-estimated your intellect.

[3rdnlng]

 

1/4th of the total number of slaves brought across the Atlantic since the trade began in the late 1400s came after 1808.

Late 1400's? Who did Columbus sell his slaves to, the Seminoles?

[Gary M]

In every other industrialized nation you are quantum leaps safer from gun violence than here - at least that would be a start - after all - aren't we "exceptional" ?

not really

 

https://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE

[Deranged Rhino]

 

If I'm pussyfooting around it, it's because I've seen more nuanced primary sources.,

 

I'll say it again. The historiography is defined the same was as the politics was: by the extremes. There's a hell of a lot of nuance that gets ignored by the overly simplistic "slavery vs. abolition" interpretation.

 

And again...the census data does not bear that out. Look at the census data.

 

How would the US census data bear anything out in this regard? For clarity's sake, my posts are not about slavery in just the colonies / America, but the entirety of the trade itself in the Americas. The slaves were not coming into American ports, they were going to Cuba and Brazil predominately -- and then, as you said, there was an extensive "illegal" network across the Caribbean -- but the census does nothing to shed light on how many slaves were being transported from Africa every year. Ship manifests and port manifests from Brazil and Cuba do however. They're unmistakable proof that of the 12 million slaves (at least that many) that crossed the Atlantic, over 3 million came ashore after 1808. How slavers conducted their trade changed greatly after 1808, reducing the journey with faster vessels that could outrun the Royal Navy became a necessity for example which in turn caused a decrease in survival rates for the slaves making the journey, meaning we'll never know how many more hundreds of thousands, if not millions were lost at sea in that very brief 60 year stretch of time. The amount of carnage in terms of body count is staggering.

 

Late 1400's? Who did Columbus sell his slaves to, the Seminoles?

 

The European slave trade in Africa began roughly in 1441, well before they started taking the slaves across the Atlantic. However, Columbus brought slaves back from the New World (Caribs) for enslavement in Spain, beginning the Atlantic slave trade, albeit not the African one. I should have been more specific, apologies. Just again, for clarification, when I'm specifically discussing the African slave trade, across the Americas, not just in the slave holding colonies / Confederacy.

Edited June 26, 2015 by GreggyT

[unbillievable]

Taking guns from Americans is like taking vodka from Russians.

 

Trying to relate statistics with dissimilar cultures is dishonest.. There are just some things you can't accurately compare against other countries. Enacting the exact same gun laws as (for example) Europe will not yield the same results. The best indicators can be found within the USA, in places like Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit...

[truth on hold]

Taking guns from Americans is like taking vodka from Russians.

 

Trying to relate statistics with dissimilar cultures is dishonest.. There are just some things you can't accurately compare against other countries. Enacting the exact same gun laws as (for example) Europe will not yield the same results. The best indicators can be found within the USA, in places like Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit...

Makes no sense. Given portability the only effective gun law would be nationally instituted. Saying you can judge the efficacy of gun laws by citing Chicago which is surrounded by counties where guns can be purchased and easily taken into Chicago, is about as meaningful as regulating them in only one suburb of buffalo. Edited June 26, 2015 by JTSP

[3rdnlng]

 

How would the US census data bear anything out in this regard? For clarity's sake, my posts are not about slavery in just the colonies / America, but the entirety of the trade itself in the Americas. The slaves were not coming into American ports, they were going to Cuba and Brazil predominately -- and then, as you said, there was an extensive "illegal" network across the Caribbean -- but the census does nothing to shed light on how many slaves were being transported from Africa every year. Ship manifests and port manifests from Brazil and Cuba do however. They're unmistakable proof that of the 12 million slaves (at least that many) that crossed the Atlantic, over 3 million came ashore after 1808. How slavers conducted their trade changed greatly after 1808, reducing the journey with faster vessels that could outrun the Royal Navy became a necessity for example which in turn caused a decrease in survival rates for the slaves making the journey, meaning we'll never know how many more hundreds of thousands, if not millions were lost at sea in that very brief 60 year stretch of time. The amount of carnage in terms of body count is staggering.

 

 

The European slave trade in Africa began roughly in 1441, well before they started taking the slaves across the Atlantic. However, Columbus brought slaves back from the New World (Caribs) for enslavement in Spain, beginning the Atlantic slave trade, albeit not the African one. I should have been more specific, apologies. Just again, for clarification, when I'm specifically discussing the African slave trade, across the Americas, not just in the slave holding colonies / Confederacy.

Just busting your balls. I have enjoyed the comments here. but am getting bored with the repetiveness. (of the thread, not you)

Edited June 26, 2015 by 3rdnlng

[Alaska Darin]

Makes no sense. Given portability the only effective gun law would be nationally instituted. Saying you can judge the efficacy of gun laws by citing Chicago which is surrounded by counties where guns can be purchased and easily taken into Chicago, is about as meaningful as regulating them in only one suburb of buffalo.

What makes no sense is the liberal inability to face history and the volumes of data present that show prohibition doesn't stop criminals from doing what they do.

[Gary M]

What makes no sense is the liberal inability to face history and the volumes of data present that show prohibition doesn't stop criminals from doing what they do.

 

Prohibition was a great success, so was the war on drugs!!!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

Prohibition was a great success, so was the war on drugs!!!

 

Don't get me started on THAT topic.

 

 

I still like the guy in the thread who called me a liberal, when I'm somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.

Edited June 26, 2015 by joesixpack

[Gary M]

Good thing they don't allow open carry in France!!! So Much safer than the USA!

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/06/26/man-beheaded-in-apparent-terror-attack-at-factory-in-france-local-media-say/

 

 

Wow, even in Tunisia!!!

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/06/26/gunmen-kill-at-least-1-in-tunisia-beach-attack/

 

Maybe they didn't see the "Gun free Zone" signs!!!!

Edited June 26, 2015 by Gary M

[FireChan]

 

Don't get me started on THAT topic.

 

 

I still like the guy in the thread who called me a liberal, when I'm somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun.

It was because you used the cowardly tactic of calling someone a racist when they disagreed with you.

[GG]

The Constitution of the USA gave states the right to secede no matter what. It wasn't a "right to secede, only if you aren't doing bad stuff."

 

Both sides in the Civil War were wrong. Even if the Union did some good things along the way.

 

There's clearly a lesser wrong on one side than the other.

[Magox]

For some, morality doesn't factor in to the equation. The argument basically is "Who are you to be the arbiter of what is morally just? Only the Constitution and the proper order of the three branches of government are to be considered, nothing else."

 

Well, that simply ignores the potential unjust actions that could occur within those parameters. If something is blatantly inequitable or prejudicial, then there is a moral responsibility to fix that injustice. Obviously, it does present a slippery slope, because it begs the question of where do you draw the line? I understand that, but in this case, it was unequivocal. The Confederacy under the guise of State's rights wanted to continue to denigrate African American's and maintain them as Slaves, hence the secession. Make no mistake, the core issue of the civil war for most of the representative states under the Confederacy was about slavery and they were not going to have some damn Yankee Republican tell them how to conduct their business.

[Rob's House]

For some, morality doesn't factor in to the equation. The argument basically is "Who are you to be the arbiter of what is morally just? Only the Constitution and the proper order of the three branches of government are to be considered, nothing else."

 

Well, that simply ignores the potential unjust actions that could occur within those parameters. If something is blatantly inequitable or prejudicial, then there is a moral responsibility to fix that injustice. Obviously, it does present a slippery slope, because it begs the question of where do you draw the line? I understand that, but in this case, it was unequivocal. The Confederacy under the guise of State's rights wanted to continue to denigrate African American's and maintain them as Slaves, hence the secession. Make no mistake, the core issue of the civil war for most of the representative states under the Confederacy was about slavery and they were not going to have some damn Yankee Republican tell them how to conduct their business.

That's why when he emancipated the slaves it was only in the territories that had seceded and not the ones that were under his jurisdiction. He was ok with allowing their continued denigration of "African Americans."

 

Tell us the one about how Lincoln saw "African Americans" as his equals again. Your take on this is so cute.

[Magox]

That's why when he emancipated the slaves it was only in the territories that had seceded and not the ones that were under his jurisdiction. He was ok with allowing their continued denigration of "African Americans."

 

Tell us the one about how Lincoln saw "African Americans" as his equals again. Your take on this is so cute.

 

I'll tell you what else is cute, is your ignorance.

 

You make this too easy. Are you insinuating that Lincoln's stated goal through the Emancipation was to just free Slaves in the South, and allow slavery to continue in the north? Is that what you are truly trying to say, numbskull?

 

That's odd, maybe you are familiar with the 13th Amendment? Obviously not. The Emancipation was an executive order to take place immediately., the thirteenth Amendment was something that was done through the traditional channels of Government, barely a year later.

 

 

Please, keep embarrassing yourself. Post more

[Rob's House]

 

I'll tell you what else is cute, is your ignorance.

 

You make this too easy. Are you insinuating that Lincoln's stated goal through the Emancipation was to just free Slaves in the South, and allow slavery to continue in the north? Is that what you are truly trying to say, numbskull?

 

That's odd, maybe you are familiar with the 13th Amendment? Obviously not. The Emancipation was an executive order to take place immediately., the thirteenth Amendment was something that was done through the traditional channels of Government, barely a year later.

 

 

Please, keep embarrassing yourself. Post more

What's cute is your naivete. Your version sounds like something a 3rd grade teacher with a major in education would say.

 

I've talked at length with multiple historians of all different persuasions who have forgotten more about this subject than you will ever know, and not one of those people has ever attributed Lincoln's actions to a belief in, or a desire to see, the equality of "African Americans".

 

Your argument seems to be that because slavery was the core issue of the war (which I'll accept for the purposes of this argument) that it necessarily follows that Lincoln was on a moral crusade for racial equality. That's quite a leap across a logical canyon you have yet to bridge. You've discounted all other possible motivations out of hand without further explanation.

 

In short, no serious person I've ever encountered discusses this topic in such simplistic absolutes as you.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Rob's House