Southern Secession

Was his name Larry Hewitt?

 

You're counting entire families as "slave owners". That's not the correct way to define slave owners. The kids of that family didn't own slaves, unless the parents died and even then your numbers are still wrong.

 

Conservatives oppose slavery, all slavery, even slavery given another name to hide the fact that it's really slavery. In our time, it's called conformity and conformity is one of the Left's demands of the people.

 

Because it isn't true to claim that slavery was the specific reason.

 

It's irrelevant what flag they fly. The fact is, one you were incorrect upon, is that the Battle Flag was never the Confederate National Flag.

If you're going to post comments about history, you're obligated to be accurate. If you post inaccurate comments then every claim in your post is the fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

It was the specific reason for secession. And the South said so. Repeatedly. I'm sorry the facts are inconvenient for your agenda.

 

It was a reason, not the reason.

Do some research and stop posting historical lies.

 

It was the only specific reason they specifically provided.

I've done far, far, far more research than you and have a long history of posting primary sources. You've offered none. Hell, you didn't even know when the Morrill Tariff passed. Take your own advice and try, just for a few minutes, to do some actual homework.

The fact that you think that citing the South's OWN WORDS is a "historical lie" is worse than pathetic.

 

Slaveholding went like this:



https://studycivilwar.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/extent-1.jpg

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/the-extent-of-slave-ownership-in-the-united-states-in-1860/

Typically, the oldest male owned the slave(s). Slaveholder families were large.

You weren't sovereign because you were subject to the U.S. Constitution. Except for a few states like Texas and California, you were formed from U.S. territory unless you were one of the 13 colonies.

You were an Ohioan, but you have no claim to sovereignty.

The way out? An act of Congress.

Sketchy thinking. Read the Constitution. There is no specified exit.

The South thought the Union would see subjugating them wasn't worth it. The Union thought whipping the South would be easy. Both were wrong.

 

It wasn't the only reason, but we all know that you don't know that, because you haven't done your research.

The "South's own words"? Don't you mean the secessionists' own words? Not everyone in the South supported secession.

The notion that everyone in the South supported secession is one of the biggest myths of the Civil War.

 

You oppose workers joining unions and bargaining collectively.

 

No I don't. I challenge you to find a post where I say that I do.

 

We're waiting.

 

Ahh. The 'Ole "they switched parties" nonsense.

Democrats have historically used minorities for power, control, and labor.

They are still doing it today.

 

This definitely would have resulted in a dramatically different United States.

Given that I am in favor of seeing a certain someone brought to justice, this is a tricky one for me to disagree with.

The US Civil War was baked in and inevitable, wasn't it?

Equality of men and all that, clearly lip service and rah rah to rally the creation of an immensely powerful Federal Government.

I suspect that the reason that treason wasn't pursued was primarily because those in power wanted to focus on Western expansion,
And put off the matter of justice for forever if possible.

The AG at the time recommended that Davis be tried for treason:

In late summer 1865, Attorney General James Speed determined that it was best to try Davis for treason in a civil trial.

Regarding heavy penalties against the South, it is my understanding that there is vast agreement that a similar tact taken toward Germany after the Great War led to WWII.

So, there is that to consider along with 10k other considerations, not insignificant among them being the treatment of the continent's indigenous population by the newly created Federal Government....

 

You've presented reasonably sound assertions and points of fact, up until these concluding statements, imo.

There was indeed a wave of redress toward the descendants of the slaves that took place for a time, peaking probably in the 70s.

Today, we have both Ds and Rs shifted to the right, with the D shift largely the result of Clinton's success at shifting D policies further right than R policies, much to the eternal consternation of ideological Rs that to this day cannot even recognize he implemented R policies across the board, and fooled folks into thinking he was cool by playing the sax wearing shades....

Well, actually, that was spectacularly cool, no way around it, taken on its own merits.



***
Curious though I am to read some followup thoughts from you regarding where we stand today on moving forward and perhaps a bit more of your thoughts on how the Southern Strategy led to less racism, but seemingly with Trump's Southern Support has rekindled it.

 

Name a single policy that Trump implemented that is racist. You're doing nothing more than regurgitating the left-wing media talking points that he was supposedly racist while President Biden is the one who said he didn't want his children growing up in a racial jungle and has a slew of racial quotes on record including the one most recently where he declared that if you don't vote for him you're not really black.

Imagine the collective aneurysm the progressive left would have had if Trump would have said that if Trump would have voted against desegregation via busing back in the day. Just imagine if Trump said he didn't want his children going to school in a racial jungle.

Now I don't want to distract from it so I'll ask you again to name a single racist policy that you feel that Trump is responsible for.

 

Do you support right-to-work laws?

 

They did. The Democratic Party got a lot darker.

That doesn't mean Southern whites didn't change parties.

 

I do. Those laws don't prohibit employees from organizing. Don't you support the right not to be forced to join a union? If an employee is forced to join a union, how is that freedom? That sounds like slavery, to me.

 

Then you don't know what slavery is. Which isn't surprising at this point.

 

Ah, yes, unions.

The organizations that demand non-members pay dues anyway. The same organizations that won't even let you carry your own materials (tables, equipment, etc.) into trade shows in certain places (NY, I'm looking at you, but it is probably the same elsewhere) because the union guys have to do it, but they have separate union guys for everything, so if the stuff carrying guys are there, they might, MIGHT, bring your stuff inside, for a fee, of course, but you can't plug it in yourself until the union plug-in guy shows up!

I'd prefer to negotiate my own deals, though the last few jobs I've had, the title determined your comp package, and it was a take-it-or-leave-it dealio. Maybe because of, oh, I don't know... Could it be... Unions????

 

They make it more difficult.

No one is forced to join a union.

Union membership = slavery?

 

That was legislated. Unions wanted to be able to negotiate union shop and closed shop agreements.

It's no surprise. But it is the right of free people to negotiate as a group.

Unions are useful to workers. They tend to negotiate better pay and working conditions.

 

The southern strategy led to less racism because people discovered that racism is uneconomic and inefficient. Once minorities get a piece of the pie, they learn that they can benefit greatly from "the system." The trouble is just about everyone, except those who inherit a fortune and have the rare good sense to use it well, must work to get there. You can't spend your life goofing off and think that it's going to turn out well. African-Americans who work to obtain useful skills can rise just as high as Whites. The Asians have proved that and even done better than Whites.

This gets me back to this "victimhood BS." Spending you time becoming convinced that Critical Race Theory or the 1619 Project has anything positive to give you in the future is crap. The past is past. There is something to be gained by learning about it, but allowing it to color your entire approach to life going forward is completely counterproductive.