My apologies to Rob Singer

[MisterV]

Northern whites were just as bad as southerners when it came to racism.

Slavery was the lifeblood of the South; it was forbidden in the North.

All blacks in the North were free men; yes menial work was their typical fate but there were some blacks who reached middle class economic status and in fact some were quite wealthy.

All ethnic groups who moved / emigrated to the North in the nineteenth century started at the bottom of the economic barrel; Italian, Pole, black.

Racism has prevented blacks from being incorporated into the mainstream of American life, but that sword cuts both ways: many blacks don't seem to want to be assimilated.

[mickeycrimm]

Like you yankees weren't racist. GTFO. Northerners didn't exactly invite blacks into their churches and schools after the civil war. The northern ghetto's were started because blacks had to stay in their own quarters separate from the whites. And they were given only the most menial jobs. Northern whites were just as bad as southerners when it came to racism.

I'm definitely quite confident that they weren't invited into the churches, so thank you for that! It's always nice to have your points made for you.

As far as the schools go, that's really something that I should know more about, but I don't. I would be interested to find out how all of that went down, in the North, and how long it took for Northern schools to be fully integrated. I'm certain that it wasn't as long as it took for the South, we didn't have Jim Crow laws, after all---but I'm sure it wasn't immediate in all areas. That's honestly probably a fair criticism.

Check out Boston in the 70's when they tried to integrate the schools. The whites busted out in riots.

[mickeycrimm]

Northern whites were just as bad as southerners when it came to racism.

Slavery was the lifeblood of the South; it was forbidden in the North.

All blacks in the North were free men; yes menial work was their typical fate but there were some blacks who reached middle class economic status and in fact some were quite wealthy.

All ethnic groups who moved / emigrated to the North in the nineteenth century started at the bottom of the economic barrel; Italian, Pole, black.

Racism has prevented blacks from being incorporated into the mainstream of American life, but that sword cuts both ways: many blacks don't seem to want to be assimilated.

Slavery died out in the north because it was no longer economically feasible. Some of the oldest northern companies made their money off the backs of slaves. The north and England had no problem buying slave produced products.

[Mission146]

Check out Boston in the 70's when they tried to integrate the schools. The whites busted out in riots.

I was actually aware of that one, but it's no huge secret that a great many people in Boston are impenitent racists. That's another city where I have no intention of ever visiting or spending any money.

[Mission146]

Slavery died out in the north because it was no longer economically feasible. Some of the oldest northern companies made their money off the backs of slaves. The north and England had no problem buying slave produced products.

I mean, they didn't until they did. I'm sure, being businessmen, they almost certainly had to realize that the abolishment of slavery would cause the cost of their raw materials purchased from the South to go up.

[Mission146]

If the point is that most were guilty to some extent, sure, point granted. I don't see how any of this supports the notion of there being an all-loving God. I don't see how any of this is a defense of organized religion. It seems that religious leaders and churches were frequently on the front lines defending horrible policies and acts, in the name of God, anytime that horrible social events took place---from the Inquisition to Slavery and even beyond that. Whether the question be social policy, or science, the religious institutions almost always come down on the wrong side of it.

More recently, you have the Catholic Church covering up for widespread child molestation. The Baptists have a tendency of being moral stalwarts, at least in what they say, on just about any subject you can think of...but also seem to be the ones most likely to protect their own and cover up for one another at the first sign of trouble.

The religious teachings on marriage are such that wives might as well be slaves, depending on the denomination. Some churches, again as a formal entity, would excommunicate a woman for divorcing her husband when he has been unfaithful to her.

With that said, everything is a tradeoff. If you want me to allow that the traditional family unit seems to yield the best economic results, on average, for children---sure, I'll grant that.

That being said, at some point, you have to pick your priorities. I tend to think that one of my main priorities is personal freedom, regardless of the consequences. If there's one thing that the more extreme denominations/churches seem not to be able to accept, it is that not everyone is going to believe in God, much less follow the word of God and they should have sufficient faith that God will sort out the wicked from the good, so the laws of the land need not do try to do that for God as long as nobody is being harmed by the unholy act in question.

Obviously, it also depends on how individual churches, and perhaps ministers, want to teach the Bible. It's a matter of interpretation, of course, but it's also something of a matter of what passages the churches want to focus on and how the message is delivered. 1 Timothy almost totally contradicts 2 Timothy, in this regard, but you don't seem inclined to get into much of a discussion as to the various verses...as I have cited a few.

[mickeycrimm]

I just think itÂ’s amazing how much people who love to use stereotypes hate them going the other way, particularly those backed up with some facts.

Thank you. Yes, I did a pretty good job of countering false narratives here.

[mickeycrimm]

Slavery died out in the north because it was no longer economically feasible. Some of the oldest northern companies made their money off the backs of slaves. The north and England had no problem buying slave produced products.

I mean, they didn't until they did. I'm sure, being businessmen, they almost certainly had to realize that the abolishment of slavery would cause the cost of their raw materials purchased from the South to go up.

There was plenty of opposition in the north to Lincoln's war. There was a significant peace movement. The term "war democrat" was coined for dems that supported the war. The copperheads (peace democrats) believed the war was unjustified and unconstitutional. The party was pretty much split down the middle.

Perhaps you never heard of the New York Drafts Riots. Lincoln was condemned in several quarters for the "conquest and subjugation of the south."

There was opposition to the Emancipation Proclamation because it could cause union soldiers to think they were fighting to end slavery. The troops thought the objective of the war was to preserve the union and the Proclamation could demoralize; cause them to blame slaves for the war.

[Mission146]

I just think itÂ’s amazing how much people who love to use stereotypes hate them going the other way, particularly those backed up with some facts.

Thank you. Yes, I did a pretty good job of countering false narratives here.

When did that happen?

[Mission146]

There was plenty of opposition in the north to Lincoln's war. There was a significant peace movement. The term "war democrat" was coined for dems that supported the war. The copperheads (peace democrats) believed the war was unjustified and unconstitutional. The party was pretty much split down the middle.

Perhaps you never heard of the New York Drafts Riots. Lincoln was condemned in several quarters for the "conquest and subjugation of the south."

There was opposition to the Emancipation Proclamation because it could cause union soldiers to think they were fighting to end slavery. The troops thought the objective of the war was to preserve the union and the Proclamation could demoralize; cause them to blame slaves for the war.

Of course, there was opposition to any move to eliminate the institution of slavery in the north as well as the south. In fact, I just finished reading a book about a viable assassination attempt that was to be made on Lincoln (in Baltimore) before he even got into office and Maryland didn't even secede from the Union. Of course, many of the individuals involved weren't from Maryland, but many of them were.

In any event, it's not my opinion that every single person in the north was an angel.

What do you have to say about Fort Sumter, anyway? Is it your opinion that the attack was not an attack of war, or that only South Carolina should have been held responsible for the attack?

Another funny thing is that it was the fact that the Democratic Party was so fractured, because of the issue of slavery, of course, that even enabled the relatively unknown Lincoln to win to begin with. Why were they fractured, specifically---the answer to that is that it had to do with the stance on pushing expanding slavery into the new territories.

With that, even if you think it's acceptable for a state to secede on the grounds of the POTUS not being who they want it to be, the only reason the Democrats didn't win the Presidency is because they couldn't get their own shit together internally and ended up running multiple Democratic candidates.

[mickeycrimm]

There was plenty of opposition in the north to Lincoln's war. There was a significant peace movement. The term "war democrat" was coined for dems that supported the war. The copperheads (peace democrats) believed the war was unjustified and unconstitutional. The party was pretty much split down the middle.

Perhaps you never heard of the New York Drafts Riots. Lincoln was condemned in several quarters for the "conquest and subjugation of the south."

There was opposition to the Emancipation Proclamation because it could cause union soldiers to think they were fighting to end slavery. The troops thought the objective of the war was to preserve the union and the Proclamation could demoralize; cause them to blame slaves for the war.

Of course, there was opposition to any move to eliminate the institution of slavery in the north as well as the south. In fact, I just finished reading a book about a viable assassination attempt that was to be made on Lincoln (in Baltimore) before he even got into office and Maryland didn't even secede from the Union. Of course, many of the individuals involved weren't from Maryland, but many of them were.

In any event, it's not my opinion that every single person in the north was an angel.

What do you have to say about Fort Sumter, anyway? Is it your opinion that the attack was not an attack of war, or that only South Carolina should have been held responsible for the attack?

Another funny thing is that it was the fact that the Democratic Party was so fractured, because of the issue of slavery, of course, that even enabled the relatively unknown Lincoln to win to begin with. Why were they fractured, specifically---the answer to that is that it had to do with the stance on pushing expanding slavery into the new territories.

With that, even if you think it's acceptable for a state to secede on the grounds of the POTUS not being who they want it to be, the only reason the Democrats didn't win the Presidency is because they couldn't get their own shit together internally and ended up running multiple Democratic candidates.

Nothing in the constitution made secession illegal. The north ignored the constitution to do what they did. Fort Sumter was considered an illegal occupation by South Carolinians since they had seceded and wanted all union troops out. But in hindsight it gave northern war hawks a pretext so probably a mistake.

[Mission146]

Nothing in the constitution made secession illegal. The north ignored the constitution to do what they did. Fort Sumter was considered an illegal occupation by South Carolinians since they had seceded and wanted all union troops out. But in hindsight it gave northern war hawks a pretext so probably a mistake.

You're Bradydamn right that it was a mistake.

There are certain formal processes that would have to take place if you were going to allow South Carolina (and others) to secede in a way that would at least be acceptable to all parties involved---and attacking United States Government holdings is sure as shit not the way to do it.

You can't even call it an illegal occupation because the U.S. Government already had a fort there. It's not as if South Carolina seceded and the United States sent troops to a fort that had never housed U.S. troops before.

In fact, let's look into that in the light most favorable to South Carolina, from the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

Okay, so we start with the fact that their logic is that electing a POTUS who did not want to expand slavery into the new territories is tantamount to the Government becoming destructive of the ends for which it was established. That ignores, of course, the fact that South Carolina was NOT one of the new territories, so for the time being, what happened in the new territories had nothing directly to do with them.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Okay, so they are pissed off that slavery is not expanding into the new territories AND because the north has become hostile to the Fourth Article that called, effectively, for slaves to be returned to the state that they escaped from was not being done.

The following paragraph states:

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

Further down:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

AND:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

AND:

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

In an official document, not only did South Carolina use the institution of religion to defend slavery, but further defined the notion that slaves should be freed as, "Erroneous religious belief!" I honestly wouldn't have believed even this if I hadn't went looking into the deeper history of South Carolina, specifically. South Carolina, as a would-be sovereign, maintained that, pursuant to Christianity...freeing the slaves was religiously wrong!

That stands on its own. I don't even need to offer additional commentary.

Would you like to tell me more about how the Civil War was NOT about slavery, or should we go ahead and dust off the Confederate Constitution for examples that I already know are there?

[Mission146]

You literally could have told me that the document said precisely that and I would have said, "There's no fucking way," without seeing it for myself.

[redietz]

In academia, being correct is what makes or breaks you. You would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of history academics defending the notion that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery.

What gets lost sometimes is the international tide had already turned against slavery. The U.S. was slow to move.

The national anthem -- if you're black, you really shouldn't be standing for it. Just read the third stanza. Of course, this begs the question, why should anyone be standing for it? The third stanza seems pretty blatant to me.

[monet]

In academia, being correct is what makes or breaks you. You would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of history academics defending the notion that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery.

What gets lost sometimes is the international tide had already turned against slavery. The U.S. was slow to move.

The national anthem -- if you're black, you really shouldn't be standing for it. Just read the third stanza. Of course, this begs the question, why should anyone be standing for it? The third stanza seems pretty blatant to me.

Fucking More Commie Talk!
That's why you stay on this site so you can spew your Commie Bullshit.
Free Speech Sites are nice aren't they?

[Mission146]

In academia, being correct is what makes or breaks you. You would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of history academics defending the notion that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery.

What gets lost sometimes is the international tide had already turned against slavery. The U.S. was slow to move.

The national anthem -- if you're black, you really shouldn't be standing for it. Just read the third stanza. Of course, this begs the question, why should anyone be standing for it? The third stanza seems pretty blatant to me.

If a person thinks that he/she should stand for the anthem, then that person should, if a person thinks that he/she should not, then they should not. I really don't look at it as a group of people, "Should," or, "Should not," it's a personal choice.

[smurgerburger]

In academia, being correct is what makes or breaks you.

This doesn't seem to be logically possible given the endless cycle of academic fashion. If whatever opinions prevail now are correct, then the 'successful' academics of the past were all incorrect.

[redietz]

In academia, being correct is what makes or breaks you. You would be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of history academics defending the notion that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery.

What gets lost sometimes is the international tide had already turned against slavery. The U.S. was slow to move.

The national anthem -- if you're black, you really shouldn't be standing for it. Just read the third stanza. Of course, this begs the question, why should anyone be standing for it? The third stanza seems pretty blatant to me.

If a person thinks that he/she should stand for the anthem, then that person should, if a person thinks that he/she should not, then they should not. I really don't look at it as a group of people, "Should," or, "Should not," it's a personal choice.

The third stanza is warning blacks who are considering fleeing their owners to fight on the side of Great Britain. It warns them they will be tracked down and killed -- I think that's the most obvious interpretation.

Now what makes it ironic is that Great Britain, as most places at the time, was transitioning out of slavery piecemeal. So had black slaves decided to flee their American owners and fight for Great Britain, there was a very good chance they would be fighting as free men for the Brits. Meanwhile, staying with the slave owners meant they had no freedom. Thus, the third stanza has the ironic effect of arguing that slaves should not fight for their freedom while white Americans are ostensibly fighting for theirs versus the Brits.

The third stanza therefore clearly supports slavery as an American institution. It warns that those slaves who prefer taking a chance at British freedom will be hunted and killed for their audacity to pursue freedom.

Just a bit of a double standard. Tough to stomach as a national anthem.

[Mission146]

In academia, being correct is what makes or breaks you.

This doesn't seem to be logically possible given the endless cycle of academic fashion. If whatever opinions prevail now are correct, then the 'successful' academics of the past were all incorrect.

I tend to agree that it's an erroneous statement to make so broadly, but I think that Redietz is referring to the academic disciplines in which backing one's assertions up with either proof or strong evidence is important. In the context of the present conversation, the difference between history and sociology, if you will.

[redietz]

In academia, being correct is what makes or breaks you.

This doesn't seem to be logically possible given the endless cycle of academic fashion. If whatever opinions prevail now are correct, then the 'successful' academics of the past were all incorrect.

I tend to agree that it's an erroneous statement to make so broadly, but I think that Redietz is referring to the academic disciplines in which backing one's assertions up with either proof or strong evidence is important. In the context of the present conversation, the difference between history and sociology, if you will.

If (pardon me, I should have said, in your lifetime) you posit something and it turns out to be dead wrong, then you pay a price. You get thrown onto the slag heap. People hesitate to publish your papers, you become a dead-ender, your personal academic trajectory gets deep sixed. People associated with you get castigated for poor judgement.