My apologies to Rob Singer

[mickeycrimm]

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.

You failed to mention the 3rd stanza was cut out of the song long ago.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

The original star spangled banner and the national anthem are two different entities. The star spangled banner song that became the national anthem in 1930 did not include the 3rd stanza. So the 3rd stanza has never been part of the national anthem.

[monet]

You failed to mention the 3rd stanza was cut out of the song long ago.

Don't give them facts mickeycrimm.
These people want to keep slavery alive, they enjoy the constant conflict.
While the rest of us, black or white have moved on.

[jbjb]

It's obvious you people have no friends.

[smurgerburger]

The third stanza (which I'd never read before), is retrospective. It is boasting that the band of persons who disloyally sided with Britain which it characterizes as "hirelings and slaves" will now be tracked down and violently punished.

What is the complaint here besides the unfashionable (there I go again) brutality? Seems like standard wartime patriotic sentiment.

If the slaves go over to the side which would provide their freedom, they are to be tracked down and killed. They are to remain steadfast so white Americans can maintain their own freedoms.


https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/...r-and-slavery/

And? Also how do the hirelings fit into your racialist reading?

[Mission146]

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.

In the north blacks were segregated in both housing and schools for well over a hundred years after the civil war ended. Whites simply wouldn't rent or sell a house in a white neighborhood to blacks. When they started integrating the city schools in the 1970's whites took their kids and fled to the suburbs. Integration of city schools was the single biggest reason for the massive expansion of the suburbs. The whites went where blacks couldn't afford to live.

Cut to the 80's and 90's and their was actually a black migration back to the south. Job opportunities and blacks saying southern whites were honest about their racism while northern whites were just as racist but pretended not to be.

I seen a Youtube video not long ago about a neighborhood in San Jose, California, one of the most liberal bastions in this country. They didn't have any low income housing so there was a proposal to build a 60 unit low income housing complex.

At the hearing before the city council white liberal after white liberal stood up and said something like "I'm not prejudiced but....this would not be a good fit for our community." So many white liberal assholes were against it that they canceled it.

That's the type of shit you run into all over the north. White liberals telling everyone just how unprejudiced they are. But watch what happens when you try to put low income and/or minorities in their neighborhood. Hypocrites.

So instead of maligning southerners you need to clean up your own backyard.

You're not telling me anything I don't know about the North, though I will say that the concept/expansion of the suburbs I have mostly heard attributed to post World War II and needing to throw up some houses for families relatively quickly. There was definitely some ZIP code based discrimination there, no doubt about it.

I still don't remember the part where the Northern states seceded from the Union because they thought the writing was on the wall for the inevitability of not being allowed to own slaves anymore.

You don't have to tell me anything about those smug, suburbanite, yuppies. In my experience, the people who tend to be the most vocal about something are often the least likely to be doing anything to actually help people on the ground and they're no exception---especially their college aged kids---what could those idiots even help with if they wanted to? They're sure as shit not going to go out and volunteer to do something that is actually of benefit to other people. You should consider it no wonder that so many white suburbanites (and women are worse on this) think that they're in any position to speak about black people or black culture. HA! What would they know about black culture? I could probably count the number of black people these suburban pretenders have known by name on one hand---at least, for most of them. They're hypocrites of the highest order.

But, then, I honestly look at Far Left and organized religion (particularly Evangelicals) pretty much the same way. Both are dogmatic and demand strict conformity in values---at least what values they claim to have---whether or not they uphold them (typically not) is another matter.

Meantime, as an adult, I preferred hanging out in black bars to white ones and, if I were going to visit a church, I'd make it a black church. Black churches are actually kind of fun, more of a celebration of life than anything...especially compared to a bunch of doom-and-gloom White Evangelicals. As far as the bars go, I've found the black bars to not only be more fun and welcoming, but they also tend to have cheaper prices. It's funny---most of these suburbanites who are just oh so Liberal and inclusive would piss themselves just to walk into half of these bars...not that you'd ever see any of those sanctimonious cunts in the neighborhood to begin with.

And, even with that, I still know next to nothing about black culture myself---I just don't have a problem hanging out with black people and actually prefer their company, depending on the establishment in question.

[Mission146]

Southern states no longer wanted to be in the Union and northern states were against secessation. Categorically the Union troops were fighting to preserve the Union, not to free slaves. The non-slaveholding yeoman farmers that served in the confederacy (90% of the troops) were not fighting to uphold slavery. They didn't give a rats ass about a rich man owning slaves. They were fighting to protect their homes, families and rights, from an invading force.

Now, you can say the elites on both sides thought things came down to slavery. But that was not the case for the common people that made up the bulk of the population.

In that event, maybe current Southerners should realize why the war took place and cease and desist with the flying of anything that isn't the American flag or the flag of their own state. Shit, maybe even fly the flags of other countries, instead, because at least those have been recognized by someone else in the world as countries.

Anyway, that just makes the war the same as any other war---the working classes do the bidding of the class in power. In the case of the South, the class in power wanted to make sure that the Institution of Slavery was maintained, ergo, the war was fought over slavery.

The Union was not an, "Invading force," and even if they were, it was the South that goaded them into coming down and whipping that ass.

Not that secession could have ever been rationalized, but this is the course of events that may have given the South a chance:

1.) Do not secede immediately as a result of the President-Elect being someone you don't like because the President-Elect won:

A.) Pursuant to the rules that you agreed to.

AND:

B.) Mostly because the Democrats managed to fracture themselves on the issue of slavery expanding into the new territories.

2.) Do not secede until your rights as a state are actually being threatened. If the question of slavery in the new territories is going before Congress, then again, those are the rules that the South agreed to. Obviously, the new territories eventually become states and then there is eventually a Constitutional Amendment, with no slave-state support, that gets passed to outlaw slavery---so secede when that happens.

Basically, they seceded over an event (Lincoln winning) that their own party helped effectuate by virtue of not getting its own shit together.

3.) Fort Sumter was a colossal mistake. There might have been a way that S.C. (and others) could have sent delegations to D.C. and a secession could have been done peacefully. It might have even been able to have been done in such a way that the two countries could remain allies so that not much actually really changes except for the two areas of the country having their own Governments.

I think that becomes even more likely if they take the time to get other states on board with them.

In the short term, you just send a delegation to D.C. to request that the Union do nothing to increase its military presence in the state. You can't arbitrarily declare that the Union forces, who were already there, become an invading force the second that you announce that you have seceded. You have no legal right to demand that they leave before even being recognized as a sovereign.

In any case, not that their cause would have ever been just as it never would have NOT been about slavery...but there's a way that they could have done things that would have had, if not merit, at least more than zero defensibility.

[mickeycrimm]

Southern states no longer wanted to be in the Union and northern states were against secessation. Categorically the Union troops were fighting to preserve the Union, not to free slaves. The non-slaveholding yeoman farmers that served in the confederacy (90% of the troops) were not fighting to uphold slavery. They didn't give a rats ass about a rich man owning slaves. They were fighting to protect their homes, families and rights, from an invading force.

Now, you can say the elites on both sides thought things came down to slavery. But that was not the case for the common people that made up the bulk of the population.

In that event, maybe current Southerners should realize why the war took place and cease and desist with the flying of anything that isn't the American flag or the flag of their own state. Shit, maybe even fly the flags of other countries, instead, because at least those have been recognized by someone else in the world as countries.

Anyway, that just makes the war the same as any other war---the working classes do the bidding of the class in power. In the case of the South, the class in power wanted to make sure that the Institution of Slavery was maintained, ergo, the war was fought over slavery.

The Union was not an, "Invading force," and even if they were, it was the South that goaded them into coming down and whipping that ass.

Not that secession could have ever been rationalized, but this is the course of events that may have given the South a chance:

1.) Do not secede immediately as a result of the President-Elect being someone you don't like because the President-Elect won:

A.) Pursuant to the rules that you agreed to.

AND:

B.) Mostly because the Democrats managed to fracture themselves on the issue of slavery expanding into the new territories.

2.) Do not secede until your rights as a state are actually being threatened. If the question of slavery in the new territories is going before Congress, then again, those are the rules that the South agreed to. Obviously, the new territories eventually become states and then there is eventually a Constitutional Amendment, with no slave-state support, that gets passed to outlaw slavery---so secede when that happens.

Basically, they seceded over an event (Lincoln winning) that their own party helped effectuate by virtue of not getting its own shit together.

3.) Fort Sumter was a colossal mistake. There might have been a way that S.C. (and others) could have sent delegations to D.C. and a secession could have been done peacefully. It might have even been able to have been done in such a way that the two countries could remain allies so that not much actually really changes except for the two areas of the country having their own Governments.

I think that becomes even more likely if they take the time to get other states on board with them.

In the short term, you just send a delegation to D.C. to request that the Union do nothing to increase its military presence in the state. You can't arbitrarily declare that the Union forces, who were already there, become an invading force the second that you announce that you have seceded. You have no legal right to demand that they leave before even being recognized as a sovereign.

In any case, not that their cause would have ever been just as it never would have NOT been about slavery...but there's a way that they could have done things that would have had, if not merit, at least more than zero defensibility.

South Carolinians fired on Sumter, not the other southern states. The north unconstitutionally invaded the south. And as far as whipping ass goes you obviously haven't read the battle history of the Civil War. You yankees lost almost all the battles and had to keep drafting more and more farm boys and sending them down to get killed. Northern generals found out quick the southerners fought hard. Lincoln ran thru failed general after failed general until he found a drunk, Grant, that would fight a war of attrition and continually throw up men to the slaughter.

Whipping that ass? LOLOLOL!!!! 360K yankees killed to 260K confederates killed. Was that 360K killed worth it to the families of those killed?

[Mission146]

South Carolinians fired on Sumter, not the other southern states. The north unconstitutionally invaded the south. And as far as whipping ass goes you obviously haven't read the battle history of the Civil War. You yankees lost almost all the battles and had to keep drafting more and more farm boys and sending them down to get killed. Northern generals found out quick the southerners fought hard. Lincoln ran thru failed general after failed general until he found a drunk, Grant, that would fight a war of attrition and continually throw up men to the slaughter.

Whipping that ass? LOLOLOL!!!! 360K yankees killed to 260K confederates killed. Was that 360K killed worth it to the families of those killed?

South Carolinians fired on Sumter and, as opposed to the other Southern states rebuking that behavior, they seceded right along with them. They can't invade somewhere where they already were and, if you're referring to the fact that they went down there and killed people guilty of treason, killing people who are guilty of treason is not an illegal invasion.

You'd have to go ask the families.

Anyway, listen to you over there. I've never heard anyone be more in the bag for the Confederacy than you are. The North whipped that ass! Sherman stormed through The South and destroyed everything in sight. The only mistake that the North made was to leave any of the male soldiers in The South alive to live to tell about it---because then you get conversations like this where you're actually trying to defend the South's actions while, simultaneously, admitting that Jefferson Davis was on the wrong side of history and that the Southern elites seceded due to the slavery issue.

What happened when the South tried to come up here? Gettysburg happened.

What happened when the North went down there?

Sherman neckties happened, son! And burning down fucking everything in sight. That's what happens when you commit treason, or should happen, anyway.

[tableplay]

I seen a Youtube video not long ago about a neighborhood in San Jose, California, one of the most liberal bastions in this country. They didn't have any low income housing so there was a proposal to build a 60 unit low income housing complex.

At the hearing before the city council white liberal after white liberal stood up and said something like "I'm not prejudiced but....this would not be a good fit for our community." So many white liberal assholes were against it that they canceled it.

On their way to into Starbucks (those that aren't waiting in the drive-thru in their SUVs), they sometimes have to sidestep homeless people.
They've also made sure that the oil refinery (Chevron) is in Richmond,California (https://www.csb.gov/chevron-refinery-fire/). Most people in Richmond don't have two nickels to scrape together.

[redietz]

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.

The original star spangled banner and the national anthem are two different entities. The star spangled banner song that became the national anthem in 1930 did not include the 3rd stanza. So the 3rd stanza has never been part of the national anthem.

This goes back to my analogy of NWA performing at the SB by having the NFL contractually skip the stanza about "killing the pigs whenever you can." Does that really fly, mickey? As in "The song NWA performed is a different entity from the one they wrote."

I don't think there's any question that The Star Spangled Banner is racist as written.

Your argument would certainly set an interesting precedent. Any work of poetry or fiction could be retro-edited by a non-author and absolved of any original meaning. Picture the New Testament without the chapters where Jesus rises from the dead.

[MisterV]

While the results of the Civil War are a fait accompli and cannot be undone, one issue about the conflict still bothers me, i.e. what legal right did the north have to object to the south wishing to secede and leave the union?

The US Constitution seems silent on this point.

Given the absence of guidance on this matter I should think that common sense would be helpful; in that instance the US was created by a voluntary union of individual states, so why shouldn't states later be permitted to leave the union if they so choose?

In the end I suspect it came down to power politics; not so much that the north valued the intrinsic value of the south so much as they didn't want a new neighbor whose values differed drastically from their own, whom it was feared might later seek to force those values (e.g. slavery) upon others.

What if today the nascent Pac NW succession movement gains steam, how can it be addressed and what would be the likely outcome?

Why should groups of people be forced to remain under a government if most of them do not want that?

Hello, freedom to choose.

[Mission146]

While the results of the Civil War are a fait accompli and cannot be undone, one issue about the conflict still bothers me, i.e. what legal right did the north have to object to the south wishing to secede and leave the union?

The US Constitution seems silent on this point.

Given the absence of guidance on this matter I should think that common sense would be helpful; in that instance the US was created by a voluntary union of individual states, so why shouldn't states later be permitted to leave the union if they so choose?

In the end I suspect it came down to power politics; not so much that the north valued the intrinsic value of the south so much as they didn't want a new neighbor whose values differed drastically from their own, whom it was feared might later seek to force those values (e.g. slavery) upon others.

What if today the nascent Pac NW succession movement gains steam, how can it be addressed and what would be the likely outcome?

Why should groups of people be forced to remain under a government if most of them do not want that?

Hello, freedom to choose.

Probably none, until South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter and, from there, the other states joining in the Confederation were effectively joining a military force that had already demonstrated hostility towards the United States.

I made that point just a few posts ago---that there was a way they could have done it that might have at least been defensible. (Meaning legally/militarily)

Pacific Northwest secession!? Cool, see ya! (Not you, personally, the region)

[redietz]

While the results of the Civil War are a fait accompli and cannot be undone, one issue about the conflict still bothers me, i.e. what legal right did the north have to object to the south wishing to secede and leave the union?

The US Constitution seems silent on this point.

Given the absence of guidance on this matter I should think that common sense would be helpful; in that instance the US was created by a voluntary union of individual states, so why shouldn't states later be permitted to leave the union if they so choose?

In the end I suspect it came down to power politics; not so much that the north valued the intrinsic value of the south so much as they didn't want a new neighbor whose values differed drastically from their own, whom it was feared might later seek to force those values (e.g. slavery) upon others.

What if today the nascent Pac NW succession movement gains steam, how can it be addressed and what would be the likely outcome?

Why should groups of people be forced to remain under a government if most of them do not want that?

Hello, freedom to choose.

Outside of Texas, most of the secession-leaning current states won't do it. They rely too much on federal funds. Texas would have to pick up the tabs. Can you see how that would play out? Suddenly the states that can't support their own programs would become red-headed conservative stepchildren.

The secession-leaning states, in short order, would have to try to conquer the wealthy states to make their economies work. So Texas would have to declare war on California. Nevada would be the battleground state. I think I have a book plot here.

I would be willing to pay, maybe a third of my income, to see red states secede. The entertainment value would be off the charts.

[Mission146]

If that happened, I would drive out there and volunteer to fight in Oklahoma's militia, or whatever it would be called.

[monet]

On their way to into Starbucks (those that aren't waiting in the drive-thru in their SUVs), they sometimes have to sidestep homeless people.
They've also made sure that the oil refinery (Chevron) is in Richmond,California (https://www.csb.gov/chevron-refinery-fire/). Most people in Richmond don't have two nickels to scrape together.

A very Merry Christmas to you sir and have a Happy New Year too.

[dannyj]

While the results of the Civil War are a fait accompli and cannot be undone, one issue about the conflict still bothers me, i.e. what legal right did the north have to object to the south wishing to secede and leave the union?

The US Constitution seems silent on this point.

Given the absence of guidance on this matter I should think that common sense would be helpful; in that instance the US was created by a voluntary union of individual states, so why shouldn't states later be permitted to leave the union if they so choose?

In the end I suspect it came down to power politics; not so much that the north valued the intrinsic value of the south so much as they didn't want a new neighbor whose values differed drastically from their own, whom it was feared might later seek to force those values (e.g. slavery) upon others.

What if today the nascent Pac NW succession movement gains steam, how can it be addressed and what would be the likely outcome?

Why should groups of people be forced to remain under a government if most of them do not want that?

Hello, freedom to choose.

Probably none, until South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter and, from there, the other states joining in the Confederation were effectively joining a military force that had already demonstrated hostility towards the United States.

I made that point just a few posts ago---that there was a way they could have done it that might have at least been defensible. (Meaning legally/militarily)

Pacific Northwest secession!? Cool, see ya! (Not you, personally, the region)

The State Of Jefferson flags are pretty common where we're at in So. Oregon and even more along the 5 in No. California.

It'll never happen but I do like seeing the sentiment.

[MisterV]

When two spouses decide to split up they get divorced.

Why shouldn't states have the right to be divorced from the USA?

[Mission146]

When two spouses decide to split up they get divorced.

Why shouldn't states have the right to be divorced from the USA?

I'm not of the opinion that they shouldn't, but lacking a formal process by which that might be done, it would have to be something that is done with great care and consideration to all parties involved. Attacking United States Government holdings is, well, not that.

[MisterV]

The problem is there is simply no mechanism short of war to resolve such an issue.

Had Fort Sumtner not been fired upon, and had the south sought to resolve the secession issue "legally," there was no process in place, no roadmap, to allow their arguments to be heard and adjudicated.