Common sense

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
It seems to me like many Americans now are so ashamed of the history of slavery that they want to argue that it was not about slavery but about states rights.[/quote]

Brian: It doesn’t have anything to do with being ashamed of slavery. It has to do with the causes (note the plural) of the war, of which slavery was only one (but NOT the most important one).

And, yeah, State’s Rights were definitely in there (which, if you read “For Cause and Comrades”, you’ll see). Many Northern soldiers were as racist as their Southern counterparts, and, for this reason, the anti-slavery rationale for the war was played down by Union Army officers. While there were all-black units on the Union side, there were no black officers (the units were commanded by white officers) and most were not used in any meaningful fashion (with the exception of the 54th Massachusetts (seen in the movie “Glory”), which saw considerable action before being slaughtered in a pointless assault on an impregnable Southern citadel, Fort Wagner).

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk]

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

[/quote]

Ok I apologize. My point was obtuse and badly made.

It seems to me like many Americans now are so ashamed of the history of slavery that they want to argue that it was not about slavery but about states rights.[/quote]

And why are we so ashamed of it? Because we have had years of people using racism to divide and conquer. Slavery almost always comes up in these discussions and teachings in school like previously mentioned. Most white people have been thought or preached at to harbor some sort of “white guilt” even though none of us today had anything to do with slavery. Apparently, we are still suppose to have some responsibility for the actions of generations so far back I can’t even count. This is a whole separate topic we don’t have time to go into.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk]

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

[/quote]

Ok I apologize. My point was obtuse and badly made.

It seems to me like many Americans now are so ashamed of the history of slavery that they want to argue that it was not about slavery but about states rights.[/quote]

And why are we so ashamed of it? Because we have had years of people using racism to divide and conquer. Slavery almost always comes up in these discussions and teachings in school like previously mentioned. Most white people have been thought or preached at to harbor some sort of “white guilt” even though none of us today had anything to do with slavery. Apparently, we are still suppose to have some responsibility for the actions of generations so far back I can’t even count. This is a whole separate topic we don’t have time to go into.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk]

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

[/quote]

Ok I apologize. My point was obtuse and badly made.

It seems to me like many Americans now are so ashamed of the history of slavery that they want to argue that it was not about slavery but about states rights.[/quote]

And why are we so ashamed of it? Because we have had years of people using racism to divide and conquer. Slavery almost always comes up in these discussions and teachings in school like previously mentioned. Most white people have been thought or preached at to harbor some sort of “white guilt” even though none of us today had anything to do with slavery. Apparently, we are still suppose to have some responsibility for the actions of generations so far back I can’t even count. This is a whole separate topic we don’t have time to go into.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk]

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

[/quote]

Ok I apologize. My point was obtuse and badly made.

It seems to me like many Americans now are so ashamed of the history of slavery that they want to argue that it was not about slavery but about states rights.[/quote]

And why are we so ashamed of it? Because we have had years of people using racism to divide and conquer. Slavery almost always comes up in these discussions and teachings in school like previously mentioned. Most white people have been thought or preached at to harbor some sort of “white guilt” even though none of us today had anything to do with slavery. Apparently, we are still suppose to have some responsibility for the actions of generations so far back I can’t even count. This is a whole separate topic we don’t have time to go into.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk]

But Brian loses twenty points for the line about “the right” and Obama. Why do you insist on throwing these weak, worthless jabs into your posts?

[/quote]

Ok I apologize. My point was obtuse and badly made.

It seems to me like many Americans now are so ashamed of the history of slavery that they want to argue that it was not about slavery but about states rights.[/quote]

And why are we so ashamed of it? Because we have had years of people using racism to divide and conquer. Slavery almost always comes up in these discussions and teachings in school like previously mentioned. Most white people have been thought or preached at to harbor some sort of “white guilt” even though none of us today had anything to do with slavery. Apparently, we are still suppose to have some responsibility for the actions of generations so far back I can’t even count. This is a whole separate topic we don’t have time to go into.

[briansd1]

Let’s just say that slavery as the cause of the Civil War is debatable.

The Civil War was a chain of events.

I still think that the issue of slavery and its expansion led the Southern States to secede. And the North went to war to preserve the Union.

Could we say that the South’s secession caused the war? But that the War was fought over preserving the Union (from a northern point of view) and over self-determination (from a White Southern perspective)?

BTW, Allan, thanks for the book recommendations. I read some books on the Civil War some time back, but don’t have the incentive to read more. I’d rather read about globalization and economics that affect us today.

PS: I think this whole debate over the Civil War and state rights today has to do with how the Tea Party sees its role as fighting the oppressive powers of the Federal government.

The Tea Party wants historical links to justify its existence. Hence all the dress-up parties in historical garb.

[briansd1]

Let’s just say that slavery as the cause of the Civil War is debatable.

The Civil War was a chain of events.

I still think that the issue of slavery and its expansion led the Southern States to secede. And the North went to war to preserve the Union.

Could we say that the South’s secession caused the war? But that the War was fought over preserving the Union (from a northern point of view) and over self-determination (from a White Southern perspective)?

BTW, Allan, thanks for the book recommendations. I read some books on the Civil War some time back, but don’t have the incentive to read more. I’d rather read about globalization and economics that affect us today.

PS: I think this whole debate over the Civil War and state rights today has to do with how the Tea Party sees its role as fighting the oppressive powers of the Federal government.

The Tea Party wants historical links to justify its existence. Hence all the dress-up parties in historical garb.

[briansd1]

Let’s just say that slavery as the cause of the Civil War is debatable.

The Civil War was a chain of events.

I still think that the issue of slavery and its expansion led the Southern States to secede. And the North went to war to preserve the Union.

Could we say that the South’s secession caused the war? But that the War was fought over preserving the Union (from a northern point of view) and over self-determination (from a White Southern perspective)?

BTW, Allan, thanks for the book recommendations. I read some books on the Civil War some time back, but don’t have the incentive to read more. I’d rather read about globalization and economics that affect us today.

PS: I think this whole debate over the Civil War and state rights today has to do with how the Tea Party sees its role as fighting the oppressive powers of the Federal government.

The Tea Party wants historical links to justify its existence. Hence all the dress-up parties in historical garb.

[briansd1]

Let’s just say that slavery as the cause of the Civil War is debatable.

The Civil War was a chain of events.

I still think that the issue of slavery and its expansion led the Southern States to secede. And the North went to war to preserve the Union.

Could we say that the South’s secession caused the war? But that the War was fought over preserving the Union (from a northern point of view) and over self-determination (from a White Southern perspective)?

BTW, Allan, thanks for the book recommendations. I read some books on the Civil War some time back, but don’t have the incentive to read more. I’d rather read about globalization and economics that affect us today.

PS: I think this whole debate over the Civil War and state rights today has to do with how the Tea Party sees its role as fighting the oppressive powers of the Federal government.

The Tea Party wants historical links to justify its existence. Hence all the dress-up parties in historical garb.

[briansd1]

Let’s just say that slavery as the cause of the Civil War is debatable.

The Civil War was a chain of events.

I still think that the issue of slavery and its expansion led the Southern States to secede. And the North went to war to preserve the Union.

Could we say that the South’s secession caused the war? But that the War was fought over preserving the Union (from a northern point of view) and over self-determination (from a White Southern perspective)?

BTW, Allan, thanks for the book recommendations. I read some books on the Civil War some time back, but don’t have the incentive to read more. I’d rather read about globalization and economics that affect us today.

PS: I think this whole debate over the Civil War and state rights today has to do with how the Tea Party sees its role as fighting the oppressive powers of the Federal government.

The Tea Party wants historical links to justify its existence. Hence all the dress-up parties in historical garb.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1]Let’s just say that slavery as the cause of the Civil War is debatable.

The Civil War was a chain of events.

I still think that the issue of slavery and its expansion led the Southern States to secede. And the North went to war to preserve the Union.

Could we say that the South’s secession caused the war? But that the War was fought over preserving the Union (from a northern point of view) and over self-determination (from a White Southern perspective)?

BTW, Allan, thanks for the book recommendations. I read some books on the Civil War some time back, but don’t have the incentive to read more. I’d rather read about globalization and economics that affect us today.

PS: I think this whole debate over the Civil War and state rights today has to do with how the Tea Party sees its role as fighting the oppressive powers of the Federal government.

The Tea Party wants historical links to justify its existence. Hence all the dress-up parties in historical garb.[/quote]

I don’t think the Tea Party wants to exist. It is there out of a necessity for what change they feel needs to take place. Once that change takes place they may exist in a limited role as a watch dog but obviously won’t need to be as aggressive.

You make it sound like they want an excuse to wear costumes…which they don’t wear anymore. The historical link is the constitution they want to preserve as they feel the federal government has over stepped its boundaries as you mentioned.

This is there ideology. You don’t have to agree with it but you should at least respect it. To not respected it is as hypocritical as when you blame conservatives of being hypocritical when cheating on their spouse. It is hypocritical because liberals champion themselves on being all accepting of other peoples differences and ideology….and we all know this is so true.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1]Let’s just say that slavery as the cause of the Civil War is debatable.

The Civil War was a chain of events.

I still think that the issue of slavery and its expansion led the Southern States to secede. And the North went to war to preserve the Union.

Could we say that the South’s secession caused the war? But that the War was fought over preserving the Union (from a northern point of view) and over self-determination (from a White Southern perspective)?

BTW, Allan, thanks for the book recommendations. I read some books on the Civil War some time back, but don’t have the incentive to read more. I’d rather read about globalization and economics that affect us today.

PS: I think this whole debate over the Civil War and state rights today has to do with how the Tea Party sees its role as fighting the oppressive powers of the Federal government.

The Tea Party wants historical links to justify its existence. Hence all the dress-up parties in historical garb.[/quote]

I don’t think the Tea Party wants to exist. It is there out of a necessity for what change they feel needs to take place. Once that change takes place they may exist in a limited role as a watch dog but obviously won’t need to be as aggressive.

You make it sound like they want an excuse to wear costumes…which they don’t wear anymore. The historical link is the constitution they want to preserve as they feel the federal government has over stepped its boundaries as you mentioned.

This is there ideology. You don’t have to agree with it but you should at least respect it. To not respected it is as hypocritical as when you blame conservatives of being hypocritical when cheating on their spouse. It is hypocritical because liberals champion themselves on being all accepting of other peoples differences and ideology….and we all know this is so true.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1]Let’s just say that slavery as the cause of the Civil War is debatable.

The Civil War was a chain of events.

I still think that the issue of slavery and its expansion led the Southern States to secede. And the North went to war to preserve the Union.

Could we say that the South’s secession caused the war? But that the War was fought over preserving the Union (from a northern point of view) and over self-determination (from a White Southern perspective)?

BTW, Allan, thanks for the book recommendations. I read some books on the Civil War some time back, but don’t have the incentive to read more. I’d rather read about globalization and economics that affect us today.

PS: I think this whole debate over the Civil War and state rights today has to do with how the Tea Party sees its role as fighting the oppressive powers of the Federal government.

The Tea Party wants historical links to justify its existence. Hence all the dress-up parties in historical garb.[/quote]

I don’t think the Tea Party wants to exist. It is there out of a necessity for what change they feel needs to take place. Once that change takes place they may exist in a limited role as a watch dog but obviously won’t need to be as aggressive.

You make it sound like they want an excuse to wear costumes…which they don’t wear anymore. The historical link is the constitution they want to preserve as they feel the federal government has over stepped its boundaries as you mentioned.

This is there ideology. You don’t have to agree with it but you should at least respect it. To not respected it is as hypocritical as when you blame conservatives of being hypocritical when cheating on their spouse. It is hypocritical because liberals champion themselves on being all accepting of other peoples differences and ideology….and we all know this is so true.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1]Let’s just say that slavery as the cause of the Civil War is debatable.

The Civil War was a chain of events.

I still think that the issue of slavery and its expansion led the Southern States to secede. And the North went to war to preserve the Union.

Could we say that the South’s secession caused the war? But that the War was fought over preserving the Union (from a northern point of view) and over self-determination (from a White Southern perspective)?

BTW, Allan, thanks for the book recommendations. I read some books on the Civil War some time back, but don’t have the incentive to read more. I’d rather read about globalization and economics that affect us today.

PS: I think this whole debate over the Civil War and state rights today has to do with how the Tea Party sees its role as fighting the oppressive powers of the Federal government.

The Tea Party wants historical links to justify its existence. Hence all the dress-up parties in historical garb.[/quote]

I don’t think the Tea Party wants to exist. It is there out of a necessity for what change they feel needs to take place. Once that change takes place they may exist in a limited role as a watch dog but obviously won’t need to be as aggressive.

You make it sound like they want an excuse to wear costumes…which they don’t wear anymore. The historical link is the constitution they want to preserve as they feel the federal government has over stepped its boundaries as you mentioned.

This is there ideology. You don’t have to agree with it but you should at least respect it. To not respected it is as hypocritical as when you blame conservatives of being hypocritical when cheating on their spouse. It is hypocritical because liberals champion themselves on being all accepting of other peoples differences and ideology….and we all know this is so true.

[Author]

Posts