www.tombraiderforums.com

Go Back   www.tombraiderforums.com > Community Forums > General Chat > Debate and Political Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Yesterday, 15:45   #351
TRBeth
Professor
 
TRBeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA/Florida
Posts: 3,024
Default

That's pretty naive. The catalyst was very much for the same reason that USA succeeded from GB. Funny how the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until 1863--2 yrs after the war had already started AND the South was actually ahead in the war against the North at that point. It was an appeal to the abolitionist which Lincoln needed to win his second election.

Congress favored northern industrialization and was heavily burdening the southern states with maneuvers to elusively sell their raw materials (including raw materials picked by slaves) to the north. (Now, where is the lofty ideals of the North in that?) Also, Congress imposed burdensome taxes on the finished products being sold back to the South. Further, heavy tariffs were placed on southern raw materials to curtail the South from selling their commodities to other countries--strangulating a free market.

Lets not forget that the South began the war with succession. The Union would not tolerate that action. Not because higher ideals about human rights, but because northern industrialization would be buried if the country split.

The issue of slavery most certainly was a factor, but it's way too simple to say that was the only reason for the Civil War. The US government would never have gone to war over slavery because they needed the raw materials being produced in the South most of which was produced by use of slave-labor. Much was about politics and which way new states joining the Union would land on the issues and Congress' blockade of new so-called "slave" states coming in to the Union. And that was about voting power in Congress, not so much about the slaves.

It's a highly debated issue among historical scholars so for any one here to come out to claim that it was all about slavery is basically excluding a lot of other facts. Nothing in politics is ever so simple and we can't interpret history to suit our own ideals.
TRBeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 20:01   #352
Dennis's Mom
Moderator
 
Dennis's Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Houston Area
Posts: 12,934
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRBeth View Post
That's pretty naive.
Not naive at all. It's explicitly stated. Have you never read any of the articles of secession? The right to own slaves is the #1 reason.

Read them. It's very clear that slavery is the reason they seceded from the Union. Only Georgia mentions their dissatisfaction with the industrial north. Texas is also unhappy with federal border protection.

The naivety is not understanding that slaves were the single largest investment in the country. More money was invested in slaves than railroads. I imagine southerners considered abolition the way stockholders would feel about nationalizing Exxon. What do you mean I don't have a 401K anymore?

The reason people look for silly excuses like tariffs---WTF?---is because they have a really hard time comprehending people as property. We get too wrapped up in the emotional aspects of it, and think it's all about meaness, but slaves were like cars or tractors or nice watches. Things to be owned and used. In the southern mindset, there was no humanity equal to white men. As Texas so eloquently states: That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Ending slavery would have meant financial catastrophe. It's easy to understand why they fought to continue it. Less easy to understand is why, after they lost they war, they were mean. Jim Crow, the KKK--that's why these statues were erected. To rewrite history, not to celebrate it.
__________________
You don't have to type up every errant thought that goes through your head. Post wisely.
Dennis's Mom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 21:16   #353
Zebra
Tomb Raider
 
Zebra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 24,831
Default

But those attempts to rewrite history and the attitudes and views that led to them are technically history in and of themselves, wouldn't you agree?
__________________
Wozu zuhören, wenn man reden kann?
Zebra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:21   #354
Ward Dragon
Moderator
 
Ward Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Temeria ♀
Posts: 39,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRBeth View Post
Now, if there were laws against marching down the street with torches, shouting anti-semitic slogans, or doing anything whatsoever that was against the law, then law enforcement should have been in place to immediately act on such and throw their miserable butts in jail.
Yes, the police should have. In Boston, the permit explicitly said no backpacks, torches, or anything that could be used as a weapon, the police were very involved in the process telling the protesters where to go and providing protection, and nobody got hurt. That's how Virginia should have handled it too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra View Post
But those attempts to rewrite history and the attitudes and views that led to them are technically history in and of themselves, wouldn't you agree?
As you were saying before, there is a line and the question is where to draw it. In this case, I think putting a statue of Lee in the center of town is over the line. Lee himself didn't want any Confederate statues because he felt it was divisive and he wanted the country to heal. Other people violated his wishes and used him as a divisive symbol during the Jim Crow era. Putting his statue in a place of honor was meant to honor their racist views, not Lee himself. Why should someone have to be reminded of this on a daily basis or pay taxes to support it? The context matters, and being celebrated in a place of honor at the center of town is different from a memorial on a battlefield or in a museum. I agree with Gettysburg deciding to keep all of their statues (the whole point of that place is to commemorate the Civil War and you know what you're getting if you go there) but a statue shouldn't be at the literal center of town around which everything else revolves.

And I think it's different with buildings. A building like the White House still has a functional use which overshadows its history. On the other hand, a statue has no functional use in the first place and only serves to reinforce what values society wants to celebrate. If society evolves and those values change, then the statues should change too. And also, I'm only talking about public places (as in owned by the town or government). If someone wants to put a Confederate flag or statue on private property, then they should be allowed to do that. It just shouldn't be on public land which taxpayers pay to maintain, nor in government buildings where people have to go in order to carry out their business (like courthouses, DMV, etc.).
__________________
We all make choices. But in the end, our choices make us. ―Andrew Ryan (BioShock)
Ward Dragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 07:31   #355
Zebra
Tomb Raider
 
Zebra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 24,831
Default

^That's not really what I was going for with that post as I've basically said all there is to say about the statue from my perspective. (Though I do think that the logic you're employing in that post is probably somewhat disingenuous seeing as there are quite a few examples of monuments/structures that also serve no practical function and celebrate figures who were slave-owners or had views which would be considered reprehensible today whose removal you probably would not be advocating for.) The main point of that post was to argue that an act that was intended to rewrite history can still in and of itself be considered a part of history as DM seems to keep implying that it can't or shouldn't.
__________________
Wozu zuhören, wenn man reden kann?
Zebra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.