What's new
By:
Filters

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

One Brow said:

Confederacy denialism

Denialism seems to always come from political motivations. For one example, back in the 1960s, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, R...
lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com

The early activities by both the North and the South indicate that slavery was the primary concern.
Click to expand...
It was about state's rights... in particular the state right to allow certain people to own certain other people as slaves. So not really about slavery at all after you get past the part where it is pretty much completely about slavery.
 
TheGoldStandard said:
I agree somewhat about the Civil War gaffe based on public perception, but the war really was about power. Slavery was definitely part of it, but sadly the North was focused more on power dynamic than slavery. That desire by the North really started two years into the fighting, so her statement was fairly accurate based on my reading of history.

We tend to whitewash history and make it seem like the North was so noble. It has become a political statement. The fact is, most people sucked then, and not much has changed. As I recall, Illinois even had a law restricting black people from entering the state, and the North did not give blacks the ability to be citizens of this country.

The South did list slavery as one of the many reasons to discuss secession, but the focus was the takeover of government by a party they hated, and what they considered to be a huge imbalance of economic power. They felt like the North was exploiting them and they could not do anything about it.

If the South did not force secession, slavery likely would have remained legal for a much longer period.

It is a lot more complicated than this, lots of events happened that led to this, but if you belive slavery was the key component of the war I have a bridge to sell you.
Click to expand...
But it wasn’t a gaffe. That’s what she believes. She gave a similar answer nearly 10 years ago. And then after this most recent “gaffe” she gave another weird answer the day after when she had time to assess the damage it had done to her campaign.

Talk about whitewashing history. “It was about power.” What war in the history of mankind hasn’t been about power? The civil war was fought over “the power” to enslave a certain race of men and to push this power into western territories. One side decided to break off from the rest of the country and create a confederacy of states with similar enslavement beliefs while the other side fought to keep the country whole and abolish slavery. And some remained more or less neutral.

It’s also silly to bring up the faults of the north and compare them to the south. The way I read it, which I doubt you meant it this way, is equating the two. It’s true, the northern states didn’t practice full and complete equality. In many ways, that’s never been accomplished even in 2024. But that’s a far cry from what the south was doing, enslaving men, women and children. Breeding black men and women and selling their offspring. Kidnapping unsuspecting blacks in the north and enslaving them in the south. The entire lost cause myth was created to soothe the consciousness of these enslavers because the truth was just too awful.

Nikki Haley and McCain aren’t very similar at all. Comparisons of the two are silly. McCain made a few missteps. I view Haley as nothing more than a spineless husk of a human being. Far more ambitious than her talent. She has done little to separate herself from Trump and the rest of the pack. Everyone has tried to imitate Trump (with thee exception of Christie). And with the exception of Christie, all have pledged to support Trump and pardon him. Shameless.

She might not be as shameless as Trump. But she’s just as craven. All of these Republican candidates with the exception of Christie stand up for the same beliefs as Trump. They’ve adopted the fascist ideology and have decided to wage war against the majority of Americans and our values. They’re not pushing for smaller government or more efficiency. They’re pushing for an ideology of white grievances and division.

It’s why none of these folks are willing to declare that slavery and white supremacy was the reason for the civil war and are issues we’re still grappling with today.
 
Last edited:
Sardines said:
It was about state's rights... in particular the state right to allow certain people to own certain other people as slaves. So not really about slavery at all after you get past the part where it is pretty much completely about slavery.
Click to expand...
Except… they weren’t fans of states rights when it meant that northern states could decide to keep escaped slaves as free men. The runaway slave Act was big gubbamint nanny state running roughshod over states rights; compelling free states to return runaway slaves even if their state legislatures had granted them asylum.

Enslavers, much like today’s rebels, aren’t ideologically consistent.

You see it today, almost everyday.

Abortion should be a decided by states. Oh wait, you’re not supposed to give people rights! People shouldn’t decide this issue! Let’s have a nationwide abortion ban!

Antifa and blm were behind Jan 6! Oh and they’re also hostages. And it was a great day!

Religious freedom is paramount! Except for Muslims. Ban their asses.

Life is precious! Except for the browns. Cage them. Why can’t we get more immigrants from Scandinavia???

The president has complete authority ti murder his rivals and the senate so he can’t be convicted! The president can do whatever they want! But that Biden guy? He’s a complete crook! He needs to be impeached and brought to justice. Hunter!

The deep state is so corrupt. Which is why our guy is being handled with kid gloves and can remain badmouthing the prosecutors and judges without going to jail.

Values and god and Jesus are important. Which is why we need to worship the most godless candidate for president ever.

Enslavers were white supremacist until they got their asses kicked and pushed to use African Americans as soldiers (it was an idea never put into practice but many desperate generals debated the option).

Enslavers were for states rights except for when they could use big gubbamint to enforce their will onto states.

Enslavers merely wanted to protect their way of life… and spread it to western territories. They also pushed hard to persuade neutral border states to join their cause. Even attempted to pull England and France to their side. Enslavers even invaded the north not just once but twice! With disastrous results.

One of the best books on the civil war that dispels a lot of the Lost Cause myth is this. Honestly the best damn book on the subject. Great to just read through or use as reference.
Amazon product ASIN 1621574547View: https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Lost-Cause-South-Fought/dp/1621574547
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
But it wasn’t a gaffe. That’s what she believes. She gave a similar answer nearly 10 years ago. And then after this most recent “gaffe” she gave another weird answer the day after when she had time to assess the damage it had done to her campaign.

Talk about whitewashing history. “It was about power.” What war in the history of mankind hasn’t been about power? The civil war was fought over “the power” to enslave a certain race of men and to push this power into western territories. One side decided to break off from the rest of the country and create a confederacy of states with similar enslavement beliefs while the other side fought to keep the country whole and abolish slavery. And some remained more or less neutral.

It’s also silly to bring up the faults of the north and compare them to the south. The way I read it, which I doubt you meant it this way, is equating the two. It’s true, the northern states didn’t practice full and complete equality. In many ways, that’s never been accomplished even in 2024. But that’s a far cry from what the south was doing, enslaving men, women and children. Breeding black men and women and selling their offspring. Kidnapping unsuspecting blacks in the north and enslaving them in the south. The entire lost cause myth was created to soothe the consciousness of these enslavers because the truth was just too awful.

Nikki Haley and McCain aren’t very similar at all. Comparisons of the two are silly. McCain made a few missteps. I view Haley as nothing more than a spineless husk of a human being. Far more ambitious than her talent. She has done little to separate herself from Trump and the rest of the pack. Everyone has tried to imitate Trump (with thee exception of Christie). And with the exception of Christie, all have pledged to support Trump and pardon him. Shameless.

She might not be as shameless as Trump. But she’s just as craven. All of these Republican candidates with the exception of Christie stand up for the same beliefs as Trump. They’ve adopted the fascist ideology and have decided to wage war against the majority of Americans and our values. They’re not pushing for smaller government or more efficiency. They’re pushing for an ideology of white grievances and division.

It’s why none of these folks are willing to declare that slavery and white supremacy was the reason for the civil war and are issues we’re still grappling with today.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying putting them on the same footing, but I also don't put the North on a pedestal that many do today, particularly at the start of the war. The narrative of a lot of Republicans was to stop slavery to keep labor with whites. Definitely the lesser of two evils though.

We all agree slavery was horrible, and the South was exploiting black people. As stated above it was about economic rivalry and states rights, and slavery was definitely a part of that. I should have clarified my earlier statement, as slavery was definitely part of the equation, but abolition was not, although some groups (Liberty Party comes to mind) wanted it, there was really no threat of it at the time. There have been abolitionists on this continent as long as there as been slavery, but the start of the war was about the economics of slavery and power, not abolition, which may think is the case.

It was about whether the South should be able to expand slavery to the West (the North wanted to keep labor in the West to be white only, and there was a big push to get rid of Chinese labor and polygamy as well), or whether those in the South could freely bring slaves to the North and return them home when travelling, and the election of a Republican with zero votes from Southern states turned the tide as they felt the political system didn't include them. If you read their political statements, most focused on western expansion, the railroad, "bleeding Kansas" as well as stopping slavery expansion.

The Republican party when Lincoln was elected did not embrace abolition. It just wanted to stop expansion. They were against slavery for sure, but based on Two years after the war started Republicans started pushing for abolition as a party. Some Democrats stated that the Republicans were pushing for abolition, but the party took great strides to deny that.

Research Guides: African American Studies *: Primary Sources

Research Guides: African American Studies *: Primary Sources
libguides.usc.edu libguides.usc.edu

Google the 1860 RNC platform. They wanted to stop expansion of slavery West, the slave trade, but nothing in the document, or their speeches said anything about removing the Southern states protected right to keep slaves (Constitutionally protected at the time).
 
The Thriller said:
Except… they weren’t fans of states rights when it meant that northern states could decide to keep escaped slaves as free men. The runaway slave Act was big gubbamint nanny state running roughshod over states rights; compelling free states to return runaway slaves even if their state legislatures had granted them asylum.

Enslavers, much like today’s rebels, aren’t ideologically consistent.

You see it today, almost everyday.

Abortion should be a decided by states. Oh wait, you’re not supposed to give people rights! People shouldn’t decide this issue! Let’s have a nationwide abortion ban!

Antifa and blm were behind Jan 6! Oh and they’re also hostages. And it was a great day!

Religious freedom is paramount! Except for Muslims. Ban their asses.

Life is precious! Except for the browns. Cage them. Why can’t we get more immigrants from Scandinavia???

The president has complete authority ti murder his rivals and the senate so he can’t be convicted! The president can do whatever they want! But that Biden guy? He’s a complete crook! He needs to be impeached and brought to justice. Hunter!

The deep state is so corrupt. Which is why our guy is being handled with kid gloves and can remain badmouthing the prosecutors and judges without going to jail.

Values and god and Jesus are important. Which is why we need to worship the most godless candidate for president ever.

Enslavers were white supremacist until they got their asses kicked and pushed to use African Americans as soldiers (it was an idea never put into practice but many desperate generals debated the option).

Enslavers were for states rights except for when they could use big gubbamint to enforce their will onto states.

Enslavers merely wanted to protect their way of life… and spread it to western territories. They also pushed hard to persuade neutral border states to join their cause. Even attempted to pull England and France to their side. Enslavers even invaded the north not just once but twice! With disastrous results.

One of the best books on the civil war that dispels a lot of the Lost Cause myth is this. Honestly the best damn book on the subject. Great to just read through or use as reference.
Amazon product ASIN 1621574547View: https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Lost-Cause-South-Fought/dp/1621574547
Click to expand...

There is a good reason why many are becoming independent:
news.gallup.com

Independent Party ID Tied for High; Democratic ID at New Low

In 2023, 43% of U.S. adults identified as independents, tying the record high from 2014. Meanwhile, Democratic identification fell to a new low of 27%.
news.gallup.com news.gallup.com
 
TheGoldStandard said:
I'm not saying putting them on the same footing, but I also don't put the North on a pedestal that many do today, particularly at the start of the war. The narrative of a lot of Republicans was to stop slavery to keep labor with whites. Definitely the lesser of two evils though.

We all agree slavery was horrible, and the South was exploiting black people. As stated above it was about economic rivalry and states rights, and slavery was definitely a part of that. I should have clarified my earlier statement, as slavery was definitely part of the equation, but abolition was not, although some groups (Liberty Party comes to mind) wanted it, there was really no threat of it at the time. There have been abolitionists on this continent as long as there as been slavery, but the start of the war was about the economics of slavery and power, not abolition, which may think is the case.

It was about whether the South should be able to expand slavery to the West (the North wanted to keep labor in the West to be white only, and there was a big push to get rid of Chinese labor and polygamy as well), or whether those in the South could freely bring slaves to the North and return them home when travelling, and the election of a Republican with zero votes from Southern states turned the tide as they felt the political system didn't include them. If you read their political statements, most focused on western expansion, the railroad, "bleeding Kansas" as well as stopping slavery expansion.

The Republican party when Lincoln was elected did not embrace abolition. It just wanted to stop expansion. They were against slavery for sure, but based on Two years after the war started Republicans started pushing for abolition as a party. Some Democrats stated that the Republicans were pushing for abolition, but the party took great strides to deny that.

Research Guides: African American Studies *: Primary Sources

Research Guides: African American Studies *: Primary Sources
libguides.usc.edu libguides.usc.edu

Google the 1860 RNC platform. They wanted to stop expansion of slavery West, the slave trade, but nothing in the document, or their speeches said anything about removing the Southern states protected right to keep slaves (Constitutionally protected at the time).
Click to expand...
True, in 1860, complete abolition was not a goal of the GOP. But have you read the Emancipation Proclamation? By 1863, it most definitely was the primary goal of not only the GOP but Union forces in the civil war. By 1863, it was crystal clear what Lincoln and northern soldiers were fighting for and what it would potentially mean for the confederacy.

I think we see the north put on a pedestal, firstly, because history is nuanced and most people can’t handle nuance. Secondly, because of the Lost Cause myth that became thee primary narrative out of the civil war. Today we put the north on a figurative pedestal because for decades descendants of enslavers literally put the worst Americans of the 19th century on literal pedestals.

www.archives.gov

The Emancipation Proclamation

Enlarge The Emancipation Proclamation (page 1) Record Group 11 General Records of the United States View in National Archives Catalog Español President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The...
www.archives.gov www.archives.gov
 
TheGoldStandard said:
There is a good reason why many are becoming independent:
news.gallup.com

Independent Party ID Tied for High; Democratic ID at New Low

In 2023, 43% of U.S. adults identified as independents, tying the record high from 2014. Meanwhile, Democratic identification fell to a new low of 27%.
news.gallup.com news.gallup.com
Click to expand...
There are many reasons why distrust of institutions, including political parties, is happening across western democracies. And studies show that while people might claim to be “independent”, they tend to vote as block one way or another.
 
Those of you wanting third parties to become relevant in America better work to abolish the electoral college, embrace ranked choice voting, and look for different ways to distribute House representatives and Senators. You can’t create a parliamentary system in America without a serious overhaul of the existing “winner take all” constitutional system. Claiming to desire a third party without subsequent actions means you’re just a complaining and cynical voter that’s just going to bitch but ultimately do nothing to fix the system.

Personally, I like big strong political parties. So I feel the opposite. I don’t want third parties. I want a strong political party that can vet bad candidates. Bring back the dark smoky rooms over the low info “duh elites globalist cabal” morons who feel like politics should be a substitute for religious practice, entertainment, and overall be reality tv.
 
The Thriller said:
True, in 1860, complete abolition was not a goal of the GOP. But have you read the Emancipation Proclamation? By 1863, it most definitely was the primary goal of not only the GOP but Union forces in the civil war. By 1863, it was crystal clear what Lincoln and northern soldiers were fighting for and what it would potentially mean for the confederacy.

I think we see the north put on a pedestal, firstly, because history is nuanced and most people can’t handle nuance. Secondly, because of the Lost Cause myth that became thee primary narrative out of the civil war. Today we put the north on a figurative pedestal because for decades descendants of enslavers literally put the worst Americans of the 19th century on literal pedestals.

www.archives.gov

The Emancipation Proclamation

Enlarge The Emancipation Proclamation (page 1) Record Group 11 General Records of the United States View in National Archives Catalog Español President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The...
www.archives.gov www.archives.gov
Click to expand...
Of course, I know the full history behind it. I was just speaking about what caused the war. As I said above, abolition became a movement of the party 2 years in...
 
TheGoldStandard said:
Of course, I know the full history behind it. I was just speaking about what caused the war. As I said above, abolition became a movement of the party 2 years in...
Click to expand...
Yes, and as someone in higher education who has taught this subject many times, I too know that abolitionism was a small (but growing) movement within the Republican Party in 1860. I’ve read and have had students read the alternative proposals. Some even embraced by Lincoln. It’s important though to not discount what those fighting for the union ultimately were fighting for by 1863. It was crystal clear. It’s why the confederacy went to such great lengths to resist. They knew! Which is why the reelection of Lincoln was such a pivotal election.
 
The Thriller said:
Those of you wanting third parties to become relevant in America better work to abolish the electoral college, embrace ranked choice voting, and look for different ways to distribute House representatives and Senators. You can’t create a parliamentary system in America without a serious overhaul of the existing “winner take all” constitutional system. Claiming to desire a third party without subsequent actions means you’re just a complaining and cynical voter that’s just going to bitch but ultimately do nothing to fix the system.

Personally, I like big strong political parties. So I feel the opposite. I don’t want third parties. I want a strong political party that can vet bad candidates. Bring back the dark smoky rooms over the low info “duh elites globalist cabal” morons who feel like politics should be a substitute for religious practice, entertainment, and overall be reality tv.
Click to expand...
The recent speaker of the house debacle makes crystal clear to me that our system is not compatible with more than two parties because even with two parties, when one of those parties is divided our system can be brought to it's knees and not be able to do the business to keep our country running. Add a third party to the mix and this would be the norm.
 
Sardines said:
The recent speaker of the house debacle makes crystal clear to me that our system is not compatible with more than two parties because even with two parties, when one of those parties is divided our system can be brought to it's knees and not be able to do the business to keep our country running. Add a third party to the mix and this would be the norm.
Click to expand...
Great post. 100 percent

I actually hadn’t made that connection before but it’s dead on
 
Sardines said:
The recent speaker of the house debacle makes crystal clear to me that our system is not compatible with more than two parties because even with two parties, when one of those parties is divided our system can be brought to it's knees and not be able to do the business to keep our country running. Add a third party to the mix and this would be the norm.
Click to expand...
Maybe if the middle ground party gets the most seats there will be some sanity. Otherwise I agree with you.
 
TheGoldStandard said:
Maybe if the middle ground party gets the most seats there will be some sanity. Otherwise I agree with you.
Click to expand...
If the middle ground got 49% of the seats we'd NEVER have a speaker of the house. Would not be able to bring anything to a vote other than who the speaker of the house should be.
 
Sardines said:
**** me
Click to expand...
The perfect and only response after watching those videos.

Someone needs to save us from this **** show. What the **** are doing as a country? ****

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
One Brow said:

Confederacy denialism

Denialism seems to always come from political motivations. For one example, back in the 1960s, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, R...
lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com

The early activities by both the North and the South indicate that slavery was the primary concern.
Click to expand...
The gigantic problem with these types of arguments is that it ignores, and by necessity it has to ignore, the single biggest piece of evidence. When the Civil War started it was NOT between the Union and all slave holding states. A number of slave holding states fought on the side of the Union. The Civil War was between the anti-secession and the secession states. The primary issue was secession

It is a good thing the Civil War resulted in the end of chattel slavery in the United States. Chattel slavery is evil, and the United States at its founding was steeped in it. As a country we need to believe the lie that we fought the Civil War at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives to right that wrong.
 
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter said:
The gigantic problem with these types of arguments is that it ignores, and by necessity it has to ignore, the single biggest piece of evidence. When the Civil War started it was NOT between the Union and all slave holding states. A number of slave holding states fought on the side of the Union. The Civil War was between the anti-succeeding and the succeeding states. The primary issue was succession.

It is a good thing the Civil War resulted in the end of chattel slavery in the United States. Chattel slavery is evil, and the United States at its founding was steeped in it. As a country we need to believe the lie that we fought the Civil War at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives to right that wrong.
Click to expand...

Seceding and secession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top