Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

focusedfire wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully,

They were traitors to the United States of America. Later they were pardoned. However, its an accurate statement. I'm ok with that and I had relatives from both sides in the conflict. I am proud of my Southern heritage but also ok to look at what happened dispassionately.

Please to define how they were traitors. The civil war was not a war of race so I refuse to get into the MLK argument. The civil war was a war about states rights and an economic system that was unfair to one-half of the nation at the time. The Southern states succeeded, then after following all the proper forms and Diplomacy, they excercised their right to declared war upon those they viewed as hostile oppressors.

A traitor betrays His or Hers government(Selling state secrets, revealing troop deployents, ect...). Excersising ones right to stand up against what is percieved as tyranny is not betrayal, it's more like revolution.

Also, there was no set constitutional definition of what would be betrayal at the time. The Constitution itself having built upon the original articles of confederation actually could be seen as implying the right of succession.

Haven't chosen a side on this one yet. Just hate when an issue is clouded by demonizing. I will say that my first impression would be that it wouldn't be any worse than Guy Faulkes day. And thats a day about one who could actually be defined as a traitor. I generally have no problem with promoting the rememberance of history as long as it's factual and not political hot buttoning.

This is a good point, though I don't want to get into this argument, though I disagree that there was *nothing* to do with race, even by association.

"The civil war was a war about states rights and an economic system that was unfair to one-half of the nation at the time. The Southern states succeeded, then after following all the proper forms and Diplomacy, they excercised their right to declared war upon those they viewed as hostile oppressors."
The issue here is that the states had no right to succeed, thus were never a country, and therefore, had no grounds for diplomacy. There are some rights states don't have. I find it ironic that they veiwed anybody as hostile oppressors.

Grignard wrote:
Eh, there are all kinds of discrimination, and you can say what you want, but we all know the focus was on Black/white racial tensions, as is everything in this country. Probably most Americans don't realize there are all manner of Caucasian minorities, and they probably don't realize, for instance, Gypsies are the largest cultural minority in Europe. What about poverty, which is really what racial tensions boil down to today, or what about weight discrimination.

I don't feel like he did anything for me, but if it floats people's boat, make him have a holiday. Why him other than Malcom X or, and here is what it should be, those three black kids that got killed in Mississippi, I don't know, that is up to whoever makes these rules.

i agree that MLK was doing his speeches and travelling, ultimately for all human rights, not just blacks in the south. i think that Malcolm X did not get a holiday because of the 2 civil rights leaders, MLK was a christian, mr. X, a muslim. Additionally, MLK preached peaceable solutions, whereas malcolm X was more militant about gaining civil rights.

It's something of a personal beef with Columbus Day, but i dont think that He should get a holiday, as he didnt really find the US, that honor goes to the Vikings. But, apparently no matter how much truth is brought out in history, we cant allow "white men" to have too many holidays, as if most of the latino population is going to sympathize with columbus? Maybe its just too much to ask to "fix" the American history books, that still insist on Columbus "finding" these new lands.


personally, i have ZERO problem with weight discrimination, if you're very overweight, thats your problem, you put yourself in that situation. Don't get me wrong, if you are abit, erm, plump, but you are happy with that, then i have no problem. i start having problems when you start complaining about how big you are, and how its other people's fault, whether its mcdonalds, burger king, the government, or the wife's cooking (ok, the wife can be blamed for that, along with many other things ), just own up to you being lazy. And yes, if you make it damn near impossible for someone to sit next to you on an airplane, then yes you SHOULD have to buy two tickets!


Just a quick note on the fat people thing... there is a large difference between a "big" person and a "fat" person.. a big person, is someone who is large, possibly fat, but they are athletic, dont complain about their weight, and if they decide they dont want to be as large any more, they figure out how to eat better/ excercise. a fat person, in my book, is one who is generally lazy, and complains about their plight, they probably cant hold down a job, and they blame everyone but themselves for their appearance.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why not?

MLK and Columbus are dead, we still celebrate them.

Because they represent ideas that are a part of what it is to be a citizen of the United States of America. The notion of being a Confederate is a direct contradiction to being a United States citizen.

I think the fact the former Confederates had to again swear allegiance to the US to get amnesty is prima facae evidence of their treason. They took up arms against the lawful government at the time. Thats treason folks. There were even plenty of witnesses...

Again they were pardoned so all is good. But they were traitors.

Perhaps a comprise could be in order. Perhaps northern states could get the 5th of July off (as well as the 4th) to commemorate Gettysburg?

Its not a bad idea in theory maybe we in Britain could get a similar day off. I propose 14 June to commemorate the royalists getting thrashed at Naseby or perhaps 18th June in celebration of putting that short Corsican back in his place!

Too hot. We need to find a battle that occurred in the early fall to have a proper party. Have to space out these things.

Frazzled wrote:Too hot. We need to find a battle that occurred in the early fall to have a proper party. Have to space out these things.

Antietam?

It was a Northern victory in September. Or perhaps the body count was a bit to high to 'celebrate' that one?

All Americans are traitors to Britain. Especially the Founding Terrorists.

I'm a Brit, and even I know that the above is hyperbole with only the merest grain of truth to it.

1. Antietam would work. The temperature is breaking at that point. Historically Lincoln needed a victory before he could proclaim the emancipation proclamation and IIRC that was it.

2. Chaplain-you do realize all you Brits are traitors to his Highness, the Emperor of Rome don't you? Just because the Roman Empire fell a few hundred years ago is no reason to forget your obligations...

dogma wrote:A traitor is someone who reneges on a self-proclaimed affiliation, and is an intrinsically derogatory remark.

Oscar Schindler was not a Nazi, and therefore was not a traitor.

The Confederates were traitors in a strictly legal sense as they openly renounced membership in the United States of America. However, one could also argue that the United States had betrayed the values on which it was founded; making the Union the traitorous party.

I don't think they were traitors. If they'd launched surprise attacks at Union strongpoints before. I think there has to be an act of betrayal for slavery to really mean something. Oskar Schindler was a German, who took government contracts to support the war effort and used them to subvert resources and protect Jews. He was clearly deceiving the German government and was a traitor. Good on him, not all traitors are bad people.


However. The Civil War was about slavery. It was about slavery. It was about slavery. They were really, really concerned about a Northern president taking away their right to own slaves, because they really, really wanted to keep owning slaves. So much so they when they published their constitution it consisted of the US constitution, with minor administrative changes, 'state's rights' jammed into the preamble and this little beauty placed front and centre;

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"

This was after Texas, South Carolina, and Georgia all passed declarations of independence identifying slavery as their primary cause. Then there was the cornerstone speach given by Confed VP Alexander Stephens; in which the cornerstone of the new government 'rested upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth'.

Now the North, you could successfully argue didn't wage the war to free slaves. They fought to maintain the Union. But the South originally fought the war because they were afraid a Norther president would take away their slaves. It's explicit in the constitution of the Confederation.

Because they really wanted to keep their slaves. So much so they started a civil war over it.

LunaHound wrote:How is this thread you have closed

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/229240.page

any off topic or useless compared to this one? Other then this is your thread [mod] right?

Wow, I'm glad I didn't read that while it was open. That was some closely packed together crazy in there.

Frazzled wrote:I think the fact the former Confederates had to again swear allegiance to the US to get amnesty is prima facae evidence of their treason. They took up arms against the lawful government at the time. Thats treason folks. There were even plenty of witnesses...

Again they were pardoned so all is good. But they were traitors.

Don't know your Texas history then. Texas joined the union with the right to seceed. And no I don't think thats prima facie for treason. I think its prima facie for accepting a defeated foriegn enemy into your country as a newly conquered or re-conquered territory. It's standard to practice to make anyone wishing to be a citizen swear alleigance.

@Hero, The early framework of our country was that it was voluntary participation. That in itself allowed the right to succession.

Your sense of Irony, I fear, is skewed by how this subject has been demonized. Your going with the thought that the oppressed cannot be oppressors themselves. Truth told, more someones oppressed the morel ikely they are to find a way of putting someone in a position underneath them in an abusive manner. Now the south had already been doing such since the british tyrrany. A lot of the later plantation owners came over as endentured servants then they themselves or their descendants later became slave owners.

You want irony, look at the north/south relationship. Where you had an anti-slavery movement but the same people continuously pushed for unfair economic legislation that gave them the lions share of the profits from the labour system they opposed.

Now the only reason I brought up slavery was in response to your irony jab. The only time race really entered the civil war as an issue was the Emancipation proclomation. A proclomation that only freed slaves in the south, not ones legally held and owned in the north. Lincoln was looking to start a slave revolt to help in the unions war against the confederacy. It is this reason that the black community largely holds to the belief that they weren't truly free until Dr. King.


Edited for spelling

dogma wrote:Because they represent ideas that are a part of what it is to be a citizen of the United States of America. The notion of being a Confederate is a direct contradiction to being a United States citizen.

Then why does it matter whether or not the organization still exists?

Surely there are organizations that have done good in the past and but longer exist, and organizations that exist today causing nothing but problems.

focusedfire wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think the fact the former Confederates had to again swear allegiance to the US to get amnesty is prima facae evidence of their treason. They took up arms against the lawful government at the time. Thats treason folks. There were even plenty of witnesses...

Again they were pardoned so all is good. But they were traitors.

Don't know your Texas history then. Texas joined the union with the right to succeed. And no I don't think thats prima facia for treason. I think its prima facia for accepting a defeated foriegn enemy into your country as a newly conquered or re-conquered territory. It's standard to practice to make anyone wishing to be a citizen swear alleigance.

@Hero, The early framework of our country was that it was voluntary participation. That in itself allowed the right to succession.

Your sense of Irony, I fear, is skewed by how this subject has been demonized. Your going with the thought that the oppressed cannot be oppressors themselves. Truth told, more someones oppressed the morel ikely they are to find a way of putting someone in a position underneath them in an abusive manner. Now the south had already been doing such since the british tyrrany. A lot of the later plantation owners came over as endentured servants then they themselves or their descendants later became slave owners.

You want irony, look at the north/south relationship. Where you had an anti-slavery movement but the same people continuously pushed for unfair economic legislation that gave them the lions share of the profits from the labour system they opposed.

Now the only reason I brought up slavery was in response to your irony jab. The only time race really entered the civil war as an issue was the Emancipation proclomation. A proclomation that only freed slaves in the south, not ones legally held and owned in the north. Lincoln was looking to start a slave revolt to help in the unions war against the confederacy. It is this reason that the black community largely holds to the belief that they weren't truly free until Dr. King.

Hey I made the best grade in the school, you whipper snapper! Of course when I took the class, Texas history had only made it to 1895…older than dirt, its not just a job, it’s a lifestyle choice

Yes Texas could Secede, as written in its constitution and agreed to when merged with the US (as well as the ability to split into five states, how cool is that). But it was the only state that could do that.

The Constitution says nothing about states leaving. They attempted to break away. Ion doing so they actively attempted to destroy the union and kill US forces and commandeer US property. That’s treason. Its always treason until the moment you win-then its independence. Just ask Santa Anna.

focusedfire wrote:Don't know your Texas history then. Texas joined the union with the right to succeed. And no I don't think thats prima facia for treason. I think its prima facia for accepting a defeated foriegn enemy into your country as a newly conquered or re-conquered territory. It's standard to practice to make anyone wishing to be a citizen swear alleigance.

@Hero, The early framework of our country was that it was voluntary participation. That in itself allowed the right to succession.

Secede. Prima facie. Secession.

Not looking to criticise, just fyi.

Now the only reason I brought up slavery was in response to your irony jab. The only time race really entered the civil war as an issue was the Emancipation proclomation. A proclomation that only freed slaves in the south, not ones legally held and owned in the north. Lincoln was looking to start a slave revolt to help in the unions war against the confederacy. It is this reason that the black community largely holds to the belief that they weren't truly free until Dr. King.

Except this isn't slightly true. Not a word of it.

The Confederate constitution was almost a direct copy of the US constitution, with administrative differences and a new part stating the new govt couldn't stop a state owning slaves. The corner stone address, considered the core speach in the independence movement, used as that cornerstone the idea that black men were subservient to whites and that slavery was natural. That was the cornerstone of the idea of rebellion. The four states to declare their independence first (I forgot Mississippi earlier) all cited slavery as the core reason.

It was explicitly about slavery. The North's response wasn't about slavery, but in the South was the absolute dominant issue.

Starts Friday at sundown and goes till Saturday evening. That may be why the confusion.

As far as the Civil War, it was over states rights, but which state right was being threatened? Slavery. It was also about which states could be made into slave states. Was it as simple as the north thinking slavery was immoral and trying to help the slaves? No, but the right of states to keep Slavery as an institution against federal intrusion was the core of the problem.

Yup, the Sabbath is sunset to sunset. At least hat's what my crazy Christian sect (we keep the Old Testament Holy Days) believes.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:It's something of a personal beef with Columbus Day, but i dont think that He should get a holiday, as he didnt really find the US, that honor goes to the Vikings. But, apparently no matter how much truth is brought out in history, we cant allow "white men" to have too many holidays, as if most of the latino population is going to sympathize with columbus? Maybe its just too much to ask to "fix" the American history books, that still insist on Columbus "finding" these new lands.

Yeah, I agree on Columbus Day. That guy does not deserve a holiday. Coming over here, enslaving and killing tons of people, not knowing that this isn't India...

Also, Columbus was Italian, so that's not "Latino" at all.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Yeah, I agree on Columbus Day. That guy does not deserve a holiday. Coming over here, enslaving and killing tons of people, not knowing that this isn't India...

Also, Columbus was Italian, so that's not "Latino" at all.

far as i've ever read in any history books, he was sailing under the Queen of Spain's banner, so while he may have been originally from Italy, he is still more associated with the Spanish.

of course, how the hell you confuse India with the carribbean, i will never know. At least the Vikings knew what they were doing when they were sailing, and discovering new lands.

Because Europeans had never been to either in any recorded way. Its like us sending an expedition to the moon, landing on a planet adn discovering its a completely different planet.

sebster wrote:Secede. Prima facie. Secession.

Not looking to criticise, just fyi.

Thank you, I've been relying on spellcheck a little to much lately.

Upon reviewing the above mentioned documents I admit that race/slavery was one of the issues for secession for some states. But it was an issue only under the unions violation of states rights along with unfair restrictions on trade and actual property ownership(non-slave related).

As to slavery being the dominant issue I still disagree. Each state had its own causes for grievance. It does seem that the south felt that the north was using the slavery issue to openly violate its own laws, and to also use the issue to unfairly under-represent the states that maintained a legalized slave status. This seems to be the source of contention from the southern states point of view. Not so much that slavery was their issue but that it was the Northern states excuse to unfairly and unconstitutionally oppress the South.

Actually I think Ahtman put it more succinctly.

Frazzled wrote:Hey I made the best grade in the school, you whipper snapper! Of course when I took the class, Texas history had only made it to 1895…older than dirt, its not just a job, it’s a lifestyle choice

Yes Texas could Secede, as written in its constitution and agreed to when merged with the US (as well as the ability to split into five states, how cool is that). But it was the only state that could do that.

The Constitution says nothing about states leaving. They attempted to break away. Ion doing so they actively attempted to destroy the union and kill US forces and commandeer US property. That’s treason. Its always treason until the moment you win-then its independence. Just ask Santa Anna.

Did you have School Marm Jenny, too.

The constitution had no provisions for them staying, either. How can one violate a law that doesn't exist? Also the Unions reaction to the secession seems to indicate that the states had some right to do so.

focusedfire wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Hey I made the best grade in the school, you whipper snapper! Of course when I took the class, Texas history had only made it to 1895…older than dirt, its not just a job, it’s a lifestyle choice

Yes Texas could Secede, as written in its constitution and agreed to when merged with the US (as well as the ability to split into five states, how cool is that). But it was the only state that could do that.

The Constitution says nothing about states leaving. They attempted to break away. Ion doing so they actively attempted to destroy the union and kill US forces and commandeer US property. That’s treason. Its always treason until the moment you win-then its independence. Just ask Santa Anna.

Did you have School Marm Jenny, too.

The constitution had no provisions for them staying, either. How can one violate a law that doesn't exist? Also the Unions reaction to the secession seems to indicate that the states had some right to do so.

Er, respectfully, no. The armies they sent down seem to indicate they had an issue with it.

Yes, they had an issue with losing their cash cow but they handled the entire situation as if the state had some right to seceed.

The ones that had an issue sided with the original secesh states. The rest shut up and sent troops.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:far as i've ever read in any history books, he was sailing under the Queen of Spain's banner, so while he may have been originally from Italy, he is still more associated with the Spanish.

Well, that's fair.

He still wasn't a Latino though. And he killed and enslaved a bunch of people that were native to Latin America.

I think most Latin American countries named it "Discovery Day" or something, because they didn't like Columbus.

of course, how the hell you confuse India with the carribbean, i will never know. At least the Vikings knew what they were doing when they were sailing, and discovering new lands.

Exactly. Vikings never get the credit they deserve for their seamanship. Just drinking beer and worshipping Thor.

Actually he was. Latino as in Latin as in Italian. He's OL (Original Latin).

I think it's time we dedicated a song to Politicians everywhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nll8-kSlq6c

Also one for Transformer Fans!