Is America a racist nation?

[MDlaxfan76]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

The South constituted a government from the secessionist states because of the Union's hesitancy and unwillingness to permit additional slave states. The issue was then wrapped inside a long history of state's sovereignty and rights, and was packaged into a "fight to save our way of life." The way of life included as a central component slave labor to produce food and export goods. There is no credible way around slavery being the driving force and reason for the Civil War.

This paradigmatic "Johnny Reb" was brought to the front lines by the call to preserve a way of life -- again, which centrally included an economy driven by slave labor. In many cases, it is true: he was poor, un- or undereducated. But to say he "had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did" is -- forgive me -- completely ludicrous and actually demonstrates the very misunderstanding that a history of slavery in the American South that should be countered with learning.

How many Confederate soldiers had parents who arrived in this hemisphere on a ship with several hundred other people taken in the African slave ports? How many Confederate soldiers or their parents were sold at auction? How many Confederate soldiers or their parents had their brothers and sisters and children sold into slavery? How many Confederate soldiers lived under a constant threat of sale -- sale of themselves and the people they knew? How many Confederate soldiers had an overseer who could decide immediately the right punishment for a lack of productivity? How many Confederate soldiers were prohibited by law from owning property? From marrying? From voting? From walking into a tavern with a friend?

For Johnny Reb, there was no fixed code that made them property, that precluded them from testifying in court, from making contracts, from leaving their "plantation" without permission and supervision, from buying and selling goods, from owning firearms, to gather in numbers without a white man present, possess certain types of literature, or visit the homes of so-called "free blacks."

So I agree with you: the study of the Civil War and its antecedents and consequences should be a year long course for Americans, at an age when the learner can understand that even the poorest, most ill-nourished and undereducated white man had it much much better than a slave. And to repeat, for what seems like the 20,000th time: this is history, not CRT.

+1 exactly.

[Kismet]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

+1

This reply from Cradle is really good, and his point is sure to be missed by the people who most need to learn from it.

I’d add one other observation: the left is a fundamentally unhappy group, as evidenced by their bizarre demand to describe America simply and only by its worst profiles. It is a strange philosophy.

What the war was based on vs. what cradle claims the people in charge sold it as are very different things (if that even happened)

Apparently telling the truth (good and bad) is now describing America only by its worst profiles.

You seem very angry, upset and unhappy at a majority of Americans and the truth. Might be a good time take a deep breath, go outside, reflect and learn from the truth.

While everyone is giving the Founders credit for establishing the USA, we should also not lose sight of the fact that when it came time to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation with what is now the U.S Constitution the slave holding Southern states insisted upon and received an established set of rules/laws that protected their minority rights as a condition for the voting to enact the new Constitution. With the expansion of the territorial USA, they feared that those minority rights would possibly be curtailed as more free states were added to the Union.

In retrospect, you have to give them credit (despite having to endure a horrific Civil War) as those minority rights in the Constitution have endured to this very day. Absolute majority rule does not exist in the USA today or since since 1787.

[Peter Brown]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

+1

This reply from Cradle is really good, and his point is sure to be missed by the people who most need to learn from it.

I’d add one other observation: the left is a fundamentally unhappy group, as evidenced by their bizarre demand to describe America simply and only by its worst profiles. It is a strange philosophy.

What the war was based on vs. what cradle claims the people in charge sold it as are very different things (if that even happened)

Apparently telling the truth (good and bad) is now describing America only by its worst profiles.

You seem very angry, upset and unhappy at a majority of Americans and the truth. Might be a good time take a deep breath, go outside, reflect and learn from the truth.

While everyone is giving the Founders credit for establishing the USA, we should also not lose sight of the fact that when it came time to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation with what is now the U.S Constitution the slave holding Southern states insisted upon and received an established set of rules/laws that protected their minority rights as a condition for the voting to enact the new Constitution. With the expansion of the territorial USA, they feared that those minority rights would possibly be curtailed as more free states were added to the Union.

In retrospect, you have to give them credit (despite having to endure a horrific Civil War) as those minority rights in the Constitution have endured to this very day. Absolute majority rule does not exist in the USA today or since since 1787.

I’d say that has worked out well then, since the US is the most successful country in human history. Right?

[cradleandshoot]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

The South constituted a government from the secessionist states because of the Union's hesitancy and unwillingness to permit additional slave states. The issue was then wrapped inside a long history of state's sovereignty and rights, and was packaged into a "fight to save our way of life." The way of life included as a central component slave labor to produce food and export goods. There is no credible way around slavery being the driving force and reason for the Civil War.

This paradigmatic "Johnny Reb" was brought to the front lines by the call to preserve a way of life -- again, which centrally included an economy driven by slave labor. In many cases, it is true: he was poor, un- or undereducated. But to say he "had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did" is -- forgive me -- completely ludicrous and actually demonstrates the very misunderstanding that a history of slavery in the American South that should be countered with learning.

How many Confederate soldiers had parents who arrived in this hemisphere on a ship with several hundred other people taken in the African slave ports? How many Confederate soldiers or their parents were sold at auction? How many Confederate soldiers or their parents had their brothers and sisters and children sold into slavery? How many Confederate soldiers lived under a constant threat of sale -- sale of themselves and the people they knew? How many Confederate soldiers had an overseer who could decide immediately the right punishment for a lack of productivity? How many Confederate soldiers were prohibited by law from owning property? From marrying? From voting? From walking into a tavern with a friend?

For Johnny Reb, there was no fixed code that made them property, that precluded them from testifying in court, from making contracts, from leaving their "plantation" without permission and supervision, from buying and selling goods, from owning firearms, to gather in numbers without a white man present, possess certain types of literature, or visit the homes of so-called "free blacks."

So I agree with you: the study of the Civil War and its antecedents and consequences should be a year long course for Americans, at an age when the learner can understand that even the poorest, most ill-nourished and undereducated white man had it much much better than a slave. And to repeat, for what seems like the 20,000th time: this is history, not CRT.

Your last sentence is pure nonsense Mr Coaster. How so did a poor, uneducated southern hillbilly have it any better than the slaves that worked the same tobacco and cotton fields that they did? Poor is poor and starving is starving no matter what the color of your skin. Johnny Reb could no more read or write than any slave could. The only thing those confederate soldiers had was they were stubborn and proud people. As misguided and gullible as they were they fell prey to the same thing that exists in the USA today... patriotism. They resented those blue belly yankees in DC telling them what they could and could not do. You understand that many rebel soldiers didn't have shoes to wear and dragged grandpappies old shootin iron out to go and fight those bluebellies. Alot of Johnny rebs never saw a plantation in their lifetime. They were farmers who grew cotton and tobacco and struggled with surviving day to day just like the slaves on the plantation. You think they cared about how the slaves got here when 95% of them could not spell the word slave? Poor is poor brother no matter how you got there.

[Kismet]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

+1

This reply from Cradle is really good, and his point is sure to be missed by the people who most need to learn from it.

I’d add one other observation: the left is a fundamentally unhappy group, as evidenced by their bizarre demand to describe America simply and only by its worst profiles. It is a strange philosophy.

What the war was based on vs. what cradle claims the people in charge sold it as are very different things (if that even happened)

Apparently telling the truth (good and bad) is now describing America only by its worst profiles.

You seem very angry, upset and unhappy at a majority of Americans and the truth. Might be a good time take a deep breath, go outside, reflect and learn from the truth.

While everyone is giving the Founders credit for establishing the USA, we should also not lose sight of the fact that when it came time to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation with what is now the U.S Constitution the slave holding Southern states insisted upon and received an established set of rules/laws that protected their minority rights as a condition for the voting to enact the new Constitution. With the expansion of the territorial USA, they feared that those minority rights would possibly be curtailed as more free states were added to the Union.

In retrospect, you have to give them credit (despite having to endure a horrific Civil War) as those minority rights in the Constitution have endured to this very day. Absolute majority rule does not exist in the USA today or since since 1787.

I’d say that has worked out well then, since the US is the most successful country in human history. Right?

Not for solely that that reason. Dumbing down the argument to make such a point is POINTless to a rational and reasoned discussion of the topic.
Congratulations on totally missing the point being made.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Your last sentence is pure nonsense Mr Coaster. How so did a poor, uneducated southern hillbilly have it any better than the slaves that worked the same tobacco and cotton fields that they did? Poor is poor and starving is starving no matter what the color of your skin. Johnny Reb could no more read or write than any slave could. The only thing those confederate soldiers had was they were stubborn and proud people. As misguided and gullible as they were they fell prey to the same thing that exists in the USA today... patriotism. They resented those blue belly yankees in DC telling them what they could and could not do. You understand that many rebel soldiers didn't have shoes to wear and dragged grandpappies old shootin iron out to go and fight those bluebellies. Alot of Johnny rebs never saw a plantation in their lifetime. They were farmers who grew cotton and tobacco and struggled with surviving day to day just like the slaves on the plantation. You think they cared about how the slaves got here when 95% of them could not spell the word slave? Poor is poor brother no matter how you got there.

LOL those uneducated poor southern hillbillies didn't start the war. GMAFB dude.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is what it sounds like folks are saying: if you teach a more fulsome history, black people will hate white people.

[Peter Brown]

Your last sentence is pure nonsense Mr Coaster. How so did a poor, uneducated southern hillbilly have it any better than the slaves that worked the same tobacco and cotton fields that they did? Poor is poor and starving is starving no matter what the color of your skin. Johnny Reb could no more read or write than any slave could. The only thing those confederate soldiers had was they were stubborn and proud people. As misguided and gullible as they were they fell prey to the same thing that exists in the USA today... patriotism. They resented those blue belly yankees in DC telling them what they could and could not do. You understand that many rebel soldiers didn't have shoes to wear and dragged grandpappies old shootin iron out to go and fight those bluebellies. Alot of Johnny rebs never saw a plantation in their lifetime. They were farmers who grew cotton and tobacco and struggled with surviving day to day just like the slaves on the plantation. You think they cared about how the slaves got here when 95% of them could not spell the word slave? Poor is poor brother no matter how you got there.

LOL those uneducated poor southern hillbillies didn't start the war. GMAFB dude.

I didn’t expect the left to grasp Cradles point. The Morrill Tarriff is something you might want to bone up on.

Why do northerners keep pouring into the south today? You know, cause racists are so prevalent here.

[Peter Brown]

This is what it sounds like folks are saying: if you teach a more fulsome history, black people will hate white people.

Nah. Americans just reject Marxism.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/06/what-crit ... lly-about/

Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism.

Its supporters deploy a series of euphemisms to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion” and “culturally responsive teaching.”
Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds nonthreatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, critical race theorists explicitly reject equality — the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy and oppression

[NattyBohChamps04]

I didn’t expect the left to grasp Cradles point. The Morrill Tarriff is something you might want to bone up on.

You missed the entire point of the discussion dude, then you try to veer off into some other topic. It's like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie

LOL the Morrill Tariff? How about boning up on the Fugitive Slave Act? The south wanted fewer States Rights.

Are you gonna tell me to bone up on the Northwest Ordinance, Dred Scott, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, the Wilmot Proviso, the Nashville Convention, or anything else? Cute.

[ggait]

The UF faculty throws up in its mouth every time Peter posts.

The Senate was controlled by the southern Dems at the time. So the Morill tariff was stalled and had no chance to pass.

Then a bunch of southern states seceded and their senators left the senate. With them gone, then the tariff could pass. No secession, no tariff.

Since Petey is back, I’ll bid you all adieu. Life is too short to waste time on a moron gator troll. Enjoy your summer.

Might check back after Petey gets next suspended. It won’t be long.

[seacoaster]

This is what it sounds like folks are saying: if you teach a more fulsome history, black people will hate white people.

White fear and white grievance are related? No? Seriously?

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is what it sounds like folks are saying: if you teach a more fulsome history, black people will hate white people.

Nah. Americans just reject Marxism.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/06/what-crit ... lly-about/

Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s and built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism.

Its supporters deploy a series of euphemisms to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion” and “culturally responsive teaching.”
Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds nonthreatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, critical race theorists explicitly reject equality — the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy and oppression

I mentioned what it sounds like. Not what it actually is. I could be wrong.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The UF faculty throws up in its mouth every time Peter posts.

The Senate was controlled by the southern Dems at the time. So the Morill tariff was stalled and had no chance to pass.

Then a bunch of southern states seceded and their senators left the senate. With them gone, then the tariff could pass. No secession, no tariff.

Since Petey is back, I’ll bid you all adieu. Life is too short to waste time on a moron gator troll. Enjoy your summer.

Might check back after Petey gets next suspended. It won’t be long.

Enjoy the time off.

[seacoaster]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

The South constituted a government from the secessionist states because of the Union's hesitancy and unwillingness to permit additional slave states. The issue was then wrapped inside a long history of state's sovereignty and rights, and was packaged into a "fight to save our way of life." The way of life included as a central component slave labor to produce food and export goods. There is no credible way around slavery being the driving force and reason for the Civil War.

This paradigmatic "Johnny Reb" was brought to the front lines by the call to preserve a way of life -- again, which centrally included an economy driven by slave labor. In many cases, it is true: he was poor, un- or undereducated. But to say he "had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did" is -- forgive me -- completely ludicrous and actually demonstrates the very misunderstanding that a history of slavery in the American South that should be countered with learning.

How many Confederate soldiers had parents who arrived in this hemisphere on a ship with several hundred other people taken in the African slave ports? How many Confederate soldiers or their parents were sold at auction? How many Confederate soldiers or their parents had their brothers and sisters and children sold into slavery? How many Confederate soldiers lived under a constant threat of sale -- sale of themselves and the people they knew? How many Confederate soldiers had an overseer who could decide immediately the right punishment for a lack of productivity? How many Confederate soldiers were prohibited by law from owning property? From marrying? From voting? From walking into a tavern with a friend?

For Johnny Reb, there was no fixed code that made them property, that precluded them from testifying in court, from making contracts, from leaving their "plantation" without permission and supervision, from buying and selling goods, from owning firearms, to gather in numbers without a white man present, possess certain types of literature, or visit the homes of so-called "free blacks."

So I agree with you: the study of the Civil War and its antecedents and consequences should be a year long course for Americans, at an age when the learner can understand that even the poorest, most ill-nourished and undereducated white man had it much much better than a slave. And to repeat, for what seems like the 20,000th time: this is history, not CRT.

Your last sentence is pure nonsense Mr Coaster. How so did a poor, uneducated southern hillbilly have it any better than the slaves that worked the same tobacco and cotton fields that they did? Poor is poor and starving is starving no matter what the color of your skin. Johnny Reb could no more read or write than any slave could. The only thing those confederate soldiers had was they were stubborn and proud people. As misguided and gullible as they were they fell prey to the same thing that exists in the USA today... patriotism. They resented those blue belly yankees in DC telling them what they could and could not do. You understand that many rebel soldiers didn't have shoes to wear and dragged grandpappies old shootin iron out to go and fight those bluebellies. Alot of Johnny rebs never saw a plantation in their lifetime. They were farmers who grew cotton and tobacco and struggled with surviving day to day just like the slaves on the plantation. You think they cared about how the slaves got here when 95% of them could not spell the word slave? Poor is poor brother no matter how you got there.

Sigh.

I often think you don't really read any of the posts that are responding to you. It'll have to suffice to say that there was, to my knowledge, no Poor White Guy Code in the antebellum South. The legal regime institutionalizing the slave as property didn't exist in respect to white people. It's almost as simple as that. Equating a slave's life with a poor southern white man of the period is just, well, farcical.

[MDlaxfan76]

Or, heck, how about the simple fact that the Civil War was fundamentally about the secessionist south wanting to continue slavery.

Cradle -- two direct honest questions for you.

1. Do you think slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Yes or no answer please.

2. If yes, do you think that should be taught in public schools. Yes or no answer please.

Good question, the answer becomes a bit more complex IMO. If your referring to the wealthy southern plantation owners then hell yes the war was all about slavery and their ability to keep accumulating wealth. If your referring to Johnny Reb, the dirt poor, uneducated confederate foot soldier who many of them did not own shoes, the war was sold to them completely different. Johnny Reb was sold on fighting because they were told that the government was dead set on ruling their lives and telling them what they could and could not do. For Johnny Reb the war was about patriotism, defending a way of life they grew up with. The average confederate infantry soldier could not read, write and had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did. The typical Johnny Reb was a stubborn, hardheaded and proud person who was easily manipulated by the very wealthy plantation owners and "southern gentlemen" who got them to do their fighting for them. The problem with your question #2 is that to properly teach all of the dynamics of the civil war you need more than a week or two. IMO the civil war could be a course that should be a semester long judging the significance it had towards the events in our country that still linger on today

The South constituted a government from the secessionist states because of the Union's hesitancy and unwillingness to permit additional slave states. The issue was then wrapped inside a long history of state's sovereignty and rights, and was packaged into a "fight to save our way of life." The way of life included as a central component slave labor to produce food and export goods. There is no credible way around slavery being the driving force and reason for the Civil War.

This paradigmatic "Johnny Reb" was brought to the front lines by the call to preserve a way of life -- again, which centrally included an economy driven by slave labor. In many cases, it is true: he was poor, un- or undereducated. But to say he "had no better a lot in life than the slaves who worked the fields just as they did" is -- forgive me -- completely ludicrous and actually demonstrates the very misunderstanding that a history of slavery in the American South that should be countered with learning.

How many Confederate soldiers had parents who arrived in this hemisphere on a ship with several hundred other people taken in the African slave ports? How many Confederate soldiers or their parents were sold at auction? How many Confederate soldiers or their parents had their brothers and sisters and children sold into slavery? How many Confederate soldiers lived under a constant threat of sale -- sale of themselves and the people they knew? How many Confederate soldiers had an overseer who could decide immediately the right punishment for a lack of productivity? How many Confederate soldiers were prohibited by law from owning property? From marrying? From voting? From walking into a tavern with a friend?

For Johnny Reb, there was no fixed code that made them property, that precluded them from testifying in court, from making contracts, from leaving their "plantation" without permission and supervision, from buying and selling goods, from owning firearms, to gather in numbers without a white man present, possess certain types of literature, or visit the homes of so-called "free blacks."

So I agree with you: the study of the Civil War and its antecedents and consequences should be a year long course for Americans, at an age when the learner can understand that even the poorest, most ill-nourished and undereducated white man had it much much better than a slave. And to repeat, for what seems like the 20,000th time: this is history, not CRT.

Your last sentence is pure nonsense Mr Coaster. How so did a poor, uneducated southern hillbilly have it any better than the slaves that worked the same tobacco and cotton fields that they did? Poor is poor and starving is starving no matter what the color of your skin. Johnny Reb could no more read or write than any slave could. The only thing those confederate soldiers had was they were stubborn and proud people. As misguided and gullible as they were they fell prey to the same thing that exists in the USA today... patriotism. They resented those blue belly yankees in DC telling them what they could and could not do. You understand that many rebel soldiers didn't have shoes to wear and dragged grandpappies old shootin iron out to go and fight those bluebellies. Alot of Johnny rebs never saw a plantation in their lifetime. They were farmers who grew cotton and tobacco and struggled with surviving day to day just like the slaves on the plantation. You think they cared about how the slaves got here when 95% of them could not spell the word slave? Poor is poor brother no matter how you got there.

Sigh.

I often think you don't really read any of the posts that are responding to you. It'll have to suffice to say that there was, to my knowledge, no Poor White Guy Code in the antebellum South. The legal regime institutionalizing the slave as property didn't exist in respect to white people. It's almost as simple as that. Equating a slave's life with a poor southern white man of the period is just, well, farcical.

And that's the kindest way to say it.

[Peter Brown]

The UF faculty throws up in its mouth every time Peter posts.

The Senate was controlled by the southern Dems at the time. So the Morill tariff was stalled and had no chance to pass.

Then a bunch of southern states seceded and their senators left the senate. With them gone, then the tariff could pass. No secession, no tariff.

Since Petey is back, I’ll bid you all adieu. Life is too short to waste time on a moron gator troll. Enjoy your summer.

Might check back after Petey gets next suspended. It won’t be long.

I suggest this book to help you round out your knowledge of the causes of The Civil War (written by a progressive no less).

https://www.amazon.com/Clash-Extremes-E ... 0809016451

By concluding that “economics more than high moral concerns produced the Civil War,” he revives and updates the interpretation first put forth by Charles and Mary Beard that the war was at heart an economic and ideological conflict between the growing protectionist Northeastern manufacturing section and the free-trading agrarians of the South. Egnal suggests that this sectional divide was made larger as the Western states—for so long siding with the South on most political matters—began developing their own infant industrial manufactures and found their interests aligning more and more with the North.

Charles Beard was also a progressive who didn’t buy into today’s faddish leftist ideology about the causes of the Civil War.

[jhu72]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

no, the US was certainly not the first.

We were the first to actually fight a war over it. You do understand the slavery in the Caribbean under British colonial rule was barbaric by any standards? Would you rather be a slave chopping cotton in Georgia or a slave chopping sugar cane in the Caribbean? what do you think the life expectations were in both scenarios? i suggest you do your homework. i already did.

Ahistorical virtue signaling.

... we did not fight the war to end slavery. It was never Lincoln's intention. It was never a northern casus belli. There was little support in the north at the beginning of the war. Lincoln fought the war to end the rebellion, period! It was a fortuitous accident of history, used as a reason after the war.

Now we did go to war over slavery, see the First Seminole War. It is how Florida became a territory and ultimately a state. We didn't like the fact that southern slaves ran away from their captives and the Seminoles provided them sanctuary.

[cradleandshoot]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

no, the US was certainly not the first.

We were the first to actually fight a war over it. You do understand the slavery in the Caribbean under British colonial rule was barbaric by any standards? Would you rather be a slave chopping cotton in Georgia or a slave chopping sugar cane in the Caribbean? what do you think the life expectations were in both scenarios? i suggest you do your homework. i already did.

Ahistorical virtue signaling.

... we did not fight the war to end slavery. It was never Lincoln's intention. It was never a northern casus belli. There was little support in the north at the beginning of the war. Lincoln fought the war to end the rebellion, period! It was a fortuitous accident of history, used as a reason after the war.

Now we did go to war over slavery, see the First Seminole War. It is how Florida became a territory and ultimately a state. We didn't like the fact that southern slaves ran away from their captives and the Seminoles provided them sanctuary.

It does not take much research doc. The Brits were brutal and barbaric to the slaves sent to the Caribbean to harvest their crops for them. I agree with you somewhat on your first point until you wandered waaaaay off into left field.

[MDlaxfan76]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

no, the US was certainly not the first.

We were the first to actually fight a war over it. You do understand the slavery in the Caribbean under British colonial rule was barbaric by any standards? Would you rather be a slave chopping cotton in Georgia or a slave chopping sugar cane in the Caribbean? what do you think the life expectations were in both scenarios? i suggest you do your homework. i already did.

Ahistorical virtue signaling.

... we did not fight the war to end slavery. It was never Lincoln's intention. It was never a northern casus belli. There was little support in the north at the beginning of the war. Lincoln fought the war to end the rebellion, period! It was a fortuitous accident of history, used as a reason after the war.

Now we did go to war over slavery, see the First Seminole War. It is how Florida became a territory and ultimately a state. We didn't like the fact that southern slaves ran away from their captives and the Seminoles provided them sanctuary.

Interesting way to state that...the northern states (and Lincoln) were insisting that the territories, including those converting to statehood, not have slavery, the south wanted them to have slavery, extending the reach of that system and their political power. They seceded when the north wouldn't go along. Yes, Lincoln wanted to avoid the secession, wanted to avoid war, but the south forced his hand. Slavery was the driving force behind the war, though had the south not seceded, slavery would likely have continued decades longer though there was certainly mounting pressure.

PB's white wash reference is exactly the sort of thing that has been propounded for over 100 years as Jim Crow took hold. Of course it was about "economics"...that's exactly what slavery was all about, slave labor. Pretending that somehow "economics" and "free trading" is somehow in conflict with slavery being the primary driver of those "economics" and "free trade" is just white wash.

Likewise, Beard's interpretation of the American Revolution has a strong element that is correct, that it was primarily a revolution driven by economics, but to use that argument to dismiss the ideological awakening come to fruition in the Declaration, then Constitution, then Bill of Rights, etc, is to miss a major aspect as well. These needn't be either/or arguments. However, they are often posed as such.

This rather thoughtful article about Beard strikes the right sort of balance, IMO. I like the differential between Beard as the scholar challenging preconceptions and proposing alternate constructs and the 'uber-Beardian' that takes such to extremes.

https://lawliberty.org/charles-beard-li ... haic-icon/