Page 47 of 210

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
by SCLaxAttack
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:56 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
The were fighting over their right to own slaves….not slavery. Didn’t want to have the option taken away.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm
by cradleandshoot
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 6:34 pm
by Peter Brown
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.


Cradle: this is, once again, a superb post. You are able to convey in written form a pleasing degree of common sense (which ain’t that common) which is useful to anyone genuinely interested in learning and not preaching.

+1

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:16 pm
by SCLaxAttack
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.
I’m not trying to say it, I AM saying it. Stuart OWNED OTHER HUMAN BEINGS and fought against his country. I welcome the continued removal of statues in his honor and removal of his name from public spaces. Like ancestors of Robert E. Lee, Stuart’s ancestors should also regret Stuart’s poor choices.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:27 pm
by Peter Brown
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:16 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.
I’m not trying to say it, I AM saying it. Stuart OWNED OTHER HUMAN BEINGS and fought against his country. I welcome the continued removal of statues in his honor and removal of his name from public spaces. Like ancestors of Robert E. Lee, Stuart’s ancestors should also regret Stuart’s poor choices.


“His country”. No one was guilty of treason, nor fought against their own country, because it appears to legal scholars that the secession was in fact legal.

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/20171 ... sion-legal

Also, in America, one is not liable for the sins of their fathers.

It was President Abraham Lincoln’s greatest vision that whether you were the child of a free slave, the child of a Confederate soldier who would renounce this country, the child of a president — or even the child of a serial murderer — you should be judged on who you are, not on who your parents were. The Union was about was making sure that we all have equal opportunity to invent ourselves.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice ... nstitution

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:00 pm
by SCLaxAttack
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:27 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:16 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.
I’m not trying to say it, I AM saying it. Stuart OWNED OTHER HUMAN BEINGS and fought against his country. I welcome the continued removal of statues in his honor and removal of his name from public spaces. Like ancestors of Robert E. Lee, Stuart’s ancestors should also regret Stuart’s poor choices.


“His country”. No one was guilty of treason, nor fought against their own country, because it appears to legal scholars that the secession was in fact legal.

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/20171 ... sion-legal

Also, in America, one is not liable for the sins of their fathers.

It was President Abraham Lincoln’s greatest vision that whether you were the child of a free slave, the child of a Confederate soldier who would renounce this country, the child of a president — or even the child of a serial murderer — you should be judged on who you are, not on who your parents were. The Union was about was making sure that we all have equal opportunity to invent ourselves.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice ... nstitution
Ok then, he fought against MY country, and he owned human beings.

Not a single word in my post said Stuart’s ancestors are liable for the sins of their forefathers. Once again the troll tries to make something from what doesn’t exist.

It’s ok to admit the leaders of the south were incorrect in fighting for a government whose constitution made it illegal for states within that country to disavow slavery. It’s actually more than ok.

But I understand how the troll particularly wouldn’t understand that. He doesn’t understand a lot of things.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:26 pm
by MDlaxfan76
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:00 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:27 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:16 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.
I’m not trying to say it, I AM saying it. Stuart OWNED OTHER HUMAN BEINGS and fought against his country. I welcome the continued removal of statues in his honor and removal of his name from public spaces. Like ancestors of Robert E. Lee, Stuart’s ancestors should also regret Stuart’s poor choices.


“His country”. No one was guilty of treason, nor fought against their own country, because it appears to legal scholars that the secession was in fact legal.

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/20171 ... sion-legal

Also, in America, one is not liable for the sins of their fathers.

It was President Abraham Lincoln’s greatest vision that whether you were the child of a free slave, the child of a Confederate soldier who would renounce this country, the child of a president — or even the child of a serial murderer — you should be judged on who you are, not on who your parents were. The Union was about was making sure that we all have equal opportunity to invent ourselves.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice ... nstitution
Ok then, he fought against MY country, and he owned human beings.

Not a single word in my post said Stuart’s ancestors are liable for the sins of their forefathers. Once again the troll tries to make something from what doesn’t exist.

It’s ok to admit the leaders of the south were incorrect in fighting for a government whose constitution made it illegal for states within that country to disavow slavery. It’s actually more than ok.

But I understand how the troll particularly wouldn’t understand that. He doesn’t understand a lot of things.
I think that's by choice, which is exactly what makes it trolling.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm
by MDlaxfan76
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.
no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:19 pm
by PizzaSnake
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:26 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:00 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:27 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:16 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.
I’m not trying to say it, I AM saying it. Stuart OWNED OTHER HUMAN BEINGS and fought against his country. I welcome the continued removal of statues in his honor and removal of his name from public spaces. Like ancestors of Robert E. Lee, Stuart’s ancestors should also regret Stuart’s poor choices.


“His country”. No one was guilty of treason, nor fought against their own country, because it appears to legal scholars that the secession was in fact legal.

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/20171 ... sion-legal

Also, in America, one is not liable for the sins of their fathers.

It was President Abraham Lincoln’s greatest vision that whether you were the child of a free slave, the child of a Confederate soldier who would renounce this country, the child of a president — or even the child of a serial murderer — you should be judged on who you are, not on who your parents were. The Union was about was making sure that we all have equal opportunity to invent ourselves.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice ... nstitution
Ok then, he fought against MY country, and he owned human beings.

Not a single word in my post said Stuart’s ancestors are liable for the sins of their forefathers. Once again the troll tries to make something from what doesn’t exist.

It’s ok to admit the leaders of the south were incorrect in fighting for a government whose constitution made it illegal for states within that country to disavow slavery. It’s actually more than ok.

But I understand how the troll particularly wouldn’t understand that. He doesn’t understand a lot of things.
I think that's by choice, which is exactly what makes it trolling.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:43 am
by cradleandshoot
https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-aver ... -Civil-War

This is about as fine of a read on this topic as I have found. What stands out is how complicated this issue is. There is no black or white answer, unless your one of those folks that has already made up their mind.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 am
by cradleandshoot
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.
no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...
I could have asked them while we were marching down Longstreet Rd to get to Normandy DZ. Hell just being stationed at Ft Bragg should have been an insult to every black soldier that was ever stationed there. No I never went to war MD. i was lucky enough to be trained and led by a group of NCOs that did. FTR they were black, white and Puerto Rican. On a side note George S Patton was a wealthy, arrogant elitist a hole. His soldiers in the 3rd army loved him like a father. I bet what stands out from your perspective MD is the general slapped a soldier. I suppose in another 100 years Patton will also be redefined by the popular culture as a bad person and you would be right there to second the motion. Do you understand enough about the history of the civil war to understand why Jeb Stuart was such an icon of the average confederate soldier? He was not fighting to be a popular figure among union leaders. He had more respect from his soldiers than that dim witted idiot George McClellan ever would have hope for. It is okay to be incompetent as long as you didn't own slaves. :roll:

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:20 am
by Peter Brown
cradleandshoot wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:43 am https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-aver ... -Civil-War

This is about as fine of a read on this topic as I have found. What stands out is how complicated this issue is. There is no black or white answer, unless your one of those folks that has already made up their mind.



Thanks, Cradle. Excellent read.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:43 am
by seacoaster
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/opin ... e=Homepage

"One question lingers amid all the debates about critical race theory: How racist is this land? Anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear knows about the oppression of the Native Americans, about slavery and Jim Crow. But does that mean that America is even now a white supremacist nation, that whiteness is a cancer that leads to oppression for other groups? Or is racism mostly a part of America’s past, something we’ve largely overcome?

There are many ways to answer these questions. The most important is by having honest conversations with the people directly affected. But another is by asking: How high are the barriers to opportunity for different groups? Do different groups have a fair shot at the American dream? This approach isn’t perfect, but at least it points us to empirical data rather than just theory and supposition.

When we apply this lens to the African American experience we see that barriers to opportunity are still very high. The income gap separating white and Black families was basically as big in 2016 as it was in 1968. The wealth gap separating white and Black households grew even bigger between those years. Black adults are over 16 times more likely to be in families with three generations of poverty than white adults.

Research shows the role racism plays in perpetuating these disparities. When, in 2004, researchers sent equally qualified white and Black applicants to job interviews in New York City, dressed them similarly and gave them similar things to say, Black applicants got half as many callbacks or job offers as whites.

When you look at the data about African Americans, the legacies of slavery and segregation and the effects of racism are everywhere. The phrase “systemic racism” aptly fits the reality you see — a set of structures, like redlining, that have a devastating effect on Black wealth and opportunities. Racism is not something we are gently moving past; it’s pervasive. It seems obvious that this reality should be taught in every school.

Does this mean that America is white supremacist, a shameful nation, that the American dream is just white privilege? Well, let’s take a look at the data for different immigrant groups. When you turn your gaze here, the barriers don’t seem as high. For example, as Bloomberg’s Noah Smith pointed out recently on his Substack page, Hispanic American incomes rose faster in recent years than those of any other major group in America. Forty-five percent of Hispanics who grew up in poverty made it to the middle class or higher, comparable to the mobility rate for whites.

Hispanics have lately made astounding gains in education. In 2000, more than 30 percent of Hispanics dropped out of high school. By 2016, only 10 percent did. In 1999, a third of Hispanics age 18 to 24 were in college; now, nearly half are. Hispanic college enrollment rates surpassed white enrollment rates in 2012.

The Hispanic experience in America is beginning to look similar to the experience of Irish Americans or Italian Americans or other past immigrant groups — a period of struggle followed by integration into the middle class.

A study by scholars from Princeton, Stanford and the University of California at Davis found that today’s children of immigrants are no slower to move up to the middle class than the children of immigrants 100 years ago. It almost doesn’t matter whether their parents came from countries from which immigrants are mainly fleeing misery and poverty, or from countries from which immigrants often arrive with marketable skills, children of poor immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than the children of the native-born.

This economic success obviously does not mean immigrant groups do not face hardship, bias and exploitation. Almost every immigrant group in American history has faced that. It just means that education and mobility can help overcome some of the effects of this bias. According to that same study, immigrant groups are largely doing well because they come to places where opportunity is plentiful. They are not so much earning more than those around them, but earning more along with those around them.

Economic progress is one thing. What about cultural integration?

A landmark 2015 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that the lives of immigrants and their children are converging with those of their native-born neighbors, in good ways and bad. This pattern applies to how well educated they are, where they live, what language they speak, how their health is and how they organize their families. A study by a Brown University sociologist, for example, found that Mexican immigrants are learning English at increasingly higher rates and growing less isolated from non-Mexican Americans.

Rising intermarriage rates are one product of this integration. According to a 2017 Pew Research Center report, about 29 percent of Asian American newlyweds are married to someone of a different race or ethnicity, along with 27 percent of Hispanic newlyweds. The intermarriage rates for white and Black people have roughly tripled since 1980. More than 35 percent of Americans say that one of their “close” kin is of a different race.

Blending identities is another sign of this integration. There was an idea going around a few years ago that America was about to become a majority-minority country. This would be true only if you rigidly divided Americans into white and (with one drop of nonwhite blood) nonwhite categories.

But real humans are very quick to adopt multiple and shifting racial identities. The researchers Richard Alba, Morris Levy and Dowell Myers suggest 52 percent of the people who self-categorize as nonwhite in the Census Bureau’s projections for America’s 2060 racial makeup will also think of themselves as white. Forty percent of those who self-categorized as white will also claim minority racial identity.

In an essay for The Atlantic, they conclude: “Speculating about whether America will have a white majority by the mid-21st century makes little sense, because the social meanings of white and nonwhite are rapidly shifting. The sharp distinction between these categories will apply to many fewer Americans.”

When you look at the data across groups, a few points stand out.

First, you can see why some people have issues with the phrase “people of color.” How could a category that covers a vast majority of all human beings have much meaning? The groups that the phrase attempts to bring together have different experiences and even face different kinds of bias. Perhaps this phrase covers over real identities instead of illuminating them.

Writing in GQ, Damon Young argues that the term “people of color” has become a linguistic gesture, “shorthand for white people uncomfortable with just saying ‘Black.’” In The New Yorker, E. Tammy Kim argues, “‘People of color,’ by grouping all nonwhites in the United States, if not the world, fails to capture the disproportionate per-capita harm to Blacks at the hands of the state.”

Second, it’s certainly time to dump the replacement theory that has been so popular with Tucker Carlson and the far right — the idea that all these foreigners are coming to take over the country. This is an idea that panics a lot of whites and helped elect Donald Trump, but it’s not true. In truth, immigrants blend with the current inhabitants, keeping parts of their earlier identities and adopting parts of their new identities. This has been happening for hundreds of years, and it is still happening. This kind of intermingling of groups is not replacing America, it is America.

Finally, it may not be accurate to say that America can be neatly divided into rival ethnic camps, locked in zero-sum conflict with each other. The real story is more about blending and fluidity. I’m just one guy with one (white) point of view. But my reading of the historical record suggests groups do well by mingling with everybody else while keeping some of their own distinct identities and cultures. “Integration without assimilation” is how Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks put it.

The interwoven reality of America defies simple binaries of white versus nonwhite. Over the last several years Raj Chetty and his team at Opportunity Insights have done much of the most celebrated work on income mobility. They find that, indeed, Black Americans and Native Americans have much lower rates of mobility because of historic discrimination.

But Chetty’s team emphasizes that these gaps are not immutable. If, for example, you use housing vouchers and other grants to help people move to high-opportunity neighborhoods with low poverty rates, low racial bias and more fathers in the neighborhoods, then you can help people of all races lead lives with higher incomes and lower rates of incarceration as adults.

The reality of America encompasses both the truth about structural racism and the truth that America is a land of opportunity for an astounding diversity of groups from around the world. There’s no way to simplify that complexity.

Last week I saw a young Black woman wearing a T-shirt that read, “I am my ancestors’ wildest dreams.” I took her message as a statement of defiance, pride, determination and hope. If you can keep discordant emotions like that in your head, you can get a feel for this discordant land."

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:31 am
by Peter Brown
That’s a very thoughtful article, seacoaster. Brooks could also have noted the impressively high advanced degree status of immigrant Nigerians.

I’m that Republican who embraces immigration, though perhaps not the open border policies of this administration. I’ve always felt that a majority of immigrants who come here embrace the Republican party’s ideals of liberty and self reliance. Most are leaving behind socialism.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:42 am
by cradleandshoot
This is a troubling little fact I have to point here. I have heard this phrase repeated here over and over and over and over by certain people on this forum. So and so owned slaves. Stunning fact for all of you... OWNING SLAVES IN THE USA WAS LEGAL. A lot of northerners owned slaves and surprisingly a lot of Union generals had families that owned slaves. My reading on this tells me slavery never existed until black people were brought over here in the 1600s. I was foolishly under the misconception that slavery had existed on this planet for thousands of years. Those people that built the pyramids were apparently not union labor after all. Those Egyptians should be paying reparations to somebody because they owe them hugely.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:49 am
by Typical Lax Dad
cradleandshoot wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:42 am This is a troubling little fact I have to point here. I have heard this phrase repeated here over and over and over and over by certain people on this forum. So and so owned slaves. Stunning fact for all of you... OWNING SLAVES IN THE USA WAS LEGAL. A lot of northerners owned slaves and surprisingly a lot of Union generals had families that owned slaves. My reading on this tells me slavery never existed until black people were brought over here in the 1600s. I was foolishly under the misconception that slavery had existed on this planet for thousands of years. Those people that built the pyramids were apparently not union labor after all. Those Egyptians should be paying reparations to somebody because they owe them hugely.
The more you post, you sound “stupider and stupider”. Walk your dog and water your plants.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:05 am
by cradleandshoot
:D
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:49 am
cradleandshoot wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:42 am This is a troubling little fact I have to point here. I have heard this phrase repeated here over and over and over and over by certain people on this forum. So and so owned slaves. Stunning fact for all of you... OWNING SLAVES IN THE USA WAS LEGAL. A lot of northerners owned slaves and surprisingly a lot of Union generals had families that owned slaves. My reading on this tells me slavery never existed until black people were brought over here in the 1600s. I was foolishly under the misconception that slavery had existed on this planet for thousands of years. Those people that built the pyramids were apparently not union labor after all. Those Egyptians should be paying reparations to somebody because they owe them hugely.
The more you post, you sound “stupider and stupider”. Walk your dog and water your plants.
Ditto my friend...ditto. I can't walk Roxy right now. I had surgery on my foot. I can't do any work in the garden either. My sole source of entertainment right now is reading you whine and b***h about my perspective on life. If you have some free time your more than welcome to come over and walk Roxy for me. How good are you at weeding? You okay with getting dirt under your fingernails?

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:09 am
by MDlaxfan76
cradleandshoot wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm
Matnum PI wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.
It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.
No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.
From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.
Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.
no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...
I could have asked them while we were marching down Longstreet Rd to get to Normandy DZ. Hell just being stationed at Ft Bragg should have been an insult to every black soldier that was ever stationed there. No I never went to war MD. i was lucky enough to be trained and led by a group of NCOs that did. FTR they were black, white and Puerto Rican. On a side note George S Patton was a wealthy, arrogant elitist a hole. His soldiers in the 3rd army loved him like a father. I bet what stands out from your perspective MD is the general slapped a soldier. I suppose in another 100 years Patton will also be redefined by the popular culture as a bad person and you would be right there to second the motion. Do you understand enough about the history of the civil war to understand why Jeb Stuart was such an icon of the average confederate soldier? He was not fighting to be a popular figure among union leaders. He had more respect from his soldiers than that dim witted idiot George McClellan ever would have hope for. It is okay to be incompetent as long as you didn't own slaves. :roll:
Patton? squirrel?

Yes, Ft Bragg was certainly an "insult".
I don't blame you a bit for not discussing or debating the issue with your fellow grunts.

Jeb Stuart was a highly effective cavalry commander and flamboyant leader, fighting for slavery. A slaveowner fighting for perpetuation of slavery. Critiqued by Lee at Gettysburg, but otherwise very effective tactician.

As a kid, I remember this comic lionizing Jeb. No mention of what Stuart was actually fighting for. Part of the way the Lost Cause whitewashed history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank

Historians are clear on which generals, on both sides, were effective leaders and strategists. Lincoln was quite frustrated with the Union generals, for instance. Finally Grant (who was flawed in his own ways and plenty of critique has been written on him).

But being a brave or brilliant traitor, does not make one less of a traitor. It does get you in the history books, though.
And fighting for the immorality of slavery should never be whitewashed away.

Re: Is America a racist nation?

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:17 am
by jhu72
... great great grandfather rode with Stuart. Killed in the Seven Days Battle east of Richmond.