|
njlauren -> RE: All the colors of the rainbow - from White to White (7/13/2013 9:45:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Being a fan and student of the War of Northern Aggression, there's a movie with which I'm familiar that has a great explanation about secession.
The name of the movie is "Gettysburg" and one of the characters likens the US to a gentlemen's club. Please remember; this was 1863 and they weren't talking about strippers (although, I guess whores were a possibility).
Peace and comfort,
Michael
Yea, I've always wondered how it got the name...'War of Northern Aggression.' Especially when I think about 6 states at least...seceded before Lincoln's was even inaugurated. Then within weeks of that, the south fired the first shot when they fired on Fort Sumter.
As for the OP. I think it is issues based that then reveal a certain demographic. So after looking at all of the issues, one can say that opposition to the issues seems to be mostly white, then erroneously draw conclusions based on race when maybe...it is not.
Your first point is easy to answer. I believe they seceded after the election but before the inauguration.
It was a war of Northern Aggression because the North kept pushing the issue and it was about more than just slavery. It was about industrialization and federalization.
I want to be very clear, here: There are many here that like to paint me into positions that aren't mine and before I get called a "right wing religious freak", I would like to state that NO CATHOLIC (to my knowledge) has ever been in favor of slavery. I am no longer a Catholic but I was raised one. I do retain some of my religious up-bringing but not much. One thing I do retain is a repulsion for slavery.
That said; The War of Northern Agression was about a lot more than slavery and while the South may have fired the first shots, they were being "starved out" by the North (similar to how we provoked Japan in '41).
I don't believe that the people in Colorado are racist, at all. Oh, I'm sure there are a few - as there are, anywhere. I lived there for a very brief time and I met lots of people that were pro-God, pro-guns, and pro-liberty but the only racist I ever met was a lady of color (whom I dated for a brief period of time) who couldn't "stand" black guys. She was never able to give me a reasonable answer and her racism was the main reason I stopped seeing her.
I think the people that want to secede are probably driven by a belief that this country is a mere shell of what it once was as far as liberty and personal responsibility are concerned and if that is the case, I support them, whole-heartedly.
If they're really racists, I say we let 'em secede and then, invade their new country and stomp a mudhole in their ass.
Peace and comfort,
Michael
The biggest issue was the expansion of slavery by far. The south had grievances about Tariffs, about being forced to sell their cotton and such to northern mills, and there was truth to that, but the reality is that in the Senate especially, the south had greater clout (there were more southern states then northern or midwest ones, and thanks to the two senators/state, it was why banishing slavery never stood a chance..but all paled compared to the expansion of slavery. What is left out of most history books is that in the "Old South" their biggest money maker was selling excess slaves into new territories, that keeping slaves to raise crops actually was a money loser. Without 'new markets' (territories with slavery), they faced economic ruin. The south was afraid Lincoln would ban the expansion of slavery, and that was one of the prime factors of secession.
The other reason was the south feared northern hegemony because of the ramping up of the industrial revolution and the changes that was bringing. The south was an aristrocracy, the Planter class was small, wealthy and powerful. They saw the wealth in the north, and the power, and more importantly, they saw a rising working and middle class, they saw that the north had universal education, and they knew it doomed that system, that eventually the northern culture and way of life made their way of life obsolete. I believe it was Bruce Catton who pointed out that there were members of the Aristrocracy down south who saw themselves as the descendants of the Normal French, while the North were all descended from Anglo-Saxon brutes, they were refined gentleman, the northerners were nouveau riche brutes and such.
The whole "War of Northern Agression" like the "US provocation of Japan" have root in the same thing, both are dodges to cover for horrible truths. Japan had run rampant in China since the 1930's, and their reign of terror is well documented, and it was clear Japan and its military government were planning to annex much of Asia, the US provocation was in response to what Japan was doing in China. Likewise, claiming that it was the North left them no choice, it had nothing to do with slavery, is undercut that the South wasn't fighting to keep slavery legal, they were fighting for the right to expand slavery (had the confederacy won the war, a lot of territories would have been made slave owning by treaty, and a lot of the still open land likewise would have ended up as slave owning as well), which few people would think is a good thing. Ultimately, it did come down to slavery, the other grievances were on the table and the Southern leaders were told that the only conditions on ending the war would have been allegiance to the Union and emancipation, that all the other grievances were fully negotiable, and the south refused.
Michael, the Catholic attitude and role towards slavery is complex. The RC itself was notable in that while a lot of the abolition movement was based in religious belief, the US church nor the vatican ever made a stand against slavery in the US, they were silent on it (it doesn't mean they liked slavery, I doubt they did, they just didn't say or do anything about it).And in Catholic areas in the south, primarily Louisiana, the church could and was an accessory to slavery, for example, when slaves wanted to get married, the marriage ceremony would have in it wording that the husband and wife had a duty to obey their masters and superiors and some churches owned slaves themselves,so it was complicated.
|
|
|
|
