Is southsplaining a word yet? If not I hereby coin it in honor of Shagnasty.
That would be awesome. I love having terms named in honor of me. There have been a few over the years.
You thought there was some value in observing that slave owners did not benefit from damaging their property? Somehow that needs saying?
And it seems you’re less interested in dispassionately considering the factors that created and sustained such a system, but are motivated by an agenda of defending the South as much as possible (hence the nostalgia about your long family history of slavery). You can choose to be dispassionate about defending the South regarding slavery. It doesn’t mean that it’s reasonable for others to be dispassionate rather than disgusted by your beliefs.
We already have “whitewashing”, which is what he’s doing to Confederate history
Just so I’m clear, because I’ll inevitably argue about this with someone on FB, was the states’ rights issue only about slavery? Were there any other rights issues in play at all? Taxes or something? I don’t want to make the claim it was 100% slavery rights if someone is going to come up with a cite about some other little rights issue.
The only reason I brought up my family’s history of slaveowning wasn’t to defend them or slavery or anything of the sort. I have heard people make the claim that hardly anyone ever admits that their family owned slaves. Well, now you have. It is a simple fact that I wish didn’t exist of but the facts cannot be changed now.I could have pulled a Ben Affleck and omitted that completely but I felt it was relevant for full disclosure even though I know from experience that admission will make some people irrationally angry at me for something that ended over 100 years before I was even born.
Well, the states rights issues were mainly focused around slavery in one way or another. There were a lot of smaller issues concerning slavery that were hotly debated at the time. If a slave fled one state, did another state have to extradite the slave back? Ironically, not if states rights were being upheld individually instead of devolving to a Federal government to act as an overall sovereign. What about new states…would they be slave or free and who would decide? This had implications in the overall balance of power, since the Southerners (rightfully) feared that if only free states were allowed in the Union that eventually this would tip the balance and force change on the issue. FWIW, here is a cite on how ‘states rights’ weren’t what the Civil War was about.
Read the statements of secession. Every one says explicitly that the reason for seceding was that the federal government was increasingly hostile to their practice of slavery.
Okay, thanks.
What’s your feelings on Jane Fonda going to Hanoi during the Vietnam War? I feel waving a Confederate flag is the moral equivalent of that.
Here are the official reasons. These are the proclamations issued by the governments of seceding states explaining why they were seceding. They are clear and direct - it was all about slavery and nothing else.
If somebody gives you a supposed cite that says otherwise, check the date. You’ll find that all the claims that there were other causes were written after the war ended. These claims are attempts to rewrite history.
But you still keep the picture of the slaveowner in a place of honor and would “assault” anyone who tried to remove it. :rolleyes:
Slavesplainin’ would be more accurate. I am proud of being from the (contemporary) south. But not the old slave trading part. Or maybe Confederatehandwavin’?
-
If your argument is “I didn’t sink as low as Ben Affleck”, there’s a problem with your argument.
-
Nobody’s angry at you for the Civil War. They’re angry because you think slavery is no big deal, not compared to some stuff at least and because you don’t get that putting a pic of your grandfather on the wall and would “assault” anyone who tried to remove it is just gross.
One thing that did happen is a tarrifdid go into effect just before the wr started that very much favored the industrial Northern states. But the tarriff only passed because the southerners had already seceeded.
A handful of speeches made by Southerners mention the mean ol’ Morrill tarrif but only after they mention the election of Lincoln, their right to keep humans in bondage, etc. Mordern neo-confederate apologists, desperate to hide any mention of slavery have tried to blow the tarriff issue well beyond its influence.
I take it that you learned your history in one of the Northern states, and not in the South, where every historical American event prior to 1860 was just setting the stage for the Great War, and everything that occurred after the war was a direct consequence of that war.
At least, that’s what I learned from my history classes in Texas.
Or do people in Pennsylvania go out on weekends and re-enact Gettysburg?
Chick was a freak, I Shagnastied her and she was all about it!
How old are you? I go 'way back but don’t remember such a Confederate slant in the classroom. Of course, I’ve also continued learning–through books & PBS. I didn’t stop learning “my” history when I was a child.
Shagnasty isn’t a verb, it’s a noun - an island so covered in the vile guano of the blue-eyed shag, it was named after that miasma. Or just a bad lay, according to Brian Blessed (while comparing Genghis Khan and Eyafajallyokull).