Jump to content

Civil War still divides Americans


Recommended Posts

Slavery was the main reason the southern states seceded. Slavery was not the main reason the North fought the war. Preserving the union was the main reason the North fought. Slavery became a big reason for the north continuing the war after the emancipation proclamation.

It should be stated too that not all southerners were fighting to protect slavery. A lot of them were fighting out of loyalty to their state. Some were fighting because the north was invading their "country".

And before we paint every southerner that buys into the red herring of "state's rights" as a racist, keep in mind a lot of their ancestors lost their lives fighting in the civil war. No one likes to hear that their relatives died for a rotten cause. That's not to say that there are no racists in the south either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

An interesting quiz about the Civil War that I found:

Civil War anniversary: 13 questions 150 years later - First shots - CSMonitor.com

I thought now would be as good a time as any for a distraction from this thread, which right now is demonstrating the truth of the thread title quite nicely. I got 9/13, which is pretty pathetic but oh well.

(I should add that one of the questions I knew the answer because of reading this political forum. Who knew?)

I aced the quiz, but it wasn't a fair fight. While I haven't dwelled on the Civil War (not even sure which side my ancestors fought for), I have studied varied military histories.

Edit: I said I would stay out of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm wildly off-base here, but I think that opposition to slavery did not necessarily coincide with true tolerance/respect of blacks. Even among religious types with a sincere concern for the welfare of slaves. In other words, I think most northerners viewed slavery as barbaric to a certain degree but were very NIMBY when it came to blacks moving north.

What's the old saying? Down South, they don't care how close you live so long as you don't climb too high; up North, they don't care how high you climb so long as you don't live too close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that LBJ turned enough people off in the South to change the entire region from blue to red virtually overnight. That's not even my opinion...I'm just reciting the facts. It doesn't take every single voter to flip the region. If the region is already 60/40, you'd only need about 11% of the people total to change their minds, or 20% to have an overwhelming change across the entire region like we had seen. That's hardly saying that every single voter was motivated by racial concerns. But Civil Rights Litigation had an immediate and substantial effect. 20% of Southern voters didn't suddenly change from being liberal to being conservative.

Well, that's a rather radical change from your original statement. Here's your original statement:

The only reason the South is Republican today is that they're still angry about Civil Rights legislation. It's all about their "right" to treat blacks like animals. Everything else is just window-dressing.

Now, when you say "they're" the reader has only one thing to reference... Southern Republicans. You don't make any attempt to indicate a smaller subset vs. the whole group. Furthermore, you later clarified your statement thusly:

Also, I'd like it to be pointed out where I said "all" Southern Republicans want to treat blacks like animals. When you make broad, general statements, it's usually implied that you're talking about a generalization and not an air-tight rule.

Now you've indicated a subset of Southern Republicans, but that subset still encompasses a lot of people. As I said earlier if you're generalizing I would expect at least 60% of the whole group to be that way.

Now you've further clarified (revised?) to say that only 20% of the population is this way. That's a big difference from what you originally said.

I'm hoping that what you meant to say original was something to the effect of this:

"The only reason the South is Republican today is that a portion of the population is still angry about Civil Rights legislation put in place by a democrat president and so switched to the republican party. It's all about their "right" to treat blacks like animals. Everything else is just window-dressing."

Yeah know... one other thing to consider on why some in the south may has switched:

Voting on the civil right bill:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)

Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

As a percentage, the bill was supported by repubs more than dems. Further break down shows that it was much more split by north vs. south and if you look at just the south it was unanimously opposed by southern repubs (southern dems were only slightly better). Given that the majority of politicians in the south at the time were dems (94 vs. 10 reps and 21 vs. 1 senator) and given that more republicans supported the bill than dems, perhaps some in the south who weren't of the ilk who wanted the "right" to treat blacks like animals decided that the republican party might be the better party for support of civil rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the explanation is easy Red... those Republican northerners who voted for the legislation became Democrats. Those Democratic Southerners who voted against, became Republicans.

All you need to do to not forget this again is to remember that Democrats = Good, Republicans = Bad. That's how all political analysis is to be handled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know a single person who is offended by the use of "blacks". It is more accurate than African American, because many blacks do not consider themselves from Africa (Jamaicans, Dominicans, etc).

But as Peter Tosh correctly pointed out..."no matter where you come from, as long as you're a black man, you are an African." :happy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as your a human, you are an African.

Does that mean I can claim minority status?!? :classic:

Seriously though, I have run into a few people who don't like the term 'black.' I don't know if they've been offended... that might be too strong a word. But they definitely prefer the term African American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American please.

African-American is not a indicator of nationality, but rather an indicator of ancestry or ethnicity.

I, like most true and proud Dutchmen, refer to my Dutch-ness a time or two. Many of us over here in West Michigan do. 'Course, there's also some polish people here too, but we try to forgive them for something they can't help. :classic:

Anyway, my point isn't that saying African-American is to separate themselves from other Americans but rather just a comment on ethnicity or ancestry. When I speak in pride about my Dutch-ness (such as: If you ain't Dutch, you ain't much!) I don't get looks and people saying: Hey, you're an American, don't talk about your Dutch-ness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

African-American is not a indicator of nationality, but rather an indicator of ancestry or ethnicity.

I, like most true and proud Dutchmen, refer to my Dutch-ness a time or two. Many of us over here in West Michigan do. 'Course, there's also some polish people here too, but we try to forgive them for something they can't help. :classic:

Anyway, my point isn't that saying African-American is to separate themselves from other Americans but rather just a comment on ethnicity or ancestry. When I speak in pride about my Dutch-ness (such as: If you ain't Dutch, you ain't much!) I don't get looks and people saying: Hey, you're an American, don't talk about your Dutch-ness.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

African-American is not a indicator of nationality, but rather an indicator of ancestry or ethnicity.

I, like most true and proud Dutchmen, refer to my Dutch-ness a time or two. Many of us over here in West Michigan do. 'Course, there's also some polish people here too, but we try to forgive them for something they can't help. :classic:

Anyway, my point isn't that saying African-American is to separate themselves from other Americans but rather just a comment on ethnicity or ancestry. When I speak in pride about my Dutch-ness (such as: If you ain't Dutch, you ain't much!) I don't get looks and people saying: Hey, you're an American, don't talk about your Dutch-ness.

I thank the lord that I'm only half-Dutch.

Part of me wants to knock up a girl that's a mutt like my dad was so my kid will have all the races covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still find the tag ambiguous. With relatives originating in Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands, France and Belgium, I don't refer to my heritage as Euopean American (using the continent to be the all inclusive metaphor).

But if pressed, you can name those places you came from (Scot-, Ire-, Netherlands, France and Belgium). What if you only knew they came from some place in Europe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still find the tag ambiguous. With relatives originating in Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands, France and Belgium, I don't refer to my heritage as Euopean American (using the continent to be the all inclusive metaphor).

Just because you don't refer to heritage doesn't mean other people should follow the same model. Especially when the European experience in America is remarkably different than the African American experience (along with the Native experience, Asian experience and more).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if pressed, you can name those places you came from (Scot-, Ire-, Netherlands, France and Belgium). What if you only knew they came from some place in Europe?
Just because you don't refer to heritage doesn't mean other people should follow the same model. Especially when the European experience in America is remarkably different than the African American experience (along with the Native experience, Asian experience and more).
Very reasonable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been known to call myself Euro-American because my ancestors were kicked out of so many respectable countries in Europe. For some reason I identify most with my Swedish heritage, even though I'm a brunette. ;)

I don't really care one way or the other, though. As the youngest of five kids I'm used to it. It was rare for my Mom to call me the right name on the first try (for years I thought I had a really long name).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's a rather radical change from your original statement.

No...it would be completely silly and contrary to the rules of normal interpretation for a reader to interpret my statements the way you do. The only reason one would do so would be to purposefully misconstrue my words in an attempt to make what I said look bad.

Similarly, it would ignore the entire context of this discussion.

The "treat blacks like animals" comment was directed at the "South," not at "Republicans." If you read my first comment plainly and honestly, that is the only possible interpretation you could have gotten. And if you take into context the greater discussion, you would realize that comment was in reference to the political shift in the South, and not to everyone in the South. And anyone with any common sense can see that it doesn't take everyone or "all" people of one group to create a political shift. Simply a shift of only 20% of all voters is enough to create a political shift.

Like I said, the only way you can interpret what I said the way you are trying to do is to either interpret it dishonestly or foolishly. It flies in the face of common sense.

The only reason the South is Republican today is that they're still angry about Civil Rights legislation. It's all about their "right" to treat blacks like animals. Everything else is just window-dressing.

Now, when you say "they're" the reader has only one thing to reference... Southern Republicans. You don't make any attempt to indicate a smaller subset vs. the whole group.

The subject (the noun being referenced by the predicate) in the sentence you quote is "South." The word "Republican" is not part of the subject of the sentence, nor is an adjective describing the subject. The word "Republican" is the predicate of the sentence. So anyone that knows how to speak the English language properly would not contend that the group "Southern Republicans" is at all being referenced by the rest of the sentence. Hence, the only thing being described by the rest of the sentence is "South." "Republican" is the end result, not the initial condition of things, which you seem to contend. Hence, my original sentence says nothing about "Southern Republicans." You were the first person to even bring up such a concept.

Furthermore, you later clarified your statement thusly:
Also, I'd like it to be pointed out where I said "all" Southern Republicans want to treat blacks like animals. When you make broad, general statements, it's usually implied that you're talking about a generalization and not an air-tight rule.

Now you've indicated a subset of Southern Republicans, but that subset still encompasses a lot of people. As I said earlier if you're generalizing I would expect at least 60% of the whole group to be that way.

Now you've further clarified (revised?) to say that only 20% of the population is this way. That's a big difference from what you originally said.

I haven't indicated anything you assert here. The statement I made here that you criticize is not an indication of anything. I do not make any new positive statement here at all. The entire quote is a limitation on what someone else thought I said, not a new assertion. You cannot be fluent in the English language and yet still contend that this additional clarification is a positive "indication" like you claim.

My only error here is that I didn't go far enough in limiting the previous misconception of my words. I pointed out that I didn't say "all," which was very true. The previous poster had put the word "all" in my mouth when I didn't originally say that. What I should have additionally clarified, but failed to do, is that I also didn't say anything about "Southern Republicans."

Nothing in the subject matter of this discussion, nor in my precise grammar suggests that I was talking about "all." The plain interpretation of my words suggests I meant to convey a generalization, and the context of the discussion suggests my generalization was limited to only enough people to create a political shift in an entire region of the country. While the number of people needed to create a political shift is certainly not negligible, no one making an honest interpretation of my words would construe that it is enough to encompass "all" possible people, whatever sub-group of the population we are talking about.

I'm hoping that what you meant to say original was something to the effect of this:

"The only reason the South is Republican today is that a portion of the population is still angry about Civil Rights legislation put in place by a democrat president and so switched to the republican party. It's all about their "right" to treat blacks like animals. Everything else is just window-dressing."

That would be the only reasonable interpretation of my words.

Yeah know... one other thing to consider on why some in the south may has switched:

Voting on the civil right bill:

The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)

Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)

Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

As a percentage, the bill was supported by repubs more than dems. Further break down shows that it was much more split by north vs. south and if you look at just the south it was unanimously opposed by southern repubs (southern dems were only slightly better). Given that the majority of politicians in the south at the time were dems (94 vs. 10 reps and 21 vs. 1 senator) and given that more republicans supported the bill than dems, perhaps some in the south who weren't of the ilk who wanted the "right" to treat blacks like animals decided that the republican party might be the better party for support of civil rights?

But as I've already said, it was blamed (or attributed, depending on your view) on the Democratic president, just like economic conditions get blamed on the president. It subsequently made the Democratic party synonymous with the cause of Civil Rights. Who voted for the actual bill is simply inconsequential. The effect I am talking about happened after the bill was voted on, not before or during the passage of the bill. So the conditions at the time of the bill's passage, including the party of the people voting for the bill, are irrelevant to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by thecouga

The only reason the South is Republican today is that they're still angry about Civil Rights legislation. It's all about their "right" to treat blacks like animals. Everything else is just window-dressing.

Collective singular subject, plural predicates. Should read "it is still angry," and "about its right" ... which may explain the confusion to the reader. Unclear grammar has that ability.

"It," as a predicate for "The South," is pretty much all inclusive. Apparently, "it" was so angry about Civil Rights legislation today that "it," in "its" blind rage somehow had six of "its" states vote for Johnson in '64, all "its" states vote for Carter in '76, four of "its" states vote for Clinton in '92 and five in '96. Not to mention that five of "its" states voted Republican in '56 as did four in '52. "It" must have seen the writing on the wall regarding Civil Rights when "it" voted for Eisenhower, even though "it" must have felt betrayed that Ike pushed through the 1957 Civil Rights Act, though he did not support it. So maybe that assuaged the anguish of the southern voters who crossed the party line in 1956, and also explains why "they" voted for Kennedy in '60. Except for Florida, Virginia, Tennessee and Mississippi. Must have been because he was Catholic.

Edited by byco42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


×
×
  • Create New...