Florida State Seminoles

[Toemeesleather]

Of course it's faulty, that's the point. Use faulty logic to illustrate same.

[crashcourse]

"What is your definition of a "racist country?" Are you saying that with the election of Obama by 50.1% of the American adults that voted in 2012 racism was wiped out?"

my definition of a racist counry is entirely subjective.
when I took a black girl out in indy in 1979 I was living in a racist country. I was jeered threatened and broke up with that girl.
now there is not a second look. interracial couples are the rule rather then the exception.
racist country in 1979. not so much today. most people mind their own business and live and let live. they watch the interracial tension/conflicts on tv some of which is generated because of tv.

[hedge]

"now there is not a second look. interracial couples are the rule rather then the exception."

I would agree with the first part, but not the second...

[eCat]

don't thank Lincoln for that

[hedge]

IIRC, George was the hassler of the mixed race neighbors...

[eCat]

[billy bob bocephus]

don't thank Lincoln for that

mov'n on up, Wheezie!

[Owlman]

Brook, not trying to open a can of worms here (or maybe I am, but only b/c I think we can handle it in good faith), and I don't ask this with the smug sneer that I already know the answer, but rather am really interested in your thoughts on it: How do you address the issue of "well, what if there had never been a slave trade and "you" were still in Africa right now?" Is there no merit in the idea that American blacks, even in the face of everything they have suffered, are better off (for lack of a better term) than if they had never been brought over here? I can easily see the "no" side of that argument, although in the face of european (and american, and hell, most of the rest of the developed world) raping of Africa over the last century plus, I don't know exactly how convinced of that I really am. But I can see the "No, no one should ever be made a slave irregardless of future opportunities that may result centuries later" side of it. But I also look around and see plenty of black folks living at minimum very comfortable lives and participating in modern society, and plenty of others doing far better than that. Maybe some would say that if they had just been left alone, many africans would've integrated into western civilization (or whatever you want to call it) on their own accord and by their own choice, but I don't think anyone knows what that may have looked like or if it would've even been possible. Again, to reiterate, I am asking this question in good faith, not b/c I think I already "know" that the answer is "of course you're better off", but b/c I'm really interested in hearing your thoughts on it...

For me to exist, my ancestors would have had to immigrate to the United States. Then again, I could be the President of Ghana. Without the loss of so many people, Ghana could have taken over most of East Africa, started an industrial revolution before Europe and creating a large navy, then after winning successive wars of France and the Netherlands and over a Spanish armada, they create a navy so that the small country of Ghana actually ends up controlling the whole world including the country of India. Of course, Australia is where we'd send our criminals.

[Owlman]

I realize there is no reconciling this with the African American community

but your comparison doesn't quite fit - as Germany was an aggressor nation. While Germans may not have had any choice about fighting, they weren't defending their land, their family and their life against invaders (until the end anyways)

I recognize that many , many people use the confederate flag to represent something more than their heritage - and its really indefensible. I don't want to know those people.

But for the descendents of people that just wanted to be left alone - that saw their livestock confiscated, their crops harvested and their possessions stolen for nothing more than living on the wrong side of a line on a map, fighting against northern aggression has meaning.

Actually, the South was the aggressor, attacking the North now. The same would happen to Cuba if they attacked Guantanomo.

[Owlman]

If it is flying as an official flag on state grounds, it should be taken down

[Owlman]

Dred Scott decision, 1857

One of the primary causes for the revolution. 3 times prior to the Civil War, succession was threatened. The first was 1812, the New England states unhappy with the war of 1812 effecting their trade threatened to succeed. Nothing came of it. Twice, South Carolina threatened to succeed, once under Andrew Jackson who threatened to invade and kill them all and in 1850 when Zachary Taylor threatened to hang them all by their thumbs (the Southern leaders were scared of both generals, who were of course from the South).

The South had been the most populace state with Virginia being the most. Thus, combined with the fact that they got more representatives based on the consideration of the slave population, the South was mostly in control of the Presidency, the legislature and the Supreme Court. This population advantage begin to change to the point that while there was greater population in the North, Southerners were still in control of the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Taney (who freed his slaves) made one of the most important and infamous decisions in Dred Scott. Taking a slave into a free territory and/state had previously made the slave free under the concept as once free, always free. But Taney thought that he could solve the slavery question for all-time. He ruled that the when the Constitution said that all men were created equal, it meant all white men and that black (colored) men were inferior and therefore were no where a race that at anytime had rights that white men (and the country) were bound to respect (paraphrasing). Therefore, no matter where Scott went, he and his children are slaves, even though he had been transported to the free territory of Wisconsin and the free state of Illinois. And since his owner was from Missouri, the laws of Missouri applied. Thus, black people could never be citizens of the United States.

Worse, Taney decided to solve the population issue. He ruled that the federal govt right to control territories only include territories that existed at the time of creation, namely 1787. They had no right to control at all any territory after that time, including the Louisiana Purchase, Texas and all the territories from Mexico. The Supreme Court therefore (for only the second time in history -the other Marbury v. Madison) overruled the Missouri Compromise (which basically allowed in one slave state with one free state). The result of all this is that the federal govt had no power over any of the territories and they all would become slave states (or fight it out). Southerners loved the ruling, Northerners hated it.

So Lincoln ran on this premise, not to free the slaves, but to ban slavery in any and ALL territories. The South, already losing clout due to population, knew this meant that without the spread of slavery, they would lose clout. So yes, it was about slavery and yes, it was about economics and yes, it was about politics.

As for the people who volunteered in the South (before Sumpter, by the way), whether they knew they were fighting for the wealthy to keep the slaves or for the fact that most dreamed of getting to the point where they would get slaves, they still were fighting for the spread of slavery. Everyone thinks they are going to be a millionaire.

[Owlman]

from the Confederate Constitution:
Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

[Owlman]

at the time, (reading the Confederate Declaration of Independence), one of the complaints of the South was that some Northern States were arguing states rights and not returning their property (under Federal law).

Finally, from Alexander Hamilton Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy on the primary reason for succession:

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

[sardis]

By 2100 it is projected that Africa will have 35% of the worlds population if the continent can sustain it. My guess is that the continent can't andthere will be a mass migration to fill in the areas that will be decreasing population like Europe and China. Africans could actually dominate the world if they can keep from being coerced by the white politicians to abort their young.

[AlabamAlum]

I realize there is no reconciling this with the African American community

but your comparison doesn't quite fit - as Germany was an aggressor nation. While Germans may not have had any choice about fighting, they weren't defending their land, their family and their life against invaders (until the end anyways)

I recognize that many , many people use the confederate flag to represent something more than their heritage - and its really indefensible. I don't want to know those people.

But for the descendents of people that just wanted to be left alone - that saw their livestock confiscated, their crops harvested and their possessions stolen for nothing more than living on the wrong side of a line on a map, fighting against northern aggression has meaning.

Actually, the South was the aggressor, attacking the North now. The same would happen to Cuba if they attacked Guantanomo.

Can be argued either way. Once the South was its own, Northern military forts and armaments were on foreign soil - there was no diplomatic provision for parcels of land to remain under U.S. control. Gitmo is a bit different. We won that chunk of land ads result of the S-A war.

In the end, leaving the Union troops there was a good move on Lincoln's part. He had already recognized the South's secession and pledged not to go to war, but he knew if he left troops there the hotheaded Carolina would start something.

[Owlman]

Really??? Once Cuba was on it's own, Guantanamo base belonged to Cuba? Because that is essentially the same as what you are arguing? I doubt any Republican or Democrat would say that about Guantanamo. We helped in the Spanish American War for Cuba to get their independence. Cuba granted us the base, not Spain. Spain gave us Guam and the Phillipines. Castro and Cuba do not recognize our ownership of Guantanamo, just as the South didn't recognize the ownership of Fort Sumpter.

I did make one mistake above. Most of the call-ups in both the North and South occurred after Sumpter

[AlabamAlum]

I like the triple question marks. Adds to the question, and is a sign of non dramatic and reasoned discussion.

But no.

Gitmo and 5 other areas were given to the U.S. and the U.S.'s opinion is that gift (payment) does not cease due to a regime change. I'm sure we'll end up ceasing control eventually, for what it's worth.

Is what you are arguing that it would be okay for the British to retain their forts and installations in the U.S. after the Revolutionary War????????????????????????

[Owlman]

Gitmo and 5 other areas were given to the U.S. and the U.S.'s opinion is that gift (payment) does not cease due to a regime change. I'm sure we'll end up ceasing control eventually, for what it's worth

Exactly. And the federal government was given sovereignty over certain powers and in the case of Fort Sumpter and other, land. There is nothing under the Constitution that says that any individual state or group of states can take back that sovereignty.

Once given sovereignty, only the federal govt can give up that sovereignty. Regime change in the particular states doesn't change that any more than a change in the governorship changes that.

[Owlman]

As for the Revolutionary War, the answer to your question is yes, until they were willing to give it up by treaty, which by the way is exactly what happened and what the South was trying to do, but failed to do. Britain never ever said, well you call it your land, so it's yours

[AlabamAlum]

They seceded and Lincoln recognized it. It was, at the time, on sovereign southern soil.

Are you telling me if British had decided to keep Fort Henry, you would consider that a non-aggressive British action; moreover, that we had no recourse but to allow it unless the Brits signed a treaty?