Hate Crimes in Auburn

[AWK]

Fine... First off, never once did I say that the Civil War was 100% about slavery.  However, It was one of the major factors causing the Civil War.  If you don't believe that, well...  Take a look at this:

Top 5 Causes for the Civil War

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

With Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.

2. States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called “Border Ruffians.” Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called “Bleeding Kansas.” The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina’s Senator Preston Brooks.

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its “Declaration of the Causes of Secession.” They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

Now, Jesus H. Christ, every one of those topics deal with slavery.  If not directly, then indirectly to a large degree.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

[boartitz]

 Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

This. The states entered a Union where they all had a voice on how things would be carried out. The centralized Federal government got too powerful.
It was taxation without representation all over again, only this time with our own countrymen. Them fuckers from the northeast who are still a thorn in our sides.

[AWK]

Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

This. The states entered a Union where they all had a voice on how things would be carried out. The centralized Federal government got too powerful.
It was taxation without representation all over again, only this time with our own countrymen. Them fuckers from the northeast who are still a thorn in our sides.

Ohhh, but what about those other four reasons?  And what about the fact that the specific paragraph you are talking about indirectly is referring the the right to have slaves?

[boartitz]

Ohhh, but what about those other four reasons?  And what about the fact that the specific paragraph you are talking about indirectly is referring the the right to have slaves?

This was a hundred years before the Civil War. Slaves were legal then. So were indentured servants which was a PC way of saying white slaves. Some of my Irish ancestors came to this country under these terms. Slavery was not a black issue only. It was a vestige of the English mentality that lingered after their defeat in the war of independence. The wealthy minority of the north and south maintained slavery. The common folk did not own slaves, no matter their geographic location.
There were a great many northerners in the textile industry who kept farms/plantations in the south for their raw materials.

[Kaos]

Right, I'm uneducated.  I'm about to graduate with a doctrate...and I wrote a thesis on American Government to graduate undergrad.  Not only did you not refute anything I said, you referred to a fucking cereal box for an analogy.  I'm perplexed...

Remain perplexed. 

Total refutation. 

I will also add that some of the least cognizant people I've ever met in my life had doctorate degrees.  If it helps any, I have three people who have doctorates working for me now. 

Do not mistake a piece of paper for education, tobe-san. 

[Kaos]

Fine... First off, never once did I say that the Civil War was 100% about slavery.  However, It was one of the major factors causing the Civil War.  If you don't believe that, well...  Take a look at this:

Now, Jesus H. Christ, every one of those topics deal with slavery.  If not directly, then indirectly to a large degree.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

Dear Dr. Awk:

You used as your "irrefutable source"  the ridiculous website about.com.  Enough said. 

Those "top five" causes are the elementary school version and a far cry from the deeper realities.  It's been a while but most of my work was in history and I had the pleasure of studying under a well-reknowned (sp) Civil War historian, who -- if I'm not mistaken -- won a Pulitzer or some such shit for his work on General Sherman.



If you keep saying something often enough you can convince yourself it's true. 

Alabama has 12 national championships
Ole Miss has 3 national championships
Global warming is super real and super scary
Dave Matthews is a great artist
The Civil War was about slavery. 

Yes, yes... it's all there. 

[boartitz]

Remain perplexed. 

Total refutation. 

I will also add that some of the least cognizant people I've ever met in my life had doctorate degrees.  If it helps any, I have three people who have doctorates working for me now. 

Do not mistake a piece of paper for education, tobe-san. 

You knead to get offen your pedal stool. This man is boneified.

[Saniflush]

You knead to get offen your pedal stool. This man is boneified.

He's a suitor.

Alabama has 12 national championships
Ole Miss has 3 national championships
Global warming is super real and super scary
Dave Matthews is a great artist
The Civil War was about slavery.

Grizzly Adams had a beard.

[Pell City Tiger]

Ohhh, but what about those other four reasons?  And what about the fact that the specific paragraph you are talking about indirectly is referring the the right to have slaves?

There were slaves in the northern states and it was legal to own slaves there until 1865. If the war was about slavery, why was the union fighting the confederacy over something that was occurring in the United States? Your argument doesn't hold water.

Slavery became an issue when -- and only when -- the passion for the war in the northern states had all but abated, the Confederate Army was on the verge of winning (due to that lack of passion) and the public sentiment in the Union States had turned to "ahhh, fuck 'em.  Let them have their own shit country, who gives a fuck."

Lincoln realized that he needed something to energize the flagging Union passions. The people couldn't be convinced to fight -- or at least fight well -- for a political cause, particularly against their own countrymen. He needed a moral standard to ignite the flame.  Slavery was the issue he chose.  Not out of some deep moral obligation, but in order to give his war a cause.

Kaos is dead on correct here. Up until 1863, the Union was getting their asses handed to them on the battlefield and the army was losing men way faster than they could be replaced. Sentiment in the north towards the war was slumping faster than Rosie O'Donnell going through an all you can eat buffet. There was an extremely violent wave of protests against the war and Lincoln's decision to implement a draft in north during the later part of 1862 and carried over into the summer of 1863. The most famous of these protests occurred in New York City in July 1863. The city was damn near burned to the ground by the ant-war/anti-draft protesters. Lincoln had to recall troops from George Meade's army (who were in pursuit of Lee's forces retreating from Gettysburg) to help the police quell the insurrection. Even after the huge military victory at Gettysburg, support for the war was in a steady nose dive. A large portion of the northern population just didn't want to fight anymore. Lincoln realized that he had best do something and do it quick or all was lost. With the losses his armies were suffering on the battlefield, he couldn't replace the casualties fast enough to keep a formidable army - or one that could at least kind of keep Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia in check. His first rallying cry (at the onset of the war) to the people was to the need to preserve the Union. This worked for a while (until shortly after Bull Run). After numerous Southern victories on the battlefield, with heavy Union casualties, he found that the people weren't buying it anymore. The people were no longer convinced that a political need to preserve the union existed. The majority of the population were content with allowing the south to remain its own independent republic. Having lost this reasoning, the moral issue of freeing the slaves came to be (in late 1863). Even then - and remaining so through the end of the war, public sentiment was still lacking. A lot of northerners just didn't think their lives were worth risking over the freedom of black people.

[Kaos]

Kaos is dead on correct here.

FWIW, I was right about the toucans, too.

[Snaggletiger]

FWIW, I was right about the toucans, too.

You sir, are full of shiot.  I have irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

[Kaos]

You sir, are full of shiot.  I have irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Ah.  Video evidence is hard to overcome.  I stand corrected.

[Pell City Tiger]

**Update**

Auburn councilman apologizes in rebel flag flap

AUBURN -- An Auburn city councilman has apologized for pulling up small Confederate flags from four graves, but he said he still doesn't "feel bad" about what he did.

Arthur Dowdell, who is black, read a statement at Tuesday night's council meeting apologizing for what he said was a misunderstanding about the flags that had been placed in honor of Confederate Memorial Day.
 
The apology was made to members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

"If I as a city councilman I had known that the Daughters of the Confederacy had put those flags out, maybe we would have a different outcome," he said. "As far as feeling sorry about that flag and if I feel that I did something remiss, I do not feel bad."

The city council passed a resolution at the start of the meeting denouncing his actions at Pine Hill Cemetery and urging him to make a public apology. Dowdell opposed the resolution, saying he had not seen it, but agreed to voice his opinion to the council and citizens later in the meeting.

Dowdell was criticized for removing the flags at the cemetery on April 23. He defended his actions, saying he thought the flags were placed at the cemetery by the Ku Klux Klan and did not know about the Confederate ceremony.

But Councilman Robin Kelley, who represents the ward that include Pine Hill, said he would have told him what the flags were for if he had called.

"It's desecration what you did," Kelley said. "End of discussion."

[/img]