Heading toward Civil War?

[Esaias]

Fascinating how these idiots who support sodomy and feminism also support Islam, which if given opportunity would literally exterminate everyone BUT Islamists.

From this we see that all of the left, ALL of it, is a collection of Communist fronts.

I mean, what do black communities, queers, and Muslims have in common? Why in the name of all that is rational would they ever be allied?

The reason is simple: they are created agitators, faux social "movements", front groups for communists.

This is Low Intensity Conflict and Subversion 101.

But most people don't read anything deeper than the back of the DVD cases.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

There were not "many" black slave owners and I am sure they did not associate the idea of slavery and racial superiority.

The Confederates betrayed their country on order to preserve that inhumane institution. They killed in soldiers and civilians alike in order to defend the indefensible in the name of racial superiority.

How is it possible to paint thsee participants and their horrible-ness in a positive light?

How is there any honor in anything specifically associated with them?

Why should I be forced to pay my tax dollars to build and maintain shrines to devils that would have gladly killed me or kept me subjugated to their hateful views?

The Confederates didn't just stand against what was good for me. They stood against what was good for the whole country.

Why should we honor them publicly?

These folks were not our founding fathers! They fought against the nation our founding fathere established and they lost.

Why honor traitors?

What other country on earth honors those who betrayed them?

The only way slavery was a divisive issue was the fact that the 3/5 clause in the Constitution gave the slave states political power they would not have otherwise had. Therefore, the northern Hamiltonians, in their various forms throughout history (Federalists, Whigs, Republicans) sought to eliminate the 3/5 clause and to prevent slaves from entering States formed out of western territories so as to weaken the Jeffersonian, anti-Hamiltonian Democrats' political power. It was never a moral issue in the north except among radical fringe Abolitionists who were despised by the average northerner. The average northerner did not believe in racial equality but instead wanted all blacks deported.

The Whig Party was basically destroyed by the influence of Andrew Jackson, who fought their Hamiltonian policies tooth and nail. They slowly died out in the years to follow, along with their national banking system. Their resurrection via the new "Republican Party", and subsequent election of Lincoln made the southern States desire both political and economic freedom. So, in a very democratic way, the people of 11 States withdrew from the Union. At first, the seven States of the lower south withdrew and formed a Confederation. The States of the upper south only withdrew when Lincoln called for war. The withdraw of just 7 cotton states sent the northern economy into a tailspin. They could not compete with a low tariff competitor nation, and no longer were able to keep the seceded states in an economic stranglehold as before. So they chose war.

Jermyn, I am glad my ancestors stood up to Hamiltonianism. There was nothing "traitorous" about the people of a state, through a democratic process, withdrawing from a voluntary association with other states. You will not find one word in the constitution outlawing secession. The war was an economic war, pure and simple, and it robbed the States of their self-determination aka sovereignty.

[aegsm76]

JD - thanks for posting. It does give us a different viewpoint and is therefore valuable.
Even if it is wrong...
Lol.

But, you are ignoring the overall problem.
Where does this stop?
Should CSA memorials be removed from cemeteries, battlefields, etc..?
Does anyone who owned slaves needs to be scrubbed as well?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

JD - thanks for posting. It does give us a different viewpoint and is therefore valuable.
Even if it is wrong...
Lol.

But, you are ignoring the overall problem.
Where does this stop?
Should CSA memorials be removed from cemeteries, battlefields, etc..?
Does anyone who owned slaves needs to be scrubbed as well?

There is no logical end to their position. A case can be made that no historical figure should be honored because they are men and all have fallen short of the glory of god. Perhaps some more so than others but that's not the case you are making. You are not saying only the most egregious men should have their statues taken down. Instead your argument against them can be applied to anyone, even George Washington himself.

[Esaias]

They already want to remove Washington, Jefferson, and even Teddy Roosevelt.

They are communists. Their GOAL is to remove it ALL.

Fundamental transformation.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You just don't get it and probably won't get it. Do you honour the nation whose founding fathers brought slaves to North America? That enshrined segregation into law? That declared blacks only counted as partial humans?

Originally Posted by Originalist

The only way slavery was a divisive issue was the fact that the 3/5 clause in the Constitution gave the slave states political power they would not have otherwise had.

My understanding was that the 3/5th clause actually weakened the power of the southern states, by preventing them from using their slave population to increase their representation in Congress. By counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person, it reduced the given population of the state (according to Census data) and thus reduced their voting power. Essentially, it was a compromise measure intended to aid in bringing about the end of slavery.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jito463

My understanding was that the 3/5th clause actually weakened the power of the southern states, by preventing them from using their slave population to increase their representation in Congress. By counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person, it reduced the given population of the state (according to Census data) and thus reduced their voting power. Essentially, it was a compromise measure intended to aid in bringing about the end of slavery.

It was indeed a "compromise" as the northern Federalists didn't want the slaves represented at all. But after the Missouri Compromise was enacted, northern economic nationalists began to scream for the total elimination of the 3/5 compromise. This was the reason the north did not want any new, so-called "slave states" added to the Union. The term "extension of slavery" is so misunderstood today. For example, if the Missouri Compromise line had been extended all the way to the Pacific Ocean, the total number of slaves would not have increased, rather, only their geographical dispersion would have changed. So what was the North's big objection to allowing this? It was because any new so-called "slave states" would have been inhabited by southern whites who embraced Jeffersonian Republicanism and rejected the centralization policies of the Whigs. That was it. Now, if the southern States had agreed to a constitutional amendment to alter the 3/5 compromise to where it would not have counted in any new "slave states", the northerners would have dropped their objections to the "expansion of slavery". On the other hand, if the north had agreed to allow the Missouri Compromise line to be extended to the Pacific Ocean with no alteration to the 3/5 clause, I doubt the southern States would ever had seceded.

I should also note that after the war, as the mid-term elections of 1866 loomed, the 3/5 clause had already been nullified by the adoption of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. Therefore, 100% of the freed slaves living in the southern states were counted in representation. Thus the southern States and the Democrats in general were poised for a take-over of the national government! This fact greatly alarmed the Republicans, who then implemented the "Reconstruction Act" , completely disenfranchising southern whites, This and other abuses against southern whites led to the rise of the KKK, which was formed as a REACTION to these harsh measures.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Swift and transparent legal investigation of all police shootings of black people; official governmental tracking of the number of citizens killed by police, disaggregated by race; the demilitarization of local police forces; and community accountability mechanisms for rogue police officers.

Here's my question...

WHY aren't there already transparent legal investigations of every shooting, especially shootings wherein race appears to be a factor? WHY isn't the government already officially tracking the number of citizens killed by police, and the data present to break it down by race and percentage? WHY aren't local police forces already being demilitarized? And WHY aren't there already accountability mechanisms in place to deal with rogue police officers?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Just as soon as the statues of that treasonous fornicating communist adulterer MLK get put in museums, too.

Why would you say that. Lee was an enemy who engaged Union soldiers on the battlefield and killed those loyal to the Union. MLK was a social activist drawing attention to clear racism and oppression in our nation. Yes, he committed adultery. But that is a sexual sin. It isn't like MLK was engaging in open WAR against the United States.

You're post almost implies that you disagree with MLK's vision. It almost implies that you'd want to return to segregation wherein minorities were forced by law to sit in the back of the bus, use separate drinking fountains, etc., etc.

Trump's Presidency is really bringing latent racism to light.

And even more saddening is... most who are demonstrating latent racist behavior honestly don't realize that they are.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was not treasonous at all. He never sought a violent overthrow of the American government and in fact used America's own laws and policies to bring change for the better.

Every other criticism of him you have listed is the personal moral stuff that people who practice apologetics for white racism use to try to diminish the good Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King did and what he stood for.


What good did Robert Lee stand for?

If they are going to denigrate the good of a man over adultery, maybe they will remove the book of Psalms from the Bible and strip it of the story of David.

Sexuality is a part of our nature. I've yet to meet a single person who isn't guilty of some form of sexual sin.