Cotton is Racist

[Jogeephus]

But we did fight for the south. I don't know if we fought voluntarily or were dragged kicking and screaming to the front lines but we did fight and I can assure you it wasn't for the right to own slaves.

If we only knew! Old soldiers usually tell you they had no idea what they were fighting for. Mostly, to stay alive and just follow orders.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to interview a 1000 soldiers who fought for the Confederacy. Probably hear 1000 different reasons they were fighting. And I am sure a few would say because they didn't want to pick their own cotton. :lol:

:lol2: :lol2: That it would. By today's standards I'd be considered a coward because there is no way in hades that I would willingly walk across an open field towards a bunch of guns and cannons loaded with grapeshot aimed at me. I might stagger, I might crawl but I'd never walk a straight line because I'd have to be drunk as a coot.

TB - as for the oath, I just skimmed the article and when he said something about the oath he took as an officer and it listed both the constitution and the president I just quit reading. Maybe I read it wrong. I don't know but that really has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

TB, I have a theoretical question for you. Assuming the south had won do you think Texas would be saber rattling with the North Koreans right now?

 

[wacocowboy]

I'm curious; a lot of people here seem to know enough about history to feel confident enough to recall and interpret cause and impact of the events. Does everyone here have a degree in history, or is history just a personal interest that you have persued on your own?

I have no degree just love certain parts of history a lot and have read and watched a lot of documentaries. I have gone to some college history classes. The professors like to pick my brain on some subjects the Civil War being one of them. Topics like Texas fight for independence, Civil War, the American West, Indian Wars, WW2, and somewhat Vietnam and American war for independence. For some reason WW1 has never really interested me and only mildly interested in Korea.

 

[Ryder]

Your points are fair. At the end of the day, truth is elusive. What drives social issues is not what is "true" or "right" but more so what is believed. There is a large social conscience that holds the Confederate flags represent racism and white supremacy. Sometimes it is easier to stop pounding your head against the wall and accept reality even if it does not ring true with your values!

May not be able to do anything about a situation, but to forsake values because it is easier makes one less than a man. That is acquiesce to spiritual slavery.
Truth and honor mean more than what is "easier".

Help me out Ryder. Did Robert E. Lee forsake his values when he chose to fight for the CSA instead of the USA even though he was against secession as well as slavery (supposedly)?? Did he void that oath he took as an officer in the army of the USA to " support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed"?????? Where was his truth and honor??

I was speaking in a general philosophical sense and did not mention General Lee.
But since you brought him up I readily admit to being an admirer of this great man.

In his time many or most people had a much stronger loyalty to their state than to their country.
This was certainly true of General Lee.
He was offered command of the Union Army but refused because he could not wage war against his friends, family and state.
In fact he did want his state of Virginia to remain as part of the union, but "not at the point of a bayonet".

I am not an authority on military protocol, but I think commissioned officers have the right to resign their commission if they so choose. Lee did.
It would seem that Lee did not take the easiest or best course of action for himself. But he did take the honorable course.
Any further remarks I could make I think have been adequately covered by Jogeephus and others.

As to slavery--it did exist. Lincoln tried to play both sides of the fence.
But no civil war was fought to free any slaves.
Both President Jefferson Davis and General Lee foresaw the demise of slavery and knew it's time was coming to an end.
If there had been no war slavery would have ended. No one knows how long it would have taken. But it could have ended more peacefully without that terrible war and era of so called reconstruction.

The issue of slavery was made into a political football by both sides. It still is.

 

[bball]

We could focus on the reality that historically, Vermont (acting as an independent republic post RW) was the first to abolish slavery in 1777. Well ahead of the British, Danish, Spanish, Portuguese and Swedish. Literally, one could argue that the birth place for the abolition of slavery occurred right here in this great nation. What we often fail to account for when discussing history, is context of values for the time period. Slavery was accepted worldwide by the global super powers of that time right upto the early 1800s. Humanity as a whole, not just Americans or the southern man, has been guilty of some atrocities against their fellow man. Not the least of which is slavery.

 

[TexasBred]

TB, I have a theoretical question for you. Assuming the south had won do you think Texas would be saber rattling with the North Koreans right now?

:lol2: :lol2: Joe I don't have a clue but if you'll pose that question to ol' CB I betcha he has an answer for you. ;-)

 

[ALACOWMAN]

First, ......I don't take the "cotton is racist" .. .......been better if it was tobacco.....

 

[Jogeephus]

TB, I have a theoretical question for you. Assuming the south had won do you think Texas would be saber rattling with the North Koreans right now?

:lol2: :lol2: Joe I don't have a clue but if you'll pose that question to ol' CB I betcha he has an answer for you. ;-)

:lol2: Well my first thought was to unleash Chuck Norris but it dawned on my he must be about 77 years old so this isn't a viable option.

Here is another theoretical question for you TB. I often read on CT that Texans have the idea that they can secede the union like you guys did when you held a state convention in 1861 and voted 166 to 8 in favor of secession — a measure that was then ratified by a popular vote. Of course Antonin Scalia - who I admire very much said - "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede" so I don't think this is the case but it seems this was an issue at the time. Yet even today it seems many Texans feel they still have this right. So if enough Texans shared this belief and voted to leave the union who would you side with and who would you side with if some unpopular president like Hillary was in office?

You needn't answer but I think it does make one consider the situation that Lee and many others found themselves faced with.

 

[Bright Raven]

Here is another theoretical question for you TB. I often read on CT that Texans have the idea that they can secede the union like you guys did when you held a state convention in 1861 and voted 166 to 8 in favor of secession — a measure that was then ratified by a popular vote. Of course Antonin Scalia - who I admire very much said - "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede" so I don't think this is the case but it seems this was an issue at the time. Yet even today it seems many Texans feel they still have this right. So if enough Texans shared this belief and voted to leave the union who would you side with and who would you side with if some unpopular president like Hillary was in office?

If Texas wants to secede, I hope no one would stop them. ;-)

 

[TexasBred]

In his time many or most people had a much stronger loyalty to their state than to their country.
This was certainly true of General Lee.
He was offered command of the Union Army but refused because he could not wage war against his friends, family and state.
In fact he did want his state of Virginia to remain as part of the union, but "not at the point of a bayonet".

I am not an authority on military protocol, but I think commissioned officers have the right to resign their commission if they so choose. Lee did.
It would seem that Lee did not take the easiest or best course of action for himself. But he did take the honorable course.
Any further remarks I could make I think have been adequately covered by Jogeephus and others.

As to slavery--it did exist. Lincoln tried to play both sides of the fence.
But no civil war was fought to free any slaves.Absolutely true. The South clearly wanted to keep slaves and the Union only wanted to maintain the union as it was. Slavery became an issue for the Union when it was to their advantage.
Both President Jefferson Davis and General Lee foresaw the demise of slavery and knew it's time was coming to an end.Yet he US had made concession after concession to the representative of the slave states making sure the balance of slave:free states remained. The confederacy had some big expansion plans after they won the war Ryder. Check out their plans for Mexico, the West American States,
even Central and South America. Their victory was to be the renewal of slavery in a much larger and expanded version.
If there had been no war slavery would have ended. No one knows how long it would have taken. But it could have ended more peacefully without that terrible war and era of so called reconstruction.Gotta disagree here as well. Keep in mind the Confederacy fired the first shots even as a constitutional amendment making slavery legal was being circulated after having already been passed by both houses of congress. Six states had already signed it....yet Davis just had to fire on capture a dilapidated worthless old fort....reconstruction was a bytch no doubt...but much of it was earned as well...comes with losing.

The issue of slavery was made into a political football by both sides. It still is.

 

[TexasBred]

Here is another theoretical question for you TB. I often read on CT that Texans have the idea that they can secede the union like you guys did when you held a state convention in 1861 and voted 166 to 8 in favor of secession — a measure that was then ratified by a popular vote. Of course Antonin Scalia - who I admire very much said - "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede" so I don't think this is the case but it seems this was an issue at the time. Yet even today it seems many Texans feel they still have this right. So if enough Texans shared this belief and voted to leave the union who would you side with and who would you side with if some unpopular president like Hillary was in office?

You needn't answer but I think it does make one consider the situation that Lee and many others found themselves faced with.

I would side with the United States of America. I'm a Texan and very proud of it and even though i don't have to I do fly my Texas flag below my American Flag. :nod: Now.......my own wife might disagree with me. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[TexasBred]

Here is another theoretical question for you TB. I often read on CT that Texans have the idea that they can secede the union like you guys did when you held a state convention in 1861 and voted 166 to 8 in favor of secession — a measure that was then ratified by a popular vote. Of course Antonin Scalia - who I admire very much said - "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede" so I don't think this is the case but it seems this was an issue at the time. Yet even today it seems many Texans feel they still have this right. So if enough Texans shared this belief and voted to leave the union who would you side with and who would you side with if some unpopular president like Hillary was in office?

If Texas wants to secede, I hope no one would stop them. ;-)

:lol2: :lol2: TURD :hide:

 

[Bright Raven]

Here is another theoretical question for you TB. I often read on CT that Texans have the idea that they can secede the union like you guys did when you held a state convention in 1861 and voted 166 to 8 in favor of secession — a measure that was then ratified by a popular vote. Of course Antonin Scalia - who I admire very much said - "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede" so I don't think this is the case but it seems this was an issue at the time. Yet even today it seems many Texans feel they still have this right. So if enough Texans shared this belief and voted to leave the union who would you side with and who would you side with if some unpopular president like Hillary was in office?

If Texas wants to secede, I hope no one would stop them. ;-)

:lol2: :lol2: TURD :hide:

The same goes for California. :hide:

 

[Caustic Burno]

TB, I have a theoretical question for you. Assuming the south had won do you think Texas would be saber rattling with the North Koreans right now?

:lol2: :lol2: Joe I don't have a clue but if you'll pose that question to ol' CB I betcha he has an answer for you. ;-)

:lol2: Well my first thought was to unleash Chuck Norris but it dawned on my he must be about 77 years old so this isn't a viable option.

Here is another theoretical question for you TB. I often read on CT that Texans have the idea that they can secede the union like you guys did when you held a state convention in 1861 and voted 166 to 8 in favor of secession — a measure that was then ratified by a popular vote. Of course Antonin Scalia - who I admire very much said - "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede" so I don't think this is the case but it seems this was an issue at the time. Yet even today it seems many Texans feel they still have this right. So if enough Texans shared this belief and voted to leave the union who would you side with and who would you side with if some unpopular president like Hillary was in office?

You needn't answer but I think it does make one consider the situation that Lee and many others found themselves faced with.

Jo as for Texas it goes back to being the only country to join the USA.
This is the article the hat is hung on.
The 1836 as a stand alone republic
1876 after reconstruction.

Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

 

[TexasBred]

In the case of Texas v. White in 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, "The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." The majority opinion struck down the Texas Ordinance of Secession, calling it "null," and crafted a decision that rendered all acts of secession illegal according to the "perpetual union" of both the Articles of Confederation and subsequent Constitution for the United States. Chase did leave an opening, "revolution or the consent of the States," but without either, secession could never be considered a legal act.

 

[Caustic Burno]

In the case of Texas v. White in 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, "The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." The majority opinion struck down the Texas Ordinance of Secession, calling it "null," and crafted a decision that rendered all acts of secession illegal according to the "perpetual union" of both the Articles of Confederation and subsequent Constitution for the United States. Chase did leave an opening, "revolution or the consent of the States," but without either, secession could never be considered a legal act.

Nothing but unconstitutional legislation from the bench.
Nothing new his ruling goes against the very document that declared our independence in the opening paragraph. Can't be right sometimes and wrong others.

 

[Jogeephus]

In the case of Texas v. White in 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, "The union between Texas and the other states was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original states. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." The majority opinion struck down the Texas Ordinance of Secession, calling it "null," and crafted a decision that rendered all acts of secession illegal according to the "perpetual union" of both the Articles of Confederation and subsequent Constitution for the United States. Chase did leave an opening, "revolution or the consent of the States," but without either, secession could never be considered a legal act.

Nothing but unconstitutional legislation from the bench.
Nothing new his ruling goes against the very document that declared our independence in the opening paragraph. Can't be right sometimes and wrong others.

I find the varying beliefs of Texans on this subject interesting. Just shows what a complex issue this must have been for the people back in the 1800's who felt their vote actually mattered.

I also wonder if Texas ever put it to a vote and decided to leave the union what would happen. Wonder if the president would pass a presidential order called something like The Mexication Proclamation and promise areas of Texas not loyal to the union to the Mexicans so Texas would have two wars to fight. Or would the nation simply nuke Texas? Or vice versa? :shock:

 

[Caustic Burno]

Nothing but unconstitutional legislation from the bench.
Nothing new his ruling goes against the very document that declared our independence in the opening paragraph. Can't be right sometimes and wrong others.

I find the varying beliefs of Texans on this subject interesting. Just shows what a complex issue this must have been for the people back in the 1800's who felt their vote actually mattered.

I also wonder if Texas ever put it to a vote and decided to leave the union what would happen. Wonder if the president would pass a presidential order called something like The Mexication Proclamation and promise areas of Texas not loyal to the union to the Mexicans so Texas would have two wars to fight. Or would the nation simply nuke Texas? Or vice versa? :shock:

Well the view depends a lot if your family fought for independence of a country or showed up after annexation.

 

[Bestoutwest]

If Texas wants to secede, I hope no one would stop them. ;-)

:lol2: :lol2: TURD :hide:

The same goes for California. :hide:

If California goes, I want to make an amendment that those who deem themselves "conservative" cannot move here before it happens. We have enough, thanks. The quota has been overly achieved.

 

[Jogeephus]

:lol2: :lol2: TURD :hide:

The same goes for California. :hide:

If California goes, I want to make an amendment that those who deem themselves "conservative" cannot move here before it happens. We have enough, thanks. The quota has been overly achieved.

Can California vote themselves out to? Or think they can? I've heard a little about them wanting to do something on those lines but haven't kept up with it.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Can California vote themselves out to? Or think they can? I've heard a little about them wanting to do something on those lines but haven't kept up with it.

I think they can, and I'll support it! No more military support, no monetary support, border security, nothing. I think faced with the reality of that decision, most states would quickly decide to stay part of the US.