|
|
| Author |
Message |
Mars
Tecato Revisited
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 1363
Location: mangled in blackhole
  
|
 Posted: 28 Jun 2004 11:22 AM Post subject: |
 |
|
| superplayer wrote: | It's a total different matter.
Even if it can be regarded as tradition, savery was abolished by force and force alone. And still it took years for the southern people to completely deal with it. The slaves went from being slaves to poor servants with miserable wages. There is a lot of controversy whether when they were in a better situation, before or after the civil war. After the war, they had to deal with the KKK, extreme oppression, and constant attacks from the ordinary white people. Not only after the 1960s did their situation gradually change, and still there's many white people in the south that will never forget the Civil War. |
Dude you are going nowhere with this tradition defense, just give it up already.
Besides, from what I've gotten from your own posts is that it is tradition to change shit in this country, so lets just change the anthem back.
seriously though, give it up already.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
superplayer
Wal-Mart Associate
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 238
Location: Calexico
Votes: 1
|
| Posted: 28 Jun 2004 01:08 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| Mars wrote: |
Dude you are going nowhere with this tradition defense, just give it up already.
Besides, from what I've gotten from your own posts is that it is tradition to change shit in this country, so lets just change the anthem back.
seriously though, give it up already. |
As I said since my first post, I am not challenging your opinions on change. I said since the beginning that I just wanted to mention a fact, not my opinion.
I keep responding because people just keep coming up with related or different matters concerning this issue. The point was lost a few posts back as you may notice
Have a cookie !!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
verbal
Cole
Joined: 24 Oct 2002
Posts: 2418
Location: C-Town
Votes: 9
|
| Posted: 28 Jun 2004 06:47 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| superplayer wrote: | | revramrod wrote: |
Dude, what are you talking about? The term "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance during the height of the Red Scare to accentuate the United States' moral supremacy over the godless Communists. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ironically, if you guys actually took the time to research the history of the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in the 1890s in honor of Columbus Day, you'd discover that the guy who wrote the pledge, Francis Bellamy, was himself a Socialist. Turning in his grave, indeed. |
My point was, that this religious ideals in public schools are as old as the country itself. Maybe they didn't had the "under god" (which I don't know for sure) but they most probably had much more than that in a religiously context of course.
|
Dude, seriously what is your point? First you state that you're only pointing out 'facts' but then the Rev takes you to school with his Red Scare fact.
Then you follow that by saying "The simple fact that the "under god" was added at a certain time, earlier or later in history is just one of many facts of the tradition." So basically you're saying because some Quakers came over and asserted some traditions back in the day when electricity wasn't even invented that now we have to live by such traditions.
This thread was started to state an opinion and not the facts as of when and why the under God refrence was added in the Pledge of Allegience but to discuss the relevence of its content to todays society.
And one last thing the slavery issue was never abolished by force. The Civil War was not fought to emancipate the slaves and that my friend is a fact. Controversy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superplayer
Wal-Mart Associate
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 238
Location: Calexico
Votes: 1
|
| Posted: 28 Jun 2004 09:19 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| verbal wrote: | ude, seriously what is your point? First you state that you're only pointing out 'facts' but then the Rev takes you to school with his Red Scare fact.
Then you follow that by saying "The simple fact that the "under god" was added at a certain time, earlier or later in history is just one of many facts of the tradition." So basically you're saying because some Quakers came over and asserted some traditions back in the day when electricity wasn't even invented that now we have to live by such traditions.
This thread was started to state an opinion and not the facts as of when and why the under God refrence was added in the Pledge of Allegience but to discuss the relevence of its content to todays society.
And one last thing the slavery issue was never abolished by force. The Civil War was not fought to emancipate the slaves and that my friend is a fact. Controversy? |
Once again, and at last, I am not challenging anyone else's opinion or point of view. I am sure that members with logic common sense already realized it.
Dude, I am not going to discuss again my point, since I aldeady did that quite a few times. But after reading your last post, it looks to me that your point is just to piss me off.
First, saying that Rev takes me to school with his fact... dude everything I said before Revramrod posted is correct, go check and give me proof that I said something wrong.
Also, what you say about the Quakers and their traditions, you have to know that the traditions of the settlers endured strong in this country until the 1960s.
Controversy??? YES !!! , your statement that slavery was never abolished by force is totally WRONG. You could say that the Civil War wasn't fought for the desire of feeing the slaves. Well, I could say that this was indeed one of the few motives the civil war was fought.
Guess why the southern states decided to take the risky choice of secceeding (sp) from the union... to preserve their institution of slavery and their way of life after Lincoln was elected. Southerns kwew the future rulers like Lincoln would soon end up with slavery. Everyone outside the south knew that slavery was a dead issue in the western world. Britain had abolished it in the 1830s; the Industrial Revolution just killed it in the West. It was repudiated by many abolitionists in the North who were influential enough to sneak into Washington and look for a stop to it. Even if you could say that it wasn't the basic goal of fighting a war, it was indeed one of a few reasons the war was fought. There's plenty of evidence in the letters of many soldiers that they wanted to fight for the freedom of the blacks in the south. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Americano
Coffee
Joined: 18 May 2003
Posts: 1637
Location: fair Verona
|
| Posted: 28 Jun 2004 09:42 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| you guys need to kiss and make up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
revramrod
IVC Dropout
Joined: 09 Oct 2002
Posts: 1409
Location: Calecia.com
|
| Posted: 28 Jun 2004 10:01 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| superplayer wrote: | | Guess why the southern states decided to take the risky choice of secceeding (sp) from the union... to preserve their institution of slavery and their way of life after Lincoln was elected. |
The cause of the Civil War was states' rights, not slavery. Extensive taxation and tariffs imposed by the North on the South drove them to form the Confederacy and secede from the Union.
Not everyone in the South owned slaves, you know. For one thing, they were prohibitively expensive, and another, not everyone in the South agreed with the concept of slavery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superplayer
Wal-Mart Associate
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 238
Location: Calexico
Votes: 1
|
| Posted: 29 Jun 2004 11:47 AM Post subject: |
|
|
| revramrod wrote: | The cause of the Civil War was states' rights, not slavery. Extensive taxation and tariffs imposed by the North on the South drove them to form the Confederacy and secede from the Union.
Not everyone in the South owned slaves, you know. For one thing, they were prohibitively expensive, and another, not everyone in the South agreed with the concept of slavery. |
I disagree,
It cannot be said that easily and literally that the cause of the Civil War was the state's rights to refuse to pay the unfair taxation not by the North but by Washington.
I am aware of the taxation, but the war did not happen overnight over a few politicians copmlaining about taxes. There were many events leading to the war. By the 1850s, it was already inevitable.
Washington had to have 50/50 share of northern and southern politicians controlling the government. This required that there had to be exactly the same number of states for both north/south. This was the rule since the "Compromise of Missouri" of 1820. Then the "Compromise of 1850" and the "Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1853" deal exactly with the same problem. Think about the "Bloody Kansas" events of the frontier with southern and northern men crossing the borders to go to vote in Kansas with the hope of making Kansas a future slave or free state. The Civil War was inevitable after this mess. The reason in all these issues is merely.... FREE or SLAVE, not a taxation.
And, it can be also said that the Civil War was a punishment of America for invading Mexico. May sound silly but evidence points to that. The new territories conquered from Mexico meant new grounds for free/slave states and the mess that followed que question of what to do with the land. At last, it came out that the new land (the west) was going to be free and not slave. The southern states kwew that they couldn't expand to the west farther than Texas.
In all this mess, slavery is the issue, not a taxation.
One more thing, most people in the South didn't own slaves. They were mostly dirt farmers. But still it was the rich slave owners who controlled the government and people were, generally speaking, loyal to it.
One example to prove it is one of the laws that the confederacy passed that required that if you owned more than 20 slaves, you were excluded from military service. This was often resented by "Jhonny Reb" the common soldier, who rarely owned a single human being. Yet, the southerners fought to the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mars
Tecato Revisited
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 1363
Location: mangled in blackhole
|
| Posted: 29 Jun 2004 01:09 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| superplayer wrote: |
| revramrod wrote: | The cause of the Civil War was states' rights, not slavery. Extensive taxation and tariffs imposed by the North on the South drove them to form the Confederacy and secede from the Union.
Not everyone in the South owned slaves, you know. For one thing, they were prohibitively expensive, and another, not everyone in the South agreed with the concept of slavery. |
I disagree,
It cannot be said that easily and literally that the cause of the Civil War was the state's rights to refuse to pay the unfair taxation not by the North but by Washington.
I am aware of the taxation, but the war did not happen overnight over a few politicians copmlaining about taxes. There were many events leading to the war. By the 1850s, it was already inevitable.
Washington had to have 50/50 share of northern and southern politicians controlling the government. This required that there had to be exactly the same number of states for both north/south. This was the rule since the "Compromise of Missouri" of 1820. Then the "Compromise of 1850" and the "Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1853" deal exactly with the same problem. Think about the "Bloody Kansas" events of the frontier with southern and northern men crossing the borders to go to vote in Kansas with the hope of making Kansas a future slave or free state. The Civil War was inevitable after this mess. The reason in all these issues is merely.... FREE or SLAVE, not a taxation.
And, it can be also said that the Civil War was a punishment of America for invading Mexico. May sound silly but evidence points to that. The new territories conquered from Mexico meant new grounds for free/slave states and the mess that followed que question of what to do with the land. At last, it came out that the new land (the west) was going to be free and not slave. The southern states kwew that they couldn't expand to the west farther than Texas.
In all this mess, slavery is the issue, not a taxation.
One more thing, most people in the South didn't own slaves. They were mostly dirt farmers. But still it was the rich slave owners who controlled the government and people were, generally speaking, loyal to it.
One example to prove it is one of the laws that the confederacy passed that required that if you owned more than 20 slaves, you were excluded from military service. This was often resented by "Jhonny Reb" the common soldier, who rarely owned a single human being. Yet, the southerners fought to the end. |
so is this what you do, come to C.com and regurgitate other peoples ideas and pass them off as your own to try to impress us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
revramrod
IVC Dropout
Joined: 09 Oct 2002
Posts: 1409
Location: Calecia.com
|
| Posted: 29 Jun 2004 02:32 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| superplayer wrote: | I disagree,
It cannot be said that easily and literally that the cause of the Civil War was the state's rights to refuse to pay the unfair taxation not by the North but by Washington. |
Dude, have you ever heard of a summary? Well, that's exactly what that was. Jeez. If someone tells you the Sun is hot, trust me, its complex thermonuclear activities are duly implied.
Anyway, the bulk if your argument is still incorrect. Read some history books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
verbal
Cole
Joined: 24 Oct 2002
Posts: 2418
Location: C-Town
Votes: 9
|
| Posted: 29 Jun 2004 03:05 PM Post subject: |
|
|
| revramrod wrote: | | superplayer wrote: | I disagree,
It cannot be said that easily and literally that the cause of the Civil War was the state's rights to refuse to pay the unfair taxation not by the North but by Washington. |
Dude, have you ever heard of a summary? Well, that's exactly what that was. Jeez. If someone tells you the Sun is hot, trust me, its complex thermonuclear activities are duly implied.
Anyway, the bulk if your argument is still incorrect. Read some history books. |
At least he doesn't teach history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
|
|
