Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
135 online now:
jar, nwr, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 130 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,897 Year: 1,009/6,534 Month: 1,009/682 Week: 62/182 Day: 7/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 151 of 193 (588927)
10-29-2010 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by subbie
10-28-2010 5:56 PM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
Yeah, we never should have outlawed slavery. (13th) And the country certainly went downhill when we gave dem darkies da vote. (15th)

STRAWMAN

I have no interest whatsoever in exploring your dislike for the 13th and 15th Amendments.

I figured you would take me out of context.

I said "the worst passed". As in the unconstitutional means by which they were ratified. The 13th was part of the treaty, and when southern states refused to ratify it, then the military instituted its own puppet government and ratified it. All there big government fears in 1861, were exactly correct, and thus why the constitution died in 1865.

I know its easier for you and subbie to strawman this and assume something about the context of the amendments, but that has nothing to do with my point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by subbie, posted 10-28-2010 5:56 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 10-29-2010 10:05 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 153 by subbie, posted 10-29-2010 10:40 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 154 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2010 11:30 AM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2010 1:25 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33657
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 152 of 193 (588948)
10-29-2010 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Artemis Entreri
10-29-2010 7:53 AM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
Article VI

quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And your point was?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-29-2010 7:53 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 153 of 193 (588958)
10-29-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Artemis Entreri
10-29-2010 7:53 AM


Re: Goose v. Gander?
No, not a strawman, but a misunderstanding that could have been easily avoided if you knew the difference between an adjective and an adverb.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-29-2010 7:53 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 154 of 193 (588967)
10-29-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Artemis Entreri
10-29-2010 7:53 AM


Another call for evidence.
The 13th was part of the treaty, and when southern states refused to ratify it, then the military instituted its own puppet government and ratified it.

Would you mind showing that puppet governments were set up by the military in order to ratify the 13th amendment? Please some sort of evidence, not just more of these assertions. You very well could be correct, but unless you provide some semblance of evidence I have no reason to believe anything you say about the civil war or any historical period. Was the New Jersey government, that did not ratify it, replaced by puppet government too?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-29-2010 7:53 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-31-2010 1:36 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 155 of 193 (588974)
10-29-2010 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Iblis
10-29-2010 12:23 AM


Re: Robert E Lee on slavery
Lee was a very complicated man. He was deeply conflicted on slavery and secession. He felt that slavery was a necessary evil. it was the "white man's burden". There is very compelling evidence has shown earlier and in your own post, that he could be a brutal slave master.

There has been nothing shown that he had a belief that the war had nothing to do with slavery. The apologists can word it any way they want, but the war was about slavery.

It was about states rights. The states rights issue was the continuation and spread of slavery. Artie blows smoke and builds strawmen that the southern states were reacting to the unconstitutional actions of the Lincoln government, but the facts show this is untrue. Seven states passed secession ordinances before Lincoln was inaugurated.

It was about preservation of the southern culture. This culture was based on slavery and an aristocratic slave owning class. This was a culture that kept the lower class whites subjugated as well as blacks. Why would a farmer or factory owner want to pay a white laborer a decent wage, when he can use a slave.

All of Artie's arguments that slavery was not the reason for secession have been shown to be lacking in evidence or not addressing the full picture. If he wants to claim states rights he needs to show a states rights issue that does not have a basis in the slavery issue.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Iblis, posted 10-29-2010 12:23 AM Iblis has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 193 (588993)
10-29-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Artemis Entreri
10-29-2010 7:53 AM


Worst passed.
quote:
I said "the worst passed". As in the unconstitutional means by which they were ratified.

Then you did not say what you meant. What you actually said translates to the 13-15th Amendments being the worst of the Amendments that were actually passed.

Quite frankly, even your intended meaning is simply wrong. The thirteenth amendment could never have even gotten out of Congress if the southern states had not bolted the union, taking their congressmen with them. A 2/3 majority in both houses was required before the amendment was presented to the states for ratification and the amendment narrowly passed in the House of Representatives. What was proven here is that secession is a pretty ineffective method for getting your way in Congress.

Further, your take on the ratification process of the thirteenth amendment is completely bogus. You might have an argument if you were discussing ratification of the fourteenth amendment. But that process didn't happen until 1868.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-29-2010 7:53 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by jar, posted 10-29-2010 1:28 PM NoNukes has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33657
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 157 of 193 (588994)
10-29-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by NoNukes
10-29-2010 1:25 PM


Re: Worst passed.
Plus, treaties are one of the three Supreme Laws of the Land anyway.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 10-29-2010 1:25 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2010 5:14 PM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 193 (589121)
10-30-2010 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by jar
10-29-2010 1:28 PM


Re: Worst passed.
There are a couple of things wrong with the treaty explanation.

First the US never recognized the CSA as a foreign county and cetainly the 13th amendment was no treaty. Secondly, if it were a treaty, Artie is complaining that the south's signature on the treaty was forged.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jar, posted 10-29-2010 1:28 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 10-30-2010 5:16 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33657
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 159 of 193 (589122)
10-30-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by NoNukes
10-30-2010 5:14 PM


Re: Worst passed.
Agreed.

My point was that even if it had been a Treaty it would still be the Supreme Law of the Land.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2010 5:14 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 160 of 193 (589195)
10-31-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Theodoric
10-29-2010 11:30 AM


Re: Another call for evidence.
this post is a perfect example of your dishonesty, if you know the history as you claim you do then you know the answer about a recontructionist puppet government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2010 11:30 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Theodoric, posted 10-31-2010 2:17 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 162 by Theodoric, posted 11-16-2010 10:03 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 161 of 193 (589200)
10-31-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Artemis Entreri
10-31-2010 1:36 PM


Dishonesty? Are you willing to debate or not.?
Would you mind showing that puppet governments were set up by the military in order to ratify the 13th amendment?

Your claim is this.

Artie writes:

The 13th was part of the treaty, and when southern states refused to ratify it, then the military instituted its own puppet government and ratified it.

I know all about reconstruction. You are asserting that the reconstruction era governments in the south were set up in order to ratify the 13th amendment. I am asking for evidence that this is the reason they were set up. As I said before, maybe you have evidence for this. I know of none but am more than willing to be enlightened.

BTW, do you have any more to add to your defense of your assertions about Robert E. Lee? You have repeatedly insulted me and accused me of dishonesty and practically plagiarizing Dr. A, but you have done little or nothing to defend your assertions about Lee.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-31-2010 1:36 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(3)
Message 162 of 193 (591895)
11-16-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Artemis Entreri
10-31-2010 1:36 PM


In closing?
I guess it is time to wrap up this thread. The purpose of this topic was to give artie a chance to back up his wild assertions. He has done very little to defend them and the arguments he did use were soundly rebutted by numerous posters. Even though Catholic Scientist will jump all over me, I think it is fair to say that Artie has decide not to participate in this thread anymore. If he wants to make more comments I look forward to them, but I feel that before the thread is forgotten in the dustbins of EVC, I would like to make a final post.

He provided no evidence for the validity of the Lee quote. He did not even provide his source. That makes me wonder how reputable the source was. Even if Artie could defend his assertions he went about it the wrong way.

Instead of finding evidence that showed Lee felt the cause of the civil war was not slavery, all Artie did was present evidence that Lee was conflicted about slavery. That is it. Artie distorted facts about Lee's ownership and selling of slaves. Maybe not intentionally but the facts are distorted in his accounts. Confederacy revisionist websites are like fundie and creationist websites. They lie.

His defense for his statements about states seceding for reasons other than slavery have also been shown to be outright revisionism. States rights is just a code word for slavery. What is the states right they were trying to protect through secession? Slavery. Preserving the southern culture is another code word for slavery. What part of the southern culture were they trying to protect through secession? Slavery.

Slavery was a huge millstone around the neck of all the people of the south. George Washington was well aware of it, but even he could not break out of the socioeconomic system that relied on slavery. Artie and his like revisionists can make all the arguments they want. They can serve up all the southern apologetics they want. The bare facts show that slavery was a very fundamental part of the causes of the Civil War.

I am still waiting for valid, well reasoned, sourced arguments showing that slavery was not a fundamental reason for the secession of the southern states. Instead I get stuff like this.

Re: Another call for evidence.
this post is a perfect example of your dishonesty, if you know the history as you claim you do then you know the answer about a recontructionist puppet government

If there is something about the reconstructionist governments that I do not know and would support his argument, would it not have been a good idea to include that info in the post. Alas, assertions are easy, finding evidence for assertions is a bit more difficult


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Artemis Entreri, posted 10-31-2010 1:36 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
REL
Junior Member (Idle past 3394 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 07-10-2012


Message 163 of 193 (667649)
07-10-2012 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Iblis
10-29-2010 12:23 AM


Re: Robert E Lee on slavery
It is good you used the word "questionable" in connection with Wesley Norris and his story. Though his story was published, after the war, and though it is often repeated to prove Lee actually had someone whipped, it really does not.

Norris made an accusation or an allegation that Lee had him and two others whipped. However, this is not proof that Lee was ever involved in a whipping.

I hope that the readers will keep that in mind when they read the Norris story.

Thanks,
REL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Iblis, posted 10-29-2010 12:23 AM Iblis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Theodoric, posted 07-10-2012 9:45 PM REL has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7148
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 164 of 193 (667651)
07-10-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by REL
07-10-2012 7:34 PM


Re: Robert E Lee on slavery
Iblis does not state that the Wesley Norris account is questionable. He is referring to something else.

Though his story was published, after the war, and though it is often repeated to prove Lee actually had someone whipped, it really does not.

Norris made an accusation or an allegation that Lee had him and two others whipped. However, this is not proof that Lee was ever involved in a whipping.

Do you have any sources showing that the Norris account is false? Is it proof? No. Few things are. The account certainly squares with the Lee that did not honor the terms of is father in laws will.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by REL, posted 07-10-2012 7:34 PM REL has not yet responded

  
ruby01 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3380 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 07-16-2012


Message 165 of 193 (668014)
07-16-2012 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
09-30-2010 3:26 AM


thank you all for sharing such nice and informative posts regarding civil war......

Edited by ruby01, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : Signature Off


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2010 3:26 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022