61
   

The Confederacy was About Slavery

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 08:44 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Please point to me what insult was addressed to you.

No problem:

High Seas earlier wrote:
What you don't know about economics fills countless libraries


High Seas wrote:
The only point you made that I didn't address was that of the Paraguay casualties...

No, you didn't address any of the points I made. You just said that you knew more about economics than I did. That's hardly addressing my argument.

High Seas wrote:
- and it's a simple point to dismiss, when you know the composition of the troops on both sides of that conflict, the way statistics were kept at the time (casualties in the Civil War included prisoners, wounded, missing, and confirmed dead, and unlike those in Rio de la Plata were reasonably accurate) and the appalling problems with training, armaments, equipment, discipline, and so on in the war you mention. Armed conflicts involving African tribes, e.g., often showed 100% "casualty" rates - that's how they stopped. My statement on the Civil War showing the highest casualty rate (as percent of combatants) stands.

You're still wrong, but it's peripheral to the topic of this thread, so I'm willing to drop it.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 10:38 am
@Setanta,
OK, what was I defending?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 12:43 pm
@mysteryman,
You were defending the claim that slavery was a minor issue in the war.

Also, you based your questions on assumptions you arrived at through a non sequitur.

http://able2know.org/topic/145429-1#post-4003769
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 02:57 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

High Seas wrote:

Please point to me what insult was addressed to you.

No problem:

High Seas earlier wrote:
What you don't know about economics fills countless libraries


High Seas wrote:
The only point you made that I didn't address was that of the Paraguay casualties...

No, you didn't address any of the points I made. You just said that you knew more about economics than I did. That's hardly addressing my argument.

High Seas wrote:
- and it's a simple point to dismiss, when you know the composition of the troops on both sides of that conflict, the way statistics were kept at the time (casualties in the Civil War included prisoners, wounded, missing, and confirmed dead, and unlike those in Rio de la Plata were reasonably accurate) and the appalling problems with training, armaments, equipment, discipline, and so on in the war you mention. Armed conflicts involving African tribes, e.g., often showed 100% "casualty" rates - that's how they stopped. My statement on the Civil War showing the highest casualty rate (as percent of combatants) stands.

You're still wrong, but it's peripheral to the topic of this thread, so I'm willing to drop it.
Quote:

On your first point, what I said - and you duly and honestly quoted, to your credit, is a FACT. Your interpretation is your interpretation ALONE.I most certainly NEVER said anything even remotely resembling what you allege. On your second point, yes, it's peripheral, but since you brought it up it was my duty to address it AFTER you complained about the specific casualty rate. Anybody can be "wrong" if he forgets to include Leonidas and his 300 at Thermopylae - another 100% casualty rate, but there, there's a story! Have a good weekend.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 03:06 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
On your first point, what I said - and you duly and honestly quoted, to your credit, is a FACT.

Well then, I suppose it's also fair to say that what you don't know about American history fills countless libraries. And that's a fact.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 03:12 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

High Seas wrote:
On your first point, what I said - and you duly and honestly quoted, to your credit, is a FACT.

Well then, I suppose it's also fair to say that what you don't know about American history fills countless libraries. And that's a fact.

Yes, I'm sure you're right, so when did YOU see ME claiming OTHERWISE?! One must be seriously unhinged to consider a statement of FACT as an INSULT - and that refers impartially to your own statement as to mine. Repeating good wishes for weekend, and beyond, I remain, yours very truly, etc Smile
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 05:43 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
What is your source for your opinions about the Indian "Nations".

Primary source on treaties : http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp
General source for Indian Nations : http://www.teacheroz.com/Native_Americans.htm
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 05:53 pm
@Ionus,
Did you happen to notice whether your point of autonomy and sovereignty were even mentioned? HMMM?

If so, could you point it out?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 06:15 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Did you happen to notice whether your point of autonomy and sovereignty were even mentioned? If so, could you point it out?
Yes I did. Did you notice ? And certainly, it would be my pleasure.

Definitions of nation on the Web:

state: a politically organized body of people under a single government; "the state has elected a new president"; "African nations"; "students who ...
the people who live in a nation or country; "a statement that sums up the nation's mood"; "the news was announced to the nation"; "the whole country worshipped him"
United States prohibitionist who raided saloons and destroyed bottles of liquor with a hatchet (1846-1911)
a federation of tribes (especially Native American tribes); "the Shawnee nation"

Quote:
1778 - Treaty With the Delawares
ARTICLE V.
Whereas the confederation entered into by the Delaware nation and the United States.....


Shall I continue or is that obvious enough now ?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 06:33 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
a federation of tribes (especially Native American tribes); "the Shawnee nation"
This is the only definition that pertains to your attempted point. There was never any bounds of sovereignty or "homelands" guaranteed and assured by any treaty before 1890 (And even that was rescinded when Oklahoma was entered into statehood.
I just dont think that you understand the term sovereignty . Whenever it pleased the US govt or citizens, we always plundered and destroyed the indian lands. (Such as the Black Hills gold rush after Calif). Poor attempt .




Ill repeat my question. Did you see anything about sovereignty and national boundaries?

Quote:
Shall I continue or is that obvious enough now ?
Yes its obvious , but not the obvious that you wish. . The only definition from Websters New Collegiate that actually fits this discussion is

"A member tribe of an Indian Confederation: from Latin natio. race;people.

ANother statement of the T-rex DNA linneage. (Came out of the same orifice too Ill bet)
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 07:03 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
This is the only definition that pertains to your attempted point.
Incorrect. The following definitions of a nation apply :
a politically organized body of people under a single government
the people who live in a nation or country
a federation of tribes (especially Native American tribes);

Quote:
I just dont think that you understand the term sovereignty .
I just dont think you understand terminology. Definitions of sovereignty on the Web:
government free from external control
reign: royal authority; the dominion of a monarch
the authority of a state to govern another state

For two countries to enter into an agreement they must first recognise each other as a country.

Quote:
Whenever it pleased the US govt or citizens, we always plundered and destroyed the indian lands. (Such as the Black Hills gold rush after Calif).
I dont think you understand the legality of what's involved here. You are saying it was done therefore it must be legal ? That if the American Nations had really been nations you wouldnt have done it to them ? This is going to be another example of your inability to control your self because you are wrong.
Quote:
Did you see anything about sovereignty and national boundaries?
Yes I did. They are inherent in the term Nation. Many of those treaties were signed by the Sec of War. This involves official recognition. If they werent a state they all would have had to sign the "contract", every last individual. They are also defined by the boundaries of the USA who was admitting the land was the Indians when they made agreements for it. Why is it you know so little about the subjects you loudly proclaim to be expert in ?

Quote:
ANother statement of the T-rex DNA linneage.
May I follow your ref to previous arguments and say you did not win them either and should grow up. You are not an all powerful being even if you do fail students and blame them for your inadequacies. I have read your dribble and find your verbose garbage is deliberately confusing in the hope people wont quiz you on points. You rattle off one non sequitor after another in pursuit of vanity. If there is enough techno-bable then clearly you must understand it right ? You are not a Geologist or a Biologist. Fess up, faker.

Quote:
Came out of the same orifice too Ill bet
Your obsession has been duly noted before. Are you a frustrated homosexual or were violently toilet trained ?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 09:00 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
You are saying it was done therefore it must be legal ?
No I never said that. It was part of history. You have this really naive belief that our government honored any of the "treaties" with the tribes. WE had a policy of removal, disposession, and ouright theft of their tribal lands. IT WAS A FACT and was in play since the late 1700;s . How dissimilar were we than was Oz in its dealings with aboriginals of your country? Before we can talk history you need to get a lot more educated about what really happened. We conned the Indians early and often by addressing them as "equals" , giving them presidential medals and citations, having them visist the white house and congress while being escorted by military dignitaries. Meanwhile we were scalping them for everything they owned, including about 3/4 of their original territories. The only reason that Navajos and Apaches were last to be subsumed was that these tribes lived in the lands with the leat commercial value. (that is until deposits of tin lead, silver and gold and Uranium were located on these lands also.)

Quote:
Yes I did. They are inherent in the term Nation. Many of those treaties were signed by the Sec of War. This involves official recognition. If they werent a state they all would have had to sign the "contract", every last individual. They are also defined by the boundaries of the USA who was admitting the land was the Indians when they made agreements for it. Why is it you know so little about the subjects you loudly proclaim to be expert in ?
I never ever said I was expert nor did I imply. However, I do know waay more tha n you because your naive beliefs are just NOT part of our dealings with the Indian tribes . Not until the 1920's when the Calif Indian Brotherhood) lobbied for lands promised in unratified treaties of 1851. Lnds that, had been confiscated by the US government(after treaty signature). In the East US the fight for "Sovereign rights" was being fought by lobby by the Iroquois Confederation.

You may wallow in some cartoon- land belief that we, as a nation , entered Indian treaties in anything approaching good faith or honored any treaty we signed. Most treaties lasted slightly longer than it took the ink to dry. SOme of the very first treaties like William Penns "walking purchase" were actually means in thmselves to cheat the natives of their tribal lands by the very wording of the treaty itself. It wasnt until the founding of the National Congress of American Indians in 1944 that the political march for sovereignty began taking any real roots . One of the first tests was the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. This was the FIRST attempt at actual legislation in dealing with Native AM<ericans. See, there was an actual previous policy called "termination" , which the Congress began implimenting in 1946. This was aploy to promote "assimilation by law". It was a sad period that ended with Richard Nixon , who began a new policy of "self determination" for members of tribes AND citizens.
Youre going to have to change your naive belief about Indian treaties and "sovereignty" and "NAtive lands" It just wasnt so.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 01:37 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
You have this really naive belief that our government honored any of the "treaties" with the tribes.
Where did I say that ?
Quote:
Before we can talk history you need to get a lot more educated about what really happened.
This is the opinion of someone who thinks you cant talk about the Battle of the Pacific unless you are a fish.

You have a policy of talking about something else at great length when you are wrong. All of your previous post does not address one thing : the nation of the USA dealt with the various nations of Indians in a manner that not only recognised their soveriegnty over their lands but recognised them as a nation equal under international law/protocol.

I dont care if you dealt with them dishonestly, that is something for your country to come to terms with.
Quote:
This was the FIRST attempt at actual legislation in dealing with Native AM<ericans.
Rubbish. Many of the treaties had to be ratified by Congress.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:42 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
the nation of the USA dealt with the various nations of Indians in a manner that not only recognised their soveriegnty over their lands but recognised them as a nation equal under international law/protocol.

"Indian Treaties" were usually just technicalities of the way we dealt with Indians, not as equals under international law, but as nusiances to "manifest destiny".

You seem to naively attach yourself to some notion that a treaty with the Indians was held sacred and was enforced. Im amazed at your attachment to this belief. It appears , in your mind, that the mere act of producing a document that "pledged " some recognition and means of dealing with tribes was self-explanatory and was honored. In truth, they were mostly documents of immediate convenience to con the tribes into believing that some blast of recognition had overtaken the US COngress and the government.
You seem to have backed yourself into some corner of belief that will have to be modified gretly before you continue on your "studies". Calling me names wont help to obscure youre naivete.

Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:57 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
You seem to naively attach yourself to some notion that a treaty with the Indians was held sacred and was enforced.
You are imagining things.
Quote:
Im amazed at your attachment to this belief.
I'm amazed you continue to think it is my believe despite any evidence.
Quote:
It appears , in your mind, that the mere act of producing a document that "pledged " some recognition and means of dealing with tribes was self-explanatory and was honored.
It appears that you have lost your mind. I am well aware of the treatment of Indians, and I put your obvious stupidity down to drawing attention from the many ways you have been wrong in this thread.
Quote:
You seem to have backed yourself into some corner of belief that will have to be modified gretly before you continue on your "studies".
You seem to think I have backed into a belief when it is all in your head. I suggest you read what was written. Your ability to imagine things that arent there is becoming alarming.
Quote:
Calling me names wont help to obscure youre naivete.
And so we follow the standard procedure. You call me names I object to, then I call you worse names, you declare it is my fault and calling you names wont help. Did it ever occur to you to control yourself like a man in the first place and avoid any unpleasantness ?

I repeat : the nation of the USA dealt with the various nations of Indians in a manner that not only recognised their soveriegnty over their lands but recognised them as a nation equal under international law/protocol.
Show me how this states any opinion I may have on their actual treatment ? I am discussing the legality of their status on ownership of the land. Why is it beyond your comprehension ?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:23 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
I repeat : the nation of the USA dealt with the various nations of Indians in a manner that not only recognised their soveriegnty over their lands but recognised them as a nation equal under international law/protocol.
Its the difference tween de jura and de facto. You seem to be stuck on a groove that we ACTUALLY considered the tribes as sovereign nations. The issue of Indian sovereignty was the entire point of the Indian Congress, and that was in the 20th century.

WE put our several "treaties" with the "Civilized tribes" In each one the US gradually stripped more land and possessions as cirxumstances of convenience presented themselves to the US government. (Like the need for southern land and the discovery of gold in the Carolinas. The point of "good faith and honor" in treaties with the Indians actually reminds me of the treaties that Hitler negotiated with Britain and Russia prior to the actual big fight . Indian treaties were not our "finest hour". But Im certainly not saying anything that any AUstralian wouldnt be familiar with in their own land.
I believe that treaties that were negotiated with disposession as a goal going in can hardly be quoted as some example of how we(the US) dealt with tribes and groups of tribes in national good faith.

Vine Deloria's son a well respected ethnologist, had searched the records to complete the listing of treaties with the Indians from the early 1700's to about the 1990's. It was amazing how many treaties were merely repeats of earlier treaties in which the only purpose of the new(and separate) treaty was developed was to strip a particular group fo tribes of even more land. The treaties with the Xherokee are famous for that. Since the early 1800's we began to define our wants from the Cherokees and contunuously stripped them of more lands and holdings until they were physically "removed" to Oklahoma. (Some "treaty" eh?).
Quote:
I'm amazed you continue to think it is my believe despite any evidence.
Well, when you quack like a duck , and all that. You seemed to have built an entire argument upon how we entered into treaties with Indians and dealt with them as sovereign Nations. WHen all historical evidence would show you that you are quite uninformed about how things relly went. (Unless the purpose of placating some warlike tribe with some token political bullshit is a good faith treaty).

Im not proud of our dealings with NAtive Americans and I think you should spend some time in lerning the way things really were (and are in many cases).
Learn about "termination" and about suffrage and the actual rights of Indians during the last 2 centuries. I think that " ignorant wards of the state" would more closely define the terms of Indian treaties. Look at some treaties like "The WAl;king Purchase " r the LAramie Treaties" and see if you can catch the catches inherent within.
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:35 am
Granted there's no honor in the way the US has dealt with Amerinds; there's also no law forbidding an Indian today from moving to NYC or Dallas and joining the same rat race everybody else lives in...
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:20 am
@gungasnake,
So true, Gunga - but the obsessed fanatics like the one who started this thread are congenitally incapable of grasping the fact (FACT) that perpetual whiners about generations-ago problems don't carry any weight over to NOW. Where were THEY when the Romans raped the Sabine women, btw? Any action taken against Italy by this champion of justice, Snood? How far back does this charade have to go?! All their griping about discrimination - existing in their imaginations only - destroys any legitimate claims they might ever have had, in law or in actual practice; but the Indians, to their eternal credit, much like the Southerners, fought bravely against overwhelming odds, lost honorably, and never stooped to pestering the nation with ahistorical incoherence. Except for the obsessive blackmailers willing to post laughably counterfactual headlines like the one on this thread everyone else considers the Stars and Bars as the rebel yell flag and can be proud of displaying it anywhere the 1st Amendment is still protected:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Flags/rebel-flag_small.jpg
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:36 am
@High Seas,
This thread was issue driven by history. You may want to use the "Power" argument as core to the civil wasr, but absent slavery, nobody would have given a rats ass. Slavery was about most all of the issues that caused the war.(4 out of five key reasonsaccording to Foote, and Wilmot)

Even hurrying up the seccession and first firing by the South CArolinians was clearly in response to Lincolns election since the south was deeply troubled re: his open condemnation of slavery.



Quote:
So true, Gunga - but the obsessed fanatics like the one who started this thread are congenitally incapable of grasping the fact (FACT) that perpetual whiners about generations-ago problems don't carry any weight over to NOW.
People can disagree without casting aspersions regarding our genetics. This was a bit over the top for you. Id most expect this kind of hoydenist calling from one of our foreign correspondents.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:37 am
@High Seas,
That is such a profoundly ignorant post. We are living with the effect of slavery today. It is current history. You can't compare this to the Indian situation. The ex slaves were not pushed out of America (so to speak), but instead were exploited and terrorized. That the situation is slowly being reversed does not mean we are out of it.
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/02/2022 at 02:01:09