61
   

The Confederacy was About Slavery

 
 
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 02:40 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

I didn't know that American WWII movies were in German - I always thought that they were in (American) English (and synchronised into German here).

I used a Yiddish saying, because you wrote in Yiddish previously as well.


The American WWII movies were in English, with German accents; however, a few words were in German, that taught non-German Americans a few words in German, such as "verboten," "nein," "mach schnell," to name a few.

Anything I wrote in Yiddish was likely a simple phrase, I cannot recall. Yiddish was the lingua franca of my Czarist Russian grandparents that my mother learned as an infant. To me she only spoke English.

I cannot speak for Miller. I really do not know the lady, aside from her being of Jewish background, and possibly more into the faith than I am. I am basically a non-practicing Jew. I wasn't even sure that tonight is the first night of Rosh Hashonah, until someone mentioned it. And, if I didn't say it before, I'll say it again, if I come back for another life on Earth, I hope it is as a WASP, preferably Methodist. In the military, I was impressed by their need for no other identity than American, regardless of what country their ancestors came from. That is another thing that irks me. That being how many Americans with a hyphenated identity (i.e., Italian-American, Irish-American, Polish-American, etc.) need a "personal narrative," in my opinion, to explain to themselves, and perhaps others, how they are a hyphenated American with some sort of ethnic pride, yet they see themselves as American as those old line families whose ancestors came from four, five, or more countries, and have no need for a hyphenated identity, nor a personal narrative. Those refugees will probably have children that will be Syrian-Germans. See the difference?

Miller
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 02:41 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Mr. Hinteler, I'm very sure, that with your knowledge , you'll be able to translate another statement I made previously on this thread:

"L'shanah tovah tikatev v'taihatem".
Miller
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 02:53 pm
Friede sei mit dir.


0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 04:30 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

I cannot speak for Miller. I really do not know the lady ...

Cripes you've outed yourself (or she/you did under the regular nickname) and you still want to deny it? Rolling Eyes
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 08:37 pm
@Ragman,
Con artists never admit to the con.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2015 12:19 pm
@Miller,
No. I don't know Hebrew, even when transcribed in Latin letters.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2015 04:01 pm
This is truly a stupid debate.

On the one side we have people who insist that the South was totally at fault for the Civil War and the North had zero culpability.

On the other we have people who want to minimize the causality of the issue of slavery.

Both are stupid positions, but the first is the most smug.

People who have made the first argument have also made the argument that to some extent Japan was forced by American economic actions to attack us.

Nothing will entice me to waste my time on this one again.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2015 04:06 pm
Good, you should leave. So-called "state troops" of southern states seized United States property, and attacked United States facilities. The southern hotheads started that war, whether or not you are either too ignorant to know it, or too dishonest to acknowledge it.

Your comments about the Japanese attack on the United States is truly quixotic. Japan was planning for an attack on Hawaii well before the United States imposed economic sanctions in August, 1941. Once again, you seem to proudly advertise your ignorance.
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 18 Sep, 2015 08:28 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Good, you should leave. So-called "state troops" of southern states seized United States property, and attacked United States facilities. The southern hotheads started that war, whether or not you are either too ignorant to know it, or too dishonest to acknowledge it.

Your comments about the Japanese attack on the United States is truly quixotic. Japan was planning for an attack on Hawaii well before the United States imposed economic sanctions in August, 1941. Once again, you seem to proudly advertise your ignorance.


Then both the South and Japan were the aggressors that started wars. But, the belief that there were not ulterior motives seems naive. The South, I believe, wanted autonomy when their economy would have to evolve to a sharecropper system by the 20th century (40 years hence). Japan wanted to make the first move in the Pacific to show it had the goal of hegemony over the entire Pacific. And, it knew that Germany would declare war on the U.S. (hoping that that would eliminate the U.S. from being a bulwark against Japan's Pacific hegemony).



0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2015 04:45 am
Foofie

If slavery had not been a factor...it is almost certain secession would not have occurred...and the Civil War would not have been fought.

Obviously that is having a tough time penetrating with you.



snood
 
  5  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2015 05:22 am
These folks who insist that slavery was "just one, but not the only" reason for the Civil war are like someone making the observation that a pstient who died of lung cancer also had pink eye.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2015 05:30 am
My advice is not to feed the troll. She's just looking for attention.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2015 07:51 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Foofie

If slavery had not been a factor...it is almost certain secession would not have occurred...and the Civil War would not have been fought.

Obviously that is having a tough time penetrating with you.






Look at the title of the thread. The inference is that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. I just believe it is more nuanced. It was about being autonomous when slavery had to end. The desire to not have one's children or grandchildren have to deal with those Northern Yankees was on the mind of Southern intellectuals, I believe.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2015 07:53 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Foofie

If slavery had not been a factor...it is almost certain secession would not have occurred...and the Civil War would not have been fought.

Obviously that is having a tough time penetrating with you.






Look at the title of the thread. The inference is that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. I just believe it is more nuanced. It was about being autonomous when slavery had to end. The desire to not have one's children or grandchildren have to deal with those Northern Yankees was on the mind of Southern intellectuals, I believe.


Obviously!

But several of us are attempting to tell you secession was a result of threats to slavery...and the war was a result of secession.

The. War. Was. About. Slavery.
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2015 08:01 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Foofie

If slavery had not been a factor...it is almost certain secession would not have occurred...and the Civil War would not have been fought.

Obviously that is having a tough time penetrating with you.






Look at the title of the thread. The inference is that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. I just believe it is more nuanced. It was about being autonomous when slavery had to end. The desire to not have one's children or grandchildren have to deal with those Northern Yankees was on the mind of Southern intellectuals, I believe.


Obviously!

But several of us are attempting to tell you secession was a result of threats to slavery...and the war was a result of secession.

The. War. Was. About. Slavery.



Like any good Jewish boy, I do not follow the herd of humanity. I do not subscribe to your beliefs.
Miller
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2015 08:49 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Like any good Jewish boy, I do not follow the herd of humanity. I do not subscribe to your beliefs.


You tell 'em Foofie! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2015 10:06 pm
So....the North hated slavery so much they fought the bloodiest war the USA has ever been in, all for them southern niggers that were welcomed with open arms in the north after the war and have lived there happily ever after. All this after making special clauses in the constitution to allow the south and slavery into the union after the War of Independence. You lot are more queer than a drunk camel.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 12:07 pm
The Confederacy was clearly about institutional slavery in the states that would secede. Their own articles of secession (for most of these states), clearly state that they secede in order to protect their institutions (including slavery).
When the Civil War began, the SOUTH STARTED IT and Lincoln wanted the Union back. He made slavery the issue of the war less than 2 years later. Whats to disagree ? Its all in writing.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 01:43 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
When the Civil War began, the SOUTH STARTED IT and Lincoln wanted the Union back. He made slavery the issue of the war less than 2 years later. Whats to disagree ? Its all in writing.

That would mean that the war was not about slavery, because the reason we do something is by definition the reason we had at the time, not the revised reason put in place after the deed was done, the deed in this case was going to war.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 03:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
A typical Whackeye attempt at appearing to know what he's talking about. The southern hotheads who started the war thought they were defending the institution of slavery. (I've already commented many times, in detail, about just how stupid that one was.) Lincoln's administration was simply defending the constitution and the union. The constitution prohibits the states from forming confederacies and keeping troops and ships of war in peace time. The title of the thread is "The Confederacy was about slavery." Noting that Lincoln fought to preserve the union doesn't change that.
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 03:27:17