Charleston SC Church Shooting

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

They just can't deal with the fact that it was about slavery. And that they got their ass kicked. Losers don't get to write history. Winners do.

[Mungwater 601]

They just can't deal with the fact that it was about slavery. And that they got their ass kicked. Losers don't get to write history. Winners do.

You trying to get a rise out of our southern geeks, you know you had nothing to do with the winning or anything right?

[Frank M 181]

 

The North's interpretation and illegal justification.

I'm reasonably certain that you're trolling, but the scary thing is that there are still people who feel this way. People more than 150 years removed who have no relevant connection to the event other than geography who are pissed off about it.

[Mungwater 601]

I'm reasonably certain that you're trolling, but the scary thing is that there are still people who feel this way. People more than 150 years removed who have no relevant connection to the event other than geography who are pissed off about it.

I went to undergrad in charleston, the civil war class there was called "study of northern aggression". Most buy that bullshit until they hit around 25 and grow up.

[Djgb13 2,339]

I'm reasonably certain that you're trolling, but the scary thing is that there are still people who feel this way. People more than 150 years removed who have no relevant connection to the event other than geography who are pissed off about it.

Believe it or not I've heard of some reenactments where they portray the south winning. Some people honestly just can't let go. I'm happy the north won but the bashing of southern states in this day in age is asinine

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Believe it or not I've heard of some reenactments where they portray the south winning. Some people honestly just can't let go. I'm happy the north won but the bashing of southern states in this day in age is asinine

Nobody's basing the southern states. Just your pathetic attempts at rewriting history

[Djgb13 2,339]

Nobody's basing the southern states. Just your pathetic attempts at rewriting history

You don't see me trying to rewrite history so don't know how that's relevant.

[Flyfreak 84]

The North's interpretation and illegal justification.

you need a big heaping plate of remedial u.s. history

[Mungwater 601]

you need a big heaping plate of remedial u.s. history

He doesn't realize the south fired the first shots.

[GobbleDog 1,010]

People more than 150 years removed who have no relevant connection to the event other than geography who are pissed off about it.

 

My relatives fought in that war. What really bothers me is the general perception that the South was completely wrong and the North was just doing God's work trying to free slaves, never-mind their indefensible atrocities.

 

Sorry I don't agree with that.

[Frank M 181]

Believe it or not I've heard of some reenactments where they portray the south winning. Some people honestly just can't let go. I'm happy the north won but the bashing of southern states in this day in age is asinine

History is very rarely conveyed in an unbiased manner, but my history teachers never portrayed the southern states in an overly negative light.

[Djgb13 2,339]

History is very rarely conveyed in an unbiased manner, but my history teachers never portrayed the southern states in an overly negative light.

I'm sure plenty if history teachers didn't. However when you look at the issues (not just slavery) that the two sides were fighting over you will find that both sides actually had issues that were wrong. The north wanted to impose biased taxes and tariffs on the southern states. The south had slavery. Not saying it the war was justified, but back then there was clear seperation of the US.

[RLLD 4,275]

The fact is they did. They didn't come out and say slavery had nothing to do with it cause it did and everyone knows it. However it's just one of multiple issues that the south had imposed on them that finally pissed them off enough to rebel

 

Oh this was a hotly debated topic in class for over a month.

 

Eventually facts and reason prevailed. The question arose as to whether or not the war would have transpired in the absence of slavery, and given what was known of the issues at the time the answer we all continued to arrive at was yes. The act that provoked war was the act of secession, and the act of secession arose in response to the perception that states rights were being trampled by the Federal government. It was a combination of rising issues, but the key trigger appeared to really be the Missouri Compramise that set us down the path, others followed such as the Compramise of 1850, but once Lincoln was elected the southern politicians saw that they simply had no power to stop the efforts to attack slavery.

 

Slavery was the point on which this seething undercurrent of resentment toward the power of the north to dominate in congress found combustion. If it weren't slavery it may have been something else, and likely would have been tarrifs and taxation.

 

To simply point at slavery is, in academic circles at least, considered high school level critical thinking. Understanding the depth of issues instead of their face is a skill developed in college, particularly in grad school, not everyone gets there.

[Frank M 181]

I'm sure plenty if history teachers didn't. However when you look at the issues (not just slavery) that the two sides were fighting over you will find that both sides actually had issues that were wrong. The north wanted to impose biased taxes and tariffs on the southern states. The south had slavery. Not saying it the war was justified, but back then there was clear seperation of the US.

And the result of the war was the preservation of the Union. Only southerners angry because of their perceptions think that's a bad thing.

[Djgb13 2,339]

 

Oh this was a hotly debated topic in class for over a month.

 

Eventually facts and reason prevailed. The question arose as to whether or not the war would have transpired in the absence of slavery, and given what was known of the issues at the time the answer we all continued to arrive at was yes. The act that provoked war was the act of secession, and the act of secession arose in response to the perception that states rights were being trampled by the Federal government. It was a combination of rising issues, but the key trigger appeared to really be the Missouri Compramise that set us down the path, others followed such as the Compramise of 1850, but once Lincoln was elected the southern politicians saw that they simply had no power to stop the efforts to attack slavery.

 

Slavery was the point on which this seething undercurrent of resentment toward the power of the north to dominate in congress found combustion. If it weren't slavery it may have been something else, and likely would have been tarrifs and taxation.

 

To simply point at slavery is, in academic circles at least, considered high school level critical thinking. Understanding the depth of issues instead of their face is a skill developed in college, particularly in grad school, not everyone gets there.

This is correct. Even without slavery, the two sides were being seperated further and further. It's not saying that either side was right 100% but the fact remains that the entire country is glad the north won. Because I do think slavery is wrong and glad we don't have it anymore. But I do believe the north was wrong in the unfairness they kept imposing new taxes and tariffs on southern states. We learned from it and moved on. That's all that matters

[RLLD 4,275]

And the result of the war was the preservation of the Union. Only southerners angry because of their perceptions think that's a bad thing.

 

I think they are angry for multiple reasons, most of them inaccurate.

 

Pissed that they lost? Sure. But ultimately they were saved from themselves. I cannot fathom how anyone could be angry about ending slavery, but I will allow that such people likely do exist.

 

Hell, if you visit Georgia, want to have some fun? Speak kindly about Sherman to just about anyone.....see where that goes....most of them view him as a war criminal.....and they might not be wrong....

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

I went to undergrad in charleston, the civil war class there was called "study of northern aggression". Most buy that bullshit until they hit around 25 and grow up.

Sounds like you're trying to get a rise out of the southern geeks.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

My relatives fought in that war. What really bothers me is the general perception that the South was completely wrong and the North was just doing God's work trying to free slaves, never-mind their indefensible atrocities.

 

Sorry I don't agree with that.

That's too simplistic - everyone realizes that. However the South was fighting in major part for the continued enslavement of the black race and obviously that should not be celebrated today

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

 

My relatives fought in that war. What really bothers me is the general perception that the South was completely wrong and the North was just doing God's work trying to free slaves, never-mind their indefensible atrocities.

 

Sorry I don't agree with that.

I'd say slavery is an indefensible atrocity. And your ancestors were traitors.

[RLLD 4,275]

That's too simplistic - everyone realizes that. However the South was fighting for the continued enslavement of the black race and obviously that should not be celebrated today

 

This. The south was fighting mostly because they were just pissed off and they hated the north for its ability to dominate them. Slavery was the way they were able to rally support, it was something they wanted to protect and also an excellent vehicle to stir up support for their cause; which was acutely more interested in separating from the north so that they could decide for themselves how to conduct their affairs.

 

The north was not fighting to end slavery, but instead fighting to preserve the union. Ultimately Lincoln saw the value in the way the south used the institution of slavery and then himself issues the emancipation proclamation to also get some tread out of it.

[Flyfreak 84]

He doesn't realize the south fired the first shots.

i know it's a message board and there are tons of thoughts and opinions, but i didn't think we would have that many revisionist historians here

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

This. The south was fighting mostly because they were just pissed off and they hated the north for its ability to dominate them. Slavery was the way they were able to rally support, it was something they wanted to protect and also an excellent vehicle to stir up support for their cause; which was acutely more interested in separating from the north so that they could decide for themselves how to conduct their affairs.

 

The north was not fighting to end slavery, but instead fighting to preserve the union. Ultimately Lincoln saw the value in the way the south used the institution of slavery and then himself issues the emancipation proclamation to also get some tread out of it.

I see it more as they were getting dominated and knew that eventually that would result in the end of slavery. There were many negative affects of northern domination in their mind but the one they absolutely could not abide was the abolition of slavert, which they believed would destroy their economy. So it was a line in the sand more than a rallying cry IMO

[Frank M 181]

 

My relatives fought in that war. What really bothers me is the general perception that the South was completely wrong and the North was just doing God's work trying to free slaves, never-mind their indefensible atrocities.

 

Sorry I don't agree with that.

Being pissed about an event thst happened 150 years ago because your ancestors fought on the losing side makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Would you consider it reasonable to be upset with someone because their ancestors owned slaves?

[Djgb13 2,339]

Being pissed about an event thst happened 150 years ago because your ancestors fought on the losing side makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Would you consider it reasonable to be upset with someone because their ancestors owned slaves?

This is true. That's like saying you're pissed off at the US because your german ancestors faught for Hitler. Honestly not sure what side my family fought on (more likely than not it was the South) but I'm not bitter at all. Like I said I'm glad the North won.

[GobbleDog 1,010]

I'd say slavery is an indefensible atrocity. And your ancestors were traitors.

 

Similar to George Washington, other founding fathers, not to mention a few of the Generals who actually fought for the North.

 

I wasn't trying to stir up a slavery debate with my comment, just contributing. Who hijacked this thread into a Civil War debate anyway? What happened to the mass murder thread?

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

 

Similar to George Washington, other founding fathers, not to mention a few of the Generals who actually fought for the North.

 

I wasn't trying to stir up a slavery debate with my comment, just contributing. Who hijacked this thread into a Civil War debate anyway? What happened to the mass murder thread?

There in lay the lesson. None dare call it treason when you win.

[MDC 7,852]

 

Oh this was a hotly debated topic in class for over a month.

 

Eventually facts and reason prevailed. The question arose as to whether or not the war would have transpired in the absence of slavery, and given what was known of the issues at the time the answer we all continued to arrive at was yes. The act that provoked war was the act of secession, and the act of secession arose in response to the perception that states rights were being trampled by the Federal government. It was a combination of rising issues, but the key trigger appeared to really be the Missouri Compramise that set us down the path, others followed such as the Compramise of 1850, but once Lincoln was elected the southern politicians saw that they simply had no power to stop the efforts to attack slavery.

 

Slavery was the point on which this seething undercurrent of resentment toward the power of the north to dominate in congress found combustion. If it weren't slavery it may have been something else, and likely would have been tarrifs and taxation.

 

To simply point at slavery is, in academic circles at least, considered high school level critical thinking. Understanding the depth of issues instead of their face is a skill developed in college, particularly in grad school, not everyone gets there.

But nobody is saying the Civil War was only about slavery, only that slavery was a primary reason. Conversely I see people claiming the CW had nothing to do with slavery, which is a bald faced lie contradicted by historical fact.

 

HTH but I doubt it does.

[Flyfreak 84]

 

Similar to George Washington, other founding fathers, not to mention a few of the Generals who actually fought for the North.

 

I wasn't trying to stir up a slavery debate with my comment, just contributing. Who hijacked this thread into a Civil War debate anyway? What happened to the mass murder thread?

the shooter thought he was a confederate soldier

[RLLD 4,275]

But nobody is saying the Civil War was only about slavery, only that slavery was a primary reason. Conversely I see people claiming the CW had nothing to do with slavery, which is a bald faced lie contradicted by historical fact.

 

HTH but I doubt it does.

 

 

Oh yeah, those people trying to pretend it had absolutely nothing to do with slavery are over the edge for sure. Trying to pretend that it something else entirely......how they can put forth that garbage with a straight face and believe it is pretty scary

[Baker Boy 1,710]

Oh yeah, those people trying to pretend it had absolutely nothing to do with slavery are over the edge for sure. Trying to pretend that it something else entirely......how they can put forth that garbage with a straight face and believe it is pretty scary

In 1860 less than 2% of white Americans owned slaves.

[naomi 360]

You should really be more careful about what you read and your willingness to accept things that fit your preconceived notion even when they're clearly pushing an agenda. I would think as a journalism student you would've learned that

 

Are you serious when you go into this mode?

[Djgb13 2,339]

Just read where the owner of the Carolina Panthers donated $10,000 to each of the nine families and another $10,000 to the church

[wiffleball 4,797]

I'm not a civil war buff, but I am a pretty huge fan of Abe Lincoln. He was perhaps the most complex, thoughtful POTUS in history.

 

So, I'll add in my two cents:

 

One of the things I love about Abe is that he wasn't afraid to change his mind, he was the anti-Bush, anti-Reagan. He was willing to be educated, willing to change, willing to admit his was wasn't the only way. To wit:

 

Lincoln's views on slavery and blacks in general evolved quite a bit throughout his presidency. At one point, he even resolved to send all blacks to Panama believing that integration would never be possible.

 

The idea that Lincoln came into the Presidency as the Great White Hope, the beloved protector of the negroes (as is taught in grade schools throughout the country) is a complete falsehood. In fact, his ultimate policy on slavery was dictated more by military and political expediency than via any sort of moral ideology.

 

It was Lincoln's Secretary of State, Cascious Clay, that had the biggest impact on what revisionist history claims as the tent-pole issue of the war; slavery. He had been travelling in Europe (remember, it's not like it was a six-hour plane ride as it is today). When he returned, he informed Lincoln that England (which had outlawed slavery previously on moral grounds) was about to side with the South. They had to. England was suffering mightily due to the fact that their single greatest export industry - textiles - was massively crippled by the loss of American cotton. They were going through a massive depression and felt they had no choice but to side with the South to obtain the crucial raw materials England so desperately needed.

 

Clay advised Lincoln that the only way to keep England out of the fray was to make the war a moral war; The citizens of England and the rest of Europe in general simply would not tolerate supporting a pro-slavery faction. No matter what the economic cost may be.

 

And that advice changed not only Lincoln's mindset, but changed the very tenor and theme of the war, of The Union's cause itself.

 

The More You Know...

 

 

(pretty sure it's not a coincidence that Mohammad Ali's birth name came to be as a result of someone knowing this as well)

[Sho Nuff 720]

In 1860 less than 2% of white Americans owned slaves.

Which doesn't refute a thing he sa9d.

[ZeroTolerance 584]

Another early preview of the next 16 months of stupid remarks we can look forward to inundating our airwaves and internets...Rick Perry is today's contestant:

 

 

Presidential candidate Rick Perry called this week’s Charleston Church shooting an “accident” in a recent interview — an apparent slip of the tongue, his spokesman said later... “This is the M.O. of this administration, anytime there is a accident like this,” Perry told Steve Malzberg. “You know, the president’s clear. He doesn’t like for Americans to have guns, and so he uses every opportunity — this being another one — to basically go parrot that message.”

[GobbleDog 1,010]

the shooter thought he was a confederate soldier

 

In hind-site, this was probably the wrong thread to state my disdain of Lincoln.

[Flyfreak 84]

In hind-site, this was probably the wrong thread to state my disdain of Lincoln.

I don't know how you can hate lincoln, probably the only man who could handle carrying the nation through the civil war and the start of the civil rights movement

[Djgb13 2,339]

I don't know how you can hate lincoln, probably the only man who could handle carrying the nation through the civil war and the start of the civil rights movement

Plus he killed vampires. Hard to hate that

[Flyfreak 84]

Plus he killed vampires. Hard to hate that

awesome movie

[RLLD 4,275]

You should really be more careful about what you read and your willingness to accept things that fit your preconceived notion even when they're clearly pushing an agenda. I would think as a journalism student you would've learned that

 

This is something I have been strenuously advocating and earnestly hope that you actually leverage this approach as well.