U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook

[mactastic]

What I believe is irrelevant as my statement still stands and is true whether I believe it to be the primary or not. Whether I believe it to be primary, secondary, or otherwise does not change the truth my statement conveys as it was stated. You read your own interpretations into it. As nothing to either way is conveyed in the statement itself.

Having said that, since you asked (and this is the first time you have rather than just assume my position), I believe that it was the primary reason behind it (note I said primary and not only reason as other reasons existed as well), but I do know several that believe otherwise.

What do you believe those other reasons were?

 

[squeakr]

But once you really research and examine the "economic stimulation" and the "other issues", they all were part of the South's slavery conundrum.

I don't know either way, just that almost everything could be attributed in some way to something else when the issue is big enough and framed in the right situation and light. I am not saying this is what happened, but when the issue is large enough with the right arguments one could justify something based upon something else that could be or could not be related.

----------

What do you believe those other reasons were?

Like stated previously socioeconomic reasons (this to include governmental controls). Not everyone in the south owned slaves but lots were affected by the changes within the economy as it related to their cash crops and the way the government was telling the south how things were going to change. Lots didn't like the government telling them how they were to run their lives, families, and farms/plantations and how they were to handle their crops on the free market.


Now knowing what I have stated above, does this make my prior statements any less than what they were originally stated? No they still stand for the truths and intentions they were originally stated with.

 

[mactastic]

Most that know nothing about US History only see it as racists and oppressive (and always will), but the Civivl War was not just about slavery, but about economic stimulation and lots of other issues.

But once you really research and examine the "economic stimulation" and the "other issues", they all were part of the South's slavery conundrum.

I don't know either way (snip)

Game, set, and match. But just for fun, let's continue.

Like stated previously socioeconomic reasons (this to include governmental controls). Not everyone in the south owned slaves but lots were affected by the changes within the economy as it related to their cash crops and the way the government was telling the south how things were going to change. Lots didn't like the government telling them how they were to run their lives, families, and farms/plantations.

Please, be specific. Which acts of the federal government are you speaking of?

Also, "changes within the economy as it related to their cash crops" sounds pretty closely tied to keeping slaves, who -- as you may recall -- were the ones cultivating and harvesting most of said cash crops.

 

[localoid]

I don't know either way, just that almost everything could be attributed in some way to something else when the issue is big enough and framed in the right situation and light. I am not saying this is what happened, but when the issue is large enough with the right arguments one could justify something based upon something else that could be or could not be related.

Any issue (other than slavery) that I can think of is directly connected and intertwined with the slavery issue.

Even it you claim "it was about unfair taxation" and cite the Federal tariff legislation of 1828 and 1832, those too were directly connected to slavery because those taxes reduced the exportation of British goods to the US, which in turn, made it difficult for the British to pay for the (slave grown) cotton they imported from the South.

Like stated previously socioeconomic reasons (this to include governmental controls). Not everyone in the south owned slaves but lots were affected by the changes within the economy as it related to their cash crops and the way the government was telling the south how things were going to change. Lots didn't like the government telling them how they were to run their lives, families, and farms/plantations and how they were to handle their crops on the free market.

Now knowing what I have stated above, does this make my prior statements any less than what they were originally stated? No they still stand for the truths and intentions they were originally stated with.

That "free market" the South wanted to enjoy the benefits of, depended almost entirely on the institution of slavery.

 

[squeakr]

Game, set, and match. But just for fun, let's continue.



Please, be specific. Which acts of the federal government are you speaking of?

Also, "changes within the economy as it related to their cash crops" sounds pretty closely tied to keeping slaves, who -- as you may recall -- were the ones cultivating and harvesting most of said cash crops.

What game set match? Nothing of the sort, except in your mind. Quote different passages from different people to prove a point about what you thought I said????So what if I stated I didn't know, can I still not have a belief, as belief is not necessarily fact based. By definition it is what we believe and not always what we know. What have you proven wrong or incorrect about my original statement? Nothing. As I have previously stated, but you are skipping over, when an issue is big enough it can be linked to lots of other things related or not of one creates enough arguments. I can state I don't believe Obama was legible for the presidency did to the naturalization requirements but it doesn't change the fact that I don't know for sure one way or the other.

Not everyone and every farmer/plantation owner owned and depended on slaves, but the fact that the government was telling them what they were allowed to do with their crops was seen unfair by them. The government was dictating the value of the crops as an effort to control the farmers, and the people saw this as an unfair penalty to them and started to question the limits that the government would go to posing regulations. The fact is the North needed the crops but had to rely on the south for them so it was a blackmail of sorts. Whether this was related to slavery or not is still questionable, but as you stated since the majority of the crops were due in part to the slave labor, the connection can be made, whether or not the intent was initially there.

 

[mactastic]

What game set match? Nothing of the sort, except in your mind. Quote different passages from different people to prove a point about what you thought I said????So what if I stated I didn't know, can I still not have a belief, as belief is not necessarily fact based. By definition it is what we believe and not always what we know. What have you proven wrong or incorrect about my original statement? Nothing. As I have previously stated, but you are skipping over, when an issue is big enough it can be linked to lots of other things related or not of one creates enough arguments.

Not everyone and every farmer/plantation owner owned and depended on slaves, but the fact that the government was telling them what they were allowed to do with their crops was seen unfair by them. The government was dictating the value of the crops as an effort to control the farmers, and the people saw this as an unfair penalty to them and started to question the limits that the government would go to posing regulations. The fact is the North needed the crops but had to rely on the south for them so it was a blackmail of sorts. Whether this was related to slavery or not is still questionable, but as you stated since the majority of the crops were due in part to the slave labor, the connection can be made, whether or not the intent was initially there.

You have difficulty with sourcing your claims, don't you? Again, you talk a lot in generalities about the federal government telling people to do things they didn't want to, but oddly you cannot cite any of these "other things" that you feel are so important that they must be mentioned as also-reasons for the civil war. And while you swear these things had nothing to do with slavery, you cannot specify any of these other, hugely important things. So please. Give us some (sourced) examples of big issues entirely unrelated to slavery that were a justification for treason and sedition.

 

[Huntn]

See that judgement is biased, as the Confederate flag is a symbol to lots of native southerners as a representation of their heritage and pride.

What exactly does it symbolize, that should make a Southerner feel pride?

I'd be willing to bet that for every "1" who feels it represents a proud heritage, "100" use it to broadcast their desire for the good ole days when whites were on top. Just watch a single movie about race relations in the South, say "The Help" or "To Kill a Mockingbird" for examples of what an embarrassment that period represents for a country founded upon individual freedom.

 

[mactastic]

What exactly does it symbolize, that should make a Southerner feel pride?

It represents the treason of their ancestors over the issue of human bondage, and they should be ashamed to raise it on American soil. Yes, that's my opinion; and yes, I'm biased.

 

[localoid]

... The fact is the North needed the crops but had to rely on the south for them so it was a blackmail of sorts. ...

Pre-1861, I wouldn't really think the North depended very much on the South's crops, other than cotton. An effective national transportation system didn't exist yet. The railroads were in their infancy, and without a "standard gauge" it was extremely difficult to transport large quantities of goods, quickly and easily, between regions of the country. Water transportation wasn't exactly state-of-the-art.

Farms existed all over the North. It would have been much easier to obtain food supplies from a source that was fairly close by...

The textile mills of the North however did depend totally on cotton from the South. Mill owners and other Northern industrialists probably could have put more pressure on the South regarding the slavery issue, but few seemed willing to do so, I assume because making money was regarded as being more important than standing up for one's moral convictions.

What exactly does it symbolize, that should make a Southerner feel pride? ...

I can't think of many occasions where the Confederate flag could be displayed "with a sense of pride", unless its primarily used as part of the "history" display that has some educational merit.

I suppose if you're watching a reenactment of Pickett's Charge on the Gettysburg battlefield, you might feel "pride" (in some sense) seeing the Confederate flag flying over a group of soldiers as you recall how much courage it must have taken to walk into almost certain death. Maybe if you look at a model of the CSS Virginia, aka the Merrimack, with its Confederate flag flying, you might get a sense of admiration for the resourceful men involved in design and building of one of the first successful "ironclad" ships used in battle, and have some sense of "pride" regarding the sailors onboard.

 

[squeakr]

You have difficulty with sourcing your claims, don't you? Again, you talk a lot in generalities about the federal government telling people to do things they didn't want to, but oddly you cannot cite any of these "other things" that you feel are so important that they must be mentioned as also-reasons for the civil war. And while you swear these things had nothing to do with slavery, you cannot specify any of these other, hugely important things. So please. Give us some (sourced) examples of big issues entirely unrelated to slavery that were a justification for treason and sedition.

I owe you no explanation and really am done with this side track now. You have done nothing but challenge me on my statements yet have not once been able to disprove what I have said. You just keep digging deeper. Where are our claims to the contrary to prove my statements incorrect. When challenged to this, you avoid the challenge and state inaccuracies yet just challenge me further. Start providing some of your own truths and maybe the discussion will be worth continuing other than the BS you are spouting about irony based upon your perceptions and misjudgments. The fact is that neither of is having lived during that time can only rely on the history as it is written, so if the conclusion is drawn that something is the direct result of another, no matter a truth or not eventually it will be accepted as one. I have answered your challenges up to this point, yet you have yet to answer one of mine to prove my original statements that you found issue with wrong. You just keep taking the issue somewhere else to take the attention off of you are your incorrect assessments of my original statements (in fact they are still there unchanged and yet you continue to misquote them). Where are your statements of truth added to this discussion.

And there were several tax impositions, which whether they were slave induced or because of they new labor laws in the North were forcing higher wages and changed working conditions thus requiring lower raw goods prices to remain profitable (or so they led others to believe they were becoming less profitable due to these changes) will never truly be known and it is just easier to say it is related to slavery.

----------

Pre-1861, I wouldn't really think the North depended very much on the South's crops, other than cotton. An effective national transportation system didn't exist yet. The railroads were in their infancy, and without a "standard gauge" it was extremely difficult to transport large quantities of goods, quickly and easily, between regions of the country. Water transportation wasn't exactly state-of-the-art.

Farms existed all over the North. It would have been much easier to obtain food supplies from a source that was fairly close by...

The textile mills of the North however did depend totally on cotton from the South. Mill owners and other Northern industrialists probably could have put more pressure on the South regarding the slavery issue, but few seemed willing to do so, I assume because making money was regarded as being more important than standing up for one's moral convictions.

You left out the part in my quote which said cash crops. The cotton and tobaccos that were not able to be grown up north. As this is really the crux of the dealings between the North and the South as you have detailed is this exchange of these few key crops.

----------

It represents the treason of their ancestors over the issue of human bondage, and they should be ashamed to raise it on American soil. Yes, that's my opinion; and yes, I'm biased.

So would you think Washington, Jefferson, Adam, and several of our founding fathers as treasonous and traitors?

 

[Huntn]

Pre-1861, I wouldn't really think the North depended very much on the South's crops, other than cotton. An effective national transportation system didn't exist yet. The railroads were in their infancy, and without a "standard gauge" it was extremely difficult to transport large quantities of goods, quickly and easily, between regions of the country. Water transportation wasn't exactly state-of-the-art.

Farms existed all over the North. It would have been much easier to obtain food supplies from a source that was fairly close by...

The textile mills of the North however did depend totally on cotton from the South. Mill owners and other Northern industrialists probably could have put more pressure on the South regarding the slavery issue, but few seemed willing to do so, I assume because making money was regarded as being more important than standing up for one's moral convictions.

As I recall (please correct me), the South begrudged the factories in the North because they were making most of the profit, regardless of the fact that this is how manufacturing works. Most of the profit is usually achieved from the final product, not supplying the raw product. I'd call this a flaw in the South's expectations. Was there something else?

----------

So would you think Washington, Jefferson, Adam, and several of our founding fathers as treasonous and traitors

The difference for us is that Washington, Jefferson, and Adam won. However, if you ask the English, we were traitors, but for today, that's water long gone under the bridge. A new relationship developed and bygones were bygones. But I believe some segment of the South is still living or longing for the good ole days.

 

[mactastic]

I owe you no explanation and really am done with this side track now. You have done nothing but challenge me on my statements yet have not once been able to disprove what I have said. You just keep digging deeper. Where are our claims to the contrary to prove my statements incorrect. When challenged to this, you avoid the challenge and state inaccuracies yet just challenge me further. Start providing some of your own truths and maybe the discussion will be worth continuing other than the BS you are spouting about irony based upon your perceptions and misjudgments. The fact is that neither of is having lived during that time can only rely on the history as it is written, so if the conclusion is drawn that something is the direct result of another, no matter a truth or not eventually it will be accepted as one. I have answered your challenges up to this point, yet you have yet to answer one of mine to prove my original statements that you found issue with wrong. You just keep taking the issue somewhere else to take the attention off of you are your incorrect assessments of my original statements (in fact they are still there unchanged and yet you continue to misquote them). Where are your statements of truth added to this discussion.

And there were several tax impositions, which whether they were slave induced or because of they new labor laws in the North were forcing higher wages and changed working conditions thus requiring lower raw goods prices to remain profitable (or so they led others to believe they were becoming less profitable due to these changes) will never truly be known and it is just easier to say it is related to slavery.

Ah the twisting and flailing of the defeated. Taking your toys and going home, are you?

I remind you that you were the one making claims here. You were the one who insisted that there were significant other issues behind Southern sedition, yet you have failed to elucidate any such reasons beyond word-salad responses and banal generalities. All I asked was proof of your claim. It is very telling when someone cannot -- or huffily refuses to -- source their claims.

Now I'm confused. Are you suggesting Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and other founding fathers fought under the Stars and Bars?

 

[squeakr]

The difference for us is that Washington, Jefferson, and Adam won. However, if you ask the English, we were traitors, but for today that's water long gone under the bridge.

Actually it was more in reference to their slave ownership (and they did so quite proudly as well) and not the revolution.

 

[mactastic]

Actually it was more in reference to their slave ownership (and they did so quite proudly as well) and not the revolution.

Now who's misreading?

 

[squeakr]

Ah the twisting and flailing of the defeated. Taking your toys and going home, are you?

I remind you that you were the one making claims here. You were the one who insisted that there were significant other issues behind Southern sedition, yet you have failed to elucidate any such reasons beyond word-salad responses and banal generalities. All I asked was proof of your claim. It is very telling when someone cannot -- or huffily refuses to -- source their claims.

I have asked for your claims and gotten nothing more than claims or irony and misguided quotes. You are so much the better and more honorable how? You missed the references to the taxation sand price fixing of the cash crops. Guess those count for nothing as they were not what you wanted. The rantings of banality, when one doesn't get exactly what you want, bury the head and never acknowledge things exist.

----------

Now who's misreading?

If you are asking the English then it would be the Revolution. I am reading just fine.

 

[Huntn]

Actually it was more in reference to their slave ownership (and they did so quite proudly as well) and not the revolution.

Proud of slave ownership? If I read this right, should that be a source of pride?

 

[localoid]

...You left out the part in my quote which said cash crops. The cotton and tobaccos that were not able to be grown up north. As this is really the crux of the dealings between the North and the South as you have detailed is this exchange of these few key crops. ...

Tobacco can be and was grown in some of the Northern states. If you can grow tomatoes, you can grow tobacco. But because tobacco sold for extremely low prices, it wasn't economical to grow in the 1800s without slave labor.

 

[mactastic]

I have asked for your claims and gotten nothing more than claims or irony and misguided quotes. You are so much the better and more honorable how? You missed the references to the taxation sand price fixing of the cash crops. Guess those count for nothing as they were not what you wanted. The rantings of banality, when one doesn't get exactly what you want, bury the head and never acknowledge things exist.

Aw, you're not really done yet!

I asked you to cite your source. I countered your cash crop argument, despite the lack of a source.

Again, are you suggesting the founding fathered fought in the civil war?

What claims of mine have I made without sourcing?

----------

If you are asking the English then it would be the Revolution. I am reading just fine.

But I was not asking the English. I was speaking specifically about the Confederate flag. Your reading is not fine.

 

[squeakr]

Proud of slave ownership? If I read this right, should that be a source of pride?

For the time it was. Go to the library of Congress and visit the archives where these individuals have documented, and with pride,the number of slaves they had, the size of their plantations, and their satisfaction and pride with slave ownership.

I don't agree with it but they did at the time and viewed it as wealth. Each one of these men were proud slave owners and recorded it in their personal journals and plantation logs.

 

[Huntn]

I can't think of many occasions where the Confederate flag could be displayed "with a sense of pride", unless its primarily used as part of the "history" display that has some educational merit.

I suppose if you're watching a reenactment of Pickett's Charge on the Gettysburg battlefield, you might feel "pride" (in some sense) seeing the Confederate flag flying over a group of soldiers as you recall how much courage it must have taken to walk into almost certain death. Maybe if you look at a model of the CSS Virginia, aka the Merrimack, with its Confederate flag flying, you might get a sense of admiration for the resourceful men involved in design and building of one of the first successful "ironclad" ships used in battle, and have some sense of "pride" regarding the sailors onboard.

All you have to do is read "Killer Angels" to be impressed with how badly the Confederate Army, with little resources mauled the Union Army in the first half of the war. Now that is an embarrassment if you call yourself a yank (which I do).

----------

For the time it was. Go to the library of Congress and visit the archives where these individuals have documented, and with pride,the number of slaves they had, the size of their plantations, and their satisfaction and pride with slave ownership.

I don't agree with it but they did at the time and viewed it as wealth. Each one of these men were proud slave owners and recorded it in their personal journals and plantation logs.

But that can't possibly be a motivation to fly the Confederate Flag today with pride, do you agree? I maintain for most cases (today), it's for less honorable reasons.

 

[squeakr]

Aw, you're not really done yet!

I asked you to cite your source. I countered your cash crop argument, despite the lack of a source.

Again, are you suggesting the founding fathered fought in the civil war?

What claims of mine have I made without sourcing?

----------


But I was not asking the English. I was speaking specifically about the Confederate flag. Your reading is not fine.

You have failed to even correctly quote me.

I asked a question about whether you thought those men were treasonous and traitors as they owned slaves as your claim was that slave owners were of that sort of ilk.

I responded to another's post which stated ask the English. So my response of when you (there is a collective you and not always a direct you reference) are stating ask the English it would be a Revolutionary War reference and my statement would be correct. So I clarified that I was referring to their slave ownership. I know I don't type fast, but obviously too fast for you to keep up.

----------

All you have to do is read "Killer Angels" to be impressed with how badly the Confederate Army, with little resources mauled the Union Army in the first half of the war. Now that is an embarrassment if you call yourself a yank (which I do).

----------



But that can't possibly be a motivation to fly the Confederate Flag today with pride, do you agree? I maintain for most cases (today), it's for less honorable reasons.

I do agree with your sentiments and the fact that it is probably for less than honorable reasons today on lots of cases, but that is not the case for all. I have no ancestry that fought for either side, but do know lots that have verified heritage dating to the War and they are proud members of the historical societies for the confederacy and wish to fly the flag proudly in support of their ancestors that have given the ultimate military sacrifice. Those are the few groups I associate with that deal with the flag. I believe they should be able to fly the flag without being persecuted become others have nefarious intentions.

 

[localoid]

As I recall (please correct me), the South begrudged the factories in the North because they were making most of the profit, regardless of the fact that this is how manufacturing works. Most of the profit is usually achieved from the final product, not supplying the raw product. I'd call this a flaw in the South's expectations. Was there something else?...

The South had some industry, but not a lot. There were iron works in Richmond, VA, and a locomotive manufacturer in the same city, for example. Virginian had great dreams of wanting to tap into its vast coal reserves that lay west of the Appalachians, and had visions of opening manufacturing works in the central sections that would use the coal to produce iron. But Virginia lacked the money to fund the railroad that would be needed to tap the coalfields and other valuable mineral deposits.

The South was building railroads as rapidly as they could, but in general, the South had tied up most of its wealth in the ownership of slaves. In fact, in 1860, just prior to the war, "the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined." [source]

 

[Huntn]

The South had some industry, but not a lot. There were iron works in Richmond, VA, and a locomotive manufacturer in the same city, for example. Virginian had great dreams of wanting to tap into its vast coal reserves that lay west of the Appalachians, and had visions of opening manufacturing works in the central sections that would use the coal to produce iron. But Virginia lacked the money to fund the railroad that would be needed to tap the coalfields and other valuable mineral deposits.

The South was building railroads as rapidly as they could, but in general, the South had tied up most of its wealth in the ownership of slaves. In fact, in 1860, just prior to the war, "the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined." [source]

Wow again... informative! This is a referendum on making arguably poor/immoral choices and how it came back to bite hard.

 

[mactastic]

You have failed to even correctly quote me.

I asked a question about whether you thought those men were treasonous and traitors as they owned slaves as your claim was that slave owners were of that sort of ilk.

I responded to another's post which stated ask the English. So my response of when you (there is a collective you and not always a direct you reference) are stating ask the English it would be a Revolutionary War reference and my statement would be correct. So I clarified that I was referring to their slave ownership. I know I don't type fast, but obviously too fast for you to keep up.

----------



I do agree with your sentiments and the fact that it is probably for less than honorable reasons today on lots of cases, but that is not the case for all. I have no ancestry that fought for either side, but do know lots that have verified heritage dating to the War and they are proud members of the historical societies for the confederacy and wish to fly the flag proudly in support of their ancestors that have given the ultimate military sacrifice. Those are the few groups I associate with that deal with the flag. I believe they should be able to fly the flag without being persecuted become others have nefarious intentions.

Let's be clear here... Someone asked what the confederate flag represented, I said it represented the treason and sedition of the south, and you responded by asking if I thought the FF were traitors too.

IOW you totally missed the point. I have to, at this point, wonder if that is deliberate.

Oh, and cute little personal insult too. The smiley face is a nice touch too.

I also notice you've still failed to cite any sources of discontent unrelated to the issue of slavery, nor have you enlightened me as to which claims you feel I have made that I left unsourced...

 

[squeakr]

Ah the twisting and flailing of the defeated. Taking your toys and going home, are you?

I remind you that you were the one making claims here. You were the one who insisted that there were significant other issues behind Southern sedition, yet you have failed to elucidate any such reasons beyond word-salad responses and banal generalities. All I asked was proof of your claim. It is very telling when someone cannot -- or huffily refuses to -- source their claims.

Don't think I missed all your insults and jabs directed at me as shown above. Let me guess these were just niceties extended my way and loved your smiley as well.

I cited examples, sorry if they didn't meet your criteria and you could extend them to slavery whether that was the case or intent, you could connect them therefor it is not valid in your mind. Sorry you couldn't fail to see they may be unrelated.



States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weaknesses of the Articles caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm