Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

LGBT Issues--


Princess of Tap

Recommended Posts

To me your still confused.   The term traitor by itself is NOT a negative.   So I see where P-Tap is coming from; the CSA was a negative organization but not, per se, because they were a group of traitors taking up arms against their own country (like our founding fathers),  but because of their principles and polices.     I know you don't support those principles and policies but you still have an emotional need to defend the CSA based on your replies to P-Tap. 

 

John Brown was a traitor since he took up arms against the US Government even if his principles were on the right side.   Just ask the US Government at the time;  they hanged him for his crimes against the government.

Actually John Brown was convicted of taking up arms against the state of Virginia and hung for crimes against the Virginia government.

I am not trying to defend the CSA, but rather to point out P-traps misuse of the term "Confederates," especially when capitalized as she does.

This is why I requested that we do not getting into fighting the Civil War all over again.  Foolish of me to ask that.

As used in previous posts here, traitor was intended to be a negative description of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually John Brown was convicted of taking up arms against the state of Virginia and hung for crimes against the Virginia government.

I am not trying to defend the CSA, but rather to point out P-traps misuse of the term "Confederates," especially when capitalized as she does.

This is why I requested that we do not getting into fighting the Civil War all over again.  Foolish of me to ask that.

As used in previous posts here, traitor was intended to be a negative description of people.

 

The only folks that would say something as silly as 'fighting the Civil War all over again' are those that feel their side lost.

 

My ancestors are Japanese and German.   They harmed many Americans, but I don't have an emotional need to defend them.   They were the enemy.       They were on the wrong side of history just like the CSA.      IF you can't acknowledge this you're defending them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only folks that would say something as silly as 'fighting the Civil War all over again' are those that feel their side lost.

 

My ancestors are Japanese and German.   They harmed many Americans, but I don't have an emotional need to defend them.   They were the enemy.       They were on the wrong side of history just like the CSA.      IF you can't acknowledge this you're defending them.

You are wrong.  Sorry, but it really upsets me for people to post things here when it is obvious they have neither the education nor experience to understand the topic.  Under your rationale above, ALL Japanese and Germans after WW II should have been tried, convicted and sentenced for treason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wrong.  Sorry, but it really upsets me for people to post things here when it is obvious they have neither the education nor experience to understand the topic.  Under your rationale above, ALL Japanese and Germans after WW II should have been tried, convicted and sentenced for treason.

 

Japanese and Germans that attacked us in WWII were not traitors.   WWII was a war between nations and NOT a civil war.   I did have one Japanese relative that was a traitor since he helped Allied forces during the war.   I only point this out to illustrate that being a traitor doesn't define one's character,  per se.    I view this relative as a 'good guy' but according to my mom my grandfather viewed him as a traitor and bad guy.

 

In a civil war those that attack their own government are traitors \ rebels.    Sometimes they are on the 'right' side and sometimes they are not.  It all depends on one's perspective.   

 

I only mentioned my ancestors because you clearly have a deeply rooted need to defend your southern ancestors.   I do believe the US Government did the right thing by not punishing the rebels after they surrendered.   This helped the nation heal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read over the years, to me there is little

doubt that the south's need to preserve the system of

slave labor was the main cause of the Civil War. It is

mentioned in a number of the secession resolutions

of the states that formed the Confederacy. I can under-

stand the desire to blame it on tariffs or states' rights,

but those theories just don't wash. Uncle Billy was

especially hard on the state of South Carolina, which

he considered the cradle of the rebellion.

 

I think one can make the argument that the Confederacy

did not want to overthrow the federal government, but

wanted to secede from the authority of the federal

government when it came to the issue of slavery. So

this would not be treason.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Japanese and Germans that attacked us in WWII were not traitors.   WWII was a war between nations and NOT a civil war.   I did have one Japanese relative that was a traitor since he helped Allied forces during the war.   I only point this out to illustrate that being a traitor doesn't define one's character,  per se.    I view this relative as a 'good guy' but according to my mom my grandfather viewed him as a traitor and bad guy.

 

In a civil war those that attack their own government are traitors \ rebels.    Sometimes they are on the 'right' side and sometimes they are not.  It all depends on one's perspective.   

 

I only mentioned my ancestors because you clearly have a deeply rooted need to defend your southern ancestors.   I do believe the US Government did the right thing by not punishing the rebels after they surrendered.   This helped the nation heal.

George Takai was put in a camp during the war because he was of Japanese heritage.  He was born in United States. He is American.  But his name was Japanese. To give a famous example of what you mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

George Takai was put in a camp during the war because he was of Japanese heritage.  He was born in United States. He is American.  But his name was Japanese. To give a famous example of what you mean.

 

Well all of my Japanese ancestors lived in Japan and thus were all Japanese citizens.   My American dad meet my Japanese mom in Japan while he was stationed there during the Korea war.    Her father refused to speak to her for over 10 years after she married my dad and moved to the USA and he never acknowledge his 'half-breed' grandchildren.    Hey, I understand why;  He lost 2 sons in the war and never forgave the Americans for that.

 

As for George;  one cool dude and champion for equal rights for everyone  (see how I tied this back to the topic!).  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read over the years, to me there is little

doubt that the south's need to preserve the system of

slave labor was the main cause of the Civil War. It is

mentioned in a number of the secession resolutions

of the states that formed the Confederacy. I can under-

stand the desire to blame it on tariffs or states' rights,

but those theories just don't wash. Uncle Billy was

especially hard on the state of South Carolina, which

he considered the cradle of the rebellion.

 

I think one can make the argument that the Confederacy

did not want to overthrow the federal government, but

wanted to secede from the authority of the federal

government when it came to the issue of slavery. So

this would not be treason.

The first and last president of the Confederacy was Jefferson Davis. Davis was a slave owner from Kentucky who owned more than one hundred slaves.

 

Davis was arrested after the war and indicted for treason, but the issue never came to trial due to the Johnson administration's desire to ease tensions amongst the secessionist states.

 

To his dying day, Davis maintained the validity and viability of slavery, as well as the concept of white supremacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first and last president of the Confederacy was Jefferson Davis. Davis was a slave owner from Kentucky who owned more than one hundred slaves.

 

Davis was arrested after the war and indicted for treason, but the issue never came to trial due to the Johnson administration's desire to ease tensions amongst the secessionist states.

 

To his dying day, Davis maintained the validity and viability of slavery, as well as the concept of white supremacy.

If I remember correctly, the term of the president in the Confederacy

was six years. Turned out they were a little over optimistic. Davis was

a typical slaveocrat, no surprise there.

 

One of the large ironies of the Civil War was that if the southern

states hadn't had a meltdown after the election of Lincoln, they

might have been able to preserve their peculiar institution a little

longer. Lincoln had no plan to abolish slavery where it already

existed. But they seceded and thus ended slavery in a mere

four years instead of the longer time it would have taken if

they had not seceded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, the term of the president in the Confederacy

was six years. Turned out they were a little over optimistic. Davis was

a typical slaveocrat, no surprise there.

 

One of the large ironies of the Civil War was that if the southern

states hadn't had a meltdown after the election of Lincoln, they

might have been able to preserve their peculiar institution a little

longer. Lincoln had no plan to abolish slavery where it already

existed. But they seceded and thus ended slavery in a mere

four years instead of the longer time it would have taken if

they had not seceded.

Vautrin-- excellent observation

 

I always get a chuckle whenever I hear people describe Lincoln as the great emancipator.

 

Lincoln was actually not at all convinced that the Emancipation Proclamation was necessary. He had to have his arm Twisted by abolitionists like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass.

 

They explained to him that black slaves in the south would abandon the Confederacy faster if he freed them.

 

And not only would they cease assisting the Confederacy, but they would probably come up north and assist the Union.

 

The irony of the whole thing is that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one because Lincoln had no real authority over slaves in the Confederacy.

 

The proclamation didn't make slavery illegal.

 

My best guess is that if the Union Army was occupying some part of the Confederacy than the slaves would be emancipated there; but you'd have to have the Union Army enforcing this, otherwise it would be, in reality, a useless piece of paper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well all of my Japanese ancestors lived in Japan and thus were all Japanese citizens. My American dad meet my Japanese mom in Japan while he was stationed there during the Korea war. Her father refused to speak to her for over 10 years after she married my dad and moved to the USA and he never acknowledge his 'half-breed' grandchildren. Hey, I understand why; He lost 2 sons in the war and never forgave the Americans for that.

 

As for George; one cool dude and champion for equal rights for everyone (see how I tied this back to the topic!). :)

James--

 

That's a wonderful story about your mother and father. Thank you for sharing your family story.

 

When I went to teach English in South Korea, in between vacationing in Japan,

My mother got hysterical and said that she would never see me again because the Japanese were monsters because of Pearl Harbor and Iwo Jima-- and that there was no telling what horrible things that they would do to me.

 

Also she couldn't make a distinction between Korean people and Japanese people, as they were all the same to her.

 

The whole thing set me back a little bit because my mother wasn't that stupid, she had gone to college and she seemed to be rational about a lot of things in daily life.

 

But she had gone through Pearl Harbor and all that Bataan March and Guadalcanal stuff and it did something to her. So I tried to understand how she felt. However, I didn't really think that she was being rational.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Japanese and Germans that attacked us in WWII were not traitors.   WWII was a war between nations and NOT a civil war.   I did have one Japanese relative that was a traitor since he helped Allied forces during the war.   I only point this out to illustrate that being a traitor doesn't define one's character,  per se.    I view this relative as a 'good guy' but according to my mom my grandfather viewed him as a traitor and bad guy.

 

In a civil war those that attack their own government are traitors \ rebels.    Sometimes they are on the 'right' side and sometimes they are not.  It all depends on one's perspective.   

 

I only mentioned my ancestors because you clearly have a deeply rooted need to defend your southern ancestors.   I do believe the US Government did the right thing by not punishing the rebels after they surrendered.   This helped the nation heal.

You don't even know what you are posting.  Read your posts.  You said your relatives were enemies.  Sorry if I misinterpreted that as saying they were traitors, but your implication was they should have been punished after they lost the war.

No I am not defending my ancestors nor do I have a deeply rooted need to do so.  I am defending history as it was, not as you and P-trap want to reinterpret it.

The US government did not punish the South because it believed they were not traitors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've read over the years, to me there is little

doubt that the south's need to preserve the system of

slave labor was the main cause of the Civil War. It is

mentioned in a number of the secession resolutions

of the states that formed the Confederacy. I can under-

stand the desire to blame it on tariffs or states' rights,

but those theories just don't wash. Uncle Billy was

especially hard on the state of South Carolina, which

he considered the cradle of the rebellion.

 

I think one can make the argument that the Confederacy

did not want to overthrow the federal government, but

wanted to secede from the authority of the federal

government when it came to the issue of slavery. So

this would not be treason.

Slavery was the root cause at that time.  Or more accurately, the conflict over who would determine if it existed or not.  However, a civil war was coming at some point.  Back as early as the 1830's, the South was ready to go to war over the theory of Nullification. They wanted right to nullify the federal tarrifs on imported goods.  Fortunately a compromise was reached, but the simmering conflict between what Southerners believed and what Northerners believed as to the role of the Federal (central) government was still a major conflict.  

The South and even some New England states believed in the right of secession.  Some NE states had considered secession earlier in the nation's history.

As you noted, the South did not wish to overthrow the US government.  Therefore, they were not traitors.  They wanted to leave to establish their own government and own nation.  

Incidentally, Jefferson Davis was from Mississippi, although he was born in Kentucky.

Lincoln thought blacks were inferior to whites and should not be allowed to vote.  In fact, he supported the ship them back to Africa movement.  He was also nominally head of the Republican Party which was established in order to abolish slavery in the US, as it did after the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the manner in which some have commented on my posts, I am beginning to see why millions of people are attracted to Donald Trump.  I still view Trump as a terrible person who would be a disaster for America and the world.  However, he does give voice to those who feel oppressed. 

Furthermore, I am not defending my Southern heritage or the CSA, but trying to present the issues in the context of the times.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vautrin-- excellent observation

 

I always get a chuckle whenever I hear people describe Lincoln as the great emancipator.

 

Lincoln was actually not at all convinced that the Emancipation Proclamation was necessary. He had to have his arm Twisted by abolitionists like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass.

 

They explained to him that black slaves in the south would abandon the Confederacy faster if he freed them.

 

And not only would they cease assisting the Confederacy, but they would probably come up north and assist the Union.

 

The irony of the whole thing is that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one because Lincoln had no real authority over slaves in the Confederacy.

 

The proclamation didn't make slavery illegal.

 

My best guess is that if the Union Army was occupying some part of the Confederacy than the slaves would be emancipated there; but you'd have to have the Union Army enforcing this, otherwise it would be, in reality, a useless piece of paper.

Lincoln was a man of his time and had the racial prejudices

of the people of that time. I think he was gradually changing

those views as the war went on. I guess the EP was more of

a aspirational document than a practical one, though I think

there were a few small areas where it had an effect, but

certainly not a widespread one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slavery was the root cause at that time.  Or more accurately, the conflict over who would determine if it existed or not.  However, a civil war was coming at some point.  Back as early as the 1830's, the South was ready to go to war over the theory of Nullification. They wanted right to nullify the federal tarrifs on imported goods.  Fortunately a compromise was reached, but the simmering conflict between what Southerners believed and what Northerners believed as to the role of the Federal (central) government was still a major conflict.  

The South and even some New England states believed in the right of secession.  Some NE states had considered secession earlier in the nation's history.

As you noted, the South did not wish to overthrow the US government.  Therefore, they were not traitors.  They wanted to leave to establish their own government and own nation.  

Incidentally, Jefferson Davis was from Mississippi, although he was born in Kentucky.

Lincoln thought blacks were inferior to whites and should not be allowed to vote.  In fact, he supported the ship them back to Africa movement.  He was also nominally head of the Republican Party which was established in order to abolish slavery in the US, as it did after the war.

I don't think a Civil War would have happened if not for the slavery issue.

That had been the main source of contention between North and South

for a number of years before 1860/61. I can't see the secession of so

many states over a tariff or other issues. Yes, Lincoln was a racist, though

I don't think a rabid one, but a racist nonetheless. I think his views were

slowly changing for the better as the war went on. I guess one can never

completely trust the word of a politician, but I don't believe Lincoln intended

to abolish slavery where it already existed, and of course the border slave

states remained in the Union without too much fuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a Civil War would have happened if not for the slavery issue.

 I can't see the secession of so many states over a tariff or other issues.  I don't believe Lincoln intended

to abolish slavery where it already existed, and of course the border slave

states remained in the Union without too much fuss.

My opinion is that the war was inevitible because the two sections viewed the whole concept of how the US should be governed very differently.  Not to mention, the vast differences in social and economics thinking.

 In additon, the South had a large amount of power in Washington up until the 1840's.  In fact, often a controlling part of the Federal government.  They saw that power slipping away to the North and the then Northwest.

Perhaps Lincoln did not intend to abolish slavery, but his party, the Republicans surely did.  The border states were allowed to continue slavery to keep them in the US and even the abolisionists in the Republican Party recognized the more important "fight" was against the CSA.  Win the war and then abolish slavery everywhere, which is exactly what they did.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a military/political device to prevent England and France from recognizing and supporting the CSA. Perhaps Lincoln had hopes it might pursuade some CSA states to give up and return to the Union, but I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that the war was inevitible because the two sections viewed the whole concept of how the US should be governed very differently.  Not to mention, the vast differences in social and economics thinking.

 In additon, the South had a large amount of power in Washington up until the 1840's.  In fact, often a controlling part of the Federal government.  They saw that power slipping away to the North and the then Northwest.

Perhaps Lincoln did not intend to abolish slavery, but his party, the Republicans surely did.  The border states were allowed to continue slavery to keep them in the US and even the abolisionists in the Republican Party recognized the more important "fight" was against the CSA.  Win the war and then abolish slavery everywhere, which is exactly what they did.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a military/political device to prevent England and France from recognizing and supporting the CSA. Perhaps Lincoln had hopes it might pursuade some CSA states to give up and return to the Union, but I doubt it.

I don't see it happening without the slavery issue. Of course it's

hard to separate out  that one issue because it was such a large

part of the economy and society of the south. It's difficult to imagine

a slave free south at the time. While the two sections of the country

were different, I don't think that would have been enough to lead

to war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LawrenceA
 
Well at least you didn't have to un crypt or read betwine the lines to understand what I was saying. You being a male would see the kitten easy.  I do think it would only be appropriate to install men's urinals in women's bathrooms.

 

 

Yeah, good thing I didn't have to "un crypt" anything. I would have been at a loss on how to begin that process.

 

In this response, you have provided the reason why this is a non-issue. There are no urinals in women's restrooms. Everything is done in stalls, with doors that shut. Your wife could have been sitting beside men her whole life and had no idea. If a pre-op transgen female goes into a men's restroom, they will use the stall, with the door shut, as well. 

 

If a "perv/rapist/boogeyman" wants to dress as a woman to attack women in the restroom, they can do that already. If someone is leering over the stall wall or under it, they'll be prosecuted as is, and that wouldn't change if transgen people can use any bathroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...