The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[OccultHawk]

So unless the slaves were revolting I don't think they have a case.

The Civil War really started with Nat Turner.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Frownland

It wasn't established until 69 in Texas v White, so you might be right.

I'll post this quote I saw in my lazy wiki read

"The right of revolution expressed in the Declaration was immediately followed with the observation that long-practised injustice is tolerated until sustained assaults on the rights of the entire people have accumulated enough force to oppress them; then they may defend themselves."

So unless the slaves were revolting I don't think they have a case.

Where's that? And if the states could rebel from Britain over taxes I think the bar probably isn't all that high tbh.

Edit: Nevermind. Found it. Looks like from my lazy wiki read that the issue wasn't settled until 1869 in Texas v. White.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by elphenor

Q

I still don't think this is historically accurate

The Republican party was formed off of resistance to slavery (Missouri Compromise specifically) in combination with the Free Soil party which was entirely a one issue abolitionist party

The only thing that's true is that the North became disgusted with slavery before the south only because they no longer depended on it

The South likes to try and save face with all sorts of obfuscation of history in this department

As an anarchist it's your duty to embrace the most scathing version of American history available. You're regurgitating **** they fed you in high school. If America someday abandons the private automobile you'd read the history like there was a sincere environmental movement that's really at the core of America. After that **** went down in Haiti, whitey got scared. You can play it off like whites started to question the morality of slavery but it's not true. White people didn't start to see blacks as human on any scale until after reconstruction. The rest is a ****ing fairy tale.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

As an anarchist it's your duty to embrace the most scathing version of American history available. You're regurgitating **** they fed you in high school. If America someday abandons the private automobile you'd read the history like there was a sincere environmental movement that's really at the core of America. After that **** went down in Haiti, whitey got scared. You can play it off like whites started to question the morality of slavery but it's not true. White people didn't start to see blacks as human on any scale until after reconstruction. The rest is a ****ing fairy tale.

I knew there was some kind of revolution in Haiti at some point and it was a thing of some sort, but I've literally never given it a second thought as nobody ever mentions it at anytime ever under any circumstances. Can't imagine why or whatever the ****. I guess it's to Wikipedia I go.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

As an anarchist it's your duty to embrace the most scathing version of American history available. You're regurgitating **** they fed you in high school. If America someday abandons the private automobile you'd read the history like there was a sincere environmental movement that's really at the core of America. After that **** went down in Haiti, whitey got scared. You can play it off like whites started to question the morality of slavery but it's not true. White people didn't start to see blacks as human on any scale until after reconstruction. The rest is a ****ing fairy tale.

Just reading the wiki article on the Haitian Revolution and...

In addition, the nascent state's future was compromised in 1825 when France forced it to pay 150 million gold francs in reparations to French ex-slaveholders—as a condition of French recognition and to end the nation's political and economic isolation.[15] Though the amount of the reparations was reduced in 1838, Haiti was unable to finish paying off its debt until 1947, and the payments left the country's government deeply impoverished, causing instability.

... France literally was demanding money for slaves until the mid-20th century? That's ****ing despicable. I'm hoping there's more to it, but... wtf?

[OccultHawk]

The Vietnamese hate France more than America.

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

Strictly speaking, the Civil War was about Federal vs State control; the whole issue of slavery was just an add on from Lincoln after they had already been fighting for years.

Simply not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...il_War#Slavery

[OccultHawk]

I suggest reading this:

Stephen B. Oates
The Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner's Fierce Rebellion

[Lisnaholic]

Thank you all for your patient explanations as I stumble about in American history!

Originally Posted by The Batlord

It really isn't contentious anymore except for a select group of gun toting Southerners. I highly doubt anyone in this discussion has any emotional investment in the Yankee v. Rebel debate.

No, it was about slavery....

^ Oddly enough, what I quoted about slavery not being the prime motive for the Civil War also came from a wiki article, but if The Bat and The Chula are both telling me otherwise, I bow to your better-informed opinions :-

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Simply not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...il_War#Slavery

Originally Posted by Janszoon

The monuments aren't being smashed up, they're being moved to museums or put in storage. And just for context, many of these monuments were erected decades after the war as statements of white supremacy. Here's the plaque that was originally on a monument recently removed from New Orleans:



The descendants of Confederates always cry about how moving these statues hurts their precious little feelings, but what about the descendants of the people the Confederates enslaved? Why should they have to endure monuments to the atrocities committed against their ancestors? I say take them down and put them in a museum, they should never have been erected in the first place.

^ Wow! That dedication is a much more explicit declaration of White Supremacy than I imagined. I'm now thinking that things so antagonistic shouldn't be on public display. I imagined we were talking about the statue of some old guy on a horse, but what amounts to civic approval of racist sentiments is very different. So I'd like to recant my earlier opinion, or at least modify it; divisive racist material and symbols shouldn't be publicly honoured even if they were a part of a country's history. (And, yes, storage, out of the public eye but available for serious research, is a good option.)

Originally Posted by The Batlord

... France literally was demanding money for slaves until the mid-20th century? That's ****ing despicable. I'm hoping there's more to it, but... wtf?

^ Yes, this rather undermines all their talk about liberty, fraternity and equality. What a dirty little historical detail!

[Lisnaholic]

Here's a minor story in the news today, remarkable not so much for the accident itself as for the attitude of the rider:-

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ggs-court-told