• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ben Shapiro - Was America Founded On Slavery?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
unseenmorbidity said:
Bullshit... It was about State's rights.
Click to expand...

There is a very slight truth to what you say but you're being dishonest with the facts.

"Causes of secession

Origins of the American Civil War and Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War
The causes of secession were complex and have been controversial since the war began, but most academic scholars identify slavery as a central cause of the war. James C. Bradford wrote that the issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won, many Southern leaders felt that disunion was their only option, fearing that the loss of representation would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies."

Wiki
 
Thebobo said:
There is a very slight truth to what you say but you're being dishonest with the facts.

"Causes of secession

Origins of the American Civil War and Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War
The causes of secession were complex and have been controversial since the war began, but most academic scholars identify slavery as a central cause of the war. James C. Bradford wrote that the issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won, many Southern leaders felt that disunion was their only option, fearing that the loss of representation would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies."

Wiki
Click to expand...
Maybe you should read your own source!? ROFL!

Causes of secession

Slavery
Sectionalism
Protectionism
States' rights
Territorial crisis
National elections
Nationalism and honor
Lincoln's election

Odd how there is more than one thing in that list, eh!?
 
unseenmorbidity said:
Maybe you should read your own source!? ROFL!

Causes of secession

Slavery
Sectionalism
Protectionism
States' rights
Territorial crisis
National elections
Nationalism and honor
Lincoln's election

Odd how there is more than one thing in that list, eh!?
Click to expand...

everything on that list stems from slavery.
 
Jaskalas said:
Yes they did. They seceded over slavery.
The war and violence that followed is a distinct act. It has its own reasons.
Click to expand...

The problem is that these revisionists are claiming that slavery was not the primary reason for the secession. What you are doing here is making a different argument - that the north should not have gone to war over the secession. Whatever the merits, or lack thereof, of that argument, it ignores the out and out fraud of civil war revisionism.
 
unseen would never fall for some propaganda. His views are the truth and the entire body of history on he civil war is wrong.
 
Thebobo said:
Odd that you can't read very well.

........but most academic scholars identify slavery as a central cause of the war.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that it wasn't a major contributing factor.

Also, slavery falls within the large category of State's rights.

How many is most btw?
 
JSt0rm said:
I like how national elections and lincolns election are separate issues. Like who wrote that stupid shit.
Click to expand...

Its par for the course with these types of morons.

woolfe9998 said:
The problem is that these revisionists are claiming that slavery was not the primary reason for the secession. What you are doing here is making a different argument - that the north should not have gone to war over the secession. Whatever the merits, or lack thereof, of that argument, it ignores the out and out fraud of civil war revisionism.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is all of it. Its more than just them trying to say slavery wasn't the primary reason. Lots of them are trying to even claim slavery was a good thing and that them subjugating blacks for another century is proof of that (that's where the "see they were better under slavery, because when they're someone's property if people wanted to lynch a random black person it'd piss off the owner and there'd be punishment for it!" type of reasoning).

That argument has no merits and is every bit as disingenuous. The North didn't go to war over slavery, that was the South. The South literally fucking started the Civil War. And even before the accepted start (Fort Sumter attack), they had been pushing violence. They sent a brigade and burned Lawrence, Kansas to the ground because it was the center of the anti-slavery movement in the new state. It is just more of the same revisionism. They keep trying and looking for new ways to justify their bullshit and lies. Its all the same shit, same lack of actual knowledge of history, and same shit reasoning.
 
unseenmorbidity said:
I didn't say that it wasn't a major contributing factor.

Also, slavery falls within the large category of State's rights.

How many is most btw?
Click to expand...
Okay so when you were calling bullshit on senseamp's post here, what exactly were you saying was bullshit then?

unseenmorbidity said:
senseamp said:
OK, many valid points, but when he says "we fought the bloodiest civil war to end slavery," he should mention, "except the South, which fought the bloodiest civil war to continue slavery."
Click to expand...
Bullshit... It was about State's rights.
Click to expand...
 
Sheik Yerbouti said:
founded? no
built? yes
Click to expand...

It played a role in its founding. There were plenty of slaves early in America's history, and not just the kind you'd think. Stuff like "indentured servitude" was very common and they enslaved people from the tribes (although to be fair the tribes did that themselves some too). Certainly the major slave trade came after the founding, but we were importing black people as slaves into America long before the American Revolution (as in over a hundred years before).

http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/

That link also shows where the "slaves ended up better off" nonsense somewhat came from (as it points out, many indentured servants were given land and other things after completing their contracts, which actually left them better off than many of the other non-wealthy people that immigrated). It does point out more though (indentured servitude, especially that experienced by most of the European immigrants was not slavery - not good and there certainly was abuses of it, but nowhere close to what was done to blacks and others).

Also, incidentally, we fought the Revolutionary War over the claim that we were being subjugated by the British king, so you could argue the founding was actually over a form of slavery (obviously not equal to what led to the Civil War, but they couched their reasons for going to war in similar terms to those used to abolish slavery as being evil).

And yes, definitely America was built on slavery. And it was built on stealing land after committing genocide on various tribes. And it was built on children workers and many many foreign workers (not entirely unlike how many countries develop even today - where we condemn them for it now, and for good reason but the fact that many Americans want to pretend otherwise makes us look like assholes) and horribly negligent working conditions. And it was built on America being relatively unscathed during WWII (and a lot of the WWII manufacturing part of the war machine was from women workers - who were subsequently thrown out and told to get back to the kitchen after). America was built on a lot of horrible shit. Which is why its important to recognize that and not gloss over it just because its uncomfortable. What makes America great is that we recognize the horrible shit and work to rectify it. Unfortunately, we've deluded ourselves into believing we fully rectified it, when we haven't even fully addressed it.
 
The US was founded on slavery and genocide.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/noam-chomsky-on-the-roots-of-american-racism/

The America that “black people have always known” is not an attractive one. The first black slaves were brought to the colonies 400 years ago. We cannot allow ourselves to forget that during this long period there have been only a few decades when African-Americans, apart from a few, had some limited possibilities for entering the mainstream of American society.

We also cannot allow ourselves to forget that the hideous slave labor camps of the new “empire of liberty” were a primary source for the wealth and privilege of American society, as well as England and the continent. The industrial revolution was based on cotton, produced primarily in the slave labor camps of the United States.

Thomas Jefferson feared the liberation of slaves, who had “ten thousand recollections” of the crimes to which they were subjected.

As is now known, they were highly efficient. Productivity increased even faster than in industry, thanks to the technology of the bullwhip and pistol, and the efficient practice of brutal torture, as Edward E. Baptist demonstrates in his recent study, “The Half Has Never Been Told.” The achievement includes not only the great wealth of the planter aristocracy but also American and British manufacturing, commerce and the financial institutions of modern state capitalism.
Click to expand...

https://monthlyreview.org/2010/09/01/genocide-denial-with-a-vengeance-old-and-new-imperial-norms/

Settler colonialism, commonly the most vicious form of imperial conquest, provides striking illustrations. The English colonists in North America had no doubts about what they were doing. Revolutionary War hero General Henry Knox, the first Secretary of War in the newly liberated American colonies, described “the utter extirpation of all the Indians in most populous parts of the Union” by means “more destructive to the Indian natives than the conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru,” which would have been no small achievement.

In his later years, President John Quincy Adams recognized the fate of “that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, [to be] among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement.”
Click to expand...

https://chomsky.info/20080424/

The model for the founding fathers that they borrowed from Britain was the Roman Empire. They wanted to emulate it. I’ll talk about that a little. Even before the Revolution, these notions were very much alive. Benjamin Franklin, 25 years before the Revolution, complained that the British were imposing limits on the expansion of the colonies.

He objected to this, borrowing from Machiavelli. He admonished the British (I’m quoting him), “A prince that acquires new territories and removes the natives to give his people room will be remembered as the father of the nation.” And George Washington agreed.

He wanted to be the father of the nation. His view was that “the gradual extension of our settlement will as certainly cause the savage as the wolf to retire, both being beasts of prey, though they differ in shape.” I’ll skip some contemporary analogs that you can think of.

Thomas Jefferson, the most forthcoming of the founding fathers, said, “We shall drive them [the savages] — We shall drive them with the beasts of the forests into the stony mountains,” and the country will ultimately be “free of blot or mixture” — meaning red or black.

It wasn’t quite achieved, but that was the goal. Furthermore, Jefferson went on, “Our new nation will be the nest from which America, north and south, is to be peopled,” displacing not only the red men here but the Latin-speaking population to the south and anyone else who happened to be around.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top