• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stone Mountain –Confederate sculpture – Remove it-Yes-No?

Stone Mountain –Confederate sculpture – Remove it-Yes-No?

  • Remove it - Yes -Why

    Votes: 4 9.1%

  • Remove it- No –Why

    Votes: 35 79.5%

  • Markers prominently posted explaining the history of this and the Civil War -Yes

    Votes: 7 15.9%

  • Markers prominently posted explaining the history of this and the Civil War - No

    Votes: 5 11.4%
  • Total voters
    44
What if...? said:
I understand that. But technically, they were a colony of England. So revolting was legally treason. England executed a couple guys for it. They were also "war criminals". The guerilla fighting style we learned from the natives was "against the rules".
Click to expand...

In the end I think we are agreed on the technicalities...
 
Paperview said:
My initial post was the one you quoted: "Of the antebellum South and the future CSA, I blame those citizens who voted in year after year elected officials who promised -- decade after decade, to maintain, protect and expand the practice of human bondage. Ponder that, Confederate defenders."

Which is true. Front to back. Southerners voted in these slavery supporters up and down the line, decade after decade till and even during the Civil War.

And my point about Virginia (of which I was a few years off) was this: Eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian.

& THIS: "the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history."

My 3/5ths point still stands, and for those new to the thread -- this was the follow -up post (with two words added for accuracy) in full:


quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Paperview

The 3/5th clause was primarily about reapportionment.

The North did not want the slaves counted - because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted for reapportionment, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote or to actually have representation.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

It was a dirty compromise - because the southerners said they would not ratify the Constitution if they could not give their slave property at least 3/5ths representation in Congress.

Without giving them representation. They used their slaves as hostages to the negotiation.
The deal was done, then the South dominated congress for near all of the first quarter of our history.

Eight of the first nine presidential races were won by a Virginian - which was the most populous state *until 1820.

And this: Every single president, with the exception of two (from the North, the Adams') until 1850 - was a slaveowner."


It seems totally lost on him.

Pointing out the South wanted to count the slaves as more than 3/5ths and the North didn't want to count them at all is a long, tired, worn out Lost Cause talking point. There is nothing to infer from this - other than Southern slaveholders wanted even MORE representation in Congress for people ...er, property "
who had no representation in Congress, and were viewed as nothing more than farm animals".

You can pick on the bones of a few years error and miss the general point being made here all you want from this point on. I don't care. The statements stand.
Click to expand...

Babble on if you choose but you blamed the sates of the CSA exclusively while Pennsylvania & NY had just as much to do with electing someone
from ante-bellum south, the future CSA, I thought I explained that clearly.

BTW, the 3/5 nonsense had nothing to do at all with the 1st 9 elections & you keep bring that up. Maybe it was a fact that for the most part
the big Northern States voted similar to Virginia in the election process because that was their absolute preference. That was explained in detail
also. Your getting kinda boring.

'Ponder that, Confederate defenders.' what?
Finally though I think I'm a truth defender not particularly a confederate defender, that thing about
'And this: Every single president, with the exception of two (from the North, the Adams') until 1850 - was a slaveowner."'

Leaves a little explaining which you failed to elaborate on: 1) Van Buren was also from the north & though it's
been accepted that he owned a piddling amount of slaves at a previous time, he was not a slave owner when elected.
Also later on in life he did run for president again as a 'Free Soil" candidate 'arguing that free men on free soil comprised
a morally and economically superior system to slavery.'

That along with the fact that Harrison also when elected was not a slave holder when elected making your statement
not quite as powerful as you thought. Certainly both these men were not pounding the pavement for slavery as your
sentence seems to suggest,
 
Last edited:
ObamacareFail said:
Shall we move all of the monuments to Lenin and Karl Marx into Obama's presidential library? May the overflow can goe to the Bill Clinton Library. Alas, poor Hillary Von Pant Suit will never have her own library.
Click to expand...

They don't exist, but as much as you whine about Obama or Hillary being communists or the like, meh, that's total bull****.
 
slick said:
Babble on if you choose but you blamed the sates of the CSA exclusively while Pennsylvania & NY had just as much to do with electing someone
from ante-bellum south, the future CSA, I thought I explained that clearly.

BTW, the 3/5 nonsense had nothing to do at all with the 1st 9 elections & you keep bring that up. Maybe it was a fact that for the most part
the big Northern States voted similar to Virginia in the election process because that was their absolute preference. That was explained in detail
also. Your getting kinda boring.

'Ponder that, Confederate defenders.' what?
Click to expand...

You Soooo miss the point over and over, and babble on yourself.

I doubt you'll read this, but maybe you will - From one of the country's most noted Constitutional scholars, Akhil Reed Amar:

<snip>

"At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election."

MORE AT LINK: Election 2016: The Real Reason the Electoral College Exists | Time.com

'And this: Every single president, with the exception of two (from the North, the Adams') until 1850 - was a slaveowner."'

Leaves a little explaining which you failed to elaborate on: 1) Van Buren was also from the north & though it's
been accepted that he owned a piddling amount of slaves at a previous time, he was not a slave owner when elected.
Also later on in life he did run for president again as a 'Free Soil" candidate 'arguing that free men on free soil comprised
a morally and economically superior system to slavery.'

That along with the fact that Harrison also when elected was not a slave holder when elected making your statement
not quite as powerful as you thought. Certainly both these men were not pounding the pavement for slavery as your
sentence seems to suggest
Click to expand...
I never said they were "pounding the pavement for slavery." You have this knack of changing words and the plain statements I make. I said they were slaveowners. 12 presidents elected. Only the Adams' had not been slaveowners.

That is a fact, one very few people I have found know about, but certainly factors into this discussion.
 
Paperview said:
You Soooo miss the point over and over, and babble on yourself.

I doubt you'll read this, but maybe you will - From one of the country's most noted Constitutional scholars, Akhil Reed Amar:

<snip>

"At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election."

MORE AT LINK: Election 2016: The Real Reason the Electoral College Exists | Time.com

I never said they were "pounding the pavement for slavery." You have this knack of changing words and the plain statements I make. I said they were slaveowners. 12 presidents elected. Only the Adams' had not been slaveowners.

That is a fact, one very few people I have found know about, but certainly factors into this discussion.
Click to expand...

Like I explained to you earlier in the 8 elections the Virginians happened to win out of the first 9, the state of Pennsylvania
to which your scholar stated was deprived of electors throughout the period voted with Virginia in all 8 victories & NY was almost as
conforming. Eight of the first nine elections went to the Virginians NY deprived also of electorals voted for the slavers who won
in seven of the eight.

I don't see why it's so hard for you to concede the point, sure the 3/5 adjustment short changed NY & Pennsylvania from electorals.
But in the eight contests thevoted for the southern winner except NY failed to do so in 1808 as I recall. The point to be made is
it didn't matter that they were short changed because they supported the winner, in other words in all those elections their electoral
votes although less than they should have been awarded, were tabulated in the same column as Virginia electors.

if they would have voted differently or in opposition to the slave holders who became president the fact that they as states were short changed
would have mattered I get that. If that's the point you are making it makes sense, but they voted in lock step with Virginia so that 3/5
merely added some electors to Virginia while obviously depriving NY & Penn some electors who voted the same way with there lesser than
fair amount of electors as Virginia.

I'm moving on. Good Luck
 
KevinKohler said:
They eat Jesus on Sunday's.
Click to expand...

That's the real reason we should build a wall - not because Mexicans are competing with us for jobs we don't want anyway, but because they're Catholics. Hell, I say we should deport all the Catholics currently living in the U.S. to Vatican City!
 
slick said:
Poor guy, if he thought 1125 participants was too small a sample to be a reliable indicator of the situation,
he probably hasn't realized yet that Mrs. Clinton actually lost the election.
Click to expand...

He just does not like polls that do not go his way....whether it's an opinion poll or an election poll.
 
JANFU said:
Bull crap.
Click to expand...

you obviously are not well studied on the history of the Civil War. The primary issue was a bunch of southern states attempting to secede from the Union by force. The South fired the first shots. Lincoln did not just wake up one morning and say: "I think we will go to war against the south to end slavery now." That came in the third year of the war with the Emancipation Proclamation.
 
JANFU said:
Seeing as you cannot spell, it is liberal. The poll was flawed. You have a problem with facts?
Click to expand...

What is your evidence that the poll was flawed? It was a a librul financed poll. It cannot be flawed just because you do not like the results. Libruls tend to only diss polls from conservative sources, such as Fox news, Rasmussen, etc.
 
ObamacareFail said:
What is your evidence that the poll was flawed? It was a a librul financed poll. It cannot be flawed just because you do not like the results. Libruls tend to only diss polls from conservative sources, such as Fox news, Rasmussen, etc.
Click to expand...

Nope- I diss 1 of polls. As anyone should.
And it is Liberal.
 
Removable Mind said:
They don't exist, but as much as you whine about Obama or Hillary being communists or the like, meh, that's total bull****.
Click to expand...

As long as the libruls continue to go off the deep end and refer to conservatives as NAZIs, we will feel free to let libruls know which ideology they have much in common with.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Then answer my challenge. What do you base your flawed poll claim on?
Click to expand...

Common sense. Though when you go looking for it, well it is difficult to find.
Good luck on your search.
 
The reasons for the controversy over such sculptures is rooted here in the present and not the past. 27 such things have been put up since 2000. Why else but present day politics? Not least because of having a black president.
 
ObamacareFail said:
As long as the libruls continue to go off the deep end and refer to conservatives as NAZIs, we will feel free to let libruls know which ideology they have much in common with.
Click to expand...

Libruls? Really? "You are adorably out of touch"...to quote our current Secretary of the Treasury's wife on Instagram to a one of the "little people".

O.F., you're approaching having a hopeless case of political philosophical cognitive rigidity. How is life worth living waking up everyday with the world so filled with "Libruls". It must be hell on earth for you being a perpetual victim of libruls.
 
JANFU said:
Common sense. Though when you go looking for it, well it is difficult to find.
Good luck on your search.
Click to expand...

You are the one claiming the poll is flawed. Now that you are being called on it, you are attempting to shift your burden of proof onto me? Try again. Give specifics. just uttering "common sense" is a dodge.
 
Removable Mind said:
Libruls? Really? "You are adorably out of touch"...to quote our current Secretary of the Treasury's wife on Instagram to a one of the "little people".

O.F., you're approaching having a hopeless case of political philosophical cognitive rigidity. How is life worth living waking up everyday with the world so filled with "Libruls". It must be hell on earth for you being a perpetual victim of libruls.
Click to expand...


Actually I am mostly a happy camper at this time based on the fact that "libruls" have lost so much power since 2010.
 
What's with people these days?

Wasn't that long ago the Taliban was running around blowing up statues/monuments of Buddah.

Six months ago, this topic didn't mean **** to a tree.

Today's fashionable, media driven, faux-rage is eradicating history. Just like the Taliban.

I wish these assholes would move to Afghanistan where people think more like them.

That's all I got to say.
 
The statues do not pose an issue to me. I have an opinion, but I am not compelled to do anything about these statues. I don't think they have any true impact on todays society. Aside from people wanting to tear them down and people arguing for and against tearing them down.

I don't think any of our founding fathers nor our civil war veterans from either side should be praised or celebrated or commemorated. Our country was founded by a generation that spewed nothing but hate and resentment for anyone and everything. It's no wonder people consider us a country at perpetual war. The country was built upon the gullibility then blood of natives and then slave labor. Next was womens suffrage, then segregation. We have a long way to go, and admiring the people that structured us to hate does not seem like a favorable idea.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Actually I am mostly a happy camper at this time based on the fact that "libruls" have lost so much power since 2010.
Click to expand...

Apparently you haven't yet realized that Trump is single handedly bringing down the Kingdom of the GOP. 2018 will be a bloody mess. It was his plan all along. 2020, Bernie Sanders' wife will be elected president.
 
Removable Mind said:
Apparently you haven't yet realized that Trump is single handedly bringing down the Kingdom of the GOP. 2018 will be a bloody mess. It was his plan all along. 2020, Bernie Sanders' wife will be elected president.
Click to expand...

Well, sport......I am not a republican. However I think you are a bit mixed up. The democrats, while attempting to make your narrative of Trump destroying the republican party look real, put everything they had into going after four republican seats where the incumbents went to Trump's cabinet and lost every one of them. Just where is Trump bringing down the party? Actually I do hope that he primaries out some RINO republicans in 2018. As for bloody messes, look no further then your own democrat party. When Obama took office in 2008, the democrats controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. Since then, they lost the White House, House of Representatives, The Senate, the majority of state legislators, and state governors. My own state legislature went republican for the first time since Ulysess S Grant was president. The democrats lost all of that primarily over Obamacare. Yet even today, the democrats are still rabidly defending obamacare as if it is the greatest thing since sliced cheese! And now the democrats message for 2018 is little more then "Resist Trump". As for Bernie Sander's wife....let's just hope for her sake, she can stay out of jail. She is under investigation.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Well, sport......I am not a republican. However I think you are a bit mixed up. The democrats, while attempting to make your narrative of Trump destroying the republican party look real, put everything they had into going after four republican seats where the incumbents went to Trump's cabinet and lost every one of them. Just where is Trump bringing down the party? Actually I do hope that he primaries out some RINO republicans in 2018. As for bloody messes, look no further then your own democrat party. When Obama took office in 2008, the democrats controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. Since then, they lost the White House, House of Representatives, The Senate, the majority of state legislators, and state governors. My own state legislature went republican for the first time since Ulysess S Grant was president. The democrats lost all of that primarily over Obamacare. Yet even today, the democrats are still rabidly defending obamacare as if it is the greatest thing since sliced cheese! And now the democrats message for 2018 is little more then "Resist Trump". As for Bernie Sander's wife....let's just hope for her sake, she can stay out of jail. She is under investigation.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't all who dwell in the Kingdom of Washington be under investigation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom