Trump Speaks
-
@Larry said in Trump Speaks:
But since you also check news stories from a left leaning source through this guy too, i guess its fair...
Oh wait.....Oh wait, what?
I didn't know all that about Media Bias Fact Check. If it's true, it's true. For the hundredth time, I'm not on the left or the right. Got that? FINALLY?
-
-
Just to preface - Trump's speech was vanilla fare (especially for him) and most things he said should be fairly uncontroversial.
On the topic of traitors. I would think that the Confederates were traitors. They chose allegiance to their own peculiar values over yielding to the democratic authority of the Union. (And wanted out of the Union)
In a similar way the original American revolutionaries were traitors to the Crown. It's a matter of choosing where your loyalties lie.
-
@xenon said in Trump Speaks:
Just to preface - Trump's speech was vanilla fare (especially for him) and most things he said should be fairly uncontroversial.
On the topic of traitors. I would think that the Confederates were traitors. They chose allegiance to their own peculiar values over yielding to the democratic authority of the Union. (And wanted out of the Union)
In a similar way the original American revolutionaries were traitors to the Crown. It's a matter of choosing where your loyalties lie.
The Confederates believed in State's Rights. Remember, there were still people alive in the 1840's when a lot of this stuff started, that were well aware of the original intent and compromises of the Constitution. They felt - rightly or wrongly - that the Union had overstepped its authority, and that the sovereignty of their state overrode that of the Union.
-
@Catseye3 said in Trump Speaks:
About National Review, Media Bias Fact Check says:
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes . . . . They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources and one failed fact check.
Just sayin'. I'm not championing Duckworth here. Before two days ago I never heard of her, and I don't want a woman in there anyway. Are other sources questioning her word?
I salute her sacrifice and her courage. (You know: Thoughts n' prayers n' stuff.) But aren't we KIND OF LOADING ON the wokeness here???
Red herring.
I don't care if the publication is written in Hell by Satan's demons, did they mischaracterize any of Ms. Duckworth's remarks?
-
@xenon said in Trump Speaks:
On the topic of traitors. I would think that the Confederates were traitors. They chose allegiance to their own peculiar values over yielding to the democratic authority of the Union. (And wanted out of the Union)
One, they weren't peculiar values; many, many people had them, hence a Civil War. Two, both sides were still figuring out what the concept of "the Union" would mean to the country. It wasn't at all like today. Opinions were much, much more varied at the time. The country was far less cohesive. Differences among states were extreme compared to now.
-
I feel as though most people you'd meet out there would be incapable of surprising you with an honestly held political opinion. Which is to say that I think we're all aware of the landscape of opinions one might encounter. This is because we're all exposed to the same messaging. The diversity of opinion in the old days was because different people lived in different messaging universes.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Trump Speaks:
@xenon said in Trump Speaks:
On the topic of traitors. I would think that the Confederates were traitors. They chose allegiance to their own peculiar values over yielding to the democratic authority of the Union. (And wanted out of the Union)
One, they weren't peculiar values; many, many people had them, hence a Civil War. Two, both sides were still figuring out what the concept of "the Union" would mean to the country. It wasn't at all like today. Opinions were much, much more varied at the time. The country was far less cohesive. Differences among states were extreme compared to now.
When I say peculiar, I mean it in the original sense of the word. (As in particular to a people)
I think “our peculiar institution” was a common term for slavery in the South.
And I don’t think I’m disagreeing with either of you. The southerners of the time valued their own “states rights” and values more than the adhering to the will of the Union government.
In other words, it was more important for them to be true to the values of their state than to the US.
And the Union was a new concept then, so easier to throw away. It’s like calling someone a traitor to the UN - big deal.
-
Too many people seem to think the crap they read on social media is "popular opinion" among Americans. It's not. About half the stuff you read on Twitter isn't even real people. It bots. Get off Twitter, Facebook, etc and talk to real Americans and you will discover that the vast majority of Americans do NOT want to tear down statues, or remove our history, or any of this crap. Most Americans are united around the same values - the want police out there protecting them. They believe in family values. The want good jobs, low taxes, their families to be safe... etc.
Viewing the confederacy as nothing more than a bunch of traitors is part of the arrogant prejudice toward the South that is common up north and out west. It pissed me off, but I understand it because it is born out of an ignorance that is pervasive among Yankees and westerners. Just look at how determined non southerners are to keep the lie going that the civil war was about slavery. Nothing said that challenges that narrative will be heard, no matter how hard one tries to correct them.
The confederacy was not about a bunch of traitors. To the South, it was the union that were the traitors. The Constitution guaranteed the federal government would stay small, and the state's themselves would determine their own path. The real traitors was the union, which ignored the Constitution in order to grow the federal government until it took over and was too big to stop. The slave issue was introduced later on during the war as a way for the North to gain the advantage politically and in public opinion.
To have Yankees and westerners who grew up being fed the lies they've been fed about the civil war call the southerners traitors is the one thing you can do that might spark another civil war - and let me assure you... we won't lose this time.
-
Let's dispense with this lie that says the bad old southerners owned slaves and the good and caring northerners set them free. Because that is a flat out lie that's been told for so long that people assume it to be truth.
The truth is, the North was just as involved in slavery as the South was - maybe even more so. You see, it wasn't southners sailing ships to Africa and trading molasses for slaves, it was northerners. It wasn't southerners hold slave auctions, it was northerners. A lot of northerners made tons of money capturing native Americans and shipping them overseas and selling them, then hauling shiploads of africans back to America to sell them.
A lot of northerners made a lot of money financing the purchase of slaves, and investing in the southern plantations and the crops they produced with the slaves they themselves brought over and sold. So you say "yes, but the North abolished slavery before the South did". Of course they did. They had already saturated the market for slaves, and sales had dropped off to the point there was no more money in it for them.
So the North has no right to claim themselves morally superior regarding slaves. The North was in the slave trade up to their eyeballs.
-
Nothing of any importance to add, but this is a interesting discussion! Thanks to all!
-
Good posts, @Larry !!
I remember reading years ago, about the economics of the North vs. the South, and how that was the largest issue in building the animosity between the North and South. I do recall via various books, it was quite complicated what was going on, and that slavery was more of a fuse to the explosion, not a central topic. When the war began, it was not about slavery, as slavery alone as an issue was certainly not enough to result in a civil war.
I need to read about those times again, I've forgotten so much from my interest of years ago.
But, why should I? It's not like anyone on the street or anywhere is interested in having a good discussion. Maybe I'll consider it when freedom of speech is back in vogue, and people once again enjoy discussing interesting times and interesting ideas.
I'm fortunate enough to belong to this forum, where freedom of speech still exists. We're just gosh, so old-fashioned.
