My right-wing co-worker is at it again...

[deadmessengers]

In the past, I've posted here about the random spewings of a lunatic rightwinger I work with. He sits in his cube, listens to OxyContin Rush, Neal Boortz, and rants until his head is ready to explode over how horrible those on the left are. A few of my past postings can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=797022
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1063266


So, today, I hear a conversation coming across the cube wall. And in this conversation, he asserts that the US Civil War (he calls it the War of Northern Aggression) was "not about slavery".

While I've heard that truly absurd statement before, I just can't believe there are still people that ignorant - especially someone like him, under the age of 35. Not about slavery?

Now, I have a hard rule that I don't talk politics at the office. I stay away from the topic entirely, because differences in political opinions just create divisions in the workplace, something that I strenuously try to avoid. Barkeepers figured this one out a long time ago - no talking politics or religion in a bar, because people with a couple of drinks in them tend towards beating the crap out of each other when those topics come up.

But damn if today it wasn't hard to hold to my rule. It was really freaking hard for me to keep from saying - "If the civil war wasn't about slavery, then why was it specifically protected in the Confederate Constitution?" or "If the Civil War wasn't about slavery, then why do the words "slave" or "slavery" appear THIRTY FIVE times in Georgia's articles of secession?" It's times like this I really have trouble holding my tongue and keeping my professionalism, and to remember that I am there at the office to work, and to earn a living for my family, and not to roll around in the mud wrestling with conservative knuckledraggers like this guy.





:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[unpossibles]

1. I hate that argument. It was about States' Rights

to own people.

[wryter2000]

15. I hate that crap, too

I always ask why states rights is so effing important when the issue is racial. No one screams "states rights!" about the federal income tax. It only comes up when someone wants decent treatment for African American people.

[deadmessengers]

30. Exactly!

Sure it was about states' rights - but there was one particular right that people in the South were concerned about losing.

[Kitty Herder]

2. You're stronger than me.

I probably would have ripped him a new one. I think I may have permanently damaged my relationship with my sister-in-law when I finally got sick of her racist spew and told her just what I thought of all the hateful garbage about Mexicans and American Indians that comes out of her mouth.

[deadmessengers]

31. It wasn't easy.

Normally it's pretty easy to let him spout off - but this really drove me nuts.

[The Magistrate]

3. Gen. Nathan B. Forrest, Sir, Is Helpful In This Connection

He once stalked out of an address sounding this theme by a Confederate politician late in the war, growling "If we ain't fightin' fer slavery I'd like ta know WHAT the Hell we're fightin' fer!"

[deadmessengers]

32. I'm adding that to my "rhetorical database"

Useful for arguments with nuts like this.

Thanks!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Before the Southern states could re-join the Union,

they had to ratify the Thirteen Amendment, which abolished slavery. Sure, "states rights" was the window dressing, but as cartoons said at the time, it was really all about slavery.

Oh, and mention to this cretin that it is rather quaint to call it "the War of Northern Aggression" since it was the South who started it by firing on Ft. Sumter in Charleston Harbor. The federal government did nothing when Southerners stole arms and equipment from federal installations in the South.

Yankee and proud of it, btw.

[bkcc]

5. It was about slavery.

Although I don't believe the North's anti-slavery stance was as altruistic as history has painted it to be. The North wanted slavery ended, true. But I think a big part of that was motivated by economic factors.

Full-disclosure: I'm Yankee, born and raised.

[magellan]

7. Yes, there was window-dressing on both sides

There were many in the North who opposed slavery, but as usual with politicians, this just provided good cover for what was, at its core, a war of economics between the North and South. (If it was truly about the plight of slaves, why was the north hip-deep in child slavery at the turn of the century?) The Civil War was driven by the wealthy elite on both sides who had stakes in the outcome, but sold to the guys who actually fought it as something they could care about: the moral soundness of abolition in the North, and the fear of former slaves taking jobs away from whites in the South.

Another Yankee, who now lives in the South.

[bkcc]

12. Rich white guys starting wars? Now I've heard everything!

Thank goodness nothing like that happens in today's world.

;)

[magellan]

38. LOL

Yep, sadly we don't seem to have learned much since then.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. You're right

except for the Abolitionists, who were never a majority in the North, most Northerners didn't like slavery, but also didn't like the idea of blacks living amongst them. That is why so many "black laws" were enacted during and after the war--to keep black people, especially refugees, from emigrating North. To be fair, there was some genuine fear about the refugees--there is a large grave for the black refugees who made it to Carbondale IL during the War only to be felled by an epidemic which they apparently brought with them.

[lpbk2713]

6. Does your organization have a HR Dept that's worth a damn?

It could be worthwhile to let them know what the loonie
next door does to create a hostile work environment.

[DangerDave921]

26. Oh come on!

A hostile work environment? Because a co-worker said something he disagreed with? Have we all become such candy-ass pansies to be so offended when a co-worker says something we don't like?

If you disagree with a co-worker, tell him so. You don't need to run to your boss to tell on him.

If you want the term "hostile work environment" to mean anything, you can't abuse it by running to your boss every time you're offended by a comment you disagree with. The guy is talking about history for pete's sake.

[deadmessengers]

33. Yeah, this isn't really a hostile work environment

It's just one nutjob. I've been through enough managment training to know that the definition of hostile work environment pretty much is limited to harrassment of a sexual, racial, or religious nature. Anything beyond that really doesn't qualify.

[TomClash]

8. To be fair, there were economic factors at work

. . . and the North was clearly interested in such matters. See Eugene Genovese's classic "The World the Slaves Made."

But Marx would never have discounted the slavery factor. He actually wrote quite extensively about it, mostly in support of the USG.

[SCantiGOP]

9. of course it was slavery

I researched all of the articles of secession once. The most honest was Texas. They had just joined the Union a few years earlier, and they said they were assured that they would be able to maintain slavery, so it was actually the Northern states which had dissolved the union by going back on their word.

[Prefer]

10. I have just been to Stone Mountain Georgia, so I can tell you first hand

what it was about. They are celebrated for their struggle for the freedom to live life as they saw fit. That is how it is couched at the monument plaque at Stone Mountain.

Ironically, it doesn't mention that their valiant struggle for "freedom" involved treating human beings like livestock. That part is overlooked for some reason.

[izquierdista]

14. Mt. Losemore?

I could never figure out why people got so worked up about a bunch of losers. I don't think anyone has carved Yamamoto's or Goering's face on a rock.

[orleans]

11. tell him if he doesn't STFU you'll call 911 and have him committed. n/t

[Beregond2]

13. You are right.

There is no place for that kind of talk at work. Why don't you complain to your boss? If you can, get a number of other employees to complain along with you. He doesn't have to take-on this guy specifically. He can just establish a policy of "no discussion of religion, politics or other controversial subjects will be tolerated at this workplace." It's not like the guy is going to go running to the ACLU!

[deadmessengers]

34. No, he'd go running to Boortz, FR, & Rush

He'd try and get an army of dittoheads to harrass people at our office because of how unfairly conservatives are treated. Or something like that. :eyes:

[Beregond2]

41. As long as

the policy is applied equally to all persuasions, I don't see how they could justify that. Not that they are known for being reasonable...

[Tarc]

16. Well, he's not all that incorrect

The North's stance on slavery wasn't as noble as some of the history books like to tell, as the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in the border states that were critical to the North's chances in the war.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves

in areas under control of the CSA. It was a brilliant political move, created to cause unrest behind the lines, but also to keep England from entering on the side of the South--for now the War was about abolition, something that the average Englishman felt very strongly about.

[ismnotwasm]

17. Your co-worker is an asshole

One way to look at it is slavery based economics. Sure it was about money, about business competition, as well as dirty business practices.
HOWEVER

Anyone who can say it wasn't about defending the right to OWN human beings, mind, body and soul as well is living in one fucked up delusional fantasy world. That argument, which I've heard before, is one of the more disgusting right wing revisionist ways of recounting history.

[David__77]

18. It incidentally involved slavery.

It was really about capitalism (north) versus feudalism (south) as economic systems. The rising bourgeoisie smashed the old decrepit feudal class and rightly gained the support of the Black people. The new rulers in the south used Black support to consolidate their rule after the war (reconstruction), but then disposed of them politically once this role was fulfilled (end of reconstruction, rise of KKK, disenfranchisement). The northern white elite were racists too, but they had different motives.

[Ishoutandscream2]

19. Throw all of it into a boiling pot, and the ingredient that came out was slavery

States' rights, tariffs, farming vs. manufacturing - yeah, all good arguments. But the overlying issue was slavery. Slavery was the evil that started the whole damn thing. Your co-worker can spew all the revisionist shit he wants, but the "peculiar institution" as called by John Calhoun was the overlying factor.

[Aristus]

20. If he can sit still and listen to the truth long enough, then tell him this:

In January of 1862, the South was winning the Civil War on all fronts. Every time the Blue and the Gray clashed, the Blue got clobbered. Sensing opportunity, an envoy from Her Majesty's government in England made Jefferson Davis the following three-part offer:

1. Full diplomatic recognition by the U.K. of the C.S.A.
2. Full military assistance. The United Kingdom would place at the disposal of the Confederacy the most powerful army and navy in the world.
3. Potentially the most lucrative trade contract in history; selling cotton to the British Empire, which at that time was the world's largest consumer of cotton.

There was only one string attached to the offer:

Abolish slavery.

Jeff Davis said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

By January of 1865, the South was losing the Civil War on all fronts. Jefferson Davis announced that he was prepared now to accept England's offer. England, seeing which way the war was going, said "No deal."

The Confederacy, which could have won the war if they agreed to abolish slavery, chose to lose the war instead. They lost slavery anyway, due to their mind-boggling stubbornness and stupidity.

Tell this guy; the truth hurts...

[ljm2002]

25. Thanks for that history lesson...

...I'm keeping that one filed away. Whatever the original motivations, what the war "was about" in the first place -- it doesn't matter, if those who pursued the war made it a central issue. Which according to this historical tidbit, they did, and in the biggest of ways.

[Ishoutandscream2]

28. Yep. Game, set, match

Let him try to get out of that one. He'll probably blame that on liberal historians.

[deadmessengers]

35. Filing that one away, as well

Good to keep that one handy for the next time something like this comes up in an environment when discussing it is appropriate.

[NoGOPZone]

23. You could try this

Find the Declarations of Causes for the seceded states, print them out, highlight all the times slavery is mentioned, then put them on his desk.

[deadmessengers]

36. You know, I was thinking about doing that...

But that's such a passive-aggressive way of handling the situation - not really my style. I'd rather just vent here :)

[Quantess]

24. Where do you work?

I want a job with that much allowance to goof off.

[Wizard777]

27. It was a big issue. But not the whole of the argument.

The plantation had become what the corporations of today have become. God like megaliths. Slavery was a major issue in the civil war. But think it was the whole of the war is Naive. Some southerners wanted to rejoin the crown and other issues.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

29. Lincoln's own words

are perhaps most instructive on the topic.

From his letter to Horace Greeley of July 1862:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Lincoln seems to have settled on Option Three via the Emancipation Proclamation.

Shortly before his assassination, he also predicted that free, armed negroes would result in a race war and claimed "The negroes must be gotten rid of." One idea was to mass migrate them to Panama to dig a canal. The other option was the back-to-Africa movement.

Not the A. Lincoln they teach in school, is it? He was a VERY complicated, VERY bigoted, VERY racist man, as were the vast majority of the white men of his era.

[bonzotex]

37. hilarious!

I've dealt with these retards before too. It's frustrating. Good stuff in this thread.

Try this:
Not about slavery? About States rights? Really? If slavery didn't exist in The US in 1861. would there have still been a Civil War? If so, what would the issue have been?

Most conservatives don't know shit about history anyway. It's fun to watch them struggle to invent a scenario where the South would have seceded over states rights if slavery wasn't part of the issue.

[greenbriar]

39. it was about Economics and states rights ..Nationalism/sectionalism

slavery is just the vehicle to drive the rest and is intertwined in every aspect

[sandnsea]

40. The first slaves landed in 1607

They built the south. "Southern Pride" in an agrigarian plantation south is owed to slaves. When these knuckledraggers grasp that detail, maybe we'll finally put an end to the racist idea that blacks are inferior and all their arguments will be seen as the smokescreen that they've always been.