A Senatorial atonement for past blocking of anti-lynching bills

[MrFun]

Different states had different reasons. Texas's reasons could have been for the "right" to own slaves while another state could have revolted for another reason.

Can you grasp that, Neddy?

[Mr. Harley]

Ned - thanks for the link (I'm saving it). I caught an interesting special on the History Channel, which in part covered the WW2 development of the A-bomb. Posted at Oak Ridge were posters talking about the last soldier to get killed, and how the longer they took to complete a bomb, the more of them there would be. Many people believed that, including in the military (reference the stupidy of the "destroy enemy forces" policy that had already killed thousands of US troops unneccessarily at Okinawa).

However, as you have shown, there were people in leadership positions that understood that an invasion and dropping the A-bomb were not inevitable, but for other reasons, including realpolitik - read post-WW2 relastions with the Soviet Union - also pushed for the dropping of the bomb. I have not bothered to track down the cabinet meeting minutes for the meeting at which the decision was made. Remember, though, that Truman had already approved going ahead with Operation Olympic, so you did have people convinced that an invasion was necessary if Japan did not surrender.

It's why I quoted Grant on the Mexican-American War. He was there in the culture of his time, and had a context that today we would struggle with. The context of the time, and those who were living with WW2, is different than our context now. I really wish that someone in the US military had asked the question that maybe, just maybe, this Civil War policy of destroying enemy forces directly, given the success of the Blitzkreig, might just possibly need a revision. We still have several years to wait on that one.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned


So, why did that OTHER state revolt? Or, is it your position that liberty with slavery is not worth it? Then you deny our own revolution and our own constitution. We, as the Texans decades later, were fighting tyranny even though we had slaves.

Slavery is Tyranny.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun
Different states had different reasons. Texas's reasons could have been for the "right" to own slaves while another state could have revolted for another reason.

Can you grasp that, Neddy?

Except that Texas was composed of both slave owners and others who did not own slaves who both wanted to revolt. The proximate cause of the revolt had little or nothing to do with the issue of slavery as opposed to the election of Lincoln.

We do not think of the American Revolution as being pro-slavery because the tyranny being opposed had nothing to do with the issue of slavery. Somewhat the same thing can be said about the revolutions in Mexico when Santa Ana overthrew the constitution of 1824 and set up a dictatorship.

Now, Strangelove says that Santa Ana was going to execute any who did not free their slaves. Now, even if I was for freeing slaves, I would join a revolution to rid my nation of such a man.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Somehow, I find it amazing that people are not taught what actually happened, but some fiction that substitutes anti-Americanism for fact. Santa Ana overthrew the constitution and abolished the states, and two states revolted. One was Texas. That is the reason for the war.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Mexican politics and history of that era was a bit more complex and non-linear than Santa Ana just showing up one day and taking over.

The Texicans just used that version of events as an opportunistic reason for doing what most of them wanted anyway, which was to get white protestant slaveholding Texas independent from the lowly brown Papists.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax
Slavery is Tyranny.

No doubt. But cannot one fight a dictorship with allies who are slaveowners without the revolution being tainted?

[Ned]

What did Grant say again about the war?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
Different states had different reasons. Texas's reasons could have been for the "right" to own slaves while another state could have revolted for another reason.

Can you grasp that, Neddy?

We are a band of brothers, native to the soil,

fighting for our liberty, with treasure, blood and toil

[Ned]

http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/usa/weareaba.htm

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


No doubt. But cannot one fight a dictorship with allies who are slaveowners without the revolution being tainted?

The devil will always take what is due to him.

Oh, and quite a few Mexicans owned slaves too. More than likely they would have pointed out that their heritage was Spanish and not common native, black or mixed.

The tune that we associate with the Alamo, the theme song from the 1950s movie, is actually a revolutionary Mexican song that promises to show no quarter to those who oppose the revolution. It's a sort of Mexican "Marseilles"

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


The devil will always take what is due to him.

Oh, and quite a few Mexicans owned slaves too. More than likely they would have pointed out that their heritage was Spanish and not common native, black or mixed.

The tune that we associate with the Alamo, the theme song from the 1950s movie, is actually a revolutionary Mexican song that promises to show no quarter to those who oppose the revolution. It's a sort of Mexican "Marseilles"

We, Dr. S, I hope you do recognize a pattern of focusing on the slavery issue both for the Texans and our founding fathers. The whole idea is to discredit the very idea of America.

[Ned]

And, btw, now that you raise the issue, Santa Ana took no prisoners at the Alamo. That is a war crime. It is amazing that Houston let this man go once captured.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We are a band of brothers, native to the soil,

fighting to preserve slavery and racial tyranny