About That Alleged Racial Incident at the BYU-Duke Match

23,314 Views | 446 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Jack Bauer
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

J.B.Katz said:

PartyBear said:

Y'all are joking right? The incident occurred in front of everyone there. They spoke to the person and the person has been banned from athletic events.
I'm reporting this thread to Baylor.

This level of racism anbd fact-denial should not be permitted on a site with any affiliation with Baylor, and this thread should be deleted by the site mods.

The governor of Utah acknowledged and apologized for this incident.

https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/2022-08-28/byu-bans-a-fan-who-yelled-a-racist-slur-at-a-black-volleyball-player-on-dukes-team
Report to Baylor and reveal to them the utter lack of critical thinking, awareness, and common sense that you're demonstrating here? You sure?
Maybe they will revoke her degree???
They never punish these characters....but they should.
I meant jinx but this duke girl should be punished as well if this is all a hoax.
Never going to happen .

Right or wrong she has already acquired martyr status .
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Rawhide said:

There's too much incentive to make up a story about racism than there is punishment for making up a story about racism.

Like I said, creating a hoax about racism usually involved someed as a one of from another race and that in and of itself should be treated as a hate crime.
Yep, the upside and accolades that come with getting away with making up a fake hate crime are far more than the punishment (almost non existent) that comes from being found out.

Indeed if you look up punishments for fake hate crimes and lying...it almost never happens.

For whatever reason Universities don't seem to want to punish those that lie about this kind of stuff.
Surprised the volleyball players incredibly racist Godmother isn't getting more attention.

She is a hard core racist.

That said it doesn't mean this didn't happen.

But nobody so incredibly biased should ever be a judge and she is running for it.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

Redbrickbear said:

Rawhide said:

There's too much incentive to make up a story about racism than there is punishment for making up a story about racism.

Like I said, creating a hoax about racism usually involved someed as a one of from another race and that in and of itself should be treated as a hate crime.
Yep, the upside and accolades that come with getting away with making up a fake hate crime are far more than the punishment (almost non existent) that comes from being found out.

Indeed if you look up punishments for fake hate crimes and lying...it almost never happens.

For whatever reason Universities don't seem to want to punish those that lie about this kind of stuff.
Surprised the volleyball players incredibly racist Godmother isn't getting more attention.

She is a hard core racist.





Not true….only whites are racist .


BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is an article today in The Salt Lake Tribune about this incident that I would like to discuss. Pay particular attention to the part in the middle that I bolded for emphasis:

******************************************************
BYU makes changes to address racism, fan behavior, but student reactions divided

Duke volleyball player Rachel Richardson said a fan at BYU called her racial slurs last week, putting BYU in the national spotlight.

By Kevin Reynolds

Sep. 2, 2022, 7:00 a.m.

Provo Less than a week after a Duke University volleyball player said she was called a racial slur during a match on BYU's campus, a group of fans unfurled a banner to show their support here Thursday night.
"We stand with Coach Heather," the sign read, a response to a report that BYU volleyball coach Heather Olmstead had received a threatening voicemail in the wake of the incident.

"I think it is really unfair that she is getting death threats," said one of the young fans holding the banner. "Even if what was said happened, what could Heather do?"

What could have, should have and will be done differently at BYU has been a topic of national discussion since Duke sophomore Rachel Richardson said she was called the N-word by a fan in the Cougars' student section last week.

BYU banned a Utah Valley student who Duke identified as the person who said the slur, but campus police and athletic department officials have since reviewed video footage from the night and said it does not appear that man yelled any slurs. BYU has not said it doubts the veracity of Richardson's claims and they continue to investigate the matter.

In the meantime, the debate and divide that have featured prominently in the national discourse were also present at the Smith Fieldhouse.

"I was shocked but I wasn't surprised when I heard it," BYU student Tailey Quick said. "I think some in [our community] are talking about it and some are ignoring it. Some of our professors have said something. [Some are saying], 'I'm sorry if you were hurt by it.'"

BYU officials have scrambled to implement immediate changes.
Thursday's visitors, the Utah State volleyball team, walked past the women's soccer field, around the old chain link fence that hugs the fieldhouse, past a number of BYU officials posted along their route from the team bus, and through a back entrance to get into the venue. All the while, a police officer walked behind them to monitor things.

Normally, the visiting teams at BYU simply get dropped off at the front door and walk right in with the rest of the students. But things aren't normal here now.
There were other obvious security differences. The student section was pulled off the floor and placed into the upper deck seating above the court. A security guard was posted with both teams for the duration of the game. There was an additional officer roaming the arena.
But as the stands filled in with fans to root for their team, it was clear this is still a place divided in some ways. Some students expressed shock that racism could exist on their campus. Some expressed disappointment. Others said simply it would not be a surprise in the mostly white community.

"It was disappointing but not shocking," BYU student Hannah Clark said.
The BYU volleyball team played a video before the game that talked about inclusion and treating opposing fans well. The team also wore a shirt that said "Love One Another" on the back.
BYU did not make coaches or players available to speak before or after the match.
On the court, the No. 7-ranked Cougars beat USU 3-0.
In the stands, there were many who likely still left disappointed

"I was disappointed in BYU's response [to say it happened]," said a student named Jessica, who asked not to have her last name used for fear of retribution. "In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. BYU admitted it happened."
*********************************************************

So here's my question, and it's directed mainly at our resident liberals here, who, on many occassions, have demonstrated a lack in critical thinking skills, but I appreciate anyone's thoughts on this:

What is the problem with including the bolded part in this article, especially the way it was included, without any editing? Do you think there is problem with it at all?
Big12Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
South Carolina Women's Hoops has now canceled their series with BYU because of the Duke Volleyball hoax. Unbelievable.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big12Bear said:

South Carolina Women's Hoops has now canceled their series with BYU because of the Duke Volleyball hoax. Unbelievable.


Dawn never lets an opportunity to play the race card go by.
Oso del lago
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Weren't they the exact team that was accused of racial slurs and spitting on Missouri players? The coach even sued and won 50k from the mizzou AD after there was no evidence anything ever occurred. Same thing as this, guess they are passing the woke torch to byu and their imbecile AD who has bungled this Baylor'16 style. That Holmoe guy brought all this on his school and continues to do so
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We live in a post truth society.



Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big12Bear said:

South Carolina Women's Hoops has now canceled their series with BYU because of the Duke Volleyball hoax. Unbelievable.


Wow.
SIC EM 94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
South Carolina is a joke…they don't care whether or not the Duke players claims are true or not. They just want to virtue signal for all the world to see. F 'em
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big12Bear said:

South Carolina Women's Hoops has now canceled their series with BYU because of the Duke Volleyball hoax. Unbelievable.
So they forfeited the matches, right? Points to BYU?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Always right before an election. Amazingly none of our most sacred special people have been murdered by cops in years.

It's amazing. Not a single one.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Breaking News ...they found the racist at the Byu game



Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.

Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

Porteroso said:

ShooterTX said:

Porteroso said:

ShooterTX said:

Porteroso said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Stefano DiMera said:

I swear ... sometimes I feel like this board is a bunch of cuckoo Alex Jones.

What in the hell would be the advantage or purpose of her making this stuff up?
Honestly, have you been paying attention? Today's most valuable currency is victimization. A no-name volleyball player just became a celebrity for a day and got attention and love from ESPN. There have been more racial hoaxes than actual incidents in the last 10 years and it is not even close. Basic common sense easily explains in 2022 the odds of a Gen Zer yelling racial slurs in public vs. a person making it up ...

How would you even be able to guess the ratio of racist hoax to real racist incident? Is this "common sense" talking? Seems your perception may be skewed.
Maybe you would like to litter this thread with all of the major stories of racism over the past few years, that were NOT a hoax?
That would be a good first step towards calculating that ratio.... you up for that?

There have already been a ton of examples of national stories, which later turned out to be fake... so maybe you can remind us of all the national stories which were true? I'm sure there must be hundreds... maybe thousands, right?

Wait, are you going by what you hear on entertainment media to determine how prevalent racism is in America?
LOL
Wait, you think the media is only promoting and reporting on the fake racism stories?

Wait, you rely upon entertainment media to give you a fair dose of reality?
So in other words, you don't have enough examples of national stories of actual racism, to prove your ratio theory.

But it was a nice attempt at deflection.

I didn't have a ratio theory..... I was asking someone else about their ratio theory.

How did you manage to twist this up so badly? lol
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ShooterTX said:

D. C. Bear said:

ShooterTX said:

D. C. Bear said:

There are plenty of racist people out there who show their racism on a regular basis. I know a number of them (and tend to avoid their company). If we want to see the state of racism in America, however, counting instances of racism reported in media is not a good way to do that because media coverage does not reflect what is going on.

Untrained Twitter users who jumped on this story might be excused for their failure to exercise proper verification before spouting off. Professional journalists, however, should not. Sadly, too many are now more interested in being advocates than that they are in being accurate.
So if incidences of racism are so rampant... and the media likes to jump on those stories, rather than investigate them... then why are there so few media stories of actual racist incidences?

If the media is motivated to promote all the racist stories (and they clearly are), then why aren't at least half of these media stories true? Why are the majority of these stories fake?

Clearly, there are not as many of these racist incidences as you would like for us to believe. They can't ALL be flying under the radar so effectively.... especially if racism stems from ignorance, as so many would have us believe.... then how are all these ignorant people so good at hiding their racist attacks? Those must be some of the most crafty & brilliant, ignorant people on the planet? Especially since they are all over the nation, in every part of society.

Amazing.


Please point out anywhere that I said we should believe a particular number or percentage of stories about racism.

Amazing.
I think you misread that statement.

I was saying that there are not as many racist incidences as you would like us to believe there are. What that means is that your post implies that there are plenty of racist incidences out there, that occur "on a regular basis".
My point is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence to back up your statements.
Would you like to provide the evidence to back up your statements?

If racism happens "on a regular basis" (as you stated), and the media is overly motivated to report on racist incidences even without investigation (as you stated), then why aren't there hundreds of stories about racism which are eventually proven true? Why are the majority of racism stories proven to be fake?

Just read what you wrote..... You don't read many entertainment media stories about real racism so it must be made up?

I can't even
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

There is an article today in The Salt Lake Tribune about this incident that I would like to discuss. Pay particular attention to the part in the middle that I bolded for emphasis:

******************************************************
BYU makes changes to address racism, fan behavior, but student reactions divided

Duke volleyball player Rachel Richardson said a fan at BYU called her racial slurs last week, putting BYU in the national spotlight.

By Kevin Reynolds

Sep. 2, 2022, 7:00 a.m.

Provo Less than a week after a Duke University volleyball player said she was called a racial slur during a match on BYU's campus, a group of fans unfurled a banner to show their support here Thursday night.
"We stand with Coach Heather," the sign read, a response to a report that BYU volleyball coach Heather Olmstead had received a threatening voicemail in the wake of the incident.

"I think it is really unfair that she is getting death threats," said one of the young fans holding the banner. "Even if what was said happened, what could Heather do?"

What could have, should have and will be done differently at BYU has been a topic of national discussion since Duke sophomore Rachel Richardson said she was called the N-word by a fan in the Cougars' student section last week.

BYU banned a Utah Valley student who Duke identified as the person who said the slur, but campus police and athletic department officials have since reviewed video footage from the night and said it does not appear that man yelled any slurs. BYU has not said it doubts the veracity of Richardson's claims and they continue to investigate the matter.

In the meantime, the debate and divide that have featured prominently in the national discourse were also present at the Smith Fieldhouse.

"I was shocked but I wasn't surprised when I heard it," BYU student Tailey Quick said. "I think some in [our community] are talking about it and some are ignoring it. Some of our professors have said something. [Some are saying], 'I'm sorry if you were hurt by it.'"

BYU officials have scrambled to implement immediate changes.
Thursday's visitors, the Utah State volleyball team, walked past the women's soccer field, around the old chain link fence that hugs the fieldhouse, past a number of BYU officials posted along their route from the team bus, and through a back entrance to get into the venue. All the while, a police officer walked behind them to monitor things.

Normally, the visiting teams at BYU simply get dropped off at the front door and walk right in with the rest of the students. But things aren't normal here now.
There were other obvious security differences. The student section was pulled off the floor and placed into the upper deck seating above the court. A security guard was posted with both teams for the duration of the game. There was an additional officer roaming the arena.
But as the stands filled in with fans to root for their team, it was clear this is still a place divided in some ways. Some students expressed shock that racism could exist on their campus. Some expressed disappointment. Others said simply it would not be a surprise in the mostly white community.

"It was disappointing but not shocking," BYU student Hannah Clark said.
The BYU volleyball team played a video before the game that talked about inclusion and treating opposing fans well. The team also wore a shirt that said "Love One Another" on the back.
BYU did not make coaches or players available to speak before or after the match.
On the court, the No. 7-ranked Cougars beat USU 3-0.
In the stands, there were many who likely still left disappointed

"I was disappointed in BYU's response [to say it happened]," said a student named Jessica, who asked not to have her last name used for fear of retribution. "In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. BYU admitted it happened."
*********************************************************

So here's my question, and it's directed mainly at our resident liberals here, who, on many occassions, have demonstrated a lack in critical thinking skills, but I appreciate anyone's thoughts on this:

What is the problem with including the bolded part in this article, especially the way it was included, without any editing? Do you think there is problem with it at all?

You're obviously right on the bolded part. Once I read **** like that I label it entertainment media and avoid it.

Really there is very little good media that isn't doing some good ole helpful interpretation of the facts, so the reader doesn't have to strain the mind to grasp the story. It's pathetic. I wish they would all have to label their segments as factual or entertainment, much like the papers used to separate out opinions and editorials.
ScottS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No evidence found of banned BYU fan using racist slurs at game (fox13now.com)
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Has jinxie spoken to the manager yet?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Johnny Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.

Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .


Probably because 90% of Union soldiers were not abolitionists and the emancipation proclamation set off wide major rioting in Northern cities and wipe spread desertions in the Federal armies.


Read "What They Fought For", James McPherson, 1994






"The war aims of the United States army were not abolition but preservation of the Federal Union"

"The greatest Civil War historians will tell you that the aims of the North were to sustain the Union and only through the course of the war and even then incompletely did ending slavery become an aim for the North. Northern Democrats did not suddenly became abolitionists. And in fact a great deal of Northern Republicans were in truth not abolitionists"
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Johnny Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.

Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .


Probably because 90% of Union soldiers were not abolitionists and the emancipation proclamation set off wide major rioting in Northern cities and wipe spread desertions in the Federal armies.


Read "What They Fought For", James McPherson, 1994






"The war aims of the United States army were not abolition but preservation of the Federal Union"

"The greatest Civil War historians will tell you that the aims of the North were to sustain the Union and only through the course of the war and even then incompletely did ending slavery become an aim for the North. Northern Democrats did not suddenly became abolitionists. And in fact a great deal of Northern Republicans were in truth not abolitionists"
Slavery ended with the victory of northern armies who suffered over 350,000 killed in the process .

They weren't any less dead over any abolition debate.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Johnny Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.

Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .


Probably because 90% of Union soldiers were not abolitionists and the emancipation proclamation set off wide major rioting in Northern cities and wipe spread desertions in the Federal armies.


Read "What They Fought For", James McPherson, 1994






"The war aims of the United States army were not abolition but preservation of the Federal Union"

"The greatest Civil War historians will tell you that the aims of the North were to sustain the Union and only through the course of the war and even then incompletely did ending slavery become an aim for the North. Northern Democrats did not suddenly became abolitionists. And in fact a great deal of Northern Republicans were in truth not abolitionists"
Slavery ended with the victory of northern armies who suffered over 350,000 killed in the process .

They weren't any less dead over any abolition debate.


True,

But let's never forget that Brazil (with more slaves per capita and more slaves numerically) ended slavery without war and mass bloodshed.

The war in 1861 is as much a civilizational tragedy for this nation as the World War I was for Europe.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Johnny Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.

Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .


Probably because 90% of Union soldiers were not abolitionists and the emancipation proclamation set off wide major rioting in Northern cities and wipe spread desertions in the Federal armies.


Read "What They Fought For", James McPherson, 1994






"The war aims of the United States army were not abolition but preservation of the Federal Union"

"The greatest Civil War historians will tell you that the aims of the North were to sustain the Union and only through the course of the war and even then incompletely did ending slavery become an aim for the North. Northern Democrats did not suddenly became abolitionists. And in fact a great deal of Northern Republicans were in truth not abolitionists"
Slavery ended with the victory of northern armies who suffered over 350,000 killed in the process .

They weren't any less dead over any abolition debate.


True,

But let's never forget that Brazil (with more slaves per capita and more slaves numerically) ended slavery without war and mass bloodshed.

The war in 1861 is as much a civilizational tragedy for this nation as the World War I was for Europe.
The war was an act of northern political and economic aggression .

A. The southern states wanted to leave peacefully . Jefferson Davis ( then a member of the US Senate made that perfectly clear ). Lincoln and northern abolitionists were not about to let that occur .
B. If the north truly wished to set the slaves free without destroying the south economically all they had to do was follow Great Britain's example . Compensate the slave owners for the enormous amount of their capital invested.
C. By far the worst war in American history with KIA's and deaths from illness at levels today's Americans would never tolerate to 'free' anyone .
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Johnny Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.

Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .


Probably because 90% of Union soldiers were not abolitionists and the emancipation proclamation set off wide major rioting in Northern cities and wipe spread desertions in the Federal armies.


Read "What They Fought For", James McPherson, 1994






"The war aims of the United States army were not abolition but preservation of the Federal Union"

"The greatest Civil War historians will tell you that the aims of the North were to sustain the Union and only through the course of the war and even then incompletely did ending slavery become an aim for the North. Northern Democrats did not suddenly became abolitionists. And in fact a great deal of Northern Republicans were in truth not abolitionists"
Slavery ended with the victory of northern armies who suffered over 350,000 killed in the process .

They weren't any less dead over any abolition debate.


True,

But let's never forget that Brazil (with more slaves per capita and more slaves numerically) ended slavery without war and mass bloodshed.

The war in 1861 is as much a civilizational tragedy for this nation as the World War I was for Europe.
The war was an act of northern political and economic aggression .

A. The southern states wanted to leave peacefully . Jefferson Davis ( then a member of the US Senate made that perfectly clear ). Lincoln and northern abolitionists were not about to let that occur .
B. If the north truly wished to set the slaves free without destroying the south economically all they had to do was follow Great Britain's example . Compensate the slave owners for the enormous amount of their capital invested.
C. By far the worst war in American history with KIA's and deaths from illness at levels today's Americans would never tolerate to 'free' anyone .



If the south wanted to leave peacefully, they had that option by Constitutional amendment. Without one, there is no mechanism for leaving the Union. The war that you characterize as an act of northern political and economic aggression was that in part, but only because many northern states did not recognize southern states' property rights. Specifically, the right of southern slave holders to maintain their property rights over other human beings independent of geography.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Johnny Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.

Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .


Probably because 90% of Union soldiers were not abolitionists and the emancipation proclamation set off wide major rioting in Northern cities and wipe spread desertions in the Federal armies.


Read "What They Fought For", James McPherson, 1994






"The war aims of the United States army were not abolition but preservation of the Federal Union"

"The greatest Civil War historians will tell you that the aims of the North were to sustain the Union and only through the course of the war and even then incompletely did ending slavery become an aim for the North. Northern Democrats did not suddenly became abolitionists. And in fact a great deal of Northern Republicans were in truth not abolitionists"
Slavery ended with the victory of northern armies who suffered over 350,000 killed in the process .

They weren't any less dead over any abolition debate.


True,

But let's never forget that Brazil (with more slaves per capita and more slaves numerically) ended slavery without war and mass bloodshed.

The war in 1861 is as much a civilizational tragedy for this nation as the World War I was for Europe.
The war was an act of northern political and economic aggression .

A. The southern states wanted to leave peacefully . Jefferson Davis ( then a member of the US Senate made that perfectly clear ). Lincoln and northern abolitionists were not about to let that occur .
B. If the north truly wished to set the slaves free without destroying the south economically all they had to do was follow Great Britain's example . Compensate the slave owners for the enormous amount of their capital invested.
C. By far the worst war in American history with KIA's and deaths from illness at levels today's Americans would never tolerate to 'free' anyone .



If the south wanted to leave peacefully, they had that option by Constitutional amendment. Without one, there is no mechanism for leaving the Union. The war that you characterize as an act of northern political and economic aggression was that in part, but only because many northern states did not recognize southern states' property rights. Specifically, the right of southern slave holders to maintain their property rights over other human beings independent of geography.



I guess the American colonies should waited for an amendment to leave the United Kingdom?

And Texas should have waited for an amendment to leave Mexico?

The USA was founded in an act of secession.

And of course the Federal government was never going to let its valuable tariff paying Southern States leave.

"At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North."

The South was paying for the North's industrialization.

They were not ever going to let the South peacefully walk away.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Johnny Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.

Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .


Probably because 90% of Union soldiers were not abolitionists and the emancipation proclamation set off wide major rioting in Northern cities and wipe spread desertions in the Federal armies.


Read "What They Fought For", James McPherson, 1994






"The war aims of the United States army were not abolition but preservation of the Federal Union"

"The greatest Civil War historians will tell you that the aims of the North were to sustain the Union and only through the course of the war and even then incompletely did ending slavery become an aim for the North. Northern Democrats did not suddenly became abolitionists. And in fact a great deal of Northern Republicans were in truth not abolitionists"
Slavery ended with the victory of northern armies who suffered over 350,000 killed in the process .

They weren't any less dead over any abolition debate.


True,

But let's never forget that Brazil (with more slaves per capita and more slaves numerically) ended slavery without war and mass bloodshed.

The war in 1861 is as much a civilizational tragedy for this nation as the World War I was for Europe.
The war was an act of northern political and economic aggression .

A. The southern states wanted to leave peacefully . Jefferson Davis ( then a member of the US Senate made that perfectly clear ). Lincoln and northern abolitionists were not about to let that occur .
B. If the north truly wished to set the slaves free without destroying the south economically all they had to do was follow Great Britain's example . Compensate the slave owners for the enormous amount of their capital invested.
C. By far the worst war in American history with KIA's and deaths from illness at levels today's Americans would never tolerate to 'free' anyone .



If the south wanted to leave peacefully, they had that option by Constitutional amendment. Without one, there is no mechanism for leaving the Union. The war that you characterize as an act of northern political and economic aggression was that in part, but only because many northern states did not recognize southern states' property rights. Specifically, the right of southern slave holders to maintain their property rights over other human beings independent of geography.



I guess the American colonies should waited for an amendment to leave the United Kingdom?

And Texas should have waited for an amendment to leave Mexico?

The USA was founded in an act of secession.

And of course the Federal government was never going to let its valuable tariff paying Southern States leave.

"At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North."

The South was paying for the North's industrialization.

They were not ever going to let the South peacefully walk away.



Unfair tariffs were a huge issue in the south that are largely over looked today .

But a healthy black male slave was worth 800 dollars .

In a time when a skilled white carpenter was lucky to make 4 dollars a day in wages .

In other words….slaves were exceptionally valuable and represented an enormous part of southern investment.

Great Britain solved their slavery problem by compensating the owners throughout the British Empire for their loss

A simple, bloodless solution that Lincoln, northern abolitionist, northern industrialists and radical Republicans wanted no part in .

They wanted the south economically and politically subjugated.

D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Johnny Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.

Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .


Probably because 90% of Union soldiers were not abolitionists and the emancipation proclamation set off wide major rioting in Northern cities and wipe spread desertions in the Federal armies.


Read "What They Fought For", James McPherson, 1994






"The war aims of the United States army were not abolition but preservation of the Federal Union"

"The greatest Civil War historians will tell you that the aims of the North were to sustain the Union and only through the course of the war and even then incompletely did ending slavery become an aim for the North. Northern Democrats did not suddenly became abolitionists. And in fact a great deal of Northern Republicans were in truth not abolitionists"
Slavery ended with the victory of northern armies who suffered over 350,000 killed in the process .

They weren't any less dead over any abolition debate.


True,

But let's never forget that Brazil (with more slaves per capita and more slaves numerically) ended slavery without war and mass bloodshed.

The war in 1861 is as much a civilizational tragedy for this nation as the World War I was for Europe.
The war was an act of northern political and economic aggression .

A. The southern states wanted to leave peacefully . Jefferson Davis ( then a member of the US Senate made that perfectly clear ). Lincoln and northern abolitionists were not about to let that occur .
B. If the north truly wished to set the slaves free without destroying the south economically all they had to do was follow Great Britain's example . Compensate the slave owners for the enormous amount of their capital invested.
C. By far the worst war in American history with KIA's and deaths from illness at levels today's Americans would never tolerate to 'free' anyone .



If the south wanted to leave peacefully, they had that option by Constitutional amendment. Without one, there is no mechanism for leaving the Union. The war that you characterize as an act of northern political and economic aggression was that in part, but only because many northern states did not recognize southern states' property rights. Specifically, the right of southern slave holders to maintain their property rights over other human beings independent of geography.



I guess the American colonies should waited for an amendment to leave the United Kingdom?

And Texas should have waited for an amendment to leave Mexico?

The USA was founded in an act of secession.

And of course the Federal government was never going to let its valuable tariff paying Southern States leave.

"At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North."

The South was paying for the North's industrialization.

They were not ever going to let the South peacefully walk away.



So you are arguing that the southern states right to own slaves was important enough to (illegally) leave the union.
Oso del lago
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He is saying the south didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated.
Are you that simple or just can't read?
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big-O!-Bear said:

He is saying the south didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated.
Are you that simple or just can't read?


They didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated in large part by having their right to own other people taken away.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Johnny Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

No blacks or Hispanics use racial slurs against white people .

A fabulous role model for everyone to follow .

Don't forget their expressions of racism are always permissible because they're eternal "victims" simply because of their race or ethnicity. For crying out loud it was only 157 years ago that slavery still existed!!
And over 350,000 Yankees died setting the black man free.

Strange how it is never mentioned by the national media .


Probably because 90% of Union soldiers were not abolitionists and the emancipation proclamation set off wide major rioting in Northern cities and wipe spread desertions in the Federal armies.


Read "What They Fought For", James McPherson, 1994






"The war aims of the United States army were not abolition but preservation of the Federal Union"

"The greatest Civil War historians will tell you that the aims of the North were to sustain the Union and only through the course of the war and even then incompletely did ending slavery become an aim for the North. Northern Democrats did not suddenly became abolitionists. And in fact a great deal of Northern Republicans were in truth not abolitionists"
Slavery ended with the victory of northern armies who suffered over 350,000 killed in the process .

They weren't any less dead over any abolition debate.


True,

But let's never forget that Brazil (with more slaves per capita and more slaves numerically) ended slavery without war and mass bloodshed.

The war in 1861 is as much a civilizational tragedy for this nation as the World War I was for Europe.
The war was an act of northern political and economic aggression .

A. The southern states wanted to leave peacefully . Jefferson Davis ( then a member of the US Senate made that perfectly clear ). Lincoln and northern abolitionists were not about to let that occur .
B. If the north truly wished to set the slaves free without destroying the south economically all they had to do was follow Great Britain's example . Compensate the slave owners for the enormous amount of their capital invested.
C. By far the worst war in American history with KIA's and deaths from illness at levels today's Americans would never tolerate to 'free' anyone .



If the south wanted to leave peacefully, they had that option by Constitutional amendment. Without one, there is no mechanism for leaving the Union. The war that you characterize as an act of northern political and economic aggression was that in part, but only because many northern states did not recognize southern states' property rights. Specifically, the right of southern slave holders to maintain their property rights over other human beings independent of geography.



I guess the American colonies should waited for an amendment to leave the United Kingdom?

And Texas should have waited for an amendment to leave Mexico?

The USA was founded in an act of secession.

And of course the Federal government was never going to let its valuable tariff paying Southern States leave.

"At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North."

The South was paying for the North's industrialization.

They were not ever going to let the South peacefully walk away.



So you are arguing that the southern states right to own slaves was important enough to (illegally) leave the union.
Without compensation the south had little choice but to try . Morality issues aside ( which are always a slippery slope ) freeing the slaves without compensation would have economically destroyed the south .

However unlike the silly images in ' Gone With The Wind ' most wealthy plantation owners knew full well the south stood little chance in a protracted war with the north . These owners usually had business connections in the north, and in many cases sent their children to northern universities .

They knew the north had a far bigger population , far more railroad lines and an enormous industrial superiority.

The leadership of the south gambled that England and France would intervene .....or failing such intervention the north would simply tire of the war. As they almost did .
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So with no evidence, this is how the story ends?

  • Duke player is not questioned about her accusations.
  • BYU moves student section for volleyball games
  • South Carolina Dawn Staley cancels BASKETBALL series vs BYU
  • Several college volleyball teams virtue signal on social media

This is an accurate timeline by this twitter user:

Oso del lago
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's all just so tiresome
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Big-O!-Bear said:

He is saying the south didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated.
Are you that simple or just can't read?


They didn't want to be economically and politically subjugated in large part by having their right to own other people taken away.


There was not a single law proposed by the Republican Party in 1861 to end slavery.

Not a single state GOP party had ever called for the ending of slavery.

The Supreme Court had constantly sided with the slave owing side.

Lincoln and every other Republican leader I can find said slavery was a matter left to the States.

And Lincoln even supported the Corwin amendment that would have gone further and shielded slavery from any possible Federal interference in the future.

Again you are assuming the North was abolitionist in 1861….it was far from it.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.