Started By
Message

re: LeVar Burton shocked to discover he's descended from a Confederate soldier

Posted on 1/22/24 at 9:30 am to
Posted by DarthRebel
Tier Five is Alive
Member since Feb 2013
21396 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 9:30 am to
quote:

What you got against black bears? You racist or something?


Not a thing. Ole Miss is very diverse in our mascots, pulling away from Auburn now

Posted by CarRamrod
Spurbury, VT
Member since Dec 2006
57528 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 9:32 am to
quote:

That many generations removed, I bet that is the case for a lot of folks.
i mean look at a black person from Africa..... then look at a brown person from the US....
Posted by BottomlandBrew
Member since Aug 2010
27248 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 9:32 am to
quote:

But, do people really believe...
1) war was over solely slavery
2)hundreds of thousands of men in a nation of what 20-30 million would take up arms over slavery?


While not 100% over slavery, it was the primary cause by a good bit. Every other grievance was minor or tangentially related to slavery and/or economic impacts of slavery. Anyone arguing against that has not read the articles of secession from the various states. As Mr. Burton always said, "You don't have to take my word for it."

Georgia:

quote:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic


Mississippi:

quote:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.


SC:

quote:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.


Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
91239 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 9:37 am to
There’s probably more of that than most realize.

A lot of black folk around here carry the same last names of all the big multi generation farming families in the area. I know several with Scottish and Italian last names. Some of that is because slaves used to take their masters names, some could be due to unknowingly being related due to promiscuous white farmer with the fever.

Hell I know several rich white folk around here that have bastard mixed kids and they pay good money to the black mother to keep quiet about it.
Posted by TigerCoon
Member since Nov 2005
18998 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 9:40 am to
that explains his love of books
Posted by Salviati
Member since Apr 2006
5718 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 9:47 am to
Southern Secession was thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.

The Civil War was fought to preserve Southern Secession.
Posted by danilo
Member since Nov 2008
20515 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 9:49 am to
Who gives a frick. Live your life here, today, now
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
36200 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 9:52 am to
quote:

quote:

fought to protect the institution of slavery

But, do people really believe...
1) war was over solely slavery

When it's a discussion of a black guy's ancestry, the slavery part is the valid point, which they made.

"Levar Burton shocked to discover ancestor fought for state's rights" would miss the entire point of the reveal.
Posted by mdomingue
Lafayette, LA
Member since Nov 2010
31242 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 10:13 am to
quote:

Southern Secession was thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.

The Civil War was fought to preserve Southern Secession.



I like this site, it gives pretty good info and seems to mostly be just facts without a lot of opinion driven by modern sensibilities.
American Battlefield Trust

Here is some interesting info.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession



Most of the Southern leaders understood that slavery was doomed in the United States once the statute prohibiting slavery in the Territories was enacted. Every state admitted to the Union would weaken resistance to the abolition of slavery. They saw this as having a significant impact on their economy and looked at the loss of slaves as the loss of property. If you feel that Black people are subhuman then I guess that would be an understandable sentiment.
Posted by Pedro
Geaux Hawks
Member since Jul 2008
33877 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 10:44 am to
Rebel Rainbow!
Rebel in my blood, I thought I was from the hood
Take a look, it's in a book,
A Rebel Rainbow!
I can go anywhere
Ancestors to know, and guilt to own
A Rebel Rainbow!

Ill have to pay reparations
Take a look, it's in a book
A Rebel Rainbow
Rebel Rainbow!
Ooooooooooh
Posted by Salviati
Member since Apr 2006
5718 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 10:57 am to
Not attacking, merely clarifying.

The "States' Rights" sections of the various Articles of Secession focus, almost exclusively, on two things: (1) the non-delegated right of states to make their own laws regarding slavery [Non-Delegation and Tenth Amendment], and (2) the failure of the "non-slaveholding States" to uphold the Constitution's Fugitive Slave Clause [Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3] and Extradition Clause [Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2]. In other words, the "States Rights" sections of the Articles of Secession were about slavery also.
Posted by White Bear
Yonnygo
Member since Jul 2014
14242 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:09 am to
I watched this the other night. Dude was destroyed when he found he had honky roots.

That Indian dude is an angry man, too.

Sammy Hagar is next show.
Posted by FreeState
Member since Jun 2012
3201 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:13 am to
Expansion of slavery more so than slavery itself was the simmering point. Balance of power in Congress. Most northerners didn't give a damn about what the South was doing. And after the war, didn't several northern states pass legislation to keep black people out of their state?
Posted by Salviati
Member since Apr 2006
5718 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:34 am to
quote:

Expansion of slavery more so than slavery itself was the simmering point. Balance of power in Congress.
Secessionists knew that slavery would be abolished in their states if they stayed in the Union. As mdomingue noted in his post:
quote:

Most of the Southern leaders understood that slavery was doomed in the United States once the statute prohibiting slavery in the Territories was enacted. Every state admitted to the Union would weaken resistance to the abolition of slavery.


quote:

Most northerners didn't give a damn about what the South was doing.
It's clear from the Articles of Secession, that is not what Secessionists believed. Secessionists believed that most northerners gave too much of a damn about slavery; more specifically, that northerners wanted to abolish slavery.

quote:

And after the war, didn't several northern states pass legislation to keep black people out of their state?
Irrelevant to the cause of secession or to the cause of the Civil War.
Posted by SportsGuyNOLA
New Orleans, LA
Member since May 2014
17311 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:37 am to
quote:

that explains his love of books


You have won today, sir

Posted by riverparish
Member since Dec 2007
1188 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:43 am to
quote:

like the Don Cheadle one


I may be mistaken but I thought he was the one that found out he was a descendent of black slave owners. If it wasn't him, then it was another black actor. But watching it was like watching a guy get punched in the gut. He had no idea that there had been black slave owners.
Posted by QJenk
Atl, Ga
Member since Jan 2013
15522 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:45 am to
Well, yea. This isn't exactly shocking. Slave owners raped their slaves. We knew this already.
Posted by AU86
Member since Aug 2009
22546 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 11:54 am to
Deo Vindice
Posted by PJinAtl
Atlanta
Member since Nov 2007
12777 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 12:15 pm to
quote:

While not 100% over slavery, it was the primary cause by a good bit. Every other grievance was minor or tangentially related to slavery and/or economic impacts of slavery. Anyone arguing against that has not read the articles of secession from the various states.

There's a vast difference though in why the southern states seceded and why the average southern soldier fought.

Did some of the soldiers fight to protect the institution of slavery? Yes they did. Others fought because their state had left the Union and the remaining Federal states were trying to coerce their return at the end of a rifle, which means that they were tangentially fighting to defend slavery.

However, what of those men who felt their primary allegiance was to their state, and not a confederation of states that did not specifically say in said confederation's founding documents that the union was permanent? No less than Robert E. Lee, when turning down command of the Union Army, said "Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native State?"

What of those men who did not own slaves and saw the move of Federal armies into their state as an act of war and rose up in defense? For example. my g-g-grandfather was initially part of the 1st Georgia State Line - tasked with guarding the railroad bridges between Atlanta and Chattanooga after the Andrews Raid/Great Locomotive Chase. His unit ended up fighting Sherman due to the push down from Chattanooga during the Atlanta campaign.
Posted by mdomingue
Lafayette, LA
Member since Nov 2010
31242 posts
Posted on 1/22/24 at 12:38 pm to
quote:

Not attacking, merely clarifying.

The "States' Rights" sections of the various Articles of Secession focus, almost exclusively, on two things: (1) the non-delegated right of states to make their own laws regarding slavery [Non-Delegation and Tenth Amendment], and (2) the failure of the "non-slaveholding States" to uphold the Constitution's Fugitive Slave Clause [Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3] and Extradition Clause [Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2]. In other words, the "States Rights" sections of the Articles of Secession were about slavery also.




I didn't take it as an attack, sorry if I came across as offended. Just thought that site was cool to share. I kind of took what you said to be more of an affirmation than anything else. I believe we are in agreement here and if we have any disagreements it would be minimal.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram