Culture

[Irish YJ]

Don't have the health or energy to re-research this, but did do it once. Lincoln is about as clean as it gets on the slavery issue, especially as he matured in his Presidential power. This issue BADLY needs a timeline. That timeline will show Lincoln going through a phase where he could not see a solution. There were people pushing for emancipation followed by not a simple deportation but rather a strongly facilitated project to allow any black person to return to Africa if they wanted to. Lincoln thought that in the large majority they WOULD want to, and in his eyes at that moment he felt that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for the two groups to settle into a peaceful co-existence let alone a melting pot.

Lincoln didn't want to trample over or abuse anyone. He saw the transmigration scheme as a gentler way of allowing people to choose what they wanted. This idea caught him because he had seen how bad the relationship between the two groups was trending and that its history was uniformly dire. As he continued in his Presidency, Lincoln came around to the idea that there WAS hope afterall, and that the transmigration scheme had too many problems. So he then effectively opposed the idea the rest of the way.

I get what Cack is saying, and generally agree with him on everything. This one is, however, VERY historically subtle, and, in an age totally lacking in subtlety, NEEDS the historian's touch. We won't get that Wisdom Touch. "Overthrowing Lincoln statues" is a real hot-take error for this culture. No one's perfect. No one should be forbidden to evolve. No one can survive "One strike and you're out." This smacks to me as the product of ego-strutters prancing their new-found "media-might" just because they can do it. I'm not a defender of the Bastions of Conservatism, but I'll defend Lincoln.

reps and good post. i almost went down some that path, but didn't have the energy to go confirm what I though I remembers.

I'd point out that several abolitionists like John Brown Russwurm supported the return to Africa plan and groups like the ACS.

As to the comments about needing a timeline and historian's touch, bingo.

 

[Irish#1]

Don't have the health or energy to re-research this, but did do it once. Lincoln is about as clean as it gets on the slavery issue, especially as he matured in his Presidential power. This issue BADLY needs a timeline. That timeline will show Lincoln going through a phase where he could not see a solution. There were people pushing for emancipation followed by not a simple deportation but rather a strongly facilitated project to allow any black person to return to Africa if they wanted to. Lincoln thought that in the large majority they WOULD want to, and in his eyes at that moment he felt that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for the two groups to settle into a peaceful co-existence let alone a melting pot.

Lincoln didn't want to trample over or abuse anyone. He saw the transmigration scheme as a gentler way of allowing people to choose what they wanted. This idea caught him because he had seen how bad the relationship between the two groups was trending and that its history was uniformly dire. As he continued in his Presidency, Lincoln came around to the idea that there WAS hope afterall, and that the transmigration scheme had too many problems. So he then effectively opposed the idea the rest of the way.

I get what Cack is saying, and generally agree with him on everything. This one is, however, VERY historically subtle, and, in an age totally lacking in subtlety, NEEDS the historian's touch. We won't get that Wisdom Touch. "Overthrowing Lincoln statues" is a real hot-take error for this culture. No one's perfect. No one should be forbidden to evolve. No one can survive "One strike and you're out." This smacks to me as the product of ego-strutters prancing their new-found "media-might" just because they can do it. I'm not a defender of the Bastions of Conservatism, but I'll defend Lincoln.

Spot on.. The problem today is if the historical figure didn't fit the model you have, they must have been evil. So sad.

 

[NorthDakota]

Rationalize it anyway you want - this is straight up dumb. Love the irony of the anti-God crowd holding literally every person ever to have existed to being purer than Jesus Christ - or get cancelled. Happy Days was never the same after the Fonz jumped that shark. Go ahead and give them Lincoln. Melt all pennies and give me all your fivers for safe disposal.

That's the thing, it's dumb. I dont have a problem with people deciding that Lincoln wasn't some amazing and perfect dude. But if you go after Lincoln, tear down statues, rename schools, etc, the end result is naming schools in large cities "Public High School #X." If Abraham Lincoln is too controversial, there really isn't anyone who will be able to pass these tests.

 

[NDRock]

Most people think slavery was totally outlawed in the North during the early 1800's, but that's not so in many cases. They generally took the approach highlighted above. Those already enslaved remained so, those born afterwards were emancipated at 18, and no new slaves could be created. Several northern states, including Ohio, New York and New Jersey still had a few elderly slaves at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation.

I’ve lived in the south long enough (my whole life) to know when you start talking Civil War someone is going to come back with “the North had some slaves”. You also get the occasional “some black folks owned slaves”.

 

[NDRock]

That's the thing, it's dumb. I dont have a problem with people deciding that Lincoln wasn't some amazing and perfect dude. But if you go after Lincoln, tear down statues, rename schools, etc, the end result is naming schools in large cities "Public High School #X." If Abraham Lincoln is too controversial, there really isn't anyone who will be able to pass these tests.

I agree that it’s crazy but if that’s what the community/state wants to do, more power to them. I just choose to live in a community that fits with my life. If it didn’t, I guess I’d leave. Seems like lots of people are making that choice in certain states.

 

[Irishize]

reps and good post. i almost went down some that path, but didn't have the energy to go confirm what I though I remembers.

I'd point out that several abolitionists like John Brown Russwurm supported the return to Africa plan and groups like the ACS.

As to the comments about needing a timeline and historian's touch, bingo.

Everyone overlooked the most obvious point....Lincoln was murdered by a southerner who was pro-slavery & pro-Confederate.

 

[Irish YJ]

Everyone overlooked the most obvious point....Lincoln was murdered by a southerner who was pro-slavery & pro-Confederate.

Yes, and there is that small fact.. lol

I agree that it’s crazy but if that’s what the community/state wants to do, more power to them. I just choose to live in a community that fits with my life. If it didn’t, I guess I’d leave. Seems like lots of people are making that choice in certain states.

That's the issue. It's likely not OK with many in the community. It's catering to the woke dumbasses, which is likely the extreme woke school board, or some loud few people in local power. Cali has enough people moving away because of taxes and dumb shit like this. So sure, live where you're comfortable, but what about some guy or family who can't afford to uproot and move.

Continued dumbass stuff like this only throws gas on an already divided country, and drives people further apart. When some dumb ass extreme redneck decides to do something violent in protest, the extreme loving media will just be outraged, and the the extreme woke folks will continue to push the envelope, causing extremes on the other side to more dumb shit.

I’ve lived in the south long enough (my whole life) to know when you start talking Civil War someone is going to come back with “the North had some slaves”. You also get the occasional “some black folks owned slaves”.

It's not "some". If you know your history, plenty in the N were fine with slavery. The south just had the majority of resistance because of agricultural labor. Revisionists like to act like everyone magically turned against slavery by stepping across some magical latitude.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Don't have the health or energy to re-research this, but did do it once. Lincoln is about as clean as it gets on the slavery issue, especially as he matured in his Presidential power. This issue BADLY needs a timeline. That timeline will show Lincoln going through a phase where he could not see a solution. There were people pushing for emancipation followed by not a simple deportation but rather a strongly facilitated project to allow any black person to return to Africa if they wanted to. Lincoln thought that in the large majority they WOULD want to, and in his eyes at that moment he felt that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for the two groups to settle into a peaceful co-existence let alone a melting pot.

Lincoln didn't want to trample over or abuse anyone. He saw the transmigration scheme as a gentler way of allowing people to choose what they wanted. This idea caught him because he had seen how bad the relationship between the two groups was trending and that its history was uniformly dire. As he continued in his Presidency, Lincoln came around to the idea that there WAS hope afterall, and that the transmigration scheme had too many problems. So he then effectively opposed the idea the rest of the way.

I get what Cack is saying, and generally agree with him on everything. This one is, however, VERY historically subtle, and, in an age totally lacking in subtlety, NEEDS the historian's touch. We won't get that Wisdom Touch. "Overthrowing Lincoln statues" is a real hot-take error for this culture. No one's perfect. No one should be forbidden to evolve. No one can survive "One strike and you're out." This smacks to me as the product of ego-strutters prancing their new-found "media-might" just because they can do it. I'm not a defender of the Bastions of Conservatism, but I'll defend Lincoln.

Thanks OMM. As always you are much more elegant in your discourse than I. It’s definitely a very grey issue like most things in history. I also will defend Lincoln but it’s worthy of understanding how others view him to. Like for me, I was raised in a pro confederacy state and family. I was taught history by multiple teachers who called the a civil war the War of Northern Aggression and thought Lincoln absolutely overstepped his authority. If I hadn’t actually sought out to learn about Lincoln on my own I might be a son of the CSA displaying a traitorous flag on my front porch like several of my family members.

While I am not in favor of the cancel culture I have no problems a with the removal of statues of people that do not reflect the nature of this country. We certainly wouldn’t tolerate a statue of BinLaden to go up or that of Goebbels. I mean to say that if a statue was erected to honor a person who believes this:

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be

. Then I whole heartedly support destroying such monuments to immorality.

I could give a dissertation on Confederate revivalism via public monuments and the rejuvenation of the CSA flag during the early 20th century.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I’ve lived in the south long enough (my whole life) to know when you start talking Civil War someone is going to come back with “the North had some slaves”. You also get the occasional “some black folks owned slaves”.

Yeah it’s pretty much a given way to process their dissonance. I can provide some real gems of quotes on slavery by southerners that will hurt your soul.

 

[Irish YJ]

Thanks OMM. As always you are much more elegant in your discourse than I. It’s definitely a very grey issue like most things in history. I also will defend Lincoln but it’s worthy of understanding how others view him to. Like for me, I was raised in a pro confederacy state and family. I was taught history by multiple teachers who called the a civil war the War of Northern Aggression and thought Lincoln absolutely overstepped his authority. If I hadn’t actually sought out to learn about Lincoln on my own I might be a son of the CSA displaying a traitorous flag on my front porch like several of my family members.

While I am not in favor of the cancel culture I have no problems a with the removal of statues of people that do not reflect the nature of this country. We certainly wouldn’t tolerate a statue of BinLaden to go up or that of Goebbels. I mean to say that if a statue was erected to honor a person who believes this:
. Then I whole heartedly support destroying such monuments to immorality.

I could give a dissertation on Confederate revivalism via public monuments and the rejuvenation of the CSA flag during the early 20th century.

True story. As you know Cack, I was born a Yankee. I moved south only because I married an African American grill from GA. We both worked for the same very large corp. I took a more or less a demotion to transfer and my new boss was a wonderful older white lady that my wife knew and adored. My new boss was about the most polite, proper, kind, giving, etc human being I'd ever met.

Her, my wife, and I both participated in many company groups (diversity, charitable, etc), one being one of a few AA groups. I became good friends with her (later became her boss, and hired her as I jumped up the ladder), and my wife and I had her over to our house and vice versa. Found out sometime in year two or so that she was a member of the Daughters of Confederacy. I had zero idea what that was. It came out and may folks that didn't know her looked at her different. The folks that did know her (including AAs) thought nothing of it. She continued serving the diversity groups and role modeled the various causes.

Still doesn't compute to me to this day. She was one of the most accepting people I've ever known. I asked her about it in later years, and she said the DotC had zero to do with slavery, prejudice, etc. She said sure there are assholes everywhere (she didn't use that word, too proper), but nobody in her group or chapter was like that. IDK.... I think her daughter (smart, well educated, etc.. I saw her grow up) dated or even married an AA.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

True story. As you know Cack, I was born a Yankee. I moved south only because I married an African American grill from GA. We both worked for the same very large corp. I took a more or less a demotion to transfer and my new boss was a wonderful older white lady that my wife knew and adored. My new boss was about the most polite, proper, kind, giving, etc human being I'd ever met.

Her, my wife, and I both participated in many company groups (diversity, charitable, etc), one being one of a few AA groups. I became good friends with her (later became her boss, and hired her as I jumped up the ladder), and my wife and I had her over to our house and vice versa. Found out sometime in year two or so that she was a member of the Daughters of Confederacy. I had zero idea what that was. It came out and may folks that didn't know her looked at her different. The folks that did know her (including AAs) thought nothing of it. She continued serving the diversity groups and role modeled the various causes.

Still doesn't compute to me to this day. She was one of the most accepting people I've ever known. I asked her about it in later years, and she said the DotC had zero to do with slavery, prejudice, etc. She said sure there are assholes everywhere (she didn't use that word, too proper), but nobody in her group or chapter was like that. IDK.... I think her daughter (smart, well educated, etc.. I saw her grow up) dated or even married an AA.

This is a nice anecdote. I’m not really concerned or swayed by one woman in Atlanta. The Dons and Duaghters of the Confederacy were born out of the revivalism I mentioned earlier and they are solely based on honoring the Confederacy and the families that fought against the US. The organizations have become more activist over time and now are very much the major ones making all the noise about the monuments. It’s a very interesting history and organization but their goals are fairly straightforward. Defending and honoring those who fought for the Lost Cause which is a revisionist history and interpretation of the Civil War promotes during revivalist periods in the South.

 

[Irish YJ]

This is a nice anecdote. I’m not really concerned or swayed by one woman in Atlanta. The Dons and Duaghters of the Confederacy were born out of the revivalism I mentioned earlier and they are solely based on honoring the Confederacy and the families that fought against the US. The organizations have become more activist over time and now are very much the major ones making all the noise about the monuments. It’s a very interesting history and organization but their goals are fairly straightforward. Defending and honoring those who fought for the Lost Cause which is a revisionist history and interpretation of the Civil War promotes during revivalist periods in the South.

Nice anecdote = doesn't matter. I base my belief system on life experience, not political movements pushed by extremes. The reason why you and I end up on opposite ends of debates, yet have many fundament core beliefs, is because you have a black/white view, and generally ignore the grey.

There was a great segment on I believe the history channel 10 or so years back. Pretty sure it was called Brother against Brother. Covered a lot of stuff from the civil war. They had all kinds of stuff on their website, like letters, historical docs, etc. I read like 30 or more of the letters which were more or less letters to mom or dad from soldiers who had family members fighting on both sides of the war.

What was interesting, is that none mentioned slavery, etc.. There were several themes, but most were simply keeping the country together vs state's rights, anti federalism, or simple Yankee hate. Why were these void of talk about keeping slavery? Because most that fought were poor, didn't own slaves, and perhaps were rallied by state pride (that used to be a thing) or simply dislike of slick northerners. You chalk that up that up to revisionism.. Again, lots of grey, not black/white.

As far as statues, I really don't care if they come down. But they shouldn't be torn down by mobs. There should be dialog, and if the majority want them down, great. Many see them as history, not some symbol or call for a revival. Sure some see them that way, but they are the very few. It's just like Seattle's Marx statue. Many see one thing, others see something different. Others just don't care. Those that topple without dialog and due process are breaking the law pure and simple. But the woke will make any excuse to excuse simple lawlessness. And those extreme actions, cause a reaction from the opposite extremes. It's a never ending cycle surrounding the sensible folks in the middle. The middle folks need to tell both extremes sides to shut the fuck up, but it's what media and politicians live on, so stupidity goes on.

 

[NorthDakota]

This is a nice anecdote. I’m not really concerned or swayed by one woman in Atlanta. The Dons and Duaghters of the Confederacy were born out of the revivalism I mentioned earlier and they are solely based on honoring the Confederacy and the families that fought against the US. The organizations have become more activist over time and now are very much the major ones making all the noise about the monuments. It’s a very interesting history and organization but their goals are fairly straightforward. Defending and honoring those who fought for the Lost Cause which is a revisionist history and interpretation of the Civil War promotes during revivalist periods in the South.

Imagine getting butthurt about people honoring their ancestors fighting a war 150+ years ago. Lol.

Something tells me Cack does not focus on the roots of organizations he either supports or is indifferent to, such as Planned Parenthood.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Imagine getting butthurt about people honoring their ancestors fighting a war 150+ years ago. Lol.

Something tells me Cack does not focus on the roots of organizations he either supports or is indifferent to, such as Planned Parenthood.

As usual you would be wrong. I don’t condone abortion and I’ve never supported PP. I do support the right of others to make their own choices. God will judge them.

 

[Irish#1]

Like the statues or not, they are a result of the people who shaped this country to be the best country in the world regardless of the side of the fence you're on. This has allowed us to evolve and examine ourselves today. It's flat out wrong to judge those who preceded us 150 years ago, by today's standards. Tearing down statues doesn't solve anything or change the past. They should be a reminder of where we came from and how we got to who we are today so we don't relive it.

 

[greyhammer90]

I base my belief system on life experience, not political movements pushed by extremes. The reason why you and I end up on opposite ends of debates, yet have many fundament core beliefs, is because you have a black/white view, and generally ignore the grey.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Nice anecdote = doesn't matter. I base my belief system on life experience, not political movements pushed by extremes. The reason why you and I end up on opposite ends of debates, yet have many fundament core beliefs, is because you have a black/white view, and generally ignore the grey.

There was a great segment on I believe the history channel 10 or so years back. Pretty sure it was called Brother against Brother. Covered a lot of stuff from the civil war. They had all kinds of stuff on their website, like letters, historical docs, etc. I read like 30 or more of the letters which were more or less letters to mom or dad from soldiers who had family members fighting on both sides of the war.

What was interesting, is that none mentioned slavery, etc.. There were several themes, but most were simply keeping the country together vs state's rights, anti federalism, or simple Yankee hate. Why were these void of talk about keeping slavery? Because most that fought were poor, didn't own slaves, and perhaps were rallied by state pride (that used to be a thing) or simply dislike of slick northerners. You chalk that up that up to revisionism.. Again, lots of grey, not black/white.

As far as statues, I really don't care if they come down. But they shouldn't be torn down by mobs. There should be dialog, and if the majority want them down, great. Many see them as history, not some symbol or call for a revival. Sure some see them that way, but they are the very few. It's just like Seattle's Marx statue. Many see one thing, others see something different. Others just don't care. Those that topple without dialog and due process are breaking the law pure and simple. But the woke will make any excuse to excuse simple lawlessness. And those extreme actions, cause a reaction from the opposite extremes. It's a never ending cycle surrounding the sensible folks in the middle. The middle folks need to tell both extremes sides to shut the fuck up, but it's what media and politicians live on, so stupidity goes on.

Here is a compilation of the declaration of secession from Georgia, Mississippi, SC, Texas and Virginia. The first item listed in each of these states Immediate Causes is ..... SLAVERY. Each reason after that is a reason based on its impact to their slavery institutino ( economy, autonomy etc..). This isnt my opinion. This is their own published words. The reasons they saw fit to secede. This isnt grey. Its quite clear. Those making it grey do so intentionally and its an extension of the romanticization and whitewashing effected by the Lost Cause narrative.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

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. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

South Carolina
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

Texas
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

Virginia
THE SECESSION ORDINANCE.
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND TO RESUME ALL THE RIGHTS AND POWERS GRANTED UNDER SAID CONSTITUTION.

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Georgia


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. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

The Lost Cause is a revisionist version of history that has been muddled into American history and southern culture and it began during the revivalist period in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It also coincided with evangelical revival periods as well.

The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical,[1] negationist ideology that advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one. This ideology has furthered the belief that slavery was just and moral, because it brought economic prosperity. The notion was used to perpetuate racism and racist power structures during the Jim Crow era in the American South.[2] It emphasizes the supposed chivalric virtues of the antebellum South. It thus views the war as a struggle primarily waged to save the Southern way of life[3] and to protect "states' rights", especially the right to secede from the Union. It casts that attempt as faced with "overwhelming Northern aggression". At the same time, it minimizes or completely denies the central role of slavery and white supremacy in the build-up to, and outbreak of, the war.[2]

NDRock alluded to this in his post above. Its what southerners teach their children. Its in the history books. My history teachers referred to the CW directly and only as the "War of Northern Aggression" Its on the statues. Its in the placards on the statues. Its not true or accurate. Its what you are projecting here in the last few posts. The war happened becasue politicians made it happen. They didnt make it happen overnight. These were long term issues. I assume like most soldiers LiL Johhny GreyCoat didnt have a full understanding of why he was fighting. No did Joe Bluecoat. The statues don't honor specifically Lil Johhny Grey Coat or Joe Bluecoat. They honor the men who took us into sedition and open war over a immoral, evil thing and the men who fought dying for it.

 

[TorontoGold]

Like the statues or not, they are a result of the people who shaped this country to be the best country in the world regardless of the side of the fence you're on. This has allowed us to evolve and examine ourselves today. It's flat out wrong to judge those who preceded us 150 years ago, by today's standards. Tearing down statues doesn't solve anything or change the past. They should be a reminder of where we came from and how we got to who we are today so we don't relive it.

What do statues provide that a history textbook wouldn't? I also think the distinction between the statue being in the open vs a museum is important too.

My GF who grew up in Georgia has told me a couple of times there are some small boutique type museums with confederate era stuff and Klan memorabilia. If you put the stuff where the people who want to see it can go see it then fine, but if it's presence upsets people then don't have it out in the open.

 

[Legacy]

What do statues provide that a history textbook wouldn't? I also think the distinction between the statue being in the open vs a museum is important too.

My GF who grew up in Georgia has told me a couple of times there are some small boutique type museums with confederate era stuff and Klan memorabilia. If you put the stuff where the people who want to see it can go see it then fine, but if it's presence upsets people then don't have it out in the open.

That's where I'm at - Confederate statues belong in some museum and not prominently in the center of a town where slaves were auctioned off, for example, or blacks were hung. Teach children about this horrible time in our country's history and how all are God's children, equal in rights and respect not that some are an inferior race, as one can hear from some. Come to grips with the facts that the federal government can change the names of its bases named after white supremacists. Teach the morality this country was founded on.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Agree with that, Toronto and Legacy. What we seem not to be able to contend with is the issue of "How Many People does something have to upset for it to be sequestered away?" Is it down to a "democracy" vote? 51% vs 49%? Well, somehow that doesn't really seem the way to go.

The true stance would be an evaluation of the relative cultural "goodness" of whatever the item is, as placed as it is. Since no one trusts anyone else nowadays, and particularly don't trust intelligent people with contextual knowledge, we probably won't take that route either.

The other route would be to have state legislatures vote on everything. A colossal waste, especially since state legislators tend to be stone ignorant. My guess is that we will watch a continuing run of misplaced decision-making engineered by yahooism which does not really have our nation's cultural interests at heart.

We have a idealistically admirable national concept of concern for individuals which is manifest in many ways. Some of those ways some people relate to and like, while others, based on the same idealistic principles, they might even hate. ACLU comes to mind. So does NRA. So do the decades long focusing on Holocaust. You can name dozens of these "movements." For all of them it is certainly true that they should have SOME limits.

As an old prof, I value both historical perspective and analysis, and wish for a world wherein people realize that no one has a perfect record and no one has a perfect right. We, as citizens, DO have "perfect" responsibility to accept some compromises for the greater community good, but that seems the first concept tossed in the trash heap by most "moderns", including, too often, "debating non-discussions" right here.

 

[Irish#1]

What do statues provide that a history textbook wouldn't? I also think the distinction between the statue being in the open vs a museum is important too.

My GF who grew up in Georgia has told me a couple of times there are some small boutique type museums with confederate era stuff and Klan memorabilia. If you put the stuff where the people who want to see it can go see it then fine, but if it's presence upsets people then don't have it out in the open.

That's where I'm at - Confederate statues belong in some museum and not prominently in the center of a town where slaves were auctioned off, for example, or blacks were hung. Teach children about this horrible time in our country's history and how all are God's children, equal in rights and respect not that some are an inferior race, as one can hear from some. Come to grips with the facts that the federal government can change the names of its bases named after white supremacists. Teach the morality this country was founded on.

Statues don't provide anything more than a textbook, but textbooks are not out in the open as reminder. You have to go looking for them, so you're automatically eliminating everyone except those specifically looking for those books. If the trend continues you're going to see less and less taught in the schools.

I have no problem putting the statues in a park. When you start putting them away, you're basically trying to hide the past. If it upsets someone maybe that's a good thing. Helps strengthen their convictions to help bring about change. There is no race superior to another, but the morality this country was founded on included many prominent citizens that were slave owners.

OMM makes an excellent point with the Holocaust. No one tries to put it away somewhere. We shouldn't hide from it. We should embrace it and use it to make us all better.

 

[Irish YJ]

Be the cliché Grey...

I started out as a kid a dem, idolizing JFK, and had a Jimmy Carter peanut bank just like my grandfather who I worshiped. Both sides of my very large family were dems. My father, later in life, was the exception, but he had little impact on me. My uncle, who was in local politics, was a dem, and his brother was a dem mayor (before my time). I voted mostly dem in my early days, and belonged to a union while working my way through college, and for a few years after.

I switched to IND as life experience changed my views, and when dems started jumping the shark more and more. I suppose some of my commie professors had an impact on me, and made me start to revisit.. And I married a very staunch dem. The part of my family that were all in local politics, and were all dems back then, are 90% GOP now. My mother who was dem all her life, and voted both times for Obama, has switched.

I'm sure you've held strong... solid dem, just like MSDNC!

 

[Irish YJ]

Here is a compilation of the declaration of secession from Georgia, Mississippi, SC, Texas and Virginia. The first item listed in each of these states Immediate Causes is ..... SLAVERY. Each reason after that is a reason based on its impact to their slavery institutino ( economy, autonomy etc..). This isnt my opinion. This is their own published words. The reasons they saw fit to secede. This isnt grey. Its quite clear. Those making it grey do so intentionally and its an extension of the romanticization and whitewashing effected by the Lost Cause narrative.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states



The Lost Cause is a revisionist version of history that has been muddled into American history and southern culture and it began during the revivalist period in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It also coincided with evangelical revival periods as well.


NDRock alluded to this in his post above. Its what southerners teach their children. Its in the history books. My history teachers referred to the CW directly and only as the "War of Northern Aggression" Its on the statues. Its in the placards on the statues. Its not true or accurate. Its what you are projecting here in the last few posts. The war happened becasue politicians made it happen. They didnt make it happen overnight. These were long term issues. I assume like most soldiers LiL Johhny GreyCoat didnt have a full understanding of why he was fighting. No did Joe Bluecoat. The statues don't honor specifically Lil Johhny Grey Coat or Joe Bluecoat. They honor the men who took us into sedition and open war over a immoral, evil thing and the men who fought dying for it.

You're proving my point. You're looking at what politicians (and the wealthy) did, and what motivated them. vs what the average Joe did, and felt. But you condemn the Joes...

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

You're proving my point. You're looking at what politicians (and the wealthy) did, and what motivated them. vs what the average Joe did, and felt. But you condemn the Joes...

Not sure that I am??? I think every man has to justify his life everyday. Who know s what any individual thought on any given day. Doesn’t matter. They were doing what they though would benefit their states including their people. And their livelihood. It’s not like the average southern man was against the war. It was quite the opposite. They were able and willing to go and fight when called upon. Hell they were proud of it. They STILL are.

We send Soldiers all over the world to this day primarily to protect our interests but also to spread democracy . I’m sure the marines sent out there only want to serve their country as the feel its right yet it’s not like they can’t see what they are really doing may actually be harmful.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I am continually disappointed by how immediately "personalized" comments get framed on all these sorts of threads. I'm no guide to thread behavior, but FWIW I try not to label ideas with person's identifiers unless I'm praising/supporting/saying something "nice" about them. Otherwise it's guns-to-the-ramparts instantly almost regardless of merit. If I've failed, sincere apologies --- I too am an imperfect human.

Obviously I DO disagree vigorously with some ideas/opinions. In those instances I try to NOT label that disagreement with the "name" of the writer. I think that this is just "good form" as the Brits would say, and minimizes rubbing people's faces in anything, when the content of the discussion should take pre-eminence for attention. ... and I understand also that sometimes the discussion forces a very direct remark. Even then I'd prefer an opening like: "X, I understand where you are coming from, I just can't agree. Here's why, with respect ... "

I understand that this is not standard practice for sports sites talking smack and dumb jokes and ego-strutting --- OK to that. But these unusual threads that IE allows seem to deserve better. Culture --- Politics --- Elections --- COVID --- pretty big deals for the whole nation and each of our futures. I'm an idealist on this stuff; I taught my students to respect others and de-personalize their arguments and just maybe the discussants would then cool off just enough to meditate on what the other guy said.

 

[NorthDakota]

As usual you would be wrong. I don’t condone abortion and I’ve never supported PP. I do support the right of others to make their own choices. God will judge them.

I have yet to see any long rants from you condemning Planned Parenthood, but I have seen some very long posts doing a deep dive analysis of the reasons for secession and whining about...wait for it...the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy.

Again, you are proving my point. You don't care about whether an organization was or is racist as long as their larger body of work doesn't bother you.

 

[Irish YJ]

Not sure that I am??? I think every man has to justify his life everyday. Who know s what any individual thought on any given day. Doesn’t matter. They were doing what they though would benefit their states including their people. And their livelihood. It’s not like the average southern man was against the war. It was quite the opposite. They were able and willing to go and fight when called upon. Hell they were proud of it. They STILL are.

We send Soldiers all over the world to this day primarily to protect our interests but also to spread democracy . I’m sure the marines sent out there only want to serve their country as the feel its right yet it’s not like they can’t see what they are really doing may actually be harmful.

And yet you don't condemn all the soldiers (current day). You condemn the government for bad wars. I have very mixed thought about the VN war for instance, and I'm still very proud of my uncle who fought there. I don't condemn him.

 

[TorontoGold]

Statues don't provide anything more than a textbook, but textbooks are not out in the open as reminder. You have to go looking for them, so you're automatically eliminating everyone except those specifically looking for those books. If the trend continues you're going to see less and less taught in the schools.

I have no problem putting the statues in a park. When you start putting them away, you're basically trying to hide the past. If it upsets someone maybe that's a good thing. Helps strengthen their convictions to help bring about change. There is no race superior to another, but the morality this country was founded on included many prominent citizens that were slave owners.

OMM makes an excellent point with the Holocaust. No one tries to put it away somewhere. We shouldn't hide from it. We should embrace it and use it to make us all better.

Forcing kids to learn about their countries history should be mandatory. If anything there's been a push to have more controversial points in history textbooks. I'm curious why one side is pushing anti-intellectualism and saying kids these days don't want to learn about the past. Kinda tough to get your history lessons if it's purely at the high school level cuz university is commie hell.

Don't really need to have a statue of the history of the N-word to know it's bad. My knowledge of US confederate history is about nil but I remember reading something (I'll likely be corrected) that a bunch of confederate statues were put up much later than the civil war, which is completely different then say Auschwitz. No one is calling for a Hitler statue so we know he's bad.

 

[TorontoGold]

Cack, please list out all bad things ever, until such time you can't criticize anything else.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

smh... lo fucking l