Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy: Erasing Erhnocentrism".
God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along. That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other. The former would be so much more pleasant though.
Fuck Texas. Give it back to Mexico. Better yet, let it secede and then be taken over by Mexico. Why pay to dispose?
My thoughts on California as well!
Elected officials from California never publicly stated they should secede because a black man was elected president or that the AHCA passed.
Give me slaves or give me death! I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without.
well, thread integrity kinda says we're dealing with the traitors in the failed succession states.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy: Erasing Erhnocentrism".
God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along. That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other. The former would be so much more pleasant though.
Fuck Texas. Give it back to Mexico. Better yet, let it secede and then be taken over by Mexico. Why pay to dispose?
And strand Willie Nelson and and everyone else in Austin? I'll bet... no, I know there are many fine folks in other parts of Texas who are there because of work and/or family or whatever.
My wife went to San Antonio, TX not long ago to visit her aunt who is religious and took my wife to her mostly conservative republican Baptist church. (Not my wife's thing but she didn't want to be rude and say, "No".) She was quite surprised to find that this church is providing sanctuary for some immigrants. Imagine that!
With all due respect, H2M (and you know I do respect you), if we showed support and gave thanks for these kinds of positive actions, we could be part of bringing people together rather than saying fuck them, go to hell, etc.
Yes, I know, I'm awfully damn idealistic but so be it!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy: Erasing Erhnocentrism".
God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along. That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other. The former would be so much more pleasant though.
Fuck Texas. Give it back to Mexico. Better yet, let it secede and then be taken over by Mexico. Why pay to dispose?
My thoughts on California as well!
LOL. I don't know why I laugh. I guess I have to.
Born and raised and lived here most of my 66 years. California has been loved to death. Too many people have moved here, over-crowed the place, despoiled and trashed many of it's natural beautiful features and poisoned it with decades of fertilizer and herbicides.
I have had no children and made every effort to live as cleanly on the land base as possible so when others say "Fuck California" I have to laugh. Yes, it's been fucked, but by whom? Ah ha.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Give me slaves or give me death! I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without.
well, thread integrity kinda says we're dealing with the traitors in the failed succession
thread is about whitewashing history, you don't like playing pretend? pretend I'm a spouse wishing to leave a relationship because I like beating my child, Im not leaving my spouse because I'm beating my child I'm leaving because I'm being attacked by my spouse for beating my child. should I not fight back?
duly noted, you have joined the ranks and now are officially recognizes as lieutenant thread integrity officer.
Give me slaves or give me death! I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without.
well, thread integrity kinda says we're dealing with the traitors in the failed succession
thread is about whitewashing history, you don't like playing pretend? pretend I'm a spouse wishing to leave a relationship because I like beating my child, Im not leaving my spouse because I'm beating my child I'm leaving because I'm being attacked by my spouse for beating my child. should I not fight back?
duly noted, you have joined the ranks and now are officially recognizes as lieutenant thread integrity officer.
Did anyone suggest burning history books? What about eliminating Civil War classes? Is the only reason you know about the Magna Carta is because you saw a statue? Is that your only method of learning?
You're really terrible at debating... just the worst.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
Give me slaves or give me death! I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without.
well, thread integrity kinda says we're dealing with the traitors in the failed succession
thread is about whitewashing history, you don't like playing pretend? pretend I'm a spouse wishing to leave a relationship because I like beating my child, Im not leaving my spouse because I'm beating my child I'm leaving because I'm being attacked by my spouse for beating my child. should I not fight back?
duly noted, you have joined the ranks and now are officially recognizes as lieutenant thread integrity officer.
If you're beating your child, not you should not fight your spouse who is trying to stop you from doing that. You should turn yourself in or get some psychiatric help.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
it is ironic how a protest march by nazis/alt right racists/kkk in charlottesville to preserve confederate statues in public has now started a domino effect of just the opposite.
it is ironic how a protest march by nazis/alt right racists/kkk in charlottesville to preserve confederate statues in public has now started a domino effect of just the opposite.
When denial and avoidance is maintained for too long, the pendulum of humanity swings quickly.
Give me slaves or give me death! I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without.
well, thread integrity kinda says we're dealing with the traitors in the failed succession
thread is about whitewashing history, you don't like playing pretend? pretend I'm a spouse wishing to leave a relationship because I like beating my child, Im not leaving my spouse because I'm beating my child I'm leaving because I'm being attacked by my spouse for beating my child. should I not fight back?
duly noted, you have joined the ranks and now are officially recognizes as lieutenant thread integrity officer.
If you're beating your child, not you should not fight your spouse who is trying to stop you from doing that. You should turn yourself in or get some psychiatric help.
whats the phrase...causation false equalalence. beating my kid = slave owning BUT I'm not fighting back or defending beating my kid, I'm fighting back because I was attacked/invaded. If you look close enough there is a difference. it's minute but it's there and very easily misrepresented/spun. Free spun Saturday!
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
Give me slaves or give me death! I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without.
well, thread integrity kinda says we're dealing with the traitors in the failed succession
thread is about whitewashing history, you don't like playing pretend? pretend I'm a spouse wishing to leave a relationship because I like beating my child, Im not leaving my spouse because I'm beating my child I'm leaving because I'm being attacked by my spouse for beating my child. should I not fight back?
duly noted, you have joined the ranks and now are officially recognizes as lieutenant thread integrity officer.
If you're beating your child, not you should not fight your spouse who is trying to stop you from doing that. You should turn yourself in or get some psychiatric help.
whats the phrase...causation false equalalence. beating my kid = slave owning BUT I'm not fighting back or defending beating my kid, I'm fighting back because I was attacked/invaded. If you look close enough there is a difference. it's minute but it's there and very easily misrepresented/spun. Free spun Saturday!
The Confederacy: Erasing Equalalence
Spin spin!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,708
Give me slaves or give me death! I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without.
well, thread integrity kinda says we're dealing with the traitors in the failed succession
thread is about whitewashing history, you don't like playing pretend? pretend I'm a spouse wishing to leave a relationship because I like beating my child, Im not leaving my spouse because I'm beating my child I'm leaving because I'm being attacked by my spouse for beating my child. should I not fight back?
duly noted, you have joined the ranks and now are officially recognizes as lieutenant thread integrity officer.
umm, isnt the when and why of these monuments a whitewashing of history to begin with?
now I propsed over on adbook that maybe another way is to move most from public prominence, say from courthouses and town squares, to someplace more conducive to a history lesson. then you add a series of plaques or markers with the facts of just who they really were and how these men lived, before during and after the war.
with any art you let the viewer decide what it means.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,708
Is it still okay to venerate George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? The president's stand for the Confederate hero represents the kind of moral relativism that conservatives usually decry. By David A. Bell
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln said: “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality.” Woodrow Wilson was a staunch segregationist. All of them held the highest office in a nation that denied women the right to vote until 1920 and denied gays and lesbians the right to marry until 2015. Should we, as a country, still be honoring these men today?
That’s the question that we’ve grappled with, anew, since Saturday’s tragic events in Charlottesville and President Trump’s subsequent response, but it’s not a new one. Two years ago, students at Princeton University, where I teach, occupied the college president’s office to demand that the name of Wilson — our most famous alumnus and a former Princeton president — be removed from our school of public policy and international relations and an undergraduate housing complex. This year, Yale University announced that it would rename a residential college named for Vice President John C. Calhoun, a fervent defender of slavery.
It is easy to take the position that Trump did, effectively, on Wednesday, when he tweeted, “Can’t change history, but you can learn from it. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson — who’s next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish!” After all, the argument goes, weren’t these iconic figures simply men of their time? Weren’t their opinions and practices entirely ordinary for their social and political milieus? By the same logic, Trump implies, we should still respect the memory of figures like Gen. Robert E. Lee, the statue of whom the Charlottesville City Council recently voted to remove. Indeed, in an NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll released Wednesday, 62 percent of respondents said statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should remain as historical symbols.
But Trump’s rationale falls short for two reasons.
First, while slavery may have been utterly ordinary in Washington’s time, and overt racial discrimination equally commonplace in Lincoln’s and Wilson’s, neither was universally defended at the time. Even in the 18th century, for those with ears to hear, numerous voices were making reasoned, impassioned cases against slavery. If a prominent American revolutionary like Benjamin Rush — friend of John Adams and signer of the Declaration of Independence — could conclude that slavery was a direct violation of the laws of nature and religion, why not Washington or Jefferson?
Second, the argument that these men were just men of their time is an example of something that political conservatives otherwise generally profess to loathe: moral relativism. The idea that different standards of truth and morality may obtain in different times and places. Few people in the United States today would defend the practice of female circumcision, for instance, even though it is entirely ordinary in some parts of the world. Most people would say that no matter how customary, or perhaps even virtuous, this practice may seem to its adherents, it is, in fact, an affront to human dignity and human rights. Was slavery any less of an affront? No.
In the end, if we are to have any confidence in our own moral standards, we must believe that these standards are universally applicable, across time and space. And so, we must be ready to criticize figures in the past for attitudes and practices we consider abhorrent. If our moral standards are to have any meaning, then they don’t simply apply because we believe in them. They apply because they are right.
Yes, we also need to acknowledge that an overly rigid application of this principle would soon leave us with very little history to honor and celebrate, because few, if any, prominent figures of the past lived up to the moral standards of 21st-century Americans. Taken to the extreme, it would, indeed, mean tearing down the Washington Monument, and perhaps even the Lincoln Memorial.
But countries need their history. They need heroes and leaders to venerate, to inspire new generations, and to act as a source of unity. National unity can be a very fragile thing, as Americans today know all too well. Revolutionary movements have sometimes tried to consign their national pasts to the dustbin of history and to start over. The French revolutionaries famously introduced a new calendar, numbering the years from the birth of the French republic in 1792 and condemning nearly all of what came before as darkness, feudalism and superstition, unworthy of veneration. It didn’t work. Such attempts at erasure go against the deeply human need to feel a connection with the past.
The conflict, then, is one between two principles. On one hand, we should not honor people who did things and held beliefs that were morally objectionable. On the other, we need a common history we can take pride in as a nation. It is a conflict that cannot be resolved with cheap sound bites of the sort uttered by the president and his backers this week. They can be resolved only with careful, reasoned judgments, backed up by logic and evidence.
When it comes to particular figures in the past, such judgments involve, above all, looking carefully at their entire historical record. In the case of Washington, it involves weighing his role as a slave owner against his role as a heroic commander in chief, as an immensely popular political leader who resisted the temptation to become anything more than a republican chief executive, and who brought the country together around the new Constitution. Calhoun, by contrast, devoted his political career above all to the defense of slavery. The distinction between the two is not difficult to make.
Lee’s case is clear-cut. Whatever admirable personal qualities he may have had, he was also a man who took up arms against his country in defense of an evil institution. In my view, he doesn’t deserve to be honored in any fashion.
There are many historical figures in the American past whose overall record is complex, difficult and deeply ambiguous — Wilson comes to mind. But reasonable people can come to different judgments about them. Accepting the need for a past we can take pride in also imposes on us the duty to take history seriously.
We must always be ready to go back to the sources, to read, think and discuss. Our history is neither a monstrosity to be exorcised nor an altar to worship at. It is the record of the actions of millions of imperfect human beings. Deciding whom to honor and whom to condemn in this record requires more than 140 characters. It requires serious thought and discussion. As citizens today, that’s what we owe to the past.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I agree with the Post opinion writer. Jefferson and Washington were flawed. There's no debating that. But they aren't defined by their slave ownership or defense of it. Lee, Jeff Davis, etc. all took up arms for the defense of the enslavement of part of God's creation. There can be no Christian or moral defense of it. The line between the two is bright.
Rename them? shouldn't we tear them down? let's start in the ivy league with Brown.
How about if there's a problem with the name just anagram it and use the money saved from rebuilding or tearing down to improve educational materials and such.
Robert E. Lee High School becomes Bro Lee Tree High (has a nice ring to it, huh?) and the kids get a better education.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Rename them? shouldn't we tear them down? let's start in the ivy league with Brown.
How about if there's a problem with the name just anagram it and use the money saved from rebuilding or tearing down to improve educational materials and such.
Robert E. Lee High School becomes Bro Lee Tree High (has a nice ring to it, huh?) and the kids get a better education.
Seems logical, I'll compromise on the renaming but not on Brown U. Brown U must come down. Maybe I'm still upset over the rejection but if I had known it was literally built by slaves I would have never applied.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
Rename them? shouldn't we tear them down? let's start in the ivy league with Brown.
How about if there's a problem with the name just anagram it and use the money saved from rebuilding or tearing down to improve educational materials and such.
Robert E. Lee High School becomes Bro Lee Tree High (has a nice ring to it, huh?) and the kids get a better education.
Seems logical, I'll compromise on the renaming but not on Brown U. Brown U must come down. Maybe I'm still upset over the rejection but if I had known it was literally built by slaves I would have never applied.
Interesting, I didn't know that. Looked into it and found this:
"The Brown report is the latest revelation that Northern businesses and
institutions benefited from slavery. Countless other institutions might
be surprised, and ashamed, if they dug deeply into their pasts as Brown
has over the past three years."
But rather than the high cost of tearing it down, how about these suggestions?:
" The committee makes sensible recommendations — creating a center for
the study of slavery and injustice, rewriting Brown’s history to
acknowledge the role of slavery, creating a memorial to the slave trade
in Rhode Island, and recruiting more minority students. Other proposals
are more problematic. But the value of this exercise was to illuminate a
history that had been “largely erased from the collective memory of our
university and state."
Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy: Erasing Erhnocentrism".
God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along. That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other. The former would be so much more pleasant though.
Fuck Texas. Give it back to Mexico. Better yet, let it secede and then be taken over by Mexico. Why pay to dispose?
And strand Willie Nelson and and everyone else in Austin? I'll bet... no, I know there are many fine folks in other parts of Texas who are there because of work and/or family or whatever.
My wife went to San Antonio, TX not long ago to visit her aunt who is religious and took my wife to her mostly conservative republican Baptist church. (Not my wife's thing but she didn't want to be rude and say, "No".) She was quite surprised to find that this church is providing sanctuary for some immigrants. Imagine that!
With all due respect, H2M (and you know I do respect you), if we showed support and gave thanks for these kinds of positive actions, we could be part of bringing people together rather than saying fuck them, go to hell, etc.
Yes, I know, I'm awfully damn idealistic but so be it!
Nah. H2M is right. Texas sucks.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy: Erasing Erhnocentrism".
God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along. That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other. The former would be so much more pleasant though.
Fuck Texas. Give it back to Mexico. Better yet, let it secede and then be taken over by Mexico. Why pay to dispose?
And strand Willie Nelson and and everyone else in Austin? I'll bet... no, I know there are many fine folks in other parts of Texas who are there because of work and/or family or whatever.
My wife went to San Antonio, TX not long ago to visit her aunt who is religious and took my wife to her mostly conservative republican Baptist church. (Not my wife's thing but she didn't want to be rude and say, "No".) She was quite surprised to find that this church is providing sanctuary for some immigrants. Imagine that!
With all due respect, H2M (and you know I do respect you), if we showed support and gave thanks for these kinds of positive actions, we could be part of bringing people together rather than saying fuck them, go to hell, etc.
Yes, I know, I'm awfully damn idealistic but so be it!
Nah. H2M is right. Texas sucks.
Why sure, Smellyman. Sucks and inhales.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy: Erasing Erhnocentrism".
God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along. That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other. The former would be so much more pleasant though.
Fuck Texas. Give it back to Mexico. Better yet, let it secede and then be taken over by Mexico. Why pay to dispose?
And strand Willie Nelson and and everyone else in Austin? I'll bet... no, I know there are many fine folks in other parts of Texas who are there because of work and/or family or whatever.
My wife went to San Antonio, TX not long ago to visit her aunt who is religious and took my wife to her mostly conservative republican Baptist church. (Not my wife's thing but she didn't want to be rude and say, "No".) She was quite surprised to find that this church is providing sanctuary for some immigrants. Imagine that!
With all due respect, H2M (and you know I do respect you), if we showed support and gave thanks for these kinds of positive actions, we could be part of bringing people together rather than saying fuck them, go to hell, etc.
Yes, I know, I'm awfully damn idealistic but so be it!
Rename them? shouldn't we tear them down? let's start in the ivy league with Brown.
How about if there's a problem with the name just anagram it and use the money saved from rebuilding or tearing down to improve educational materials and such.
Robert E. Lee High School becomes Bro Lee Tree High (has a nice ring to it, huh?) and the kids get a better education.
Seems logical, I'll compromise on the renaming but not on Brown U. Brown U must come down. Maybe I'm still upset over the rejection but if I had known it was literally built by slaves I would have never applied.
Interesting, I didn't know that. Looked into it and found this:
"The Brown report is the latest revelation that Northern businesses and
institutions benefited from slavery. Countless other institutions might
be surprised, and ashamed, if they dug deeply into their pasts as Brown
has over the past three years."
But rather than the high cost of tearing it down, how about these suggestions?:
" The committee makes sensible recommendations — creating a center for
the study of slavery and injustice, rewriting Brown’s history to
acknowledge the role of slavery, creating a memorial to the slave trade
in Rhode Island, and recruiting more minority students. Other proposals
are more problematic. But the value of this exercise was to illuminate a
history that had been “largely erased from the collective memory of our
university and state."
can we add this: the contributions in the form of slave donating from the founders of Brown U will be vacated and any and all records of contribution amounts that exist will no longer reflect the fair market value of contributions in the form of slave donations and/or slave assistance.
This is can of worms opening, this might be what Trump was referring to when he said something to the effect, but where does it end.
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
I truly 100% wish I could agree because it sure seems on the surface that was what the civil war was about and slavery in America is one of our vilest historical characteristics but the fact is, the North was also complicit in and profited from slavery. Of course this does not mean I endorse slavery or justify the south for being more involved with slavery but many do tend to glorify the Union's involvement in the Civil War while they vilify the South. Many would agree though with the notion that neither side was pure in its motives. It's not as simple as black and white.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
I truly 100% wish I could agree because it sure seems on the surface that was what the civil war was about and slavery in America is one of our vilest historical characteristics but the fact is, the North was also complicit in and profited from slavery. Of course this does not mean I endorse slavery or justify the south for being more involved with slavery but many do tend to glorify the Union's involvement in the Civil War while they vilify the South. Many would agree though with the notion that neither side was pure in its motives. It's not as simple as black and white.
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
I truly 100% wish I could agree because it sure seems on the surface that was what the civil war was about and slavery in America is one of our vilest historical characteristics but the fact is, the North was also complicit in and profited from slavery. Of course this does not mean I endorse slavery or justify the south for being more involved with slavery but many do tend to glorify the Union's involvement in the Civil War while they vilify the South. Many would agree though with the notion that neither side was pure in its motives. It's not as simple as black and white.
Oh, I am not suggesting that the South was solely complicit in slavery. That doesn't change the fact that all things that the Civil War was about boiled down to slavery though. Those are really two different topics. I figure whether or not it ends up "vilifying" the South is irrelevant to the facts. That is a purely emotional consideration. I personally have no interest in attempting to be PC about the moral positions of the day. It just is what it is. What I care about is what's happening NOW. And commemorating the Confederacy now is plain wrong IMO, given that the South did indeed FIGHT that war in order to maintain slavery and all the things that stemmed from it, while the North fought against that position. What folks in the north did outside of that as far as slavery goes was often heinous, and many Northerners still supported slavery, but that isn't the point. I mean, there were tons of allied soldiers and leaders who hated Jews and gays, et al too, but that doesn't change how we view Nazis, right?
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,691
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
I truly 100% wish I could agree because it sure seems on the surface that was what the civil war was about and slavery in America is one of our vilest historical characteristics but the fact is, the North was also complicit in and profited from slavery. Of course this does not mean I endorse slavery or justify the south for being more involved with slavery but many do tend to glorify the Union's involvement in the Civil War while they vilify the South. Many would agree though with the notion that neither side was pure in its motives. It's not as simple as black and white.
Oh, I am not suggesting that the South was solely complicit in slavery. That doesn't change the fact that all things that the Civil War was about boiled down to slavery though. Those are really two different topics. I figure whether or not it ends up "vilifying" the South is irrelevant to the facts. That is a purely emotional consideration. I personally have no interest in attempting to be PC about the moral positions of the day. It just is what it is. What I care about is what's happening NOW. And commemorating the Confederacy now is plain wrong IMO, given that the South did indeed FIGHT that war in order to maintain slavery and all the things that stemmed from it, while the North fought against that position. What folks in the north did outside of that as far as slavery goes was often heinous, and many Northerners still supported slavery, but that isn't the point. I mean, there were tons of allied soldiers and leaders who hated Jews and gays, et al too, but that doesn't change how we view Nazis, right?
Nor is it how we view Germans today. They weren't all Nazis then, they certainly aren't all Nazis now. What we are seeing today in many quarters is a massive vilification of the South and all those who live there, as if they are all racists. There is far to much racism in America still, both north and south. But if we alienate our southern members, will that decrease racism? I don't think so.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I agree. The Civil War was totally about slavery at the end of the day, because all else depending on perpetuating that "economic system" as well as the society that essentially revolved around that system of slavery in pretty much every way.
I truly 100% wish I could agree because it sure seems on the surface that was what the civil war was about and slavery in America is one of our vilest historical characteristics but the fact is, the North was also complicit in and profited from slavery. Of course this does not mean I endorse slavery or justify the south for being more involved with slavery but many do tend to glorify the Union's involvement in the Civil War while they vilify the South. Many would agree though with the notion that neither side was pure in its motives. It's not as simple as black and white.
Oh, I am not suggesting that the South was solely complicit in slavery. That doesn't change the fact that all things that the Civil War was about boiled down to slavery though. Those are really two different topics. I figure whether or not it ends up "vilifying" the South is irrelevant to the facts. That is a purely emotional consideration. I personally have no interest in attempting to be PC about the moral positions of the day. It just is what it is. What I care about is what's happening NOW. And commemorating the Confederacy now is plain wrong IMO, given that the South did indeed FIGHT that war in order to maintain slavery and all the things that stemmed from it, while the North fought against that position. What folks in the north did outside of that as far as slavery goes was often heinous, and many Northerners still supported slavery, but that isn't the point. I mean, there were tons of allied soldiers and leaders who hated Jews and gays, et al too, but that doesn't change how we view Nazis, right?
Nor is it how we view Germans today. They weren't all Nazis then, they certainly aren't all Nazis now. What we are seeing today in many quarters is a massive vilification of the South and all those who live there, as if they are all racists. There is far to much racism in America still, both north and south. But if we alienate our southern members, will that decrease racism? I don't think so.
Sure... but nothing I've said suggests that every person in the South should be vilified as racists..... I'm just talking about keeping around monuments that commemorate an army that fought for keeping slavery around. Frankly, I really don't give a shit about Southerners who claim not to be racist, who claim to care about the racial problem in American, but still think those monuments are still a valid commemoration and who don't understand why it's not appropriate. I figure racists and those who refuse to acknowledge the harm of glorifying the Confederacy probably ought to be alienated; the alternative would be to what? Accept their point of view? I don't think most think that accepting latent racism is an option. I don't think anyone intends to vilify or alienate Southerners who "get it". I would imagine that those who do understand where everyone else is coming from. Anyway, what's basically happening is that people are finally "calling out" the South for its bullshit. Does that decrease racism today? Maybe, maybe not. Will it decrease racism and affect gradual change moving forward into the future? Quite possibly. That is the goal I think, and not to pacify those who are offended because they want to cling to their precious glorification of General Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and their glorious Confederate flag. America has been coddling these people for long enough IMO, and all that did was entrench their attitudes. I feel like America is ready for an actual shake up here, not more pandering and gentle coaxing. That obviously hasn't been working at all, especially not with Trump in office.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
well, thread integrity kinda says we're dealing with the traitors in the failed succession states.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
My wife went to San Antonio, TX not long ago to visit her aunt who is religious and took my wife to her mostly conservative republican Baptist church. (Not my wife's thing but she didn't want to be rude and say, "No".) She was quite surprised to find that this church is providing sanctuary for some immigrants. Imagine that!
With all due respect, H2M (and you know I do respect you), if we showed support and gave thanks for these kinds of positive actions, we could be part of bringing people together rather than saying fuck them, go to hell, etc.
Yes, I know, I'm awfully damn idealistic but so be it!
Born and raised and lived here most of my 66 years. California has been loved to death. Too many people have moved here, over-crowed the place, despoiled and trashed many of it's natural beautiful features and poisoned it with decades of fertilizer and herbicides.
I have had no children and made every effort to live as cleanly on the land base as possible so when others say "Fuck California" I have to laugh. Yes, it's been fucked, but by whom? Ah ha.
pretend I'm a spouse wishing to leave a relationship because I like beating my child, Im not leaving my spouse because I'm beating my child I'm leaving because I'm being attacked by my spouse for beating my child. should I not fight back?
duly noted, you have joined the ranks and now are officially recognizes as lieutenant thread integrity officer.
Is the only reason you know about the Magna Carta is because you saw a statue? Is that your only method of learning?
You're really terrible at debating... just the worst.
If you're beating your child, not you should not fight your spouse who is trying to stop you from doing that. You should turn yourself in or get some psychiatric help.
beating my kid = slave owning
BUT I'm not fighting back or defending beating my kid, I'm fighting back because I was attacked/invaded. If you look close enough there is a difference. it's minute but it's there and very easily misrepresented/spun.
Free spun Saturday!
Spin spin!
umm, isnt the when and why of these monuments a whitewashing of history to begin with?
now I propsed over on adbook that maybe another way is to move most from public prominence, say from courthouses and town squares, to someplace more conducive to a history lesson. then you add a series of plaques or markers with the facts of just who they really were and how these men lived, before during and after the war.
with any art you let the viewer decide what it means.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Is it still okay to venerate George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?
The president's stand for the Confederate hero represents the kind of moral relativism that conservatives usually decry.
By David A. Bell
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln said: “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality.” Woodrow Wilson was a staunch segregationist. All of them held the highest office in a nation that denied women the right to vote until 1920 and denied gays and lesbians the right to marry until 2015. Should we, as a country, still be honoring these men today?
That’s the question that we’ve grappled with, anew, since Saturday’s tragic events in Charlottesville and President Trump’s subsequent response, but it’s not a new one. Two years ago, students at Princeton University, where I teach, occupied the college president’s office to demand that the name of Wilson — our most famous alumnus and a former Princeton president — be removed from our school of public policy and international relations and an undergraduate housing complex. This year, Yale University announced that it would rename a residential college named for Vice President John C. Calhoun, a fervent defender of slavery.
It is easy to take the position that Trump did, effectively, on Wednesday, when he tweeted, “Can’t change history, but you can learn from it. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson — who’s next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish!” After all, the argument goes, weren’t these iconic figures simply men of their time? Weren’t their opinions and practices entirely ordinary for their social and political milieus? By the same logic, Trump implies, we should still respect the memory of figures like Gen. Robert E. Lee, the statue of whom the Charlottesville City Council recently voted to remove. Indeed, in an NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll released Wednesday, 62 percent of respondents said statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should remain as historical symbols.
But Trump’s rationale falls short for two reasons.
First, while slavery may have been utterly ordinary in Washington’s time, and overt racial discrimination equally commonplace in Lincoln’s and Wilson’s, neither was universally defended at the time. Even in the 18th century, for those with ears to hear, numerous voices were making reasoned, impassioned cases against slavery. If a prominent American revolutionary like Benjamin Rush — friend of John Adams and signer of the Declaration of Independence — could conclude that slavery was a direct violation of the laws of nature and religion, why not Washington or Jefferson?
Second, the argument that these men were just men of their time is an example of something that political conservatives otherwise generally profess to loathe: moral relativism. The idea that different standards of truth and morality may obtain in different times and places. Few people in the United States today would defend the practice of female circumcision, for instance, even though it is entirely ordinary in some parts of the world. Most people would say that no matter how customary, or perhaps even virtuous, this practice may seem to its adherents, it is, in fact, an affront to human dignity and human rights. Was slavery any less of an affront? No.
In the end, if we are to have any confidence in our own moral standards, we must believe that these standards are universally applicable, across time and space. And so, we must be ready to criticize figures in the past for attitudes and practices we consider abhorrent. If our moral standards are to have any meaning, then they don’t simply apply because we believe in them. They apply because they are right.
Yes, we also need to acknowledge that an overly rigid application of this principle would soon leave us with very little history to honor and celebrate, because few, if any, prominent figures of the past lived up to the moral standards of 21st-century Americans. Taken to the extreme, it would, indeed, mean tearing down the Washington Monument, and perhaps even the Lincoln Memorial.
But countries need their history. They need heroes and leaders to venerate, to inspire new generations, and to act as a source of unity. National unity can be a very fragile thing, as Americans today know all too well. Revolutionary movements have sometimes tried to consign their national pasts to the dustbin of history and to start over. The French revolutionaries famously introduced a new calendar, numbering the years from the birth of the French republic in 1792 and condemning nearly all of what came before as darkness, feudalism and superstition, unworthy of veneration. It didn’t work. Such attempts at erasure go against the deeply human need to feel a connection with the past.
The conflict, then, is one between two principles. On one hand, we should not honor people who did things and held beliefs that were morally objectionable. On the other, we need a common history we can take pride in as a nation. It is a conflict that cannot be resolved with cheap sound bites of the sort uttered by the president and his backers this week. They can be resolved only with careful, reasoned judgments, backed up by logic and evidence.
When it comes to particular figures in the past, such judgments involve, above all, looking carefully at their entire historical record. In the case of Washington, it involves weighing his role as a slave owner against his role as a heroic commander in chief, as an immensely popular political leader who resisted the temptation to become anything more than a republican chief executive, and who brought the country together around the new Constitution. Calhoun, by contrast, devoted his political career above all to the defense of slavery. The distinction between the two is not difficult to make.
Lee’s case is clear-cut. Whatever admirable personal qualities he may have had, he was also a man who took up arms against his country in defense of an evil institution. In my view, he doesn’t deserve to be honored in any fashion.
There are many historical figures in the American past whose overall record is complex, difficult and deeply ambiguous — Wilson comes to mind. But reasonable people can come to different judgments about them. Accepting the need for a past we can take pride in also imposes on us the duty to take history seriously.
We must always be ready to go back to the sources, to read, think and discuss. Our history is neither a monstrosity to be exorcised nor an altar to worship at. It is the record of the actions of millions of imperfect human beings. Deciding whom to honor and whom to condemn in this record requires more than 140 characters. It requires serious thought and discussion. As citizens today, that’s what we owe to the past.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/confederate-monuments-southern-history.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
I agree with the Post opinion writer. Jefferson and Washington were flawed. There's no debating that. But they aren't defined by their slave ownership or defense of it. Lee, Jeff Davis, etc. all took up arms for the defense of the enslavement of part of God's creation. There can be no Christian or moral defense of it. The line between the two is bright.
Rename them? shouldn't we tear them down? let's start in the ivy league with Brown.
Robert E. Lee High School becomes Bro Lee Tree High (has a nice ring to it, huh?) and the kids get a better education.
"The Brown report is the latest revelation that Northern businesses and institutions benefited from slavery. Countless other institutions might be surprised, and ashamed, if they dug deeply into their pasts as Brown has over the past three years."
But rather than the high cost of tearing it down, how about these suggestions?:
" The committee makes sensible recommendations — creating a center for the study of slavery and injustice, rewriting Brown’s history to acknowledge the role of slavery, creating a memorial to the slave trade in Rhode Island, and recruiting more minority students. Other proposals are more problematic. But the value of this exercise was to illuminate a history that had been “largely erased from the collective memory of our university and state."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/opinion/23mon3.html
This is can of worms opening, this might be what Trump was referring to when he said something to the effect, but where does it end.
Nice of you to see both sides Mr. Lux.