"We"? "We lost the war"? Says a lot about you right there
this is from a few pages back, what is this supposed to mean? I don't get it... "we" "we lost the war" should I not refer to we because I didn't personally serve?
how so? Its a statue and we lost the war ------------------------------------------------------------------------- People who support the idea of the confederacy often use the term "we"
duh, stupid me. I couldn't put the two together. now I get what HFD meant in his reply. anyway the context of the conversation was about erecting statues from the losing side of wars, its all there on the same page. someone thought it was stupid to put up statues honoring the losers I asked if the three soldiers statue (below link) was stupid, to which someone replied asinine, then it picks up above, why' it's a statue and we lost the war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Soldiers
lazy mistake or virtual twister?
Really? You need help discerning the difference? You need someone to explain the difference? 3D playin and slayin, don't hate the game..........
I'm throwing this out here - last year there was a big debate in my hometown (small town in VA) about changing the name of the high school (there's only one) from Robert E. Lee to something else. I'm guessing the issue will come up again.
There's a city right outside Richmond called Mechanicsville. The Middle school is Stonewall Jackson and the HS is Lee-Davis. ridiculous.
Did I post this? I went to Stonewall Jackson Primary, Thomas Jefferson Elementary, Robert E. Lee High School. (And UVa for college.) My mom worked at Stuart Hall (as in Jeb Stuart), a private girls school.
Nope..twas me. My wife did the same run as you. She grew up off Atlee Station Road. Class of 91, then UR. We live in Glen Allen now.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,681
Here's an interesting little tidbit of history/nostalgia:
In the 1950's there was a gas station on San Antonio Rd. bordering the cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View in California called "Stars and Bars". We never went there for gas so one day I asked my folks why not. They both said, "Oh no! We will NOT get gas there!" but they never told me why.
In Henry Rollings Before the Chop III, which I am currently reading, Henry refers to the Confederate flag as "Stars and bars".
60 later, mystery solved!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
What conclusions are drawn from this letter to Horace Greeley from Abe Lincoln about the Civil War?
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through
the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or
assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do
not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any
inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not
now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable
in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference
to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not
meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under
the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be
restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they
could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with
them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they
could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with
them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the
Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If
I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would
do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves
I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving
others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and
the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less
whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the
cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing
more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when
shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they
shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official
duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal
wish that all men every where could be free.
What conclusions are drawn from this letter to Horace Greeley from Abe Lincoln about the Civil War?
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through
the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or
assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do
not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any
inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not
now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable
in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference
to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not
meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under
the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be
restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they
could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with
them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they
could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with
them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the
Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If
I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would
do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves
I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving
others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and
the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less
whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the
cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing
more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when
shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they
shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official
duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal
wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Here's what I pulled out, but maybe you skipped this part:
"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
What conclusions are drawn from this letter to Horace Greeley from Abe Lincoln about the Civil War?
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through
the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or
assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do
not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any
inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not
now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable
in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference
to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not
meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under
the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be
restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they
could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with
them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they
could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with
them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the
Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If
I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would
do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves
I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving
others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and
the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less
whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the
cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing
more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when
shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they
shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official
duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal
wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Here's what I pulled out, but maybe you skipped this part:
"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
C'mon, you expected 3D to see or comprehend that? C'mon.
What conclusions are drawn from this letter to Horace Greeley from Abe Lincoln about the Civil War?
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through
the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or
assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do
not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any
inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not
now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable
in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference
to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not
meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under
the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be
restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they
could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with
them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they
could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with
them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the
Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If
I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would
do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves
I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving
others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and
the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less
whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the
cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing
more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when
shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they
shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official
duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal
wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Here's what I pulled out, but maybe you skipped this part:
"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
ironically, those are words I live by
what conclusions did you draw from the letter dated 8.22.1862 or from just that part?
BREAKING NEWS... Jc discovered that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the union. Who knew until today? Oh yeah, people that got through 10th grade history.
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
BREAKING NEWS... Jc discovered that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the union. Who knew until today? Oh yeah, people that got through 10th grade history.
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
JC is PJFan with better Google skills.
another spin on the virtual twister wheel this spin earned you another spin, spin again!
BREAKING NEWS... Jc discovered that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the union. Who knew until today? Oh yeah, people that got through 10th grade history.
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
JC is PJFan with better Google skills.
another spin on the virtual twister wheel this spin earned you another spin, spin again!
Ain't no spin.. Perhaps you should blame yourself for having a tenuous grasp of history. Did it never occur to you that the Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863 (three years after secession) only freeing the southern slaves? More breaking news, eh? Maybe this will be the lead on Breitbart since this is 'secret history'.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,681
I assume everyone here knows that the civil war was not (as important as that issue was) only about slavery. Just in case, here's a good explanation:
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.
BREAKING NEWS... Jc discovered that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the union. Who knew until today? Oh yeah, people that got through 10th grade history.
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
JC is PJFan with better Google skills.
another spin on the virtual twister wheel this spin earned you another spin, spin again!
Ain't no spin.. Perhaps you should blame yourself for having a tenuous grasp of history. Did it never occur to you that the Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863 (three years after secession) only freeing the southern slaves? More breaking news, eh? Maybe this will be the lead on Breitbart since this is 'secret history'.
DJ Mruss going to spin you thru global history with his latest spin single, entitled "how the entire planet was built on the backs of slaves excluding of course a few northeastern blue states in the union.......heeeeeeeeeeerrreeeees DJ Mruss!
BREAKING NEWS... Jc discovered that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the union. Who knew until today? Oh yeah, people that got through 10th grade history.
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
JC is PJFan with better Google skills.
another spin on the virtual twister wheel this spin earned you another spin, spin again!
Ain't no spin.. Perhaps you should blame yourself for having a tenuous grasp of history. Did it never occur to you that the Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863 (three years after secession) only freeing the southern slaves? More breaking news, eh? Maybe this will be the lead on Breitbart since this is 'secret history'.
DJ Mruss going to spin you thru global history with his latest spin single, entitled "how the entire planet was built on the backs of slaves excluding of course a few northeastern blue states in the union.......heeeeeeeeeeerrreeeees DJ Mruss!
This is another way of you proving you're full of shit, since you can't sustain an argument that gets past one layer deep. You make an incendiary statement, it's refuted (usually easily) and you say crap like this or move on to the next POS article you pick up in 4Chan or wherever. I wish @BS44325 was still around. I disagree with him on most things but at least he could formulate his own thoughts.
BREAKING NEWS... Jc discovered that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the union. Who knew until today? Oh yeah, people that got through 10th grade history.
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
JC is PJFan with better Google skills.
another spin on the virtual twister wheel this spin earned you another spin, spin again!
Ain't no spin.. Perhaps you should blame yourself for having a tenuous grasp of history. Did it never occur to you that the Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863 (three years after secession) only freeing the southern slaves? More breaking news, eh? Maybe this will be the lead on Breitbart since this is 'secret history'.
DJ Mruss going to spin you thru global history with his latest spin single, entitled "how the entire planet was built on the backs of slaves excluding of course a few northeastern blue states in the union.......heeeeeeeeeeerrreeeees DJ Mruss!
This is another way of you proving you're full of shit, since you can't sustain an argument that gets past one layer deep. You make an incendiary statement, it's refuted (usually easily) and you say crap like this or move on to the next POS article you pick up in 4Chan or wherever. I wish @BS44325 was still around. I disagree with him on most things but at least he could formulate his own thoughts.
BREAKING NEWS... Jc discovered that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the union. Who knew until today? Oh yeah, people that got through 10th grade history.
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
JC is PJFan with better Google skills.
another spin on the virtual twister wheel this spin earned you another spin, spin again!
Ain't no spin.. Perhaps you should blame yourself for having a tenuous grasp of history. Did it never occur to you that the Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863 (three years after secession) only freeing the southern slaves? More breaking news, eh? Maybe this will be the lead on Breitbart since this is 'secret history'.
DJ Mruss going to spin you thru global history with his latest spin single, entitled "how the entire planet was built on the backs of slaves excluding of course a few northeastern blue states in the union.......heeeeeeeeeeerrreeeees DJ Mruss!
This is another way of you proving you're full of shit, since you can't sustain an argument that gets past one layer deep. You make an incendiary statement, it's refuted (usually easily) and you say crap like this or move on to the next POS article you pick up in 4Chan or wherever. I wish @BS44325 was still around. I disagree with him on most things but at least he could formulate his own thoughts.
BREAKING NEWS... Jc discovered that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the union. Who knew until today? Oh yeah, people that got through 10th grade history.
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
JC is PJFan with better Google skills.
another spin on the virtual twister wheel this spin earned you another spin, spin again!
Ain't no spin.. Perhaps you should blame yourself for having a tenuous grasp of history. Did it never occur to you that the Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863 (three years after secession) only freeing the southern slaves? More breaking news, eh? Maybe this will be the lead on Breitbart since this is 'secret history'.
DJ Mruss going to spin you thru global history with his latest spin single, entitled "how the entire planet was built on the backs of slaves excluding of course a few northeastern blue states in the union.......heeeeeeeeeeerrreeeees DJ Mruss!
This is another way of you proving you're full of shit, since you can't sustain an argument that gets past one layer deep. You make an incendiary statement, it's refuted (usually easily) and you say crap like this or move on to the next POS article you pick up in 4Chan or wherever. I wish @BS44325 was still around. I disagree with him on most things but at least he could formulate his own thoughts.
BREAKING NEWS... Jc discovered that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the union. Who knew until today? Oh yeah, people that got through 10th grade history.
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
JC is PJFan with better Google skills.
another spin on the virtual twister wheel this spin earned you another spin, spin again!
Ain't no spin.. Perhaps you should blame yourself for having a tenuous grasp of history. Did it never occur to you that the Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863 (three years after secession) only freeing the southern slaves? More breaking news, eh? Maybe this will be the lead on Breitbart since this is 'secret history'.
DJ Mruss going to spin you thru global history with his latest spin single, entitled "how the entire planet was built on the backs of slaves excluding of course a few northeastern blue states in the union.......heeeeeeeeeeerrreeeees DJ Mruss!
This is another way of you proving you're full of shit, since you can't sustain an argument that gets past one layer deep. You make an incendiary statement, it's refuted (usually easily) and you say crap like this or move on to the next POS article you pick up in 4Chan or wherever. I wish @BS44325 was still around. I disagree with him on most things but at least he could formulate his own thoughts.
BREAKING NEWS... Jc discovered that Lincoln's primary objective was to save the union. Who knew until today? Oh yeah, people that got through 10th grade history.
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
JC is PJFan with better Google skills.
another spin on the virtual twister wheel this spin earned you another spin, spin again!
Ain't no spin.. Perhaps you should blame yourself for having a tenuous grasp of history. Did it never occur to you that the Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863 (three years after secession) only freeing the southern slaves? More breaking news, eh? Maybe this will be the lead on Breitbart since this is 'secret history'.
DJ Mruss going to spin you thru global history with his latest spin single, entitled "how the entire planet was built on the backs of slaves excluding of course a few northeastern blue states in the union.......heeeeeeeeeeerrreeeees DJ Mruss!
This is another way of you proving you're full of shit, since you can't sustain an argument that gets past one layer deep. You make an incendiary statement, it's refuted (usually easily) and you say crap like this or move on to the next POS article you pick up in 4Chan or wherever. I wish @BS44325 was still around. I disagree with him on most things but at least he could formulate his own thoughts.
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.
FYI...I completely agree with you on this @mrussel1 . On a separate note the only thing I would add (and maybe it's been written elsewhere but I have no time to go through all the posts) is that one of the main reasons reunification was able to take place after the civil war is that Lincoln was magnanimous in victory. Rightly or wrongly Lincoln understood that the only way "healing" could take place is by allowing the South to maintain some degree of nobility in defeat which included the honouring of confederate generals and soldiers. I put "healing" in quotes because you can imagine how this made those subjected to slavery feel and true "healing" didn't take place until 100 years after the end of the war and some would argue "healing" hasn't occurred at all. That being said would it be a trade that a newly freed slave and/or Union soldier would be willing to make during that time period? An end to slavery and a horrific war in exchange for a noble surrender and some retention of heritage for the defeated? I think most would have been ok with this outcome...at the time. Personally I am agnostic on confederate statutes...I see it as a states rights/local issue and I can see the argument on both sides. I see value in maintaining statues as a reminder of the potential of human ugliness so that history does not repeat itself...the gates of Auschwitz still stand for just this reason. I also recognize how a militant white supremacist fringe will try to claim these monuments as their own and use them to stir up a return to an uglier time. I guess the big question is where is the happy balance between these sentiments? Does this balance even need to be maintained at all? Has enough time passed that the former "South" can let go of these monuments because the need to "retain heritage for the defeated" is no longer necessary? This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. This whole topic really just drives me crazy because once again it seems like another issue being exploited by assholes "on both sides" to further their agendas instead of working towards "A more perfect union".
^^ I completely agree with this entire post. Lincoln was a true humanitarian, statesman and leader when he chose to limit the punishment of the South. Of course once he dies and the Republican congress exercised its influence in Reconstruction, it didn't always play out that way.
The problem with teh statues and the stars and bars is they have become a symbol of racism, white supremacy and in previous generations, segregation. If this country could reconcile with its racist past and the white supremacists were confined to the margins where they belong, there wouldn't be a debate.
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.
This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way.
It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.
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.
This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way.
It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.
You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
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.
This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way.
It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.
You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.
No I meant assert. When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations. I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended. It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer. And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?
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.
FYI...I completely agree with you on this @mrussel1 . On a separate note the only thing I would add (and maybe it's been written elsewhere but I have no time to go through all the posts) is that one of the main reasons reunification was able to take place after the civil war is that Lincoln was magnanimous in victory. Rightly or wrongly Lincoln understood that the only way "healing" could take place is by allowing the South to maintain some degree of nobility in defeat which included the honouring of confederate generals and soldiers. I put "healing" in quotes because you can imagine how this made those subjected to slavery feel and true "healing" didn't take place until 100 years after the end of the war and some would argue "healing" hasn't occurred at all. That being said would it be a trade that a newly freed slave and/or Union soldier would be willing to make during that time period? An end to slavery and a horrific war in exchange for a noble surrender and some retention of heritage for the defeated? I think most would have been ok with this outcome...at the time. Personally I am agnostic on confederate statutes...I see it as a states rights/local issue and I can see the argument on both sides. I see value in maintaining statues as a reminder of the potential of human ugliness so that history does not repeat itself...the gates of Auschwitz still stand for just this reason. I also recognize how a militant white supremacist fringe will try to claim these monuments as their own and use them to stir up a return to an uglier time. I guess the big question is where is the happy balance between these sentiments? Does this balance even need to be maintained at all? Has enough time passed that the former "South" can let go of these monuments because the need to "retain heritage for the defeated" is no longer necessary? This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. This whole topic really just drives me crazy because once again it seems like another issue being exploited by assholes "on both sides" to further their agendas instead of working towards "A more perfect union".
(Obama's best speech IMO...enjoy it because you probably won't see me link to one of his speeches ever again)
The South seceded to preserve slavery, as a sovereign nation they were invaded by the North. From the article brlux posted, first sentence "With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on
April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United
States in pursuit of a terrible cause." without any discussion of why that first volley of artillery was fired. The South were voluntary members of the Union and nothing prohibited them from secession. The South unsuccessfully attempted negotiation and compromise under the 10th amendment. The South seceded, legally separated from the Union and became a separate sovereign state. They instructed the North to remove all troops and military installations, the North refused. The South was now occupied territory, occupied militarily against their will by the North. Foreign military occupation was the first act of war, not the volley at Fort Sumter. Lincoln made the calculated decision (announced) that he would resupply Ft Sumter daring the South to attack or seize the US supply ship. Although Lincoln did not want war, he needed a reason to invade the South in order to get want he wanted more, Union preservation. The Confederates didn't wait for the supply ship to arrive and fired that first shot, the rest is history. Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start. Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!
The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.
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.
FYI...I completely agree with you on this @mrussel1 . On a separate note the only thing I would add (and maybe it's been written elsewhere but I have no time to go through all the posts) is that one of the main reasons reunification was able to take place after the civil war is that Lincoln was magnanimous in victory. Rightly or wrongly Lincoln understood that the only way "healing" could take place is by allowing the South to maintain some degree of nobility in defeat which included the honouring of confederate generals and soldiers. I put "healing" in quotes because you can imagine how this made those subjected to slavery feel and true "healing" didn't take place until 100 years after the end of the war and some would argue "healing" hasn't occurred at all. That being said would it be a trade that a newly freed slave and/or Union soldier would be willing to make during that time period? An end to slavery and a horrific war in exchange for a noble surrender and some retention of heritage for the defeated? I think most would have been ok with this outcome...at the time. Personally I am agnostic on confederate statutes...I see it as a states rights/local issue and I can see the argument on both sides. I see value in maintaining statues as a reminder of the potential of human ugliness so that history does not repeat itself...the gates of Auschwitz still stand for just this reason. I also recognize how a militant white supremacist fringe will try to claim these monuments as their own and use them to stir up a return to an uglier time. I guess the big question is where is the happy balance between these sentiments? Does this balance even need to be maintained at all? Has enough time passed that the former "South" can let go of these monuments because the need to "retain heritage for the defeated" is no longer necessary? This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. This whole topic really just drives me crazy because once again it seems like another issue being exploited by assholes "on both sides" to further their agendas instead of working towards "A more perfect union".
(Obama's best speech IMO...enjoy it because you probably won't see me link to one of his speeches ever again)
The South seceded to preserve slavery, as a sovereign nation they were invaded by the North. From the article brlux posted, first sentence "With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on
April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United
States in pursuit of a terrible cause." without any discussion of why that first volley of artillery was fired. The South were voluntary members of the Union and nothing prohibited them from secession. The South unsuccessfully attempted negotiation and compromise under the 10th amendment. The South seceded, legally separated from the Union and became a separate sovereign state. They instructed the North to remove all troops and military installations, the North refused. The South was now occupied territory, occupied militarily against their will by the North. Foreign military occupation was the first act of war, not the volley at Fort Sumter. Lincoln made the calculated decision (announced) that he would resupply Ft Sumter daring the South to attack or seize the US supply ship. Although Lincoln did not want war, he needed a reason to invade the South in order to get want he wanted more, Union preservation. The Confederates didn't wait for the supply ship to arrive and fired that first shot, the rest is history. Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start. Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!
The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.
When somebody makes the foolish "it was the occupation" argument when they discuss the Civil War it usually means that there is another part of the world that they are far more concerned about.
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.
This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way.
It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.
You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.
No I meant assert. When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations. I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended. It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer. And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?
I didn't have to back-up my opinion that way. I chose to in order to make fun of those who throw around the nazi word freely. I'm not concerned and need no disclaimer.
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.
This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way.
It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.
You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.
No I meant assert. When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations. I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended. It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer. And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?
I didn't have to back-up my opinion that way. I chose to in order to make fun of those who throw around the nazi word freely. I'm not concerned and need no disclaimer.
ah, I see. makes sense. How did you use a small n?
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
In the 1950's there was a gas station on San Antonio Rd. bordering the cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View in California called "Stars and Bars". We never went there for gas so one day I asked my folks why not. They both said, "Oh no! We will NOT get gas there!" but they never told me why.
In Henry Rollings Before the Chop III, which I am currently reading, Henry refers to the Confederate flag as "Stars and bars".
60 later, mystery solved!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/18/robert-e-lee-discouraged-monuments-they-keep-open-the-sores-of-war-he-wrote/?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-lee:homepage/story&utm_term=.254a50e7ae69
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Here's what I pulled out, but maybe you skipped this part:
"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
what conclusions did you draw from the letter dated 8.22.1862 or from just that part?
Of course lets not forget the South's reason was to preserve slavery. Go read the Keystone Speech by Alexander Stephens and try to argue differently.
JC is PJFan with better Google skills.
this spin earned you another spin, spin again!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html
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.
he is I, I am him, slim with the tilted brim!
FYI...I completely agree with you on this @mrussel1 . On a separate note the only thing I would add (and maybe it's been written elsewhere but I have no time to go through all the posts) is that one of the main reasons reunification was able to take place after the civil war is that Lincoln was magnanimous in victory. Rightly or wrongly Lincoln understood that the only way "healing" could take place is by allowing the South to maintain some degree of nobility in defeat which included the honouring of confederate generals and soldiers. I put "healing" in quotes because you can imagine how this made those subjected to slavery feel and true "healing" didn't take place until 100 years after the end of the war and some would argue "healing" hasn't occurred at all. That being said would it be a trade that a newly freed slave and/or Union soldier would be willing to make during that time period? An end to slavery and a horrific war in exchange for a noble surrender and some retention of heritage for the defeated? I think most would have been ok with this outcome...at the time. Personally I am agnostic on confederate statutes...I see it as a states rights/local issue and I can see the argument on both sides. I see value in maintaining statues as a reminder of the potential of human ugliness so that history does not repeat itself...the gates of Auschwitz still stand for just this reason. I also recognize how a militant white supremacist fringe will try to claim these monuments as their own and use them to stir up a return to an uglier time. I guess the big question is where is the happy balance between these sentiments? Does this balance even need to be maintained at all? Has enough time passed that the former "South" can let go of these monuments because the need to "retain heritage for the defeated" is no longer necessary? This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. This whole topic really just drives me crazy because once again it seems like another issue being exploited by assholes "on both sides" to further their agendas instead of working towards "A more perfect union".
https://web.archive.org/web/20080608182717/http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/19/nation/na-obamatext19
(Obama's best speech IMO...enjoy it because you probably won't see me link to one of his speeches ever again)
The problem with teh statues and the stars and bars is they have become a symbol of racism, white supremacy and in previous generations, segregation. If this country could reconcile with its racist past and the white supremacists were confined to the margins where they belong, there wouldn't be a debate.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
No I meant assert. When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations. I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended. It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer. And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?
Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start.
Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!
The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.
I didn't have to back-up my opinion that way. I chose to in order to make fun of those who throw around the nazi word freely. I'm not concerned and need no disclaimer.
ah, I see. makes sense. How did you use a small n?