The Confederacy - Erasing History

brianlux

Smellyman said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

The Confederacy:  Erasing History

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.

Smellyman

brianlux said:

Smellyman said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

The Confederacy:  Erasing History

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.

true as well

JC29856

brianlux said:

JC29856 said:

brianlux said:

JC29856 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/education/nearly-200-schools-are-named-for-confederate-leaders-is-it-time-to-rename-them/2015/06/24/838e2cc0-1aaa-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/opinion/23mon3.html

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.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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.

mcgruff10

states rights was also another big factor in the american civil war.  

PJfanwillneverleave1

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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.

Nice of you to see both sides Mr. Lux.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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?

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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.

I honestly don't know the answer.  The only thing I've come up with that makes close to any sense to me is, again, this:


"Love and only love will endure/
Hate is everything you think it is/
Love and only love."
--N.Y.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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.

I honestly don't know the answer.  The only thing I've come up with that makes close to any sense to me is, again, this:


"Love and only love will endure/
Hate is everything you think it is/
Love and only love."
--N.Y.

"In Birmingham they love the governor..."

Remember that was George Wallace. 

mrussel1

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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 North didn't fight to abolish slavery,  but the South absolutely fought for its preservation.  And states rights was a smokescreen.  They didn't secede over the tariffs or even fugitive slave act.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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.

I honestly don't know the answer.  The only thing I've come up with that makes close to any sense to me is, again, this:


"Love and only love will endure/
Hate is everything you think it is/
Love and only love."
--N.Y.

"In Birmingham they love the governor..."

Remember that was George Wallace. 

Right band (right-hand photo) but not in keeping with my point.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

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.

I honestly don't know the answer.  The only thing I've come up with that makes close to any sense to me is, again, this:


"Love and only love will endure/
Hate is everything you think it is/
Love and only love."
--N.Y.

"In Birmingham they love the governor..."

Remember that was George Wallace. 

Right band (right-hand photo) but not in keeping with my point.

I know.  I'm saying that Van Zandt used his platform to fight against love and tolerance.  NY was on the correct side of history. 

tbergs

The more I read this thread, the more I dislike Sweet Home Alabama....

brianlux

OK, let's try this again.  Here's the problem I have with this whole tearing down monuments and statues things.  What I'm hearing is that a bunch of people from another culture (yes, us Yankees and Westerners and Canadians and whatnot are of another culture) want to go in and tell Southerners what they should do to eradicate their past.  Now that might not be a bad thing if the intention is to eradicate the seething evil of racism that lies underneath what those monuments and statues stand for but does anyone think for one minute that going down there and saying, "Fuck you, we're tearing your shit down," is going to change anyone's mind about the underlying illness of racism?  Come on, really?

What if someone came up to you and took something you value and replace it with what you think is right- is that going to go down well with you?  No, seriously, think about it.  And yeah, OK, erroneously you think this thing is cool but it's not but is some outsider beating down your door and telling you you're full of shit going to change your mind about JACK? 

Let's use some sense here.  This is not how you change shit.  It never works.  It's like many years ago when I was pissing my life away on alcohol and bad living habits and my folks were giving me shit for it.  Hey, guess what, did that set me straight?  How do you suppose I reacted to that? Yeah, I drank more.  Groovy.

NOT!

brianlux

Why were these considered OK?

tbergs

brianlux said:

Why were these considered OK?

Marketing at its best. Speak to your audience in terms they understand.

JC29856

brianlux said:

Why were these considered OK?

absolutely, nothing to do with racism, everything to do with votes. "you play to win the game"