(August 14, 2017 at 4:07 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 3:56 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: You still can't actually address the issue, I don't even know what you are arguing against and I'm not sure you know either.  Should a town have the right to have a Robert E Lee statue, or should all confederate history be banned from public property? If you think it should be banned then why is the Jefferson Memorial allowed to stand.

Should an asshole be allowed to convince investors to give him money to a clear scam? Well the difference between Madoff and 45 is that Madoff fucked over the rich. 45 with his fake university conned the middle class and poor. With slavery it is even worse because it isn't just about stealing money, it is about vile subjugation of a fellow human on top of making money off of your abuse of them.

I don't know how more bluntly I can put it, SLAVERY IS WRONG.........  I don't see how anyone can equate the Civil War to the Revolutionary War.

Now idiot, nobody is or should justify Jefferson owning slaves. But between the North and South the North started the end of slavery as imperfect as our system was back then. 

"Jefferson owned slaves" still does not excuse keeping symbols of the South.

You sound like an asshole who gets pulled over by a cop and say, " Bu bu bu officer, other people were speeding too and I was just moving with the flow of traffic.

Now what makes you think I advocate ignoring Jefferson owning slaves? I don't. I am saying that the North started the end of Slavery and the South wanted to keep it.

Now we are on to Financial crimes by Bernie Madoff and traffic violations. I am well aware slavery is wrong and that the south wanted slavery, I also think Jefferson was wrong in owning slaves but none of those things is relevant to the point I raised. I also didn't say anything about you advocating for Jefferson owning slaves.

(August 14, 2017 at 3:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Oh I know. I wasn't saying he supported slavery, I know he didn't. I was just saying he was nonetheless very racist, yet we still have his statues up while we take down Lee's.

There's an inherent difference between celebrating a person despite their flaws (Abraham Lincoln) and celebrating a flawed figure for their flaws (Robert E. Lee). 

One can easily distinguish between the likes of Lincoln (who wanted to preserve the union) and Lee (who fought to tear the union apart).  Lee was NOT fighting for a just cause.  And putting up statues to honor him for fighting an unjust cause is tantamount to suggesting that his cause was actually just.  And that's exactly why these statues were erected in the first place.  So that former confederates could feel just in their cause.  

If the American Revolution had failed, I doubt very much that we'd have statues of George Washington anywhere.  Washington would have most likely been hung.

(August 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 4:07 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Should an asshole be allowed to convince investors to give him money to a clear scam? Well the difference between Madoff and 45 is that Madoff fucked over the rich. 45 with his fake university conned the middle class and poor. With slavery it is even worse because it isn't just about stealing money, it is about vile subjugation of a fellow human on top of making money off of your abuse of them.

I don't know how more bluntly I can put it, SLAVERY IS WRONG.........  I don't see how anyone can equate the Civil War to the Revolutionary War.

Now idiot, nobody is or should justify Jefferson owning slaves. But between the North and South the North started the end of slavery as imperfect as our system was back then. 

"Jefferson owned slaves" still does not excuse keeping symbols of the South.

You sound like an asshole who gets pulled over by a cop and say, " Bu bu bu officer, other people were speeding too and I was just moving with the flow of traffic.

Now what makes you think I advocate ignoring Jefferson owning slaves? I don't. I am saying that the North started the end of Slavery and the South wanted to keep it.

Now we are on to Financial crimes by Bernie Madoff and traffic violations. I am well aware slavery is wrong and that the south wanted slavery, I also think Jefferson was wrong in owning slaves but none of those things is relevant to the point I raised. I also didn't say anything about you advocating for Jefferson owning slaves.

So on top of blacks being abused they still got rich? Ok, sorry I forgot, they all got punched in the face but their owners gave them a cut in the profits. GOTCHA.

No your point was to keep the Statues of the South and falsely accusing me of ignoring the climate of the Revolution which I do not and will not. I am saying the North STILL was the geographical start of the end of slavery.

It still remains between the North and South at the time of the Civil War only the South was fighting to keep it and in the North it had long since been ditched. And the founders though they didn't get the end of it at the time, did pave that route.

(August 14, 2017 at 4:45 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Now we are on to Financial crimes by Bernie Madoff and traffic violations. I am well aware slavery is wrong and that the south wanted slavery, I also think Jefferson was wrong in owning slaves but none of those things is relevant to the point I raised. I also didn't say anything about you advocating for Jefferson owning slaves.

So on top of blacks being abused they still got rich? Ok, sorry I forgot, they all got punched in the face but their owners gave them a cut in the profits. GOTCHA.

No your point was to keep the Statues of the South and falsely accusing me of ignoring the climate of the Revolution which I do not and will not. I am saying the North STILL was the geographical start of the end of slavery.

It still remains between the North and South at the time of the Civil War only the South was fighting to keep it and in the North it had long since been ditched. And the founders though they didn't get the end of it at the time, did pave that route.

Holy Fuck, you are not even close to my point. No fucking idea what your line about blacks getting rich or being punched in the face has to do with anything that I have said.  My point has nothing to do with the civil war, it has nothing to do with keeping the statues in the south ( I actually think they are in poor taste), and It certainly has nothing to do with the Revolution, which I never even brought up, nor did I accuse of ignoring it.

Should towns have the right to have monuments on public property in which the subject has ties to slavery or should it be against the law? That is the question I asked, very simple, don't know how I can make it anymore clear.

Oh, I think Lee's comment is far more condescending than that, Brian.

Quote:The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things.

And what does he think will save them?  Fucking jesus.  What he is giving here is the precursor of The White Man's Burden long before Kipling came up with the phrase.

A cynical man would wonder why he didn't entrust the southern cause to jesus as well.  One might even suggest that he knew perfectly well how effective "god" was at bringing about such political and societal change, and so entrusted the one which he had no interest in being rid of to the lord of heaven...and got off his ass to do something for the one he wanted to maintain.

As another poster pointed out, his opinions simply point to him being a man of his time, the genteel racism on display was common to the north and the south, the south being the cradle of the american intelligentsia at the time. His position, was taken to be the more learned, cultured, and "christian" position which signaled that he was better than a common slaver. This is a convenient fiction for a slaver to maintain. They;re all the same. They all hide behind their upstanding piety and their slaves base degeneracy.

A couple of things.   People generally don't celebrate lee for his condescending attitude towards the negros.   They celebrate him because he is by far the most skillful battlefield tactician ever produced by America (eat that, Patton).    Some people attempt to leverage his military accomplishment to glorify the underlying cause of slavery the confederacy he served.  However, he made clear in numerous private correspondences that he did not care for the cause of slavery, but served instead because he felt America is a Union of states and a citizen's first duty is to his state, not to the union.

He was offered the command of the union army by Lincoln at the beginning of the civil war, and he agonized but decline because he did not wish to fight against Virginia.   Had he accepted the appointment, the gap between his talents and those of the third rate amateurs that actually commanded eastern union armies, as well as those of the 2nd rate commanders of the confederacy during the first 2 years was so great the civil war probably would have ended in 1862.

I have no problem about his statue being erected to celebrate his military achievements. To recognize the achievement of the enemy is a vital step in reconciliation. But I do not care to associate him with the confederate cause.

(August 14, 2017 at 8:31 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Well then why did they fire the first shot? The Confederate militia tried to force the US Army out of Fort Sumter as manoeuvring towards securing their sea flanks during what they saw as an inevitable war. They fired at the garrison in a deliberate act of war.

Even their conventions demanding to be alliwed secede were taken in the full knowledge those actions would provoke wae. Guess what? The Confederate leaders didn't care. They wanted war ever since they realised they could no longer control the federal government.

They fired the first shot because Lincoln was a crafty MF and Davis fell right into his trap.  Lincoln never intended to let the Southern states leave.  However, he also needed more support among the northern populations and the moral highground for starting the war.

The best way to do that was to manuveur the South into firing the first shot.  Fort Sumter was useless to the North except for one reason.  To defend the harbor of South Carolina.  If South Carolina was no longer in the Union you would only need to defend the harbor if you wanted to invade South Carolina through that harbor.  So the South Carolinians demanded the Union troops to leave.

Lincoln responded by sending ships to resupply the harbor in the hopes that Confederate troops would attack it.  Quick propaganda, moral high ground achieved.

Jefferson Davis, well two things were on his mind.  One was that continued occupation of a Southern harbor fort that was part of a Confederate state was in itself a declaration of war from the North, but also he was worried that Southerners would calm down if nothing happened soon and decide it would be better to stay in the Union.

So Davis played right into Lincoln's hands.  Davis was outmatched.

But still, not a single soldier was killed in the bombardment.  The only ones that died, like two I think, died afterward when they were abandoning the fort after the surrender and were firing one of their cannons off as a salute or something and the thing exploded. 

Hell, in 2000 the USS Cole was bombed.  Killed 17 sailors and the US didn't go to war.  But over zero deaths from a Fort Sumter bombardment, that was good enough for a war for Lincoln.  And really it was.  He wanted a reason.  He needed it.

Lincoln was not going to let the South go.  It didn't matter if they never fired on Fort Sumter or not.  Lincoln wasn't letting it happen.  Everyone will admit to that.

But no, the Confederacy would have very much preferred for a peaceful separation. That's why they kept sending peace delegations. They were willing to resort to war, as we all know. But they would have very much liked to have been allowed to leave quietly.

---

(August 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm)Secular Elf Wrote: I too am a fellow Southerner with a Confederate ancestor.  My position on the removal of public Confederate monuments is rather apathetic.  I really don't care one way or the other.  The Civil War has  been over for over 150 years now.  We lost.  We Southerners need to get over it.  Remember our past yes, but try to bring it all back, no.

I've got a LOT of Confederate ancestors.  lol

Elfquest rocks.

Quote:Jefferson Davis, well two things were on his mind.  One was that continued occupation of a Southern harbor fort that was part of a Confederate state was in itself a declaration of war from the North, but also he was worried that Southerners would calm down if nothing happened soon and decide it would be better to stay in the Union.

Yeah, mainly.  But you also have to remember that the US in 1860 had virtually no paved roads.  There was a famous incident in January 1863 when Ambrose Burnside, fresh from getting his ass kicked at Fredricksburg, decided to regain morale by a quick movement around the Reb defenses.  As soon as they started to move the rain fell in buckets for days turning the roads into quagmires that were torn up even worse by the attempts to move heavy wagons and guns on them.  The Rebs did nothing but laugh at them and Burnside was removed from command a few days later.   Everyone understood - except Burnside apparently - the need to wait for spring before trying to move a massive army.  The situation was the same in 1861.  Yes, Lincoln forced the Rebs to fire the first shot but it cost him 4 states to do so (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee seceded and joined the CSA.)  Lincoln had to know that was going to happen, too.  And Lee was not about to attack his own home state.  When Virginia seceded he seceded.  I doubt if he ever gave slavery a thought.

(August 14, 2017 at 6:32 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 8:31 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Well then why did they fire the first shot? The Confederate militia tried to force the US Army out of Fort Sumter as manoeuvring towards securing their sea flanks during what they saw as an inevitable war. They fired at the garrison in a deliberate act of war.

Even their conventions demanding to be alliwed secede were taken in the full knowledge those actions would provoke wae. Guess what? The Confederate leaders didn't care. They wanted war ever since they realised they could no longer control the federal government.

They fired the first shot because Lincoln was a crafty MF and Davis fell right into his trap.  Lincoln never intended to let the Southern states leave.  However, he also needed more support among the northern populations and the moral highground for starting the war.

The best way to do that was to manuveur the South into firing the first shot.  Fort Sumter was useless to the North except for one reason.  To defend the harbor of South Carolina.  If South Carolina was no longer in the Union you would only need to defend the harbor if you wanted to invade South Carolina through that harbor.  So the South Carolinians demanded the Union troops to leave.

Lincoln responded by sending ships to resupply the harbor in the hopes that Confederate troops would attack it.  Quick propaganda, moral high ground achieved.

Jefferson Davis, well two things were on his mind.  One was that continued occupation of a Southern harbor fort that was part of a Confederate state was in itself a declaration of war from the North, but also he was worried that Southerners would calm down if nothing happened soon and decide it would be better to stay in the Union.

So Davis played right into Lincoln's hands.  Davis was outmatched.

But still, not a single soldier was killed in the bombardment.  The only ones that died, like two I think, died afterward when they were abandoning the fort after the surrender and were firing one of their cannons off as a salute or something and the thing exploded. 

Hell, in 2000 the USS Cole was bombed.  Killed 17 sailors and the US didn't go to war.  But over zero deaths from a Fort Sumter bombardment, that was good enough for a war for Lincoln.  And really it was.  He wanted a reason.  He needed it.

Lincoln was not going to let the South go.  It didn't matter if they never fired on Fort Sumter or not.  Lincoln wasn't letting it happen.  Everyone will admit to that.

But no, the Confederacy would have very much preferred for a peaceful separation.  That's why they kept sending peace delegations.  They were willing to resort to war, as we all know.  But they would have very much liked to have been allowed to leave quietly.

And his Gettysburg address is simultaneously a forthright admission and an eloquent and overwhelming defense of it.