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. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure."

Sort if reminds me of Jefferson's observation:  "Slavery is like holding a wolf by the ears; you don't like it, but you dare not let go."

I wonder what those characters would think about the modern world of 2017 America?

There were two inherent problems with slavery for the south. 

First, unlike the north it was not a cash-based economy but rather a crop based economy.  Even after the Civil War they came up with share-cropping which was more or less serfdom by another name. 

Second, what was the south to do with 4 million suddenly freed slaves?  They were fed, clothed, and housed by the whites who owned the plantations.  The abolitionists had no answer for either of these problems and worse did not even consider them problems.  The abolition of slavery was about as far as they went and what happened on the next day was not their concern.

In this they are much like modern anti-choice zealots.  Just have the fucking baby and let the chips fall where they may!

(September 11, 2017 at 7:08 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: We accept the paradox of Thomas Jefferson, still usually considered a great man, even though he owned slaves and helped, in his way, petpetuate a brutal system in spite of himself, and yet, for whatever reason the paradox of Robert E. Lee is too much for many people. I mean, I can understand ignoring Nathan Bedford Forrest's change of heart about race near the end of his life, but Lee?

The reason why they're regarded differently is because Jefferson did not take up arms against his country and his oath in order to defend slavery.

All men have flaws. The difference is that with some of them their flaws, egregious though they might be, aren't defended to the death.

Quote:All men have flaws.

I don't.

(September 11, 2017 at 7:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:All men have flaws.

I don't.

I'm gonna need a second opinion here. Where's Mrs Minimalist?

(September 11, 2017 at 8:13 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 7:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I don't.

I'm gonna need a second opinion here.  Where's Mrs Minimalist?

Witness Protection Program, probably.

(September 9, 2017 at 5:37 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: If we only had monuments to perfect people there would be no monuments.

I don't mean to rag on you in every topic but you just keep surprising me with your lack of logical reasoning. I always pegged you as smarter than most.

---

(September 11, 2017 at 10:44 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Statues of confederate heroes erected during the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's, were clearly not erected to honor the victims and the dead of the Civil War, nor where they erected to memorialize American patriots since they are American traitors. The fact that so many people still cling to these people as some sort of inspiration, is disturbing. You can learn about the history without having to memorialize it. You can honor the fallen and respect the soldiers who fought on both sides, without having to memorialize the traitors.

This.

The fact that modern fetishism of the Confederacy really started during the Civil Rights Movement says all one really needs to know.

(September 11, 2017 at 8:13 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 7:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I don't.

I'm gonna need a second opinion here.  Where's Mrs Minimalist?

Kept far away from message boards.