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?

(September 11, 2017 at 4:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Rev. Rye Wrote:I suppose not entirely cottoning to the Nazi ideology helped with that; sort of why I think Robert E. Lee, who didn't particularly care for slavery, deserves a pass despite fighting for a nation whose sole raison d'etre was the preservation of slavery in its worst forms. I'm sure I've discussed to death the long-standing disconnect between why many Confederates fought for the South and why the South split in the first place.

As a slave-owner who doesn't particularly care for slavery, Lee is damned with faint praise.

As is Jefferson, evidently. The guy had a history of some very complex (if blatantly self-contradictory) views of slavery. He condemned slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, and, by that time, he had over a hundred slaves, and was one of the biggest slaveowners (if not the biggest) in the state of Virginia (due partly to his debts making it hard for him to sell them).

He spent most of his political career, from his career in the House of Burgesses to his post-Presidential days advocating for gradual emancipation of the slaves (in hindsight, a gradual approach, focused on giving the former slaves the ability to transition and learn a trade, could very well have made race relations in America a lot less thorny than they needed to be; perhaps if the South didn't move from viewing slavery as a necessary evil to a positive good, and definitely if the plan didn't involve shipping the former slaves off to another land), and yet, he himself was pretty damn slow to free his own slaves; in his will, he freed only five slaves (not even all his kids with Sally Hemmings), and left 130 others to be auctioned off.

He considered black people inherently inferior to white people, but he still insisted  it didn't necessarily mean they didn't deserve rights. And he at least had the good sense to not conform to the worst excesses of American slavery (for instance, he instructed his overseers to not whip his slaves [not that they listened], went out of his way to procure certain desirable blankets for his slaves, tried to keep families together, and even had some of the slaves at Monticello taught to write, admittedly, before Virginia made it punishable by flogging to teach a slave to read)

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?

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.