The Confederacy represents racism

Slavery was a curse going back to the start of the Republic; but there would have been no republic if the subject had not been kicked down the road several times by Congress.

Southern congressmen used the issue of state's rights to preserve slavery in their states. As long as they kept Congress divided on slavery, they did not consider cessation.

Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860 changed the situation overnite.

Lincoln was a westerner. The South worried that western states would eventually join with northeastern states and abolish slavery. They opted to secede before the inevitable.

The immediate cause of the Civil War was the refusal of people to accepted a legitimately elected president.

Kinda like the election of one man creating another crop of sore losers last November.

 

Don't you dare equate being in the army with being a black slave in the south before the Civil War.

 

Do remember the limitations of science, biology and genetics in that time. 1800s scientists had a general 'consensus' that blacks were dumber and more psychologically prone to both violence and subservience, largely based on phrenology (the now completely debunked study of skull-shape relating to psychological trends).

It was far less 'The Bible' and far more 'Science' that solidified the racist, bigotted notions so common in that era.

In fact, if you do some research on the few notoriously unracist folks of the time that historically put forth the most effort to help slaves, you'll find they were overwhelmingly protistant christians.

 

The Bible approves of slavery, and never condemns it, so the Confederates were just being good Christians.

 

Total BS. If Lincolns bigotry can be forgotten for his efforts to preserve the union, then that of his confederate counterparts can similarly be in respect for their efforts to preserve liberty.

Unless, of course, racism isnt really the concern here, but rather the same old federal vs local sovereignty issues of those who like to beat their neighbors over the head with delegated authority vs those who just want to be left alone.

You're not fooling anyone.

 

Lincoln had no intention to free the slaves. That savage barbarian!

 

No one has proposed removing statues of every historical figure who was racist, so you're creating a false dilemma. If a racist were to discover a cure for a fatal disease, we could still celebrate his curing the disease. Lincoln's words and actions made a positive contribution to the moral advance of the country, even if his views about blacks was decidedly unenlightened. Lincoln's racism should NOT be forgotten, and I hope there are never monuments to his racist views. But his positive views (opposition to slavery, even though he was not an abolitionist), and his actions to end it, are praiseworthy and worthy of being memorialized. Robert E Lee (like other notable Confederates) is known for one thing: fighting for the Confederacy. He should be remembered, but I see no reason to publicly display a heroic tribute to the man.

Regarding "federal vs local soverignty" - I'm not proposing a federal mandate to remove statues. It should be a local decision, but I'm still entitled to an opinion about what I'd like the locals to do.

 

Maybe no one on this board has proposed removing the statues, I'm pretty sure more than a few have though, just look at the more active threads dealing with recent events, & you can judge for yourself.

The dilemma is real.

Especially considering that History is being revised in history classes nation-wide.

 

Wasnt my point. You mentioned preserving the union, which certainly makes us stronger as a nation today. But the confederates were not fighting to 'weaken the union', they were fighting to preserve decentralized, local sovereignty and more effective representative govt (unfortunately, and likely the largest cause of their failure, with slavery as the spearhead of it all). While I agree that Lincolns effects on us today are noteworthy and praiseworthy, I *also* believe that the confederate cause of preserving a more potent independence in the face of an ever growing centralized fedgov is equally noteworthy and praiseworthy, despite both their failure of equitous morality *and* their failure of military effectiveness.

 

LOL, your lack of knowledge of history is amusing. You have to "hero shop" to find someone that fits your bigotry.

 

What exactly are you arguing? Are you saying that if we do NOT keep the heroic depictions of Lee, Davis, Jackson, et al that THIS will cause history books to be rewritten into false depictions of the past? Surely that's not what you mean, so please explain why we can't draw the reasonable line as I've described - or why my line is unreasonable, if that's what you think.

 

Lee is only "remembered as fighting for the Confederacy" only by those who know nothing of history.

After the war, most prominent Confederate Generals worked very diligently to bring the Southern states back into the Union. Several entered the US govt and held prominent positions including ambassador to other nations. Lee supported this reintegration.

Interesting that you would memorialize Lincoln - a man who offered to ignore slavery if the Southern states did not secede, and who only wrote the Proclamation as a war tactic, and a man whose election was the final trigger causing secession because Lincoln supported tax & trade policies that oppressed the South and benefited the North. Yet you would not memorialize people who essentially abandoned their secession idea and worked strongly to reintegrate the North and South.

 

Not at all.

I'm merely pointing out that as easily as monuments can be removed, it's even easier to rewright history that is being taught.

If you can focus people's thoughts only onto divisive issues, & needing to eliminate these symbols of past inconsistencies from the public eye, you guarantee eliminating the teaching of this hidtory.

Best IMO, To keep them in the public mind & teach the fact that these things that divided us, can now unite us in fighting to ensure it never happens again.

But I must add, it is up to the people in areas with these monuments to make the choice.....


The rest of us will just have to keep an eye on the history books.



Not 100% that made sense, a bit tired from work, sorry.

 

For the leadership.....the Confederacy WAS about slavery. For the vast majority of soldiers both North and South, the Civil War was a regional war. Many Americans got caught up in with the idea their homeland was being invaded. They never owned slaves, though they suffered the consequences of slavery. I think that to heal the regional destruction of the Civil War, the Confederacy was offered a bit of grace to heal the wounds. Unfortunately, it didn't take into account the wounds of slavery. The left wants to keep picking at American scabs making them prone to infection once again. There has to be a different way. Does anyone want to call these American Indians racists??

 

The removing of statues from the public square is not the purpose of these activities, it is merely a symptom. The purpose is to destroy a political culture that stands in the way of "progressivism", that culture being the culture of the Southern states. The South is heavily conservative, pro-gun rights, pro-military, opposes the gay agenda, supports federalism as the Constitution intended it to be.

The process involves making everyone in the South feel ashamed of their culture and history to the point they will shut up and through a sense of restitution for past sins allow the "progressives" to advance their agenda.

 

Thanks.

Pretty much what I was getting at.

Spent from the 9 to 5 today.

 

It is a bit more complicated than the left would portray, isn't it?

 

And it must be preserved. Or would you rather it is swept aside?

 

The common idiot on the street can't even tell you when the civil war took place, the bloodiest conflict to take place in the western hemisphere. People need more reminders of the horror mankind is capable of, not less. So, yes, it is horrible that woman was killed, and the killer should be put to death, charged as a terrorist, but the importance of keeping these reminders of our past where everyone can see them daily is more important.

 

While that was true in the Old Testament, it was ended in the New Testament. See Galatians 3.

 

Please see my earlier post where I showed where the Bible condemns the slave trade.

 

As does the Democrat Party even as they shovel as fast as they can to try to cover Republicans with some of their mud.

 

OK, I can accept that this is something to celebrate, but you don't celebrate those accomplishments by portraying them in a military pose. Likewise, we don't depict Jefferson's positive accomplishments with a statue of him wielding a whip on his slaves, nor do we quote Lincoln's racist statements at the Lincoln memorial.

My position is that we are paying tribute to the good things that Lincoln did, and as I just said - I'd have no problem paying tribute to good things that former Confederate generals did. If someone's trying to tear down a statue of Lee that pays tribute to his post-Confederacy good deeds, I'll stand by your side.

 

OK, that's the way you interpret the Civil War - and you're entitled to that perspective. Can you also understand the alternate perspective? Can you not understand why black people would take offense? People who take offense do not want to have to see, what they perceive to be, a celebration of the defense of slavery. They won't change your mind, and you won't change theirs. I stand by my position that it should be local option, and both sides can have the opportunity to advocate for their position.