Should Alabama's Jefferson Davis holiday be abolished?

[TULIPed]

Not exactly an I wore bell bottoms because everyone else did kind of situation.

I am literally laughing out loud. (I totally rocked bell bottoms BTW).

 

[rfournier103]

He was the “leader” of a massive rebellion against the lawfully elected government of the United States. The buck stopped with him. That is fact, not opinion. He was a traitor and should have been put to death after the war.

I guess that pretty much says where I stand on the holiday.

 

[Cruciferi]

Really. Odd that. I was taught that everything we do and say has to do with being a follower of Christ. Here’s where I get it

I went to college, studied Modern American History, learned how to research, write papers, and discuss complex subjects without dragging the Bible and God into every discussion.

They tell you they have no problems with the idea that evil gets a pass because it’s ok as long as it’s a “product of the times”?

I said that we have discussed both current and historical issues surrounding racism in the United States.

How was Hitler not the same?

It’s a matter of keeping things in proportion and avoiding preposterous and emotionally charged comparisons. Davis to Hitler is like comparing Saddam Hussein to Mao Tse-tung. We might disagree with their actions and motives but Davis was not responsible for the murder of millions or even a global calamity.

 

[Cruciferi]

There’s no evidence to suggest that JD and Lee couldnt have decided to not be white supremacist traitors, as many people living at that time were not.

Sure, they could’ve walked away and fought for the Union. I wouldn’t doubt that the thought crossed their minds. From all accounts, they both were rather hesitant. But I’m sure they knew that in doing so they’d never be welcomed home again and always be regarded as traitors to the southern cause.

 

[RobertAdams]

Hello poster Cruciferi; Hitler and Jefferson Davis “reigned” within one hundred years of one another, were briefly alive at the same time, and both led failed experiments in establishing white supremacist states. While there are obvious differences, drawing comparisons isn’t a wackadoo history noob move.

 

[TULIPed]

I went to college, studied Modern American History, learned how to research, write papers, and discuss complex subjects without dragging the Bible and God into every discussion.

Uhmmm…this is a bit awkward…especially since I’m a Calvinist Protestant…but you do realize we’re on a Catholic website right? As a result - the Bible does get dragged into a conversation or 2 on this site - especially when the fundamental value of all human beings is in question.

Davis to Hitler is like comparing Saddam Hussein to Mao Tse-tung. We might disagree with their actions and motives but Davis was not responsible for the murder of millions or even a global calamity.

Roger that. Got it. Evil is measured in how many you murder and enslave. Pol Pot was not such a bad guy after all.

In the immortal words of ESPN, “C’mon man!”

 

[StudentMI]

However, evaluating the moral superiority of the two warring “sides” is not. The confederacy launched the war to protect and promote slavery and white supremacy. The US responded first to restore the the union as it was (with limits to the expansion of slavery, then later included various degrees of emancipation). While neither position is perfect, it’s pretty clear to anyone not wilfully choosing to misunderstand that starting a separate country out of sour grapes over your difficulty expanding slavery and the desire to more vigorously enshrine white supremacy, is worse than being an imperfect country fighting to stop said upstart country.

The South seceded for the reason of slavery, correct. Attempts to cast it as otherwise are historically inaccurate. And yes, the Union launched the war for political-economic reasons that were not related to slavery. However, the rest of your post is just your opinion. Hannah Arendt was certainly smarter than me and she disagreed.

 

[RobertAdams]

Come on; are you really going to go with Hannah on this just because she had a big brain? I feel like you know my “opinion” has the advantage of being the smart thing you talk yourself out of rather than the stupid thing you talk yourself into…

 

[StudentMI]

Come on; are you really going to go with Hannah on this just because she had a big brain? I feel like you know my “opinion” has the advantage of being the smart thing you talk yourself out of rather than the stupid thing you talk yourself into…

Of course you feel that way. It’s your opinion. But I can’t find it in myself to completely side with the Union. I can identify with the abolitionists, particularly Lysander Spooner, who advocated guerrilla warfare to end slavery. However, as hard as it may seem, some things must be seen in their historical context. Some inconvenient facts:

— One reason slaveowners were so opposed to emancipation was because of the massacres of whites that occurred in Haiti.

— The North did not oppose indentured servitude.

— Considering our nation was founded on the right of secession, and slavery was legal at the time, it seems hypocritical to condemn the South’s secession because they were for slavery.

— Every nation but ours was able to end slavery peacefully. Why?

— As Shelby Foote noted, one reason so many Southerners fought wasn’t because of slavery but because, in the words of a captured Southern soldier under interrogation by Northern captors, ”cause you’re down here.”

A book by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel encapsulates the problem perfectly in its title: Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men.

 

[RobertAdams]

None of those points seem particularly inconvenient.

-did you want to worry about this or your Fourth point, they are mutually exclusive.

-so? A & B are bad. Would you prefer a plate of Both A & B, or a plate of B. Not hard.

-our nation was not founded upon the right of secession. At it’s founding our nation found secession to be a right one could exercise on behalf of other rights. I’ll leave it to you if you want to attempt the argument that slavery and white supremacy were “fundamental” rights. (I dont think you should).

-see first point

• oh man I wish Ken Burns hadnt chosen Shelby Foote. Individual motivations of men fighting do not determine the merits of a cause itself. If you rob my house because of your loyalty to close friends who all rob houses to make a living, or because you find intrinsic joy in making me suffer, the difference may effect your own moral culpability in the matter, but not the overall question of whether my house should be robbed or not.

 

[StudentMI]

did you want to worry about this or your Fourth point, they are mutually exclusive.

I was wrong to say all countries except ours. Still, why couldn’t we?

Our nation was definitely founded on the right of secession. The influence of Lockean principles on American history is a historical fact.

I’ll leave it to you if you want to attempt the argument that slavery and white supremacy were “fundamental” rights. (I dont think you should).

Was that really necessary?

-so? A & B are bad. Would you prefer a plate of Both A & B, or a plate of B. Not hard.

How about neither?

 

[PetraG]

Does Alabama wish it were living under the Stars and Bars instead of the Stars and Stripes?

I think either Jeff Davis or July 4th, but how do you celebrate both the founding of the United States and the effort to break it up?

They can do what they want, but that is just bizarre. It reads like a divorce mentality. Well, if you want out of your marriage, why throw an anniversary party? Too weird.

 

[RobertAdams]

-seems like sort of a red herring. We didnt, so sadly we have to decide about Jefferson Davis holidays rather than about President Smith who simply abolished slavery day.

• I admit to shooting from the hip here and not re-reading Locke and the Declaration, I didnt think there was an unqualified right to secede for the simple pleasure of seceding? One has to arrive somewhere in the course of human events?

-I don’t know? I think it’s pretty clear that I come down on the side of being against celebrating the confederacy, so I am never quite sure what will come next from those who dont clearly disagree with celebrating the confederacy.

-neither would be great, but see first point. We are talking about Jefferson Davis day or no Jefferson Davis day. Sadly it’s not Jefferson Davis Day or the day the Zagliormorgs landed and taught us their ways of harmony.

 

[StudentMI]

Sadly it’s not Jefferson Day or the day the Zagliormorgs landed and taught us their ways of harmony.

But the Zagliomorgs were right!

I’m not for celebrating Jefferson Davis day, or the Confederacy. It was an expansionist, slave owning dictatorship. People often forget that there were small revolts against the central state run by Jefferson Davis, and they were put down violently.

 

[LilyM]

Now I admit to not having gone far in philosophy…but I think “celebrate the leading advocates of white supremacy or forget American history” is a false dilemma?

People have certainly not forgotten Hitler, Stalin, or Benedict Atnold. Doesn’t mean they are building or defending statues or monuments to them.

 

[buffalo]

Don’t erase history that is uncomfortable.

 

[Nicene]

History belongs in a museum where anyone who wants to view it can go, not where it is a constant reminder to those descendants of slavery and oppression. Nor to celebrate those who kept their ancestors as slaves. Don’t you agree that is a bit offensive to black people, or don’t their considerations matter?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[jeannetherese]

When you consider that different people approach different historical events from differing perspectives it is tough to think events and people who will not offend some viewers or groups of viewers.
Hiding from the past doesn’t make it go away.

 

[Nicene]

Who said hide it? I said museums. But implicitly you just argued, given my post, that in fact it doesn’t actually matter what black people want or think. I guess especially those who view Jefferson Davis as a hero. /shrug

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[LilyM]

When you consider that different people approach different historical events from differing perspectives it is tough to think events and people who will not offend some viewers or groups of viewers.
Hiding from the past doesn’t make it go away.

We are discussing whether chattel slavery, and fighting (whether in part or whole, whether coincidentally or with deliberation) to defend a society that was based on it, are wrong. And whether a day in honour of those who do such things is likewise wrong.

Are views about these things really merely a matter of perspective, to be legitimately and politely disagreed about and then thought no more of, in the same way as we might disagree about what food to have for dinner? This is almost the tone you are taking.

Are there not moral truths mixed in there somewhere? And aren’t we taught that moral truths are of utmost importance and not to be compromised?