D
dvdjs
Guest
But it is a fact that the secessionists were fighting to preserve it.
When were confederate monuments erected and why?
- Thread starter LeafByNiggle
- Start date
- Status
S
St_Francis
Guest
Yes, because you are equivocating.
Look at it this way: Trump called McCain a loser because he lost the 2008 election. He also questioned whether McCain was a war hero *simply because he was a POW. *
Yet you consider Trump’s calling McCain a loser as wrong, because loser has become an insulting word over the years.
At the same time, you insist on calling those who fought in defense of their states losers… As outraged as you are by Trump’s calling McCain a loser, so are those who see that those who fought for the South were honorable men doing the best that they could at the time.
Because th word loser no longer means only someone who lost but also someone unworthy of much consideration, we need to consider each case on a separate basis. Were the Confederates losers in the pejorative sense? Many think not: as individuals they were good men. Is McCain a loser in the pejorative sense? Many think not: his military service and other aspects of his life would suggest that he is not.
Persoanlly, I think both you and Trump are wrong to be applying the word loser at all.
Also, re the DAR refusing Marion Anderson… as someone already pointed out, but which you seem to have missed, is that the DAR are the Daughters of the *American Revolution, *nothing to do with the Confederacy, the main founder of which, Mary Lockwood, was from New York.
C
commenter
Guest
True, but I would take that farther.
The Democratic Party of today shares little if any ideological ground with Party of Truman, JFK, Al Smith, George Meany, Lyndon Johnson, and a whole host of leaders of that and earlier generations who were genuinely committed to families, were prolife, mostly defended the Natural Law and historic teachings of Christianity. These people had their individual sins, but never lifted Sin up as an ideal to be honored, let alone legislated.
**That **party would never have allowed so much power to billionaire individuals and media corporations, as the faux Democratic Party does now. That party is gone. A different party stole the name, and uses it now.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Slavery existed. Unfortunately, it was a way of life in the South and other areas in the
world.
Does that make it right? Absolutely not! We are talking about a time in history.
Maybe democrats feel guilty about their role in racism in the south and so they
feel they are making amends for the sins of the past by insisting these statues need
to be removed.
The world was changing when our country was founded and continued to change rapidly in the following 200 years. History was being made. Some of it good and some bad. We cannot change that slavery was part of the fabric of our country.
I am not responsible for the slavery and my mother and father did not participate in
slavery nor did my grandparents or great grandparents. I believe I had a great great
grandfather that had a small plantation in Kentucky and owned a few slaves, but I
am far removed from what was happening in the 1860’s. I grew up in Kansas, a free
state, that voted not to allow slavery in the 1860’s.
I didn’t grow up hating my country or statues because of slavery. I was mature enough to know slavery was wrong, a war was fought and it ended and it was part of history. I wonder how history is being taught in schools in this day and age.
I was born in 1952, before the 100th anniversary of the start of the Civil War.
I don’t understand why people want to keep beating themselves up over history.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Doesn’t change the simple fact that the CSA was committed to maintaining slavery-so much so that it went to war for that unjust, evil cause.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Yes, because you are equivocating.
Look at it this way: Trump called McCain a loser because he lost the 2008 election. He also questioned whether McCain was a war hero *simply because he was a POW. *
Yet you consider Trump’s calling McCain a loser as wrong, because loser has become an insulting word over the years.
At the same time, you insist on calling those who fought in defense of their states losers… As outraged as you are by Trump’s calling McCain a loser, so are those who see that those who fought for the South were honorable men doing the best that they could at the time.
Because th word loser no longer means only someone who lost but also someone unworthy of much consideration, we need to consider each case on a separate basis. Were the Confederates losers in the pejorative sense? Many think not: as individuals they were good men. Is McCain a loser in the pejorative sense? Many think not: his military service and other aspects of his life would suggest that he is not.
Persoanlly, I think both you and Trump are wrong to be applying the word loser at all.
Also, re the DAR refusing Marion Anderson… as someone already pointed out, but which you seem to have missed, is that the DAR are the Daughters of the *American Revolution, *nothing to do with the Confederacy, the main founder of which, Mary Lockwood, was from New York.
D
dvdjs
Guest
You see this a beating up. But others are not talking about beating up. The issue is a call for clarity in messaging a national narrative.
There are arguable reasons to memorialize people like Washington and Jefferson despite their slave-holding. But are there good arguments to memorialize people whose only real claim to fame was their work on behalf of slavery? A healthy love of country, just like a decent self- respect, does not risk indulging, championing or glorifying past errors, but is dedicated to examination of conscience, confession, remorse, and a strengthening of will to remember to do better.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Thanks for making those points. Well said!?
E
exnihilo
Guest
That makes no sense. If a married man had mistresses and divorced his wife, even though she said he could keep his mistresses, would you say he was divorcing her to keep have mistresses?
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I didn’t mean for the question mark to be at the end!
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Is this tortured analogy supposed to prove that the CSA did not consider the preservation of the slave economy an important goal of the Civil War? The analogy fails because the Northern States did not give solid assurances that they would always respect that economy. There may have been other reasons for the war in addition to the question of rights of slaves, but that was surely one of them.
E
exnihilo
Guest
How is the analogy tortured? The North and Lincoln did give assurances. They supported the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery forever from the federal government.
Slavery was certainly part of the division between the countries but there is plenty more to it than just slavery.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
And just how many southerners had slaves, do you think? I’d say darn few. Back in those days I dare venture most of those who fought on the Confederate side were fighting for their states and states rights, as set out in the Constitution. The Civil War causes were much more complex than just slavery as so many liberals want to portray it. And with the schools being as they are, two sides of any subject are seldom offered.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
What makes no sense is the deflection and denial of the obvious, which is that the CSA was expressly committed to maintaining the evil system of slavery and that its leaders were willing to wage a civil war that was motivated by in part by a desire to remain free to own other human beings as property.
E
exnihilo
Guest
No, I readily admit the CSA wanted to maintain slavery. I reject they fought a war to own slaves. They are two distinct issues. The morality of the war, in denying political independence, is predicated in the fairytale that the Union fought to end slavery. It is like saying the US fought Germany to end the Holocaust. It’s just not true.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
And I have not argued that the Union fought to end slavery. What I maintain is that one of the chief reasons for the desire of the CSA to gain independence was a concern that the institution of slavery would be threatened apart from independence.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Even if we do accept that slavery per se played no role in the initial declaration of the the war, it certainly became an issue as the war progressed, and becomes how we think of the war afterwards. So it is natural that symbols and memorials of the Civil War would relate to slavery just as symbols of Nazi Germany relate to the Holocaust. Since we are talking about confederate memorials in this thread, this is relevant.
U
ucfengr
Guest
Repeating a falsehood a million times doesn’t make it true. Democrat ideology has changed remarkably little over the past 150 years. It’s still an ideology built around the idea that the vast majority of people are incapable of handling there own affairs and need someone in authority, whether that person be a master, a bureaucrat, or a Google executive, to strictly limit their freedom.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There are supposed statistics on that. Maybe they can be believed, maybe not. It sort of depends on how you count. If, say, a man had one slave, a wife and seven children, would the wife and children be counted as “slave owners” or just the husband?
And while it doesn’t matter too much to the topic, it’s not unreasonable to believe many were “inherited”. In Missouri, the old “slave cases” for the most part involve three very wealthy French families who founded the City of St. Louis when it was French territory a hundred years previous to the Civil War.
What’s reasonably certain is that it varied a lot from state to state. In some, the economy probably did depend on slavery. In others it definitely did not.
In my state, which did pass articles of secession, it was because of invasion by Union forces from both east and west. In Arkansas, it was probably the realization that Ark would be occupied by one side or the other, no matter what.
T
tomarin
Guest
Is that why Thomas Jefferson founded the party, to limit people’s freedom? The author of the Declaration of Independence of all people?
- Status