[Split Thread] General discussion about civil war monuments, history of civil war etc. - Page 2

jimbob · 12th September 2018, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

But black guys kneeling during the National Anthem is disrespectful to our country.

Obvious, when you point it out.

ETA: but well worth pointing out.

dudalb · 12th September 2018, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob

Obvious, when you point it out.

ETA: but well worth pointing out.

I agree, though I now question the usefulness of the protest. Whne the debate becomes about the method of protest, rather then what the protest was meant to call attention to, that form of protest has probably outlived it usefulness.
But the players right to do so I defend 1000%.

BrooklynBaby · 12th September 2018, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-slavery-1860/

In South Carolina and Mississippi, about 50% of Households owned slaves. In the rest of the Confederacy, it was closer to 25%.
But the big plantation owners were major employers of non-slaves for oversight and all other kinds of "important" work: without them, the economy of most places did collapse.
If a company is the biggest employer in your area, it doesn't matter whether you own stock in it: your prosperity is tied to its prosperity.

You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one.

RecoveringYuppy · 12th September 2018, 02:08 PM

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/webl...ssippi-owned-/

kookbreaker · 12th September 2018, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one.

It’s based on census data.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

You wanna rethink those Pinocchios?

Dr. Keith · 12th September 2018, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one.

Have you found any reliable data for the percentage of fine people who march with Nazis?

I'm guessing naught.

kellyb · 12th September 2018, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one.

It's based on the 1860 census:
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html?fref=gc

Regnad Kcin · 12th September 2018, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

My comment was only about the people who were drafted and sent to Vietnam and their motivation for fighting. This is in response to the massive generalization by lefties that in wars soldier only fight for a cause. You're talking about a bunch of other stuff that is unrelated to that point. What you need to prove here is that the people who were FORCED to go over there and fight and die did so because they were fighting for a cause, not because they had no real choice in the matter, and for them it was simply "us against the enemy" and fighting for each other to try to stay alive.

Where?

BrooklynBaby · 12th September 2018, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

It’s based on census data.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

You wanna rethink those Pinocchios?

I'm convinced there's a trick here, I just have to figure out what it is. Mississippi is a pretty big state and I've driven the length of it many times. In any case, the Confederacy had a draft, which means there were a whole lot of soldiers fighting for them who didn't want to fight for anything, which means they weren't fighting for slavery.

Mycroft · 12th September 2018, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

This is in response to the massive generalization by lefties that in wars soldier only fight for a cause.

I have never heard of this generalization. Can you cite some examples?

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

What you need to prove here is that the people who were FORCED to go over there and fight and die did so because they were fighting for a cause...

I don't see why anyone needs to prove that in order to point out that monuments to the Confederacy are monuments to treason.

carlitos · 12th September 2018, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

I'm convinced there's a trick here, I just have to figure out what it is. Mississippi is a pretty big state and I've driven the length of it many times. In any case, the Confederacy had a draft, which means there were a whole lot of soldiers fighting for them who didn't want to fight for anything, which means they weren't fighting for slavery.

You tried to write “I was wrong, sorry” and this is what your computer puked out? It might be time for an upgrade.

BrooklynBaby · 12th September 2018, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I have never heard of this generalization. Can you cite some examples?

I don't see why anyone needs to prove that in order to point out that monuments to the Confederacy are monuments to treason.

First, those in here and all over the left who say the Confederate soldiers fought for slavery during the Civil War is a generalization that no one can prove because it isn't true. That is what I've been attempting to illustrate.

Second, how many in the South were charged with treason after the Civil War? I know there were some the North who were charged for various collaborations with the Rebels, but I don't think any of the Confederates were charged with treason. So, no monuments of Southerners would be monuments to treason, since they weren't traitors.

kellyb · 12th September 2018, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

I'm convinced there's a trick here, I just have to figure out what it is. Mississippi is a pretty big state and I've driven the length of it many times. In any case, the Confederacy had a draft, which means there were a whole lot of soldiers fighting for them who didn't want to fight for anything, which means they weren't fighting for slavery.

I don't disagree that a lot of them were just fighting what they saw as "those northern invaders". I don't think it's relevant, though. The sort of people who protest the statues coming down are invariably racist as hell. I live in the south and know some of those people. None of them are normal and merely mis-educated about the Jim Crow history of the statues.

BrooklynBaby · 12th September 2018, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

I don't disagree that a lot of them were just fighting what they saw as "those northern invaders". I don't think it's relevant, though. The sort of people who protest the statues coming down are invariably racist as hell. I live in the south and know some of those people. None of them are normal and merely mis-educated about the Jim Crow history of the statues.

The problem is that no Democrat wants to take down all of the statues and other memorials to FDR, who actually put Japanese in concentration camps. That sounds like some extreme racism to me, yet he gets a free pass. Why is that? Why aren't Democrats demanding FDR be erased from all public property?

Giordano · 12th September 2018, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one.

I've been mostly a lurker in this thread until now but this post really got me. After being proven factually wrong by other posters again and again, you've now confirmed that you have been pretty much just making up most of your stuff as you go along. And that you determine truth vs falsehood based primarily on what you would like to believe. Whatever suits your whim and appears to support your pre-existing political views.

Honestly, are you being satirical? It is often difficult to tell on the Internet.

kellyb · 12th September 2018, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

The problem is that no Democrat wants to take down all of the statues and other memorials to FDR, who actually put Japanese in concentration camps. That sounds like some extreme racism to me, yet he gets a free pass. Why is that? Why aren't Democrats demanding FDR be erased from all public property?

The internment of Japanese Americans was a black mark on an otherwise great presidency. It's nothing like the confederacy and the Jim Crow era statues, both of which are total garbage through and through.

Craig4 · 12th September 2018, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

The problem is that no Democrat wants to take down all of the statues and other memorials to FDR, who actually put Japanese in concentration camps. That sounds like some extreme racism to me, yet he gets a free pass. Why is that? Why aren't Democrats demanding FDR be erased from all public property?

Are there any FDR memorials raised because he interned the Japanese? The answer is no. There are memorials in spite of the fact FDR interned the Japanese. The memorials are there because he saved much of our civilization from Nazism and the tyranny of Japanese occupation (and it was tyrannical).

There are no memorials to Robert E. Lee because he was a great officer in the Army Corps of Engineers. There are only memorials to Robert E. Lee because he committed treason by wagging war against the United States (the definition in the Constitution) for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. Had there been no Civil War, Robert E. Lee would likely have a building in the Engineering Department at West Point named after him and that would have been his only contribution to history.

Memorials to Lee, Jackson, Davis are only there because they committed treason against their nation to perpetuate slavery. You may have an argument for memorials to common soldiers, duped into betraying their country for slavery, but even they, still betrayed their country for slavery.

Let's not confuse "because of" and "in spite of".

Stacyhs · 12th September 2018, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

First, those in here and all over the left who say the Confederate soldiers fought for slavery during the Civil War is a generalization that no one can prove because it isn't true. That is what I've been attempting to illustrate.

Second, how many in the South were charged with treason after the Civil War? I know there were some the North who were charged for various collaborations with the Rebels, but I don't think any of the Confederates were charged with treason. So, no monuments of Southerners would be monuments to treason, since they weren't traitors.

Technically, they were traitors. What do you think the US gov't should have done? Charged the entire South with treason and hanged them or imprisoned them all? This was not possible. Additionally, Lincoln wanted to heal the wounds of the country, not inflame them with treason trials. A general parole was given upon the surrender of Lee at Appomattox:

Quote:

“…each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States Authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.”

(surrender agreement signed by U.S. Grant)

However, a judge indicted Lee and others on charges of treason:

Quote:

But on June 7, 1865, U.S. District Judge John C. Underwood in Norfolk, Virginia, handed down treason indictments against Lee, James Longstreet, Jubal Early, and others stating the terms of parole agreed upon with Lee were “a mere military arrangement, and can have no influence upon civil rights or the status of the persons interested.” When Lee, who was preparing to apply for amnesty, became aware of the indictments, he wrote Grant asking if the Appomattox terms were still in effect.

Pres. Johnson and Grant went head to head over the treason charges with Grant winning and the charges were dropped.

Jefferson Davis was tried for Treason. He was acquitted because his defense successfully argued that the Constitution mentions no U.S. citizens, only citizens of a state. Therefore, Davis could not have committed treason against the U.S.
Pres. Johnson granted all Confederate insurgents pardons in 1868, thus prohibiting any charges of treason for their part in the war.

There is no question that the Confederates were technically traitors. That none was ever convicted was due to politics and the surrender agreement.

Stacyhs · 12th September 2018, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Craig4

Are there any FDR memorials raised because he interned the Japanese? The answer is no. There are memorials in spite of the fact FDR interned the Japanese. The memorials are there because he saved much of our civilization from Nazism and the tyranny of Japanese occupation (and it was tyrannical).

There are no memorials to Robert E. Lee because he was a great officer in the Army Corps of Engineers. There are only memorials to Robert E. Lee because he committed treason by wagging war against the United States (the definition in the Constitution) for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. Had there been no Civil War, Robert E. Lee would likely have a building in the Engineering Department at West Point named after him and that would have been his only contribution to history.

Memorials to Lee, Jackson, Davis are only there because they committed treason against their nation to perpetuate slavery. You may have an argument for memorials to common soldiers, duped into betraying their country for slavery, but even they, still betrayed their country for slavery.

Let's not confuse "because of" and "in spite of".

Re the highlighted part: Lee did not fight to perpetuate slavery in and of itself; he fought to maintain the concept of states' rights with slavery being a part of that. Few know that Lee was actually offered the command of the Union Armies by Lincoln, but he could not fight against his beloved Virginia and resigned his US Army commission.

d4m10n · 12th September 2018, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Re the highlighted part: Lee did not fight to perpetuate slavery in and of itself; he fought to maintain the concept of states' rights with slavery being a part of that.

Can you name a couple of other states' rights that were widely considered to be endangered at the time?

BrooklynBaby · 12th September 2018, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Giordano

I've been mostly a lurker in this thread until now but this post really got me. After being proven factually wrong by other posters again and again, you've now confirmed that you have been pretty much just making up most of your stuff as you go along. And that you determine truth vs falsehood based primarily on what you would like to believe. Whatever suits your whim and appears to support your pre-existing political views.

Honestly, are you being satirical? It is often difficult to tell on the Internet.

No, it just means I have enough experience not to trust Politifact. Show me where I've been proved "factually wrong by other posters again and again". Why would a skeptic like myself believe half of the houses in Mississippi had slaves because Politifact said so? They said, no, it wasn't something like 1.4%, it was 50%. I haven't been wrong about anything as far as I know. If you actually read what I have written, I didn't say half of the houses in Mississippi didn't have slaves, I said I didn't believe it. That comes from being a skeptic, you know.

BrooklynBaby · 12th September 2018, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Technically, they were traitors. What do you think the US gov't should have done? Charged the entire South with treason and hanged them or imprisoned them all? This was not possible. Additionally, Lincoln wanted to heal the wounds of the country, not inflame them with treason trials. A general parole was given upon the surrender of Lee at Appomattox:

(surrender agreement signed by U.S. Grant)

However, a judge indicted Lee and others on charges of treason:

Pres. Johnson and Grant went head to head over the treason charges with Grant winning and the charges were dropped.

Jefferson Davis was tried for Treason. He was acquitted because his defense successfully argued that the Constitution mentions no U.S. citizens, only citizens of a state. Therefore, Davis could not have committed treason against the U.S.
Pres. Johnson granted all Confederate insurgents pardons in 1868, thus prohibiting any charges of treason for their part in the war.

There is no question that the Confederates were technically traitors. That none was ever convicted was due to politics and the surrender agreement.

"Technically doesn't count" -- it's merely an opinion. They weren't traitors, as determined by the U.S. Government.

Craig4 · 12th September 2018, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Re the highlighted part: Lee did not fight to perpetuate slavery in and of itself; he fought to maintain the concept of states' rights with slavery being a part of that. Few know that Lee was actually offered the command of the Union Armies by Lincoln, but he could not fight against his beloved Virginia and resigned his US Army commission.

That is a lie of omission or simply willful ignorance. Lee's association with slavery is well known and not hard to research. He knew full well why Virginia betrayed the nation. He could have chosen the path of Winfield Scott (also a Virginian) but instead he, fully informed, with the knowledge of Virginia's Articles of Succession chose to betray his country. He is only memorialized for his a crime for which justice demanded he die but was spared out of expediencies.

Stacyhs · 12th September 2018, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

"Technically doesn't count" -- it's merely an opinion. They weren't traitors, as determined by the U.S. Government.

Nope. If they weren't considered traitors, the government would have had no need to parole and then pardon them. The argument that Davis's lawyers used had never been used before or used since. Sorry, but you're just wrong on this one.

Stacyhs · 12th September 2018, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Can you name a couple of other states' rights that were widely considered to be endangered at the time?

It was the fear that the Federal gov't could interfere with any of the rights designated to the states specifically. They feared that the faster growing in population and wealthy northern states, plus the emerging western states could impose their wills over those of the South. I do not deny that slavery was the overriding concern of these "rights" that they feared would be taken from them. But it was not the only right they feared losing.

Foolmewunz · 12th September 2018, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

The problem is that no Democrat wants to take down all of the statues and other memorials to FDR, who actually put Japanese in concentration camps. That sounds like some extreme racism to me, yet he gets a free pass. Why is that? Why aren't Democrats demanding FDR be erased from all public property?

This is now getting idiotic. You repeated a bunch of lies and now are painted into a corner so are pulling the Whataboutism card.

Hint: List the accomplishments of Jefferson Davis that merit a statue.
> Southern nationalist/separatist who headed the Confederacy.
> Robert E. Lee - leader of the armies of the CSA.
> Stonewall Jackson - great warrior for the confederacy.

You can find other factoids about the gentlemen, I'm sure. They didn't spring up out of nowhere in 1860. But the point is "you can find" refers to the general "you". You, personally, before you now rush off to research it, don't know a damned thing about any of them except for their connections to the Confederacy. Nor can most of the rubes out there talking about honoring them for their noble lives. It's all a bunch of horse **** and they want to honor them for their rebellion in the cause of holding title to human beings!

Now, even with your woeful knowledge of history and current events, I'm gonna bet you can come up with no less than ten other things that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did. And Jefferson. And Washington. But the Whataboutists (direct descendants of the Know Nothings) clutch at that cheap distraction technique.

And the funny thing is watching YOU try to condemn FDRs internment policy! You probably, if you'd ever given it any thought, supported it. Liberals and Progressives roundly condemn the policy for what it was. Conservatives and reactionaries think "well, it was a good start".

Stacyhs · 12th September 2018, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Craig4

That is a lie of omission or simply willful ignorance. Lee's association with slavery is well known and not hard to research. He knew full well why Virginia betrayed the nation. He could have chosen the path of Winfield Scott (also a Virginian) but instead he, fully informed, with the knowledge of Virginia's Articles of Succession chose to betray his country. He is only memorialized for his a crime for which justice demanded he die but was spared out of expediencies.

I tell ya what, when you have a teaching degree in history like I do, you can lecture me on "lies of omission" or "willful ignorance".

You fail to understand that during Lee's time, most Americans identified as a Virginian, New Yorker, Georgian, or whatever state they were a citizen of first and as an "American" (in the national sense) second.

Quote:

To many people today, it would see strange that Lee would turn down such a command and follow the apparently hopeless fate of the Confederacy. Although he was born and raised in Virginia, like Winfield Scott, he had spent much of his life serving the United States of America all over the continent. He disagreed with slavery, and believed that secession was unwise. He wrote:

I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation...
With all these reasons pointing to why he would stay with the North, why did he decide to side with the South? It came down to his view of state sovereignty. Lee viewed himself as a Virginian more than an American. He would follow the choice of his state even though he personally disagreed with it. He viewed his service to the South not as a fight against the Union, but as a defense of Virginia. Lee said,

I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty.

http://civilwar150th.blogspot.com/20...e-command.html

d4m10n · 12th September 2018, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I do not deny that slavery was the overriding concern of these "rights" that they feared would be taken from them. But it was not the only right they feared losing.

Can you name just one other right the rebels were hoping to preserve in the face of northern electoral supremacy?

BadBoy · 12th September 2018, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

First, those in here and all over the left who say the Confederate soldiers fought for slavery during the Civil War is a generalization that no one can prove because it isn't true. That is what I've been attempting to illustrate.

Second, how many in the South were charged with treason after the Civil War? I know there were some the North who were charged for various collaborations with the Rebels, but I don't think any of the Confederates were charged with treason. So, no monuments of Southerners would be monuments to treason, since they weren't traitors.

IMO, there is a BIG difference between statues of well known confederate generals, and a more general "least we forget" kind of monument to the fallen soldiers.

In Germany you won't find statues of Nazi generals, but you can find shrines and monuments for the ordinary soldier.

Having said that, a monument to the fallen should probably include soldiers from both the North and South. I assume there are some like that. Would I be corect in saying that there are no plans to remove these type of monuments?

Lambchops · 12th September 2018, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Can you name just one other right the rebels were hoping to preserve in the face of northern electoral supremacy?

The right to arm bears?

(so sorry, I'll get me coat)

Stacyhs · 12th September 2018, 06:38 PM

There is a difference between honoring a statue of Lee the General of the Confederate forces and a statue honoring the civilian Lee who led and helped Washington (later) and Lee University grow into the institution it is today. For that he deserves to be honored:

Lee

Quote:

incorporated the Lexington Law School into the college, encouraged the development of the sciences, and instituted programs in business instruction that led to the founding of the School of Commerce in 1906. He also inaugurated courses in journalism, which developed by 1925 into the School of Journalism (now the Department of Journalism and Mass Communications.) These courses in business and journalism were the first offered in colleges in the U.S. He also established an informal code of conduct that led to today's Honor System. "We have but one rule here," he wrote, "and it is that every student be a gentleman." He oversaw the construction of a chapel that also housed his office, and a new home for him and his family. The former became Lee Chapel, which the University still uses for events and ceremonies and which has a museum. The latter became the Lee House, and the president and his or her family still live there.

https://www.wlu.edu/presidents-offic...s/robert-e-lee

Stacyhs · 12th September 2018, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by BadBoy

IMO, there is a BIG difference between statues of well known confederate generals, and a more general "least we forget" kind of monument to the fallen soldiers.

In Germany you won't find statues of Nazi generals, but you can find shrines and monuments for the ordinary soldier.

Having said that, a monument to the fallen should probably include soldiers from both the North and South. I assume there are some like that. Would I be corect in saying that there are no plans to remove these type of monuments?

Yes, you would be correct.

d4m10n · 12th September 2018, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Lambchops

The right to arm bears?

(so sorry, I'll get me coat)

https://goo.gl/images/xgdqLx

Lambchops · 12th September 2018, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

https://goo.gl/images/xgdqLx

Stacyhs · 12th September 2018, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Can you name just one other right the rebels were hoping to preserve in the face of northern electoral supremacy?

They feared they would lose the right to govern themselves as they saw Congress being dominated by northern and, eventually, western states. This fear of a strong central government and weak states is still strong in the Southern states.

ETA: Please remember that I did state earlier that "I do not deny that slavery was the overriding concern of these "rights" that they feared would be taken from them. But it was not the only right they feared losing."

Stacyhs · 12th September 2018, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

https://goo.gl/images/xgdqLx

The bears might have a problem with that!

kellyb · 12th September 2018, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Can you name a couple of other states' rights that were widely considered to be endangered at the time?

It was just slavery.

kellyb · 12th September 2018, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

They feared they would lose the right to govern themselves as they saw Congress being dominated by northern and, eventually, western states. This fear of a strong central government and weak states is still strong in the Southern states.

ETA: Please remember that I did state earlier that "I do not deny that slavery was the overriding concern of these "rights" that they feared would be taken from them. But it was not the only right they feared losing."

The "right to govern themselves" looks like it was all about "the right to ensure the legality of slavery" when you look through the causes of secession for the various confederate states.

Craig4 · 12th September 2018, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I tell ya what, when you have a teaching degree in history like I do, you can lecture me on "lies of omission" or "willful ignorance".

You fail to understand that during Lee's time, most Americans identified as a Virginian, New Yorker, Georgian, or whatever state they were a citizen of first and as an "American" (in the national sense) second.

http://civilwar150th.blogspot.com/20...e-command.html

Ooo...Ahhh… an argument from authority. I'm glad no child I know is subjected to your faulty administrations. Your argument falls flat because Winfield Scott knew his true duty and did it. You're arguing Lee should be memorialized for his failure to do what he swore to as an officer.

Babbylonian · 12th September 2018, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

They feared they would lose the right to govern themselves as they saw Congress being dominated by northern and, eventually, western states. This fear of a strong central government and weak states is still strong in the Southern states.

ETA: Please remember that I did state earlier that "I do not deny that slavery was the overriding concern of these "rights" that they feared would be taken from them. But it was not the only right they feared losing."

You've bought the lies from the same people who installed the Confederate statues. There has never been convincing evidence of what you claim. Every state that seceded and joined the CSA did so because of the issue of slavery and said so. They knew that the practice was doomed as more states were admitted to the Union and the population disparity between the north and south continued to expand.

Anybody who has told you different is a liar or completely ignorant of actual facts.

12th September 2018, 12:01 PM	#41
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 19,289	Originally Posted by johnny karate But black guys kneeling during the National Anthem is disrespectful to our country. Obvious, when you point it out. ETA: but well worth pointing out.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending Last edited by jimbob; 12th September 2018 at 12:02 PM.

12th September 2018, 01:23 PM	#42
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 41,508	Originally Posted by jimbob Obvious, when you point it out. ETA: but well worth pointing out. I agree, though I now question the usefulness of the protest. Whne the debate becomes about the method of protest, rather then what the protest was meant to call attention to, that form of protest has probably outlived it usefulness. But the players right to do so I defend 1000%.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

12th September 2018, 02:00 PM	#43
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-slavery-1860/ In South Carolina and Mississippi, about 50% of Households owned slaves. In the rest of the Confederacy, it was closer to 25%. But the big plantation owners were major employers of non-slaves for oversight and all other kinds of "important" work: without them, the economy of most places did collapse. If a company is the biggest employer in your area, it doesn't matter whether you own stock in it: your prosperity is tied to its prosperity. You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one.
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816

12th September 2018, 02:08 PM	#44
RecoveringYuppy Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,837	http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/webl...ssippi-owned-/
	__________________ REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years. Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

12th September 2018, 02:12 PM	#45
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,824	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one. It’s based on census data. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html You wanna rethink those Pinocchios?
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun! Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

12th September 2018, 02:13 PM	#46
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 17,331	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one. Have you found any reliable data for the percentage of fine people who march with Nazis? I'm guessing naught.
	__________________ I once proposed a fun ban. Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

12th September 2018, 02:22 PM	#47
kellyb Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,138	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one. It's based on the 1860 census: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html?fref=gc
kellyb Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,138	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

12th September 2018, 02:22 PM	#48
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 9,040	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby My comment was only about the people who were drafted and sent to Vietnam and their motivation for fighting. This is in response to the massive generalization by lefties that in wars soldier only fight for a cause. You're talking about a bunch of other stuff that is unrelated to that point. What you need to prove here is that the people who were FORCED to go over there and fight and die did so because they were fighting for a cause, not because they had no real choice in the matter, and for them it was simply "us against the enemy" and fighting for each other to try to stay alive. Where?
Regnad Kcin Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 9,040	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

12th September 2018, 02:27 PM	#49
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816	Originally Posted by kookbreaker It’s based on census data. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html You wanna rethink those Pinocchios? I'm convinced there's a trick here, I just have to figure out what it is. Mississippi is a pretty big state and I've driven the length of it many times. In any case, the Confederacy had a draft, which means there were a whole lot of soldiers fighting for them who didn't want to fight for anything, which means they weren't fighting for slavery.
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816

12th September 2018, 02:32 PM	#50
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 19,212	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby This is in response to the massive generalization by lefties that in wars soldier only fight for a cause. I have never heard of this generalization. Can you cite some examples? Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby What you need to prove here is that the people who were FORCED to go over there and fight and die did so because they were fighting for a cause... I don't see why anyone needs to prove that in order to point out that monuments to the Confederacy are monuments to treason.
	__________________ Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda

12th September 2018, 02:46 PM	#51
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 18,704	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby I'm convinced there's a trick here, I just have to figure out what it is. Mississippi is a pretty big state and I've driven the length of it many times. In any case, the Confederacy had a draft, which means there were a whole lot of soldiers fighting for them who didn't want to fight for anything, which means they weren't fighting for slavery. You tried to write “I was wrong, sorry” and this is what your computer puked out? It might be time for an upgrade.

12th September 2018, 02:54 PM	#52
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816	Originally Posted by Mycroft I have never heard of this generalization. Can you cite some examples? I don't see why anyone needs to prove that in order to point out that monuments to the Confederacy are monuments to treason. First, those in here and all over the left who say the Confederate soldiers fought for slavery during the Civil War is a generalization that no one can prove because it isn't true. That is what I've been attempting to illustrate. Second, how many in the South were charged with treason after the Civil War? I know there were some the North who were charged for various collaborations with the Rebels, but I don't think any of the Confederates were charged with treason. So, no monuments of Southerners would be monuments to treason, since they weren't traitors.
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816

12th September 2018, 03:00 PM	#53
kellyb Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,138	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby I'm convinced there's a trick here, I just have to figure out what it is. Mississippi is a pretty big state and I've driven the length of it many times. In any case, the Confederacy had a draft, which means there were a whole lot of soldiers fighting for them who didn't want to fight for anything, which means they weren't fighting for slavery. I don't disagree that a lot of them were just fighting what they saw as "those northern invaders". I don't think it's relevant, though. The sort of people who protest the statues coming down are invariably racist as hell. I live in the south and know some of those people. None of them are normal and merely mis-educated about the Jim Crow history of the statues.
kellyb Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,138	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

12th September 2018, 04:44 PM	#54
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816	Originally Posted by kellyb I don't disagree that a lot of them were just fighting what they saw as "those northern invaders". I don't think it's relevant, though. The sort of people who protest the statues coming down are invariably racist as hell. I live in the south and know some of those people. None of them are normal and merely mis-educated about the Jim Crow history of the statues. The problem is that no Democrat wants to take down all of the statues and other memorials to FDR, who actually put Japanese in concentration camps. That sounds like some extreme racism to me, yet he gets a free pass. Why is that? Why aren't Democrats demanding FDR be erased from all public property?
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816

12th September 2018, 04:47 PM	#55
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 14,858	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby You know, it's not just don't trust Politifact as a source, but I simply don't believe 50% of houses owned slaves in two states. I think most people would reject this out of hand. This is saying people in these states were just as likely to have a slave as not, and that simply doesn't fit any kind of society I've ever heard of, except for maybe inside the walls in old Rome. I've looked around and found a lot of varied numbers, all of them far less than this. So, I'm gonna give Politifact four Pinocchios for this one. I've been mostly a lurker in this thread until now but this post really got me. After being proven factually wrong by other posters again and again, you've now confirmed that you have been pretty much just making up most of your stuff as you go along. And that you determine truth vs falsehood based primarily on what you would like to believe. Whatever suits your whim and appears to support your pre-existing political views. Honestly, are you being satirical? It is often difficult to tell on the Internet.

12th September 2018, 05:00 PM	#56
kellyb Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,138	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby The problem is that no Democrat wants to take down all of the statues and other memorials to FDR, who actually put Japanese in concentration camps. That sounds like some extreme racism to me, yet he gets a free pass. Why is that? Why aren't Democrats demanding FDR be erased from all public property? The internment of Japanese Americans was a black mark on an otherwise great presidency. It's nothing like the confederacy and the Jim Crow era statues, both of which are total garbage through and through.
kellyb Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9,138	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

12th September 2018, 05:17 PM	#57
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State. Posts: 17,308	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby The problem is that no Democrat wants to take down all of the statues and other memorials to FDR, who actually put Japanese in concentration camps. That sounds like some extreme racism to me, yet he gets a free pass. Why is that? Why aren't Democrats demanding FDR be erased from all public property? Are there any FDR memorials raised because he interned the Japanese? The answer is no. There are memorials in spite of the fact FDR interned the Japanese. The memorials are there because he saved much of our civilization from Nazism and the tyranny of Japanese occupation (and it was tyrannical). There are no memorials to Robert E. Lee because he was a great officer in the Army Corps of Engineers. There are only memorials to Robert E. Lee because he committed treason by wagging war against the United States (the definition in the Constitution) for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. Had there been no Civil War, Robert E. Lee would likely have a building in the Engineering Department at West Point named after him and that would have been his only contribution to history. Memorials to Lee, Jackson, Davis are only there because they committed treason against their nation to perpetuate slavery. You may have an argument for memorials to common soldiers, duped into betraying their country for slavery, but even they, still betrayed their country for slavery. Let's not confuse "because of" and "in spite of".

12th September 2018, 05:34 PM	#58
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby First, those in here and all over the left who say the Confederate soldiers fought for slavery during the Civil War is a generalization that no one can prove because it isn't true. That is what I've been attempting to illustrate. Second, how many in the South were charged with treason after the Civil War? I know there were some the North who were charged for various collaborations with the Rebels, but I don't think any of the Confederates were charged with treason. So, no monuments of Southerners would be monuments to treason, since they weren't traitors. Technically, they were traitors. What do you think the US gov't should have done? Charged the entire South with treason and hanged them or imprisoned them all? This was not possible. Additionally, Lincoln wanted to heal the wounds of the country, not inflame them with treason trials. A general parole was given upon the surrender of Lee at Appomattox: Quote: “…each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States Authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside.” (surrender agreement signed by U.S. Grant) However, a judge indicted Lee and others on charges of treason: Quote: But on June 7, 1865, U.S. District Judge John C. Underwood in Norfolk, Virginia, handed down treason indictments against Lee, James Longstreet, Jubal Early, and others stating the terms of parole agreed upon with Lee were “a mere military arrangement, and can have no influence upon civil rights or the status of the persons interested.” When Lee, who was preparing to apply for amnesty, became aware of the indictments, he wrote Grant asking if the Appomattox terms were still in effect. Pres. Johnson and Grant went head to head over the treason charges with Grant winning and the charges were dropped. Jefferson Davis was tried for Treason. He was acquitted because his defense successfully argued that the Constitution mentions no U.S. citizens, only citizens of a state. Therefore, Davis could not have committed treason against the U.S. Pres. Johnson granted all Confederate insurgents pardons in 1868, thus prohibiting any charges of treason for their part in the war. There is no question that the Confederates were technically traitors. That none was ever convicted was due to politics and the surrender agreement.
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607

12th September 2018, 05:46 PM	#59
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607	Originally Posted by Craig4 Are there any FDR memorials raised because he interned the Japanese? The answer is no. There are memorials in spite of the fact FDR interned the Japanese. The memorials are there because he saved much of our civilization from Nazism and the tyranny of Japanese occupation (and it was tyrannical). There are no memorials to Robert E. Lee because he was a great officer in the Army Corps of Engineers. There are only memorials to Robert E. Lee because he committed treason by wagging war against the United States (the definition in the Constitution) for the purpose of perpetuating slavery. Had there been no Civil War, Robert E. Lee would likely have a building in the Engineering Department at West Point named after him and that would have been his only contribution to history. Memorials to Lee, Jackson, Davis are only there because they committed treason against their nation to perpetuate slavery. You may have an argument for memorials to common soldiers, duped into betraying their country for slavery, but even they, still betrayed their country for slavery. Let's not confuse "because of" and "in spite of". Re the highlighted part: Lee did not fight to perpetuate slavery in and of itself; he fought to maintain the concept of states' rights with slavery being a part of that. Few know that Lee was actually offered the command of the Union Armies by Lincoln, but he could not fight against his beloved Virginia and resigned his US Army commission.
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607

12th September 2018, 05:52 PM	#60
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 3,577	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Re the highlighted part: Lee did not fight to perpetuate slavery in and of itself; he fought to maintain the concept of states' rights with slavery being a part of that. Can you name a couple of other states' rights that were widely considered to be endangered at the time?
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

12th September 2018, 06:01 PM	#61
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816	Originally Posted by Giordano I've been mostly a lurker in this thread until now but this post really got me. After being proven factually wrong by other posters again and again, you've now confirmed that you have been pretty much just making up most of your stuff as you go along. And that you determine truth vs falsehood based primarily on what you would like to believe. Whatever suits your whim and appears to support your pre-existing political views. Honestly, are you being satirical? It is often difficult to tell on the Internet. No, it just means I have enough experience not to trust Politifact. Show me where I've been proved "factually wrong by other posters again and again". Why would a skeptic like myself believe half of the houses in Mississippi had slaves because Politifact said so? They said, no, it wasn't something like 1.4%, it was 50%. I haven't been wrong about anything as far as I know. If you actually read what I have written, I didn't say half of the houses in Mississippi didn't have slaves, I said I didn't believe it. That comes from being a skeptic, you know.
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816

12th September 2018, 06:04 PM	#62
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Technically, they were traitors. What do you think the US gov't should have done? Charged the entire South with treason and hanged them or imprisoned them all? This was not possible. Additionally, Lincoln wanted to heal the wounds of the country, not inflame them with treason trials. A general parole was given upon the surrender of Lee at Appomattox: (surrender agreement signed by U.S. Grant) However, a judge indicted Lee and others on charges of treason: Pres. Johnson and Grant went head to head over the treason charges with Grant winning and the charges were dropped. Jefferson Davis was tried for Treason. He was acquitted because his defense successfully argued that the Constitution mentions no U.S. citizens, only citizens of a state. Therefore, Davis could not have committed treason against the U.S. Pres. Johnson granted all Confederate insurgents pardons in 1868, thus prohibiting any charges of treason for their part in the war. There is no question that the Confederates were technically traitors. That none was ever convicted was due to politics and the surrender agreement. "Technically doesn't count" -- it's merely an opinion. They weren't traitors, as determined by the U.S. Government.
BrooklynBaby Muse Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 816

12th September 2018, 06:09 PM	#63
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State. Posts: 17,308	Originally Posted by Stacyhs Re the highlighted part: Lee did not fight to perpetuate slavery in and of itself; he fought to maintain the concept of states' rights with slavery being a part of that. Few know that Lee was actually offered the command of the Union Armies by Lincoln, but he could not fight against his beloved Virginia and resigned his US Army commission. That is a lie of omission or simply willful ignorance. Lee's association with slavery is well known and not hard to research. He knew full well why Virginia betrayed the nation. He could have chosen the path of Winfield Scott (also a Virginian) but instead he, fully informed, with the knowledge of Virginia's Articles of Succession chose to betray his country. He is only memorialized for his a crime for which justice demanded he die but was spared out of expediencies.

12th September 2018, 06:10 PM	#64
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby "Technically doesn't count" -- it's merely an opinion. They weren't traitors, as determined by the U.S. Government. Nope. If they weren't considered traitors, the government would have had no need to parole and then pardon them. The argument that Davis's lawyers used had never been used before or used since. Sorry, but you're just wrong on this one.
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607

12th September 2018, 06:19 PM	#65
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607	Originally Posted by d4m10n Can you name a couple of other states' rights that were widely considered to be endangered at the time? It was the fear that the Federal gov't could interfere with any of the rights designated to the states specifically. They feared that the faster growing in population and wealthy northern states, plus the emerging western states could impose their wills over those of the South. I do not deny that slavery was the overriding concern of these "rights" that they feared would be taken from them. But it was not the only right they feared losing.
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607

12th September 2018, 06:23 PM	#66
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 39,144	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby The problem is that no Democrat wants to take down all of the statues and other memorials to FDR, who actually put Japanese in concentration camps. That sounds like some extreme racism to me, yet he gets a free pass. Why is that? Why aren't Democrats demanding FDR be erased from all public property? This is now getting idiotic. You repeated a bunch of lies and now are painted into a corner so are pulling the Whataboutism card. Hint: List the accomplishments of Jefferson Davis that merit a statue. > Southern nationalist/separatist who headed the Confederacy. > Robert E. Lee - leader of the armies of the CSA. > Stonewall Jackson - great warrior for the confederacy. You can find other factoids about the gentlemen, I'm sure. They didn't spring up out of nowhere in 1860. But the point is "you can find" refers to the general "you". You, personally, before you now rush off to research it, don't know a damned thing about any of them except for their connections to the Confederacy. Nor can most of the rubes out there talking about honoring them for their noble lives. It's all a bunch of horse **** and they want to honor them for their rebellion in the cause of holding title to human beings! Now, even with your woeful knowledge of history and current events, I'm gonna bet you can come up with no less than ten other things that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did. And Jefferson. And Washington. But the Whataboutists (direct descendants of the Know Nothings) clutch at that cheap distraction technique. And the funny thing is watching YOU try to condemn FDRs internment policy! You probably, if you'd ever given it any thought, supported it. Liberals and Progressives roundly condemn the policy for what it was. Conservatives and reactionaries think "well, it was a good start".
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

12th September 2018, 06:27 PM	#67
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607	Originally Posted by Craig4 That is a lie of omission or simply willful ignorance. Lee's association with slavery is well known and not hard to research. He knew full well why Virginia betrayed the nation. He could have chosen the path of Winfield Scott (also a Virginian) but instead he, fully informed, with the knowledge of Virginia's Articles of Succession chose to betray his country. He is only memorialized for his a crime for which justice demanded he die but was spared out of expediencies. I tell ya what, when you have a teaching degree in history like I do, you can lecture me on "lies of omission" or "willful ignorance". You fail to understand that during Lee's time, most Americans identified as a Virginian, New Yorker, Georgian, or whatever state they were a citizen of first and as an "American" (in the national sense) second. Quote: To many people today, it would see strange that Lee would turn down such a command and follow the apparently hopeless fate of the Confederacy. Although he was born and raised in Virginia, like Winfield Scott, he had spent much of his life serving the United States of America all over the continent. He disagreed with slavery, and believed that secession was unwise. He wrote: I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation... With all these reasons pointing to why he would stay with the North, why did he decide to side with the South? It came down to his view of state sovereignty. Lee viewed himself as a Virginian more than an American. He would follow the choice of his state even though he personally disagreed with it. He viewed his service to the South not as a fight against the Union, but as a defense of Virginia. Lee said, I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty. http://civilwar150th.blogspot.com/20...e-command.html
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607

12th September 2018, 06:31 PM	#68
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 3,577	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I do not deny that slavery was the overriding concern of these "rights" that they feared would be taken from them. But it was not the only right they feared losing. Can you name just one other right the rebels were hoping to preserve in the face of northern electoral supremacy?
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

12th September 2018, 06:35 PM	#69
BadBoy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,302	Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby First, those in here and all over the left who say the Confederate soldiers fought for slavery during the Civil War is a generalization that no one can prove because it isn't true. That is what I've been attempting to illustrate. Second, how many in the South were charged with treason after the Civil War? I know there were some the North who were charged for various collaborations with the Rebels, but I don't think any of the Confederates were charged with treason. So, no monuments of Southerners would be monuments to treason, since they weren't traitors. IMO, there is a BIG difference between statues of well known confederate generals, and a more general "least we forget" kind of monument to the fallen soldiers. In Germany you won't find statues of Nazi generals, but you can find shrines and monuments for the ordinary soldier. Having said that, a monument to the fallen should probably include soldiers from both the North and South. I assume there are some like that. Would I be corect in saying that there are no plans to remove these type of monuments?
BadBoy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,302	__________________ Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here Last edited by BadBoy; 12th September 2018 at 06:37 PM.

12th September 2018, 06:36 PM	#70
Lambchops Muse Join Date: Mar 2018 Location: Norvegr Posts: 632	Originally Posted by d4m10n Can you name just one other right the rebels were hoping to preserve in the face of northern electoral supremacy? The right to arm bears? (so sorry, I'll get me coat)
	__________________ Remember what Ol' Dirty said.

12th September 2018, 06:38 PM	#71
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607	There is a difference between honoring a statue of Lee the General of the Confederate forces and a statue honoring the civilian Lee who led and helped Washington (later) and Lee University grow into the institution it is today. For that he deserves to be honored: Lee Quote: incorporated the Lexington Law School into the college, encouraged the development of the sciences, and instituted programs in business instruction that led to the founding of the School of Commerce in 1906. He also inaugurated courses in journalism, which developed by 1925 into the School of Journalism (now the Department of Journalism and Mass Communications.) These courses in business and journalism were the first offered in colleges in the U.S. He also established an informal code of conduct that led to today's Honor System. "We have but one rule here," he wrote, "and it is that every student be a gentleman." He oversaw the construction of a chapel that also housed his office, and a new home for him and his family. The former became Lee Chapel, which the University still uses for events and ceremonies and which has a museum. The latter became the Lee House, and the president and his or her family still live there. https://www.wlu.edu/presidents-offic...s/robert-e-lee
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607

12th September 2018, 06:40 PM	#72
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607	Originally Posted by BadBoy IMO, there is a BIG difference between statues of well known confederate generals, and a more general "least we forget" kind of monument to the fallen soldiers. In Germany you won't find statues of Nazi generals, but you can find shrines and monuments for the ordinary soldier. Having said that, a monument to the fallen should probably include soldiers from both the North and South. I assume there are some like that. Would I be corect in saying that there are no plans to remove these type of monuments? Yes, you would be correct.
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607

12th September 2018, 06:41 PM	#73
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 3,577	Originally Posted by Lambchops The right to arm bears? (so sorry, I'll get me coat) https://goo.gl/images/xgdqLx
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

12th September 2018, 06:42 PM	#74
Lambchops Muse Join Date: Mar 2018 Location: Norvegr Posts: 632	Originally Posted by d4m10n https://goo.gl/images/xgdqLx
	__________________ Remember what Ol' Dirty said.

12th September 2018, 06:46 PM	#75
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607	Originally Posted by d4m10n Can you name just one other right the rebels were hoping to preserve in the face of northern electoral supremacy? They feared they would lose the right to govern themselves as they saw Congress being dominated by northern and, eventually, western states. This fear of a strong central government and weak states is still strong in the Southern states. ETA: Please remember that I did state earlier that "I do not deny that slavery was the overriding concern of these "rights" that they feared would be taken from them. But it was not the only right they feared losing."
Stacyhs Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 5,607	Last edited by Stacyhs; 12th September 2018 at 06:50 PM.