Lets see if I can do this without getting booted off the island.

oldopelguy wrote: If California tries to succeed are all Californians traitors? What about a Californian who leaves for Nevada when they succeed, isn't he a traitor to his state for leaving? Dammed if you do, damned if you don't. Who are we to judge?

Calexit!!!! Take this as just a snarky comment-- Most interviews with the proponents of leaving the US (that I have seen) cite multiple reasons for their position but bring up Washington's current stance on immigration as a big factor. A bunch of wealthy land/business owners in CA feel that the crackdown on undocumented workers is bad for the state. The loss of these workers who are paid very low (slave?) wages will hurt the economy of CA so leaving the US is the answer. This sounds eerily familiar.

Yeah, there are other reasons such as climate policies but I can't make fun of them.

monknomo wrote: In reply to SVreX: It's an economic sanction in the middle of a shooting war. Seems mild and uncontroversial to me

Nope.

It was a giant carrot offered to a huge population of people in trade for conscription in the Union army at a time when the Union was dangerously close to loosing the war.

European trading partners (who were in support of the Confederacy to sustain their agricultural supply chains) saw it as a turning point in the war.

I'm not saying it was a bad idea- it was actually quite brilliant. I said I could support the North's position on slavery easier if it was consistent.

I thought this thread would be locked by the time I caught up reading to current posts. Glad Curtis got in before the lock occurs!

What folks say compared to what folks do has been a source of conflict throughout time...

dculberson wrote: Putting up a statue of someone is glorifying them. There's no way around that. A plaque at the base, explaining nuance? Seriously? What if someone literally murdered your grandparents, and someone else that publicly espouses an affinity for that murderer put up a statue of them in town. Would you then be happy with a plaque at the base talking about how they were responsible for the death of someone? How do you think you would feel if that person was responsible for the death of and enslavement of generations of your ancestors? A plaque is not the answer. Razing the statues and putting up statues of Lincoln and JFK Jr would be a good start.

Hey, I was just throwing it out for discussion, I'm not saying it's a valid solution. Others posting after me have posted more information on the topic, along with better thought out answers.

However, did you really mean to say putting up a statue of JFK Junior? His dad, maybe.

curtis73 wrote: While this is an extreme example, I don't think that banning a flag or a statue is the solution any more than banning guns is a solution. It is not the *correct* solution. Its attacking the rights of the majority in a feeble attempt to strike a blow at the minority, and the worst part is, it won't work. Washing away history won't change the opinions of a white supremacist who is already entrenched in his/her beliefs.

Many problems here. First, I don't think anyone was arguing that removing these statues or flags would put an end to hate crimes or white supremacy in general. It's not about them. It's about the people who have to see their government hosting symbols of the people who fought for their ancestors' enslavement.

Next, I don't think a majority would support keeping those statues in place. It's probably close to 50/50. If a vote was taken and the "remove the statues" choice won, how would you feel about it?

And third, again, I don't think these statues have any meaningful historical importance. Most are about as old as the Ford Model A and were put in place by historical revisionists.

Edit: Again, I think the idea of putting them in a museum could solve any concerns of historical value.

In reply to SVreX:

I suspect the internal consistency is this - if you stay in the union and abide by the law, you can keep your legal property. Otherwise, you can't.

Another way of looking at it is the south was fighting over slavery. The north was fighting for the preservation of the USA. The remaining members of the legitimate government passed a law to punish people engaging in illegal behavior by targeting the thing they held most dear - their pocketbooks.

Huckleberry wrote: I know, right? They had to unwin all that football! Gameboy pointed it out earlier... the Germans have progressed by staring very hard at their failings. They teach them to children in unblinking, honest terms. They wear it. We are just not a people who like to remember our shameful past or look too hard into the face of a problem. Any of them. Crimes. Rapes. Enslavement. Civil War. Indian Genocide. We take down unrelated baubles to keep us from thinking about these things. We do not like uncomfortable thoughts.

You are very right- but at the same time Germany does NOT have statues of the central figures from the Nazi regime or their generals in the town squares of their towns. Quite the contrary- IIRC any display of Nazi imagery or paraphernalia other than in a museum or educational setting is forbidden. I believe that the simple sale of a Nazi flag in the country is illegal, and waving one around is very frowned upon.

It's quite possible to understand, teach, and learn from history (so as hopefully to not repeat it...) without fetishizing and idolizing.

stuart in mn wrote: However, did you really mean to say putting up a statue of JFK Junior? His dad, maybe.

Err, oops. ;-)

Ashyukun wrote: You are very right- but at the same time Germany does NOT have statues of the central figures from the Nazi regime or their generals in the town squares of their towns. Quite the contrary- IIRC any display of Nazi imagery or paraphernalia other than in a museum or educational setting is forbidden. I believe that the simple sale of a Nazi flag in the country is illegal, and waving one around is very frowned upon. It's quite possible to understand, teach, and learn from history (so as hopefully to not repeat it...) without fetishizing and idolizing.

That's right, buying, selling or displaying any kind of Nazi paraphernalia in Germany is what a lawyer might call "turbo-illegal" They even go after foreign websites that make such items visible to Germans.

Even videogames like the Wolfenstein series are re-skinned for Germany to remove Nazi imagery. They're only allowed to be shown within relevant historical or educational contexts.

curtis73 wrote: Right. And we entered the Vietnam war because we were trying to stop the spread of communism. Not being combative, but there is a huge difference between what a piece of paper says versus the REAL reason behind something. You might want to quit your job because your primary motivation is that the boss is a dick who got your daughter pregnant and called your wife a whore at the Christmas party, but your letter of resignation says "it is with regret... was offered advanced employment with..."

Gonna have to disagree with you there. This isn't a note written by sweethearts ending a high school relationship, this is the official document stating the reasons behind secession. If we don't rely upon that to reliably state the reasons, what then? High ranking official's statements at the time? Whoops - they also clearly state that slavery was the reason and foundation for the secession. The only time you get into people claiming otherwise is when you move to modern revisionist history, people decades or a century+ past the events, trying to whitewash the facts behind the south's past fervent wishes to keep slaves.

So other than period official documents and statements, what should we use? Telepathy?

In reply to dculberson:

Times have changed. We no longer judge people by what they say or do, it's by what's in their heart. At least that's what I heard.

His point is interesting though: He seems to be implying that the leaders of the Souths reason for the war was not really primarily slavery, but that the leaders wanted it to SEEM like it was? For what possible reason?

In reply to aircooled:

Because simple "hot topic rallying points" were as prevalent then as they are now.

4cylndrfury wrote: No one is disagreeing with you here. Likewise, if the town decided it should stay up, then it should stay up. The problem is mob mentality and the supposition of authority that the mob doesnt have. Just because a group finds the statues objectionable, they dont have the right to forcibly remove it, and vice versa. Liek I said - nowhere are you granted the right to not be offended. The FoS part comes into play in as much as erecting it it was a display of symbolism, that was presumably (Im not going back to research it) authorized by a local governing body, through proper channels. The constitution grants you the right to display that symbol, so long as you meed the civic requirements to display it on public land. If you want to display something there, get the proper permission, and bingo, you can say what you want. If the people who disagree with your display follow the proper channels, and appeal to the governing body to remove it, and win, then so be it, and your symbolic display comes down. Now, to the bigger point: if you petition your local gov't, and your petition is denied, our wonderful governance system provides you an apparatus to change the people who comprise that gov't or its legislative mechanisms (change the petitioning process or some similar measure). But, there are those self-righteous fools out there that feel some sort of entitlement, and believe theyre empowered to do what they want, regardless of the law, which is what I find repugnant and un-American.

I mostly agree with your assessment that we are a nation of laws, and going through the proper channels should always be the preferred option. But we are also a country founded by traitorous rebels who used deadly force to gain independence. Just as we should not forget the Civil War by eliminating any traces of it, we should not forget that this nation was born from people that refused to go through the proper channels any longer.

I don't want to see angry mobs tearing stuff down, or getting violent but the Boston Tea Party and Revolutionary War are celebrated in our culture and provide proof that it can be a very effective change agent.

I don't think thousands of farmers and poor folk (including a large number of Free black men) went to war to fight for a small percentage of the rich population to own slaves...

Jefferson Davis was a racist dirtbag... So was General Grant... And General McClellan..

General Lee... He abhorred slavery.. He was was of the finest men in the entire nation and a critical part of the leadership helping to heal wounds of the war. A true gentleman in every sense of the word.

General Lee said: So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.

There are people around who need to read a damn book every once in a while.

monknomo wrote: In reply to SVreX: I suspect the internal consistency is this - if you stay in the union and abide by the law, you can keep your legal property. Otherwise, you can't.

So, you are saying because I am a Northerner and have chosen to not succeed, I can keep my slaves, but you can't because you chose to succeed?

I am really uncomfortable with that idea. It implies that slavery is not an ethical wrong, but disagreement with me is.

Or perhaps it implies that I am a Northerner and therefore certainly intellectually superior, so I will surely make the morally right decision and voluntarily give up my slaves, but I need a law to control you because you are not capable independently of doing what is right.

Hmmm... that doesn't work either.

In reply to ronholm:

Here's the full text of the letter Edit - this is only excerpts from the letter, amounting to roughly half the full text.

Here's a good breakdown of the letter's contents, which I've reposted below:

1. He rails against those in the North who would "interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South", then goes on to say that the only way to accomplish those goals (the Abolitionist's goals) is through civil war (because who cares about democratic institutions, right?)
2. Slavery is a greater evil to the white man than the black.
3. Blacks are immeasurably better off in America than Africa.
4. Painful discipline is necessary to improve them as a race. (Hey, it's ok to whip them and then pour salt on the wounds, because it's good for them.)
5. Emancipation will come through the influence of Christianity. But only the influence of Southern Christians, because we don't want "fiery controversy"
6. We shouldn't press for emancipation, but pray for it's end and leave it in God's hands. (Clearly men can't do anything about it. God is going to have to come down and do some smiting for it to end.)
7. It's taken two thousand years for men to be made as Christian as they are and they're still full of errors! Think of how much longer it will take for God's influence to work on slavery. 8.) Oh and the Abolitionist better not create "angry feelings in the Master" because that wouldn't be right. He [the Abolitionist] should just wait for God to make things right (even if it takes 2,000 years)
8. Abolitionism is an evil course.
9. Abolitionists are intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others (by which he really means they're intolerant of white Southerns holding slaves).

This really has been one of the best discussions of the topic I've found. Thanks again to all for keeping it reasonably even tempered and well footnoted.

monknomo wrote: 10. Abolitionists are intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others (by which he really means they're intolerant of white Southerns holding slaves).

Gosh that sounds familiar. "Intolerance of my intolerance is so hateful!"

STM317 wrote: I mostly agree with your assessment that we are a nation of laws, and going through the proper channels should always be the preferred option. But we are also a country founded by traitorous rebels who used deadly force to gain independence. Just as we should not forget the Civil War by eliminating any traces of it, we should not forget that this nation was born from people that refused to go through the proper channels any longer.

And "do it the legal way" is such a cop-out. If you think something is an inherently moral wrong, take a stand and correct it. Should Rosa Parks have moved to the back of the bus and then filed a complaint through her lawyer? Would the civil rights movement have gotten as far as it did with a bunch of legal complaints? NO! History is filled with people standing up for what is right whether or not it agrees with the law. The law is secondary to human rights.

And yes - mobs are bad news. But tearing down a statue is not the same as looting a town or setting fire to other people's properties.

Didn't even see that this happened until now:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/confederate-statue-pulled-down-north-carolina-trnd/index.html

Considering that plans had already been set in motion to move this statue, this seems quite wrong. Destroying a statue that was about to be removed and might've been put into a museum is edging into "destroying history" territory.

Here is some information on the where and when of these monuments, with some opinion as to the why as well: https://www.splcenter.org/20160421/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy

GameboyRMH wrote: Didn't even see that this happened until now: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/confederate-statue-pulled-down-north-carolina-trnd/index.html Considering that plans had already been set in motion to move this statue, this seems quite wrong. Destroying a statue that was about to be removed and might've been put into a museum is edging into "destroying history" territory.

So that's kind of the thing we're talking about. Mob rule ruining history.

ronholm wrote: I don't think thousands of farmers and poor folk (including a large number of Free black men) went to war to fight for a small percentage of the rich population to own slaves... Jefferson Davis was a racist dirtbag... So was General Grant... And General McClellan.. General Lee... He abhorred slavery.. He was was of the finest men in the entire nation and a critical part of the leadership helping to heal wounds of the war. A true gentleman in every sense of the word.

General Lee said: So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.

There are people around who need to read a damn book every once in a while.

So what you are saying is that he fought for the wrong side?

All of the reasons that people spout about the war can all be pushed right back into the economics of slavery. All of them.

So if Lee really felt that and meant that, why in the world did he fight to keep slavery in the south? That is not consistent. Seems like a complete waste of effort. He even says that- that it was ok to lose the war and all of his stuff for it. It would have been easy to fight for the US instead of against it.

Makes no sense.

Words are nice, but they also need to be put in context of what actually happened, too. Crap, Monty thought he was the best general in WWII, and we've had a debate about that, too. It was in a book.

In reply to alfadriver:

Jesus, Monty had an ego to rival MacArthur