Charlottesville Confederate statue removal blocked by judge

In the 1858 Lincoln/Douglas debates Lincoln said:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races--that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference beteween the white and black races...I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Quote is taken from (The South Was Right, James and Walter Kennedy, Pelican Publishing Co., 1994, p. 27) End note #41 of chapter 1. Abraham Lincoln, as cited in The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, edited by R.W. Johannsen (Oxford University Press, New York, NY: 1965), pp. 162-163.

So surely we must get the Lincoln Memorial taken down.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Stevicus said:

What if people fight back? What if there are people who have had enough of being subjugated, and what if they decide to start a riot or revolution? What if they commit acts of terrorism? Do we simply say "It is what it is"?

I never could understand the attitude that some people have (especially when it comes to subjugation, exploitation, and oppression) that "it is what it is." Yet if someone dares to lash out or fight back, suddenly they become "terrorists" -- and the oppressors act like they're the injured party. Suddenly, it no longer is what it is - it's some kind of horrible outrage.

Click to expand...

I understand exactly what you mean. Because we the Southern white people fought against acts of terrorism against us, and lost, we are the outlaws, and terrorists. Instead of being revolutionaries, we are rebels. Instead of letting us honor our forefathers our statues and flags are taken down.

See, it doesn't change.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Kind of like what blacks are wanting to do with Southern white history in removing the history of these people every chance they get.

Click to expand...

So slavery, racism, Jim Crow, is white history? Is that something you think all whites should own as part of their culture?

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

When the black man was brought over into the Western world, he was inferior.

Click to expand...

So people of Africa were inferior, not humans inferior.

Epic Beard Man said:

So slavery, racism, Jim Crow, is white history? Is that something you think all whites should own as part of their culture?



So people of Africa were inferior, not humans inferior.

Click to expand...

Read post #(85)

I said when black people first were brought over to Western Civilization, they were inferior.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Read post #(85)

I said when black people first were brought over to Western Civilization, they were inferior.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

I read that part, but your flag, those statues represent the pain that, that history comes with it which is why in response to your complaint that taking these statues down is erasing "white culture," considering how painful these statues and these men represent, including your flag are all these things a part of white culture?

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Politically correct North. Kind of like what blacks are wanting to do with Southern white history in removing the history of these people every chance they get. And, they with the North have already distorted that history as can be easily seen in your and others response.

Click to expand...

Some might say that it was the Confederate sympathizers who distorted that history, and that historians have struggled to correct these misconceptions only to be met with a great deal of political resistance (such as the kind you're demonstrating here).

Southernors didn't start slavery. When the black man was brought over into the Western world, he was inferior. My point was that slavery was important to the South as their economy depended on it. And the PC view that the North came down to free the slaves for humanitarian reasons is a lie. They were for destroying slavery because it would destroy the South.

To who am I supposedly a traitor of?

Click to expand...

Well, yes, I suppose you're correct in that the Southerners didn't start slavery. But they certainly contributed to its expansion and growth during the early days of America. That was one of the major reasons for the Civil War. The early part of the 19th century was characterized by expansionism, with the slave states and free states compromising over how to divide up the spoils. That's where things like the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act came from. The North was still willing to compromise on slavery - which is much to their discredit.

Not everyone views the North's motives as being all that noble. Some Abolitionists were sincere, although a lot of Northerners among the working class were fearful that they could be replaced by slave labor.

Plus, there were dual economies which had formed, the Northern industrial economy, and the Southern agrarian economy. The elites from both economies had fundamental disagreements over what was best for America as a whole. As it turned out, the North had a much more diversified and viable economy than the South did - as proven by the results of the Civil War. The South had an inferior economy compared to the North. They had few industries and a smaller population, and as a result, they were unable to sustain the onslaught of Union troops.

The issue of Confederate treason was already dealt with. The Federal government offered amnesty and forgave most of the Confederates of their treason. Some might argue that the South got off too easy, and there have been more than a few sharp criticisms against the "PC North" for turning the blind eye to Jim Crow and other acts of atrocities against blacks in the South. There's no basis for believing that the North is ever given a free pass in this regard, although I'll admit it might come off that way - depending on how the history of the Civil War and its aftermath is told.

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Because we the Southern white people fought against acts of terrorism against us, and lost, we are the outlaws, and terrorists.

Click to expand...

Why do you suppose God did that?
Tom

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Read post #(85)

I said when black people first were brought over to Western Civilization, they were inferior.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

"Inferior" is a subjective judgment. I strongly disagree that they were inferior. However, they were certainly captives, and were brought to a strange land and broken of spirit, stripped of any connection to their homeland or culture. I submit that any human being of any race would be just as broken and would appear "inferior" under those circumstances.

If you live by the principles of Social Darwinism - the idea that the strong dominate the weak - then you can't have it both ways. Some Southerners thought it was the "natural order" that whites be viewed as superior, yet they're the ones who lost the war. It was just like with the Germans who thought they were the "Master Race." But once they were on the losing end, had their cities bombed, and their whole country devastated, suddenly it was "Poor us! Those Allies were so MEAN to us!"

There's something incongruous about thumping one's chest over how "superior" one is, while at the same time playing the victim card.

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

I understand exactly what you mean. Because we the Southern white people fought against acts of terrorism against us, and lost, we are the outlaws, and terrorists. Instead of being revolutionaries, we are rebels. Instead of letting us honor our forefathers our statues and flags are taken down.

See, it doesn't change.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

Well, I guess that's the downside of losing a war. Of course, we still live in America with a Constitution and First Amendment, so the statues and flags you refer to are still completely legal and protected forms of expression. But when it comes to city parks and public buildings, then those things are shared among all the people - and the people as a whole have the final say over what kind of statues and flags they want on publicly-shared property.

It would be different if people were calling for an outright ban, but I don't see that happening.

It's American history of what it was and what it became. 620,000 died while America was being shaped. Leave all the statues be and learn from our history. IMO, you can't just remove part, if you're going to remove things because some think it reflects slavery, then remove them all, from both sides and also remove everything that reflects slavery in anyway.

Causes of the Civil War

Industry vs. Farming
In the mid-1800s, the economies of many northern states had moved away from farming to industry. A lot of people in the North worked and lived in large cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. The southern states, however, had maintained a large farming economy and this economy was based on slave labor. While the North no longer needed slaves, the South relied heavily upon slaves for their way of life.

States' Rights
The idea of states' rights was not new to the Civil War. Since the Constitution was first written there had been arguments about how much power the states should have versus how much power the federal government should have. The southern states felt that the federal government was taking away their rights and powers.

Expansion
As the United States continued to expand westward, each new state added to the country shifted the power between the North and the South. Southern states began to fear they would lose so much power that they would lose all their rights. Each new state became a battleground between the two sides for power.

Slavery
At the heart of much of the South's issues was slavery. The South relied on slavery for labor to work the fields. Many people in the North believed that slavery was wrong and evil. These people were called abolitionists. They wanted slavery made illegal throughout the United States. Abolitionists such as John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and Harriet Beecher Stowe began to convince more and more people of the evil of slavery. This made the South fearful that their way of life would come to an end.

Bleeding Kansas
The first fighting over the slavery issue took place in Kansas. In 1854, the government passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act allowing the residents of Kansas to vote on whether they would be a slave state or a free state. The region was flooded with supporters from both sides. They fought over the issue for years. Several people were killed in small skirmishes giving the confrontation the name Bleeding Kansas. Eventually Kansas entered the Union as a free state in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln
The final straw for the South was election of Abraham Lincoln to President of the United States. Abraham Lincoln was a member of the new anti-slavery Republican Party. He managed to get elected without even being on the ballot in ten of the southern states. The southern states felt that Lincoln was against slavery and also against the South.

Secession
When Lincoln was elected, many of the southern states decided they no longer wanted to be a part of the United States. They felt that they had every right to leave. Starting with South Carolina, eleven states would eventually leave the United States and form a new country called the Confederate States of America. Abraham Lincoln said they did not have the right to leave the United States and sent in troops to stop the South from leaving. The Civil War had begun.

Epic Beard Man said:

I read that part, but your flag, those statues represent the pain that, that history comes with it which is why in response to your complaint that taking these statues down is erasing "white culture," considering how painful these statues and these men represent, including your flag are all these things a part of white culture?

Click to expand...

When are yall going to take down that painful Lincoln Memorial? See, it has nothing to do with slavery. Oh the pain. It has to do with where you can get away with directing your hatred of a people and be seen as good people.

See again post #(85)

Good-Ole-Rebel

Stevicus said:

Some might say that it was the Confederate sympathizers who distorted that history, and that historians have struggled to correct these misconceptions only to be met with a great deal of political resistance (such as the kind you're demonstrating here).



Well, yes, I suppose you're correct in that the Southerners didn't start slavery. But they certainly contributed to its expansion and growth during the early days of America. That was one of the major reasons for the Civil War. The early part of the 19th century was characterized by expansionism, with the slave states and free states compromising over how to divide up the spoils. That's where things like the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act came from. The North was still willing to compromise on slavery - which is much to their discredit.

Not everyone views the North's motives as being all that noble. Some Abolitionists were sincere, although a lot of Northerners among the working class were fearful that they could be replaced by slave labor.

Plus, there were dual economies which had formed, the Northern industrial economy, and the Southern agrarian economy. The elites from both economies had fundamental disagreements over what was best for America as a whole. As it turned out, the North had a much more diversified and viable economy than the South did - as proven by the results of the Civil War. The South had an inferior economy compared to the North. They had few industries and a smaller population, and as a result, they were unable to sustain the onslaught of Union troops.

The issue of Confederate treason was already dealt with. The Federal government offered amnesty and forgave most of the Confederates of their treason. Some might argue that the South got off too easy, and there have been more than a few sharp criticisms against the "PC North" for turning the blind eye to Jim Crow and other acts of atrocities against blacks in the South. There's no basis for believing that the North is ever given a free pass in this regard, although I'll admit it might come off that way - depending on how the history of the Civil War and its aftermath is told.

Click to expand...

Some might say a lot of things. See post #(85). Is that a Southern distortion? I'm sure you were expected to memorize that quote when in school...some school. Right?

There should have never been any need for a compromise period. That was eventually settled by the Supreme Court concerning the Dred Scott case. As to the economy, the South's economy was doing very well in 1860. The north not so much. The South didn't build their economy expecting the North to attack them. They actually thought they were part of the U.S.

You haven't established any Confederate treason.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

In the 1858 Lincoln/Douglas debates Lincoln said:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races--that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference beteween the white and black races...I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Quote is taken from (The South Was Right, James and Walter Kennedy, Pelican Publishing Co., 1994, p. 27) End note #41 of chapter 1. Abraham Lincoln, as cited in The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, edited by R.W. Johannsen (Oxford University Press, New York, NY: 1965), pp. 162-163.

So surely we must get the Lincoln Memorial taken down.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

Yes, Lincoln was not perfect. But he was not a traitor and he did not advocate slavery. He was better than most of his era. So why does that support your claim at all?

Did he attack the U.S.? Did he try to preserve the state of slavery?

columbus said:

Why do you suppose God did that?
Tom

Click to expand...

Did what?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Epic Beard Man said:

I read that part, but your flag, those statues represent the pain that, that history comes with it which is why in response to your complaint that taking these statues down is erasing "white culture," considering how painful these statues and these men represent, including your flag are all these things a part of white culture?

Click to expand...

Hating black people appears to be part of his culture. Many people often assume their ways are the ways of all "right thinking" people. I see it in religious debates when the extreme literalists assume that all "right thinking Christians" agree with him.

Stevicus said:

"Inferior" is a subjective judgment. I strongly disagree that they were inferior. However, they were certainly captives, and were brought to a strange land and broken of spirit, stripped of any connection to their homeland or culture. I submit that any human being of any race would be just as broken and would appear "inferior" under those circumstances.

If you live by the principles of Social Darwinism - the idea that the strong dominate the weak - then you can't have it both ways. Some Southerners thought it was the "natural order" that whites be viewed as superior, yet they're the ones who lost the war. It was just like with the Germans who thought they were the "Master Race." But once they were on the losing end, had their cities bombed, and their whole country devastated, suddenly it was "Poor us! Those Allies were so MEAN to us!"

There's something incongruous about thumping one's chest over how "superior" one is, while at the same time playing the victim card.

Click to expand...

See post #(85). When yall going to take down that Lincoln Memorial?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

See post #(85). When yall going to take down that Lincoln Memorial?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

I saw it. Meh. Was Lincoln a traitor? Did he defend slavery at the cost of lives of thousands upon thousands of people?

Father Heathen said:

I had explained in the very post that you had replied to that isn't what is happening. Step off the goofy narrative. There are still museums and history books. They aren't going to magically disappear if statues that take pride in something shameful were to disappear from government/public property.

Are you really suggesting that social norms and cultural acceptance take precedence over ethics, morality, and justice?

Click to expand...

In idealistic terms? Did you miss the part where I wrote that I WISHED that the civil war were all about, and only about, slavery? So, no, in a perfect world, ethics, morality and justice would take precedence over social norms and cultural acceptance. In a perfect world, I would automatically assume that your question, above, was sheerest sarcasm. However....we don't live in a perfect world.

Father Heathen said:

Yes, the civil war was nuanced,

Click to expand...

"nuanced.' That word is becoming a particularly mealy mouthed pejorative

Father Heathen said:

. but that doesn't justify government/public land and tax dollars being used for the placement and upkeep of participation trophies for the losing side.

Click to expand...

I see. Well, I guess we'll have to go raze all the ancient monuments in Egypt, Greece and Rome (they all lost eventually, right?)

It is true that the winners write the history, but the problem with that is this: nobody learns anything from a history written only by the winners.

BTW, Robert E Lee joined the confederacy...not because he wanted to keep his slaves, but because his personal honor impelled him to do so. His hero was G. Washington. In a letter written six months after his surrender at Appomatox, he said that 'true patriotism' impelled the honorable man to do what was right in his mind at the time, regardless of what others think. He pointed out that Washington wore the colors of Great Britain when fighting the French, and then fought with the French against Great Britain when fighting for his nation's freedom and independence....and that is what he, Lee, did. He was fighting for the independence of what he felt should be his nation...the confederate south. It wasn't a matter of 'keeping slaves,' though that was part of his culture. It was a matter of independence...of not wanting to be told what to do by someone who didn't live in Virginia.

"Nuanced?" (snerk) OK, 'nuanced."

Reality here is this: the civil war was about keeping the nation united (on the part of the north) and about choosing their own destiny and actions (states rights) on the south. Slavery was an excuse used by the north, and it was a weapon against the south. If slavery were the real purpose of the south, then why weren't those promised reparations given? Why was the reconstruction era so horrific? Why were Jim Crow laws almost universal, and all those former slaves not given the dignity and honor they deserved?

We should keep statues of Lee, etc., as a reminder of what the war was really about. That it ended slavery? Was a coincidence. All very nice, but I notice that gaining their freedom didn't make them equal...and the north was as guilty of that as anybody else.

Landon Caeli said:

Since I joined the Ku Klux Klan a few years ago, we never have talked much about black folks. Most of our conversations are about us Southern folk.

...American by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

Click to expand...

Are you for real?! You know the KKK hates Catholics, too, right?

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

Some might say a lot of things. See post #(85). Is that a Southern distortion? I'm sure you were expected to memorize that quote when in school...some school. Right?

There should have never been any need for a compromise period. That was eventually settled by the Supreme Court concerning the Dred Scott case. As to the economy, the South's economy was doing very well in 1860. The north not so much. The South didn't build their economy expecting the North to attack them. They actually thought they were part of the U.S.

You haven't established any Confederate treason.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

The north was doing quite well around the time of the Civil War.
Manufacturing technology was advancing rapidly, with standardization,
precision, steam power (replacing water), mass production, & automation
advancing rapidly.