• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Charlottesville Confederate statue removal blocked by judge

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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?

Not that particular quote, although I do recall having to memorize the Gettysburg Address.


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


There should have never been any need for a compromise period. That was eventually settled by the Supreme Court concerning the Dred Scott case.

The Dred Scott case was a serious miscarriage of justice.

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.

The problem was that they wanted the whole country to be like that, which would have weakened the nation. If we had followed the course the South wanted, we would never have had the industry or the wherewithal to help the free world in the World Wars or in the Cold War. (Today's leaders are making the same mistake as the Antebellum South did.)

You haven't established any Confederate treason.

No need for me to do that. The matter was already decided by the lawful authorities after the war.

But the idea of secession being treason was originally established by Andrew Jackson.

Digital History


Fellow citizens of my native State! let me not only admonish you, as the first Magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a Father would over his children whom he saw rushing to certain ruin.... You are free members of a flourishing and happy union. There is not settled design to oppress you.--You have indeed felt the unequal operation of the laws which may have been unwisely, not constitutionally passed; but that inequality must necessarily removed. At the very moment when you were madly urged on to the unfortunate course you have begun, a change in public opinion has commenced. The nearly approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diminution of duties, had already produced a considerable reduction, and that too on some articles of general consumption to your State....

If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home--are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution or contending with some new insurrection--do they excite your envy?.... The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject--my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you--they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion: but be not deceived by names: disunion, by armed force, is TREASON....
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, lets up the annie.

Abraham Lincoln. The blacks see him as the great emancipator. He, just like God, led the blacks out of slavery into the promised land. Glory. Build that great memorial to him and the blacks he liberated. Don't touch that monument.

Has anyone here ever read the 'emancipation proclamation'? Does any one know the date that the 'emancipation' took place? I ask blacks this when I argue with them in person and most don't even know the date the civil war started much less the emancipation.

The war started in 1861. The emacipation proclamation was in 1863. What is wrong with this picture? Lincoln was not trying to free slaves. If he was he would have emancipated them before or at least in 1861. The emancipation was a war measure, not a humanitarian measure. Lincoln hoped in 1863 that he could encourage the slaves in the South to rise up and kill the white Southernors thereby shortning the war.

And as for the slaves that the emancipation freed, it freed none. Read it. Lincoln only emancipated the slaves in the Southern held territories. He didn't free any slaves in Yankee held territories. And in 1863 there was quite a lot of slaves in Yankee held territories due to the victories they had gotten in the South. He didn't free a one. They were still slaves.

The emancipation was just a political move by Lincoln. But, blacks see him as the great Moses of their delieverence. And he cared not one wit about them. Smoke,... and they inhaled it. Forty acres and a mule.

So, when are yall going to tear that Lincoln memorial down?

Good-Ole-Rebel

At the beginning, Lincoln's main cause was to preserve the Union. The South made it more an issue of slavery than the North did. They knew that Lincoln was an Abolitionist and they were afraid that if he became president, it would mean the end of slavery. That's why the South seceded in the first place.

I'm not sure that the Emancipation Proclamation was intended to spark a slave uprising in the South. That may have been a peripheral motivation, although I don't know how it would have affected the Union war effort.

However, I've read some opinions that the Emancipation Proclamation was more to send a signal to foreign powers (such as Britain and France) who were thought to be considering recognizing the Confederate government. British public opinion at the time was overwhelmingly anti-slavery, so it would have been politically impossible for Britain to recognize the Confederacy while fighting against the Union, for which the Emancipation Proclamation clearly indicated a war aim of ending slavery. (Plus, the British needed imports of Northern food more than they needed Southern cotton.)

On a global scale, slavery was already becoming anachronistic by the 1860s. Even the Russians ended serfdom in 1861, and they were considered one of the more backward powers of the time. I think the Brazilians were the last major country to end slavery, sometime in the 1880s.

Even some Confederate sympathizers were against slavery, not so much for humanitarian reasons, but because they didn't see a slave economy as viable over the long-term in a world which was rapidly industrializing.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
On a global scale, slavery was already becoming anachronistic by the 1860s. Even the Russians ended serfdom in 1861, and they were considered one of the more backward powers of the time. I think the Brazilians were the last major country to end slavery, sometime in the 1880s.
The writing was on the wall even in 1772 with the Somerset decision. It banned slavery in England and signalled that abolition would eventually come to the British colonies as well:

Somerset v Stewart - Wikipedia

I've read opinions that the Somerset decision was a major factor in the Revolution happening when it did, though for conflicting reasons: among the abolitionists, there was frustration that 4 years after Somerset slavery was still legal but also a hope that an independent country could ban slavery quicker, while the slavers hoped that independence would prevent the eventual (but slow) abolition that they saw coming.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There's also a big difference between being an imperfect abolitionist and actively fighting to subjugate people in slavery.

Well, yeah, that too. A lot of Abolitionists were just trying to do the right thing. By our standards today, a lot of their thinking and upbringing may have been more in the process of working towards greater enlightenment. But a lot of things still hadn't been worked out yet. Their only real unifying goal was the abolition of slavery, but beyond that singular objective, they weren't all of one like mind.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Hating black people appears to be part of his culture.

That is the deductive logic I was trying to get to. He thinks taking down statues erases "white culture." As far as I'm concerned none of the Caucasians I know even affiliate themselves with confederate history so I don't understand how the disappearance of these statues erases my friends (who are of Norwegian descent) culture. But yes, this is his culture.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That is the deductive logic I was trying to get to. He thinks taking down statues erases "white culture." As far as I'm concerned none of the Caucasians I know even affiliate themselves with confederate history so I don't understand how the disappearance of these statues erases my friends (who are of Norwegian descent) culture. But yes, this is his culture.

Those that complain abut "ending white culture" is just racism hiding behind word salad. "White culture" will live on whether one's offspring are white or mixed. I want "white culture" to survive;. I want "African culture" to survive. I want "Latino culture" to survive. But culture has very little to do with skin color. The America of the future is one where all "races" blend seamlessly into each other.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
When are yall going to take down that painful Lincoln Memorial?

I give two ***** about Lincoln. I know he felt that the black man was inferior to whites. However I take Lincoln's racial bias over the Southern Confederates any day.

See, it has nothing to do with slavery.

Yes it does....

10 Facts: What Everyone Should Know About the Civil War

Fact #3: The issues of slavery and central power divided the United States.

Slavery was concentrated mainly in the southern states by the mid-19th century, where slaves were used as farm laborers, artisans, and house servants. Chattel slavery formed the backbone of the largely agrarian southern economy.

10 Facts: What Everyone Should Know About the Civil War


 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Meh clearly 'bonnie' didn't survive. If the Appalachian scots were maintained, the Scottish language's 'bonnie' would be a well-used word. Then people would know scotsmen are singing the bonnie blue flag. We have a narrow culture of English usage now and very specific culture now.

Ya well isn't it popular. We are a cutting edge of the Union man, naming 150 years of biased unprovable unrecorded opinions about living conditions in the South. The Blacks and the Whites put together makes a 1/4th of the population at this time that they can just sort of make up a story. we got the popular story now.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Lincoln was on the winning side. Big difference.

That's my point. The winners determine who are the outlaws and rebels and racist's and haters. They use racist and slave holder allegations just as an excuse to vent their hatred and racism against Southern white people.

Just like the winners write the history that is to be taught. But, they can't hide the history.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
The northern economy had stabilized by 1859.
And by the time of the Civil War, northern manufacturing might enabled crushing the south.

The stabilizing of the northern economy didn't take away the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. The threat of a more powerful Southern economy was always there now with the Southernor free to take his slaves to any state he wanted.

Of course the North had the industrialization, which created their military might, which when used in war against the South crushed the South. But, you're talking about the war now.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Not that particular quote, although I do recall having to memorize the Gettysburg Address.


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.




The Dred Scott case was a serious miscarriage of justice.



The problem was that they wanted the whole country to be like that, which would have weakened the nation. If we had followed the course the South wanted, we would never have had the industry or the wherewithal to help the free world in the World Wars or in the Cold War. (Today's leaders are making the same mistake as the Antebellum South did.)



No need for me to do that. The matter was already decided by the lawful authorities after the war.

But the idea of secession being treason was originally established by Andrew Jackson.

Digital History


Fellow citizens of my native State! let me not only admonish you, as the first Magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a Father would over his children whom he saw rushing to certain ruin.... You are free members of a flourishing and happy union. There is not settled design to oppress you.--You have indeed felt the unequal operation of the laws which may have been unwisely, not constitutionally passed; but that inequality must necessarily removed. At the very moment when you were madly urged on to the unfortunate course you have begun, a change in public opinion has commenced. The nearly approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diminution of duties, had already produced a considerable reduction, and that too on some articles of general consumption to your State....

If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home--are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution or contending with some new insurrection--do they excite your envy?.... The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject--my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you--they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion: but be not deceived by names: disunion, by armed force, is TREASON....

So, you recognize the quote from Lincoln was not a Southern distortion.

The Supreme Court decides on the basis of the Constitution. Funny you should disagee then later give a quote from Andrew Jackson that "The laws of the United States must be executed".

Where do you get the idea the South wanted the whole country to be like them? You have it just backwards.

No, there is a need for you to do that. You can call the South traitor and guilty of treason, but that doesn't make it so. Same goes for Andrew Jackson. So, how was the South traitor?

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That's my point. The winners determine who are the outlaws and rebels and racist's and haters. They use racist and slave holder allegations just as an excuse to vent their hatred and racism against Southern white people.

Just like the winners write the history that is to be taught. But, they can't hide the history.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Um, no. These are not just "allegations". And the racism has only come from your side.

Try again.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
At the beginning, Lincoln's main cause was to preserve the Union. The South made it more an issue of slavery than the North did. They knew that Lincoln was an Abolitionist and they were afraid that if he became president, it would mean the end of slavery. That's why the South seceded in the first place.

I'm not sure that the Emancipation Proclamation was intended to spark a slave uprising in the South. That may have been a peripheral motivation, although I don't know how it would have affected the Union war effort.

However, I've read some opinions that the Emancipation Proclamation was more to send a signal to foreign powers (such as Britain and France) who were thought to be considering recognizing the Confederate government. British public opinion at the time was overwhelmingly anti-slavery, so it would have been politically impossible for Britain to recognize the Confederacy while fighting against the Union, for which the Emancipation Proclamation clearly indicated a war aim of ending slavery. (Plus, the British needed imports of Northern food more than they needed Southern cotton.)

On a global scale, slavery was already becoming anachronistic by the 1860s. Even the Russians ended serfdom in 1861, and they were considered one of the more backward powers of the time. I think the Brazilians were the last major country to end slavery, sometime in the 1880s.

Even some Confederate sympathizers were against slavery, not so much for humanitarian reasons, but because they didn't see a slave economy as viable over the long-term in a world which was rapidly industrializing.

Lincoln was not an abolitionist.

You ignored the point. Lincoln freed no slaves with the emancipation. Both the timing of the emancipation and the content of it shows that Lincoln cared not one wit for the slave.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
That's my point. The winners determine who are the outlaws and rebels and racist's and haters. They use racist and slave holder allegations just as an excuse to vent their hatred and racism against Southern white people.

Just like the winners write the history that is to be taught. But, they can't hide the history.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I mean, pro-slavery and racism was written in most of the Declarations of Secessions.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Can't hide history.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Lincoln was not an abolitionist.

You ignored the point. Lincoln freed no slaves with the emancipation. Both the timing of the emancipation and the content of it shows that Lincoln cared not one wit for the slave.

Good-Ole-Rebel
It is so sad that you have no understanding of the human condition. You misinterpreted one quote and then come to a false conclusion. Meanwhile there are endless quotes that show that Lincoln strongly opposed slavery:

Abraham Lincoln Quotes About Slavery (Including Sources)
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
I give two ***** about Lincoln. I know he felt that the black man was inferior to whites. However I take Lincoln's racial bias over the Southern Confederates any day.



Yes it does....

10 Facts: What Everyone Should Know About the Civil War

Fact #3: The issues of slavery and central power divided the United States.


Slavery was concentrated mainly in the southern states by the mid-19th century, where slaves were used as farm laborers, artisans, and house servants. Chattel slavery formed the backbone of the largely agrarian southern economy.

10 Facts: What Everyone Should Know About the Civil War


But the reason for taking down the Southern monuments is because of the painful racist, slaveholders they were. Just like Lincoln was and supported. Yet no call to remove his monument.

As I said, blacks and others are using racism and slave holding as an excuse to vent their racism and hatred against the Southern white people.

I never said slavery was not an issue. I have said it was not the issue it has been made out to be.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
But the reason for taking down the Southern monuments is because of the painful racist, slaveholders they were. Just like Lincoln was and supported. Yet no call to remove his monument.

As I said, blacks and others are using racism and slave holding as an excuse to vent their racism and hatred against the Southern white people.

I never said slavery was not an issue. I have said it was not the issue it has been made out to be.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Making obviously false claims about Lincoln only makes you look uninformed or dishonest. If you refuse to learn from your errors that leaves only dishonest.
 
Top