OT: Washington's new knickname?

[RUScrew85]

If BLM (the organization) cared about all people they would just agree and say All Lives Matter. They are racists... and worse (quite possibly a terrorist group bent on insurrection through promoting anarchy).

By saying "all lives matter" they would cover their main issue.. AND take away criticism. They would have more people agreeing with them. So why don't they do that?

Because they are Marxists working for the Dems (for now) and the black folks involved are being used - again - by their Dem/Marxist plantation owners.

It's a crime calling out for the likes King - sadly Patrisse Cullors and Farrakan answered the call.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Hahahahaha.... Southern Pride. They seceded to protect their economy based on slavery because they were Greedy and Lazy, not proud.

Their constitution is "almost" verbatim from the US constitution, not 100%....except of course that part about legalizing slavery.

It is amazing to me how.. for many decades now, has insisted that the Civil War was not a war to end slavery.. but now that they want to justify tearing down statues and rioting and looting and anarchy.. now one side in the war was all about keeping slavery. They want it both ways.. the whites in the union did not sacrifice to end slavery... so we still need to pay reparations.. that keep increasing in scope with nonsense like the 1619 project.. you see they wanted to get closer to that 400 years of slavery stuff and 1619 puts them up around 250.

Most people.. south and north.. had an order to their allegiance then.. god, family, friends, state and maybe at some point down the line.. nation. That is why armies could form on both sides. And that is also why, post-war, there was big effort to create a federal standing army. This was as states' rights issue and, yes, the big plantations, the big slave owners had the money in the South.. and the power.. but when their state seceded.. residents of that state went to war because of that.. and that is why I called the majority of them useful idiots. But to the people of the South they were heroes NOT because they fought to keep slavery.. but because they fought to defend their states.

Tearing down the statues is an act of agreesion.. and exercise in power. It is a big finger to the government and past generations. It is not something to be proud of or to support.

But don't speak out against what antifa and BLM are doing.. that is the real crime.

Also.. I wonder how many southern slave-owners were black.. read that again... it is not a mistake.. societal norms indeed.

 

[LysanderSpooner]

Washington Charlatans

 

[RU-Choppin-Ohio]

Dunno, how did Hamilton and Adams stand on women's rights? Or Gandhi, for that matter. Or FDR?

The societal norms agrument is a copout. There are always people on the right and wrong side of an issue.

There were southern slaveholders and southern abolitionists.

Woodrow Wilson and Truman were racists...they had peers who were not.

Throughout history some business owners paid sub-standard wages....some business owners paid fair wages.

Some US soldiers in Vietnam killed innocents at My Lai....some soldiers protected innocent Vietnamese.

 

[T2Kplus10]

The societal norms agrument is a copout. There are always people on the right and wrong side of an issue.

There were southern slaveholders and southern abolitists.

Woodraw Wilson and Truman were racists...they had peers who were not.

Throughout history some business owners paid sub-standard wages....some business owners paid fair wages.

Re-read the original post and put your lefty emotions aside. Then reply. It's about the founding fathers.

 

[OTBOTOR]

If BLM (the organization) cared about all people they would just agree and say All Lives Matter. They are racists... and worse (quite possibly a terrorist group bent on insurrection through promoting anarchy).

By saying "all lives matter" they would cover their main issue.. AND take away criticism. They would have more people agreeing with them. So why don't they do that?

Lol

 

[RU-Choppin-Ohio]

Re-read the original post and put your lefty emotions aside. Then reply. It's about the founding fathers.

And I expanded it to include post founding fathers examples....wrong is wrong from 1776 to 2020.

 

[SkilletHead2]

The societal norms agrument is a copout. There are always people on the right and wrong side of an issue.

There were southern slaveholders and southern abolitionists.

Woodraw Wilson and Truman were racists...they had peers who were not.

Throughout history some business owners paid sub-standard wages....some business owners paid fair wages.

Some US soldiers in Vietnam killed innocents at Mi Lai....some soldiers protected innocent Vietnamese.

Folks will twist themselves into pretzels trying to not see what is in front of their face.

 

[RU_DIO]

If BLM (the organization) cared about all people they would just agree and say All Lives Matter. They are racists... and worse (quite possibly a terrorist group bent on insurrection through promoting anarchy).

By saying "all lives matter" they would cover their main issue.. AND take away criticism. They would have more people agreeing with them. So why don't they do that?

I agree.

If a White, Asian, or Spanish group leader said what this BLM leader said, they would automatically be labelled a hate group. Why is Black Lives Matters given a pass?

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/07/...-cuss-kill-these-men-and-white-folks-out-here

And here is a co-founder of the group telling us her and her fellow organizers are Marxists.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/

 

[DJ Spanky]

Isn't it a little ironic that the people involved in these protests, of all colors, are offended by statutes, nicknames and monuments are also offended if you express the idea that All Lives Matter?

No, it's far more than just a "little" ironic.

 

[T2Kplus10]

And I expanded it to include post founding fathers examples....wrong is wrong from 1776 to 2020.

Got it. So you want to tear down everything, literally everything. And what we decide to honor and celebrate today will get pulled down in 5-10 years. History is not an etch a sketch and shouldn't be subject to the whim of modernity.

 

[T2Kplus10]

Folks will twist themselves into pretzels trying to not see what is in front of their face.

Great summary of you.
:ThumbsUp

FYI, statues of MLK? Gone, we was awful and abusive to women. JFK? Gone. FDR? Gone.

 

[Doctor Worm]

so the 75% who didn't own slaves.. that's why they fought? Now.. they were probably the useful idiots of their day.. like the Antifa and BLM folk are today for the socialists.. but you have a case of a state splitting up because of regional differences. The rebel flag to most of those people had to do with Southern Pride.. not being pro-slavery. The hatemongering activists have pushed and pushed to a point where the useful idiots are tearing down statues of abolitionists... that is where the hate-mongering has lead.

Meanwhile, the stars and bars and confederate statues, alongside that of the abolitionists and founding fathers, have witnessed a black man become president... but those symbols are a real issue.. right? It is BS.. it is a dial the hatemongers can turn to make things "hot" all to help their cause of winning power.. now and forever.

Short answer is yes. Here's the longer answer:

Those non-slaveowning Southerners with sufficient economic acumen knew that slavery was the foundation of their economy. If slavery were abolished, their economy would crumble and everyone would feel the pain. What chunk of the 75% understood this, I cannot say.

But here's a more important reason. FEAR. All Southerners, slaveowners or not, lived in fear of what might happen if 4 million slaves were freed - possibly with vengeance in their hearts. What would become of their womenfolk? This fear was stoked by Church pastors who convinced them that slavery was the Biblically-correct order of things.

As the linked historical analysis puts it: "The institution (of slavery) was not just a necessary evil: it was a positive good, a practical and moral necessity. Controlling the slave population was a matter of concern for all Whites, whether they owned slaves or not."

Another key motivator of non-slaveholding whites was status. From an 1860 pamphlet: “In the Southern slaveholding States, where menial and degrading offices are turned over to be performed exclusively by the Negro slave, the status and color of the black race becomes the badge of inferiority, and the poorest non-slaveholder may rejoice with the richest of his brethren of the white race, in the distinction of his color. He may be poor, it is true; but there is no point upon which he is so justly proud and sensitive as his privilege of caste..."

So yes, the South fought to preserve its homeland and way of life - which was inextricably intertwined with slavery.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/...of white supremacy,survival of the white race.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Great summary of you.
:ThumbsUp

FYI, statues of MLK? Gone, we was awful and abusive to women. JFK? Gone. FDR? Gone.

Sorry to have upset you, t.

But, yes, if people are found to have led despicable lives, we maybe shouldn't have statues for them. It's always a judgment call, but you have to ask yourself, "What is the benefit of a statue? Why do we have it?" But in order to do that, you have to put your prejudices aside.

 

[HeywoodGiant]

Short answer is yes. Here's the longer answer:

Those non-slaveowning Southerners with sufficient economic acumen knew that slavery was the foundation of their economy. If slavery were abolished, their economy would crumble and everyone would feel the pain. What chunk of the 75% understood this, I cannot say.

But here's a more important reason. FEAR. All Southerners, slaveowners or not, lived in fear of what might happen if 4 million slaves were freed - possibly with vengeance in their hearts. What would become of their womenfolk? This fear was stoked by Church pastors who convinced them that slavery was the Biblically-correct order of things.

As the linked historical analysis puts it: "The institution (of slavery) was not just a necessary evil: it was a positive good, a practical and moral necessity. Controlling the slave population was a matter of concern for all Whites, whether they owned slaves or not."

Another key motivator of non-slaveholding whites was status. From an 1860 pamphlet: “In the Southern slaveholding States, where menial and degrading offices are turned over to be performed exclusively by the Negro slave, the status and color of the black race becomes the badge of inferiority, and the poorest non-slaveholder may rejoice with the richest of his brethren of the white race, in the distinction of his color. He may be poor, it is true; but there is no point upon which he is so justly proud and sensitive as his privilege of caste..."

So yes, the South fought to preserve its homeland and way of life - which was inextricably intertwined with slavery.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/why-non-slaveholding-southerners-fought#:~:text=The collapse of white supremacy,survival of the white race.

This is they type of junk history slant i hate. How can anyone know what was going through the minds of people who lived 150 years ago unless there was some type of poll taken.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Short answer is yes. Here's the longer answer:

Those non-slaveowning Southerners with sufficient economic acumen knew that slavery was the foundation of their economy. If slavery were abolished, their economy would crumble and everyone would feel the pain. What chunk of the 75% understood this, I cannot say.

Baloney.. the vast majority were SUBSTANCE FARMERS who, prior to the war, would be born and die within a radius of, what, 25 miles? Do you think the merchants with the fancy store selling stuff to the wealthy went to war?

This is the same sort of logic the left applies to anyone who volunteers to serve in the US military. They tip-toe around it a bit these days.. but they blame the USA for everything.. thus anyone adding to USA military power is a problem.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

This is they type of junk history slant i hate. How can anyone know what was going through the minds of people who lived 150 years ago unless there was some type of poll taken.

you can read their letters and contemporary writings.. or a history based on same...



Fron his other book on this subject.. For Cause and Comrades (of course he makes a judgment about not finding many defenses for slavery. it is odd that his sample showed slave-owner family soldiers talking about it and non-slaveowners not.. largely.. then makes a leap to say southerners took it for granted.. if that were the case why would the slave-owners talk about it?)

[O]nly 20 percent of the sample of 429 Southern soldiers explicitly voiced proslavery convictions in their letters or diaries. As one might expect, a much higher percentage of soldiers from slaveholding families than from nonslaveholding families expressed such a purpose: 33 percent, compared with 12 percent. Ironically, the proportion of Union soldiers who wrote about the slavery question was greater, as the next chapter will show. There is a ready explanation for this apparent paradox. Emancipation was a salient issue for Union soldiers because it was controversial. Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it.​

Here is an interview with McPherson about the 1619 Project

 

[T2Kplus10]

Sorry to have upset you, t.

But, yes, if people are found to have led despicable lives, we maybe shouldn't have statues for them. It's always a judgment call, but you have to ask yourself, "What is the benefit of a statue? Why do we have it?" But in order to do that, you have to put your prejudices aside.

You just summed up the POV of the emotional left. Please put your emotions aside and think logically. "Despicable" is subjective term. Define it in the context of the person's time and you will do well.

Our FFs deserve statues and remembrance. They lit the spark of freedom and equality that has burned and grown for the past 250 years.

 

[Doctor Worm]

This is they type of junk history slant i hate. How can anyone know what was going through the minds of people who lived 150 years ago unless there was some type of poll taken.

Glad you asked! One can know what was in minds of people who lived 150 years ago by reading the documents that they wrote. Which is what this historian did. Which I cited in my post.

If review of primary sources is junk history, what is good history?

 

[MADHAT1]

You just summed up the POV of the emotional left. Please put your emotions aside and think logically. "Despicable" is subjective term. Define it in the context of the person's time and you will do well.

Our FFs deserve statues and remembrance. They lit the spark of freedom and equality that has burned and grown for the past 250 years.

Traitors don't deserve statues.
Especially the ones that took oaths to defend the USA against its enemies only to turnaround and lead an army bent on destroying the United States of America.
What they did was just as despicable as what Benedict Arnold done when he led British troops against the patriots fighting to make the colonies into a free nation that would be known as the United States of America

 

[RU-Choppin-Ohio]

you can read their letters and contemporary writings.. or a history based on same...



Fron his other book on this subject.. For Cause and Comrades (of course he makes a judgment about not finding many defenses for slavery. it is odd that his sample showed slave-owner family soldiers talking about it and non-slaveowners not.. largely.. then makes a leap to say southerners took it for granted.. if that were the case why would the slave-owners talk about it?)

[O]nly 20 percent of the sample of 429 Southern soldiers explicitly voiced proslavery convictions in their letters or diaries. As one might expect, a much higher percentage of soldiers from slaveholding families than from nonslaveholding families expressed such a purpose: 33 percent, compared with 12 percent. Ironically, the proportion of Union soldiers who wrote about the slavery question was greater, as the next chapter will show. There is a ready explanation for this apparent paradox. Emancipation was a salient issue for Union soldiers because it was controversial. Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it.

​

Give it up with this states rights, southern pride BS and the 75% crap.

South Carolina was the first state to secede and they explicitly stated the reason...

South Carolina, one of the richest states in the country, is the first to secede in the immediate aftermath of Lincoln’s election. The Ordinance of Secession cites Northern hostility to slavery and the election of a sectional party as reasons for the state’s action.

Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas all commit to secession in 1861. These states form the Confederate States of America, elect Jefferson Davis as their president and draft a constitution which mimics that of the United States except for an explicit endorsement of slavery.

You should change your name to GoodOl'Confederacy

 

[T2Kplus10]

Traitors don't deserve statues.
Especially the ones that took oaths to defend the USA against its enemies only to turnaround and lead an army bent on destroying the United States of America.
What they did was just as despicable as what Benedict Arnold done when he led British troops against the patriots fighting to make the colonies into a free nation that would be known as the United States of America

I don't think any of our founding fathers were traitors.

 

[sunsetregret]

I think you're asking the wrong question. You're asking "Why?" I suggest we should be asking "Why not?" Why not change the Redskins name? Consider the following:

• The term is offensive. That is not an opinion. I checked three online dictionaries and each defines it as such.

I'm not sure I even know what this means.

The US Patent Office has refused to grant trademarks or patents using the word, calling it a "derogatory slang term".

So is the term "Yankee." Is the patent office allowing the Steinbrenner family to keep their trademarks?

If your kid used the word on the playground, it would be bullying.

I'm willing to bet the term "Redskins" has not been used once in the last 20 years outside of specific references to the football team. It's not a term anyone uses.

If you used the word in the office, it would be harassment.

Is it harassment if you call someone a "white guy" or a "black guy"?

If you used the word in the commission of a crime, it would be considered a hate crime.

Probably, but that's only because hate crime statutes are nonsense (implemented by unserious people)

Why are we even having the debate?

Because people disagree with you.

 

[ElmiraExpress]

It is kinda funny that the people who want a revolution now.. a defeat of the established government.. are against a people who did the same thing in 1860. Something like 25% of southerners had slaves. 25%. That means the majority of people who fought for the Confederacy were NOT slave-holders.

As recently as 2017 the liberal rag The New Republic called for blue state secession.. but now every Confederate was a traitor. .

YES, they were traitors. They fought against the USA, and killed USA soldiers. They were traitors, every one, whether they owned slaves or not.

 

[sunsetregret]

I always say that if a person has a problem with BLM, then they have no right to claim ALM. When someone retorts BLM with ALM , they they are directly dismissing the concerns of blacks and flipping the finger at them.

This is true. This is exactly what I'm doing when I say it as a retort.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

YES, they were traitors. They fought against the USA, and killed USA soldiers. They were traitors, every one, whether they owned slaves or not.

Were they tried and found guilty? Oh that's right.. you guys are all about no bail, letting every criminal go. How many days left until Bastile Day - USA?

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

I don't think any of our founding fathers were traitors.

Nor Frederik Douglas

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

This is true. This is exactly what I'm doing when I say it as a retort.

And when people say Black Lives Matter it is an accusation that no one but them thinks Black Lives Matter. You guys are calling everyone racists when you shout Black Lives Matter to the skies.

How about trying to look at this from THAT perspective and allow everyone to say all lives matter if they want to?

I know the answer.. because without the charge of systemic and wide-spread racism you have no cause.. no way of accumulating those virtue-signaling points.

 

[Doctor Worm]

I don't think any of our founding fathers were traitors.

Actually, they were all traitors and knew it. Had Britain won, many would have been hanged for treason. Franklin even joked about it.

But to quote William Barr (hopefully for the only time in my life), history is written by the winners. So you're right, they're not traitors.

Which is what makes this Confederate flag and statue controversy so nuts. Not only were they traitors, they lost. THEY FREAKIN' LOST. Those guys were lucky they weren't hanged. And we're supposed to honor them?

 

[LC-88]

Give it up with this states rights, southern pride BS and the 75% crap.

South Carolina was the first state to secede and they explicitly stated the reason...

South Carolina, one of the richest states in the country, is the first to secede in the immediate aftermath of Lincoln’s election. The Ordinance of Secession cites Northern hostility to slavery and the election of a sectional party as reasons for the state’s action.

Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas all commit to secession in 1861. These states form the Confederate States of America, elect Jefferson Davis as their president and draft a constitution which mimics that of the United States except for an explicit endorsement of slavery.

You should change your name to GoodOl'Confederacy

And the two states, NC and VA, that privided the most troops and material to the Confederacy did not initially succeed. The voted to stay in the Union. Not until Lincoln demanded that they supply troops to fight the Confederacy, and allow Union troops to move through their states, were NC and VA pushed to succeed. They were not allowed to stay neutral. But Kentucky was. Go figure.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Actually, they were all traitors and knew it. Had Britain won, many would have been hanged for treason. Franklin even joked about it.

But to quote William Barr (hopefully for the only time in my life), history is written by the winners. So you're right, they're not traitors.

Which is what makes this Confederate flag and statue controversy so nuts. Not only were they traitors, they lost. THEY FREAKIN' LOST. Those guys were lucky they weren't hanged. And we're supposed to honor them?

Opinion

 

[Colbert17!]

I'm sorry but I can't take any of this seriously until Congress take

I always say that if a person has a problem with BLM, then they have no right to claim ALM. When someone retorts BLM with ALM , they they are directly dismissing the concerns of blacks and flipping the finger at them.

Wait a minute!!! So if I say All Lives Matter I'm disrespecting the black community? I'm not saying that every individual in our society is important?
So if I say something that at face value covers all people that's wrong? People are going to tell me what I'm thinking when I say something? That's frightening.
George Orwell you were a little bit off by a few years with your book title.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

And we're supposed to honor them?

What's this "we" you are talking about?

THEIR people erected statues to remember them and their sacrifices for their states, their people. It has nothing to do with "we".

"We", the victorious Union forces forgave them. Allowed them to go home to live. After a time we allowed them to run their towns and states too.. (all of them Democrats). And they erected statues for their own reasons.

"We" did that because that is how you unify a nation and make it capable of helping win two world wars.

What's happening now.. and against MORE than confederate statues.. is vigilantism against people who have been dead more than a century and it is also promoting anarchy.

If "we" want the statues down, go through a legal process to get them removed. You can still do it.. but it takes a little work. How about doing that?

 

[Colbert17!]

And the two states, NC and VA, that privided the most troops and material to the Confederacy did not initially succeed. The voted to stay in the Union. Not until Lincoln demanded that they supply troops to fight the Confederacy, and allow Union troops to move through their states, were NC and VA pushed to succeed. They were not allowed to stay neutral. But Kentucky was. Go figure.

It was touch and go with all the border states. The only reason Maryland didn't leave the Union was the massive federal troop presence and Kentucky and Missouri were quickly occupied by Union forces Both had rump Confederate governments which voted for secession.
If you look at the Confederate flag it has 13 stars. Kentucky and Missouri were recognized by Richmond as being part of the Confederacy. Approximately 40,000 troops from each state fought in Southern armies.

 

[Doctor Worm]

And the two states, NC and VA, that privided the most troops and material to the Confederacy did not initially succeed. The voted to stay in the Union. Not until Lincoln demanded that they supply troops to fight the Confederacy, and allow Union troops to move through their states, were NC and VA pushed to succeed. They were not allowed to stay neutral. But Kentucky was. Go figure.

When the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter, all states still in the Union got the same request - to help defend the Union. However, they responded differently. KY simply said no, and passed a Declaration of Neutrality which both sides respected. NC and VA took a different tack - secession. Interesting to speculate how history would have turned if NC and VA (especially VA) had chosen to go the KY route.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

The Ordinance of Secession cites Northern hostility to slavery and the election of a sectional party as reasons for the state’s action.

You do realize how the conjunction AND is used there.. right?

Sure.. slaveowners.. the minority liked that first part. And the average Confederate soldier had no say in the wording of that. When they finally heard the news.. because they could not read.. they said.. wow.. we seceded (from a very young nation)... will the north fight?

South Carolina colony formed in 1633.. so they were their own entity.. and independent colony for 143 years before 1776.. and the nation formed when.. 1881? South Carolina ratified and joined in 1788.. so it was only part of the United States for 72 years when they seceded. There probably a few people alive who were older than that.

The STATE was everything to the people who lived there. If their elected officials said they were out.. they were all out. Then it became a case of defending their state.. their homes.. their lives. Or become traitors to their state.

 

[RU-Choppin-Ohio]

You do realize how the conjunction AND is used there.. right?

Sure.. slaveowners.. the minority liked that first part. And the average Confederate soldier had no say in the wording of that. When they finally heard the news.. because they could not read.. they said.. wow.. we seceded (from a very young nation)... will the north fight?

South Carolina colony formed in 1633.. so they were their own entity.. and independent colony for 143 years before 1776.. and the nation formed when.. 1881? South Carolina ratified and joined in 1788.. so it was only part of the United States for 72 years when they seceded. There probably a few people alive who were older than that.

The STATE was everything to the people who lived there. If their elected officials said they were out.. they were all out. Then it became a case of defending their state.. their homes.. their lives. Or become traitors to their state.

AND both sides of "and" relate to slavery...lol, directly and indirectly.

 

[HeywoodGiant]

Glad you asked! One can know what was in minds of people who lived 150 years ago by reading the documents that they wrote. Which is what this historian did. Which I cited in my post.

If review of primary sources is junk history, what is good history?

Then sorry about that

 

[e5fdny]

I never got the statue thing, but whatever. I mean who gets a statue for at best the silver medal and at worse, LOSING. LOL

What I do have an issue with (as I have said numerous times on in the old CE Board) is the naming of US Army facilities after this group.

And don’t come at me with the healing thing as that part was done as @GoodOl'Rutgers said earlier. The oldest one of these places was named around the end of WWI. Over 50yrs AFTER the Civil War.

 

[Colbert17!]

I move that the 11 states that make up the former Confederate states of America change their names. It was under that name that they united in a union to oppose the United States and defend their rights, one of which was to own and traffic human beings as slaves.
So Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas it's your move.