5 Guests viewing this page
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Penny
Raw
Avatar of Penny

Penny

Member Seen 15 hrs ago

"It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice."

Fake news 1861 style! Some tunes never change.
1x Laugh Laugh
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by The Harbinger of Ferocity
Raw

The Harbinger of Ferocity

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

A few more quotes, just for added measure.

"There is a terrible war coming, and these young men who have never seen war cannot wait for it to happen, but I tell you, I wish that I owned every slave in the South, for I would free them all to avoid this war."
Robert E. Lee

"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 interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained."
Robert E. Lee

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
Robert E. Lee

"I believe it to be the duty of everyone to unite in the restoration of the country and the reestablishment of peace and harmony."
Robert E. Lee

"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know where it is today."
Robert E. Lee

The last is particularly relevant in our day and age, wherein we are content to destroy and bury our past because it is inconvenient and hurts feelings. No less first said by the man whose likeness is now under attack.

As far as I can tell you, General Lee was neither some great martyr of the South nor was he an abomination that cared nothing for the subject of slavery. If anything to me, the man sounds quite human and surprisingly humane. Most anything I can find on him, of which is legitimate, suggests he is not who he is made out to be, which is, as one can reason, closer to truth.

Regardless, specifically now to @Skepic.

No matter what perspective you use on the matter, the majority at the time did not want that. It did not represent the American vision, specifically the Union's who was ultimately the victor. There's a number of reasons for this, not to say they did not try to enact revenge on the Confederacy for the war (at the time those calling for "added justice" against the Confederacy were Radical Republicans, a fun fact of history nestled there), but more than anything I can say from their view as much as I can understand it, it was for the best. A President was murdered and his vision of the Union was to die with him if they did not follow through with it.

Human beings are emotional and sentimental, as they were then and as they are now. There was no credible way any sort of revenge against the South was likely to take place. This works in both directions as well, as these men were honorable to a fault. Yes, they truly did believe by and large that by shaking hands and signing defeat that the war was over. Within they knew it was not, human nature could tell you that for the very reasons you stated, but they held themselves to a higher standard that the majority of people, the regular folk then and to come, could not. They followed honor and dignity to the point it might have well done more harm than good.

As for leaving problems for the future, every generation before the current and many, many before them have posed this problem throughout history. This is no special exception and relatively speaking, not a very unique one if we are talking at length about all of human history.

Transitioning, I can pose you any number of examples as to why I could say the same thing about various other monuments of American history, of which are almost assuredly built well after their relevance. They symbolize dark, cruel time periods in our history or nothing we would really understand as the United States today, yet here they are. Just because people feel that the Civil War is some special exception because it includes the subject slavery, does not mean all the others should too be forgotten in time to come. None of them should.

Unfortunately, I cannot and will not surrender my stance on this. No monument, statue, relic, site or the like deserves destruction. They all equally deserve their place as tools to be learned from and things to be remembered, regardless of who they represent or why. People just need to cease being offended over everything and get back to life.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by POOHEAD189
Raw
Avatar of POOHEAD189

POOHEAD189 The Abmin

Admin Online

@The Harbinger of Ferocity
(at the time they were Radical Republicans, a fun fact of history nestled there)

Your quotes were apt (as far as I can tell) and I hate to be nit-picky, but they did switch platforms so today they'd be considered Democrats.
Granted, nationalist or immigrant exploitation kinda democrats, but nonetheless...
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by The Harbinger of Ferocity
Raw

The Harbinger of Ferocity

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

I hear this argument a lot and to date no one can show me where and when, let alone how, the parties were switched on platform, @POOHEAD189.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by POOHEAD189
Raw
Avatar of POOHEAD189

POOHEAD189 The Abmin

Admin Online

@The Harbinger of FerocityI wasn't using an argument, more just giving what I know. Have you heard it a lot and not deigned to look it up?
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by The Harbinger of Ferocity
Raw

The Harbinger of Ferocity

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

I have long since peered into it, @POOHEAD189. It has gotten to the point I refer people to this, because it includes a myriad of references and events as an aggregate post. As an addition, it might not be gospel, but if even eighty percent is accurate, that is closer to truth.

It is the same reason I do not even bother striking first against the blade of "racist", "Islamophobe" and "homophobe", among the other labels. I believe it is high time the burden of proof be put on the accusing party, not that you specifically are them in this case, but in general. No one can point to the infamous party switch and there's more to suggest no such thing happened. Just saying it aloud should help indicate as to why that is unlikely.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

I have long since peered into it, @POOHEAD189. It has gotten to the point I refer people to this, because it includes a myriad of references and events as an aggregate post. As an addition, it might not be gospel, but if even eighty percent is accurate, that is closer to truth.

It is the same reason I do not even bother striking first against the blade of "racist", "Islamophobe" and "homophobe", among the other labels. I believe it is high time the burden of proof be put on the accusing party, not that you specifically are them in this case, but in general. No one can point to the infamous party switch and there's more to suggest no such thing happened. Just saying it aloud should help indicate as to why that is unlikely.


It happened when Google manually altered the search results for Lincoln. Seriously -- google Lincoln. He's no longer a Republican, because Google says so and that's how history works.
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by Penny
Raw
Avatar of Penny

Penny

Member Seen 15 hrs ago

" it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government."

Damn current republicans and old timey racists are super in sync. That could be a fox news soundbyte.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by POOHEAD189
Raw
Avatar of POOHEAD189

POOHEAD189 The Abmin

Admin Online


#Rightsforwights
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

" it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government."

Damn current republicans and old timey racists are super in sync. That could be a fox news soundbyte.


Subtract all the racism, and confederacy is pretty awesome.
1x Laugh Laugh
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by POOHEAD189
Raw
Avatar of POOHEAD189

POOHEAD189 The Abmin

Admin Online

Subtract all the racism, and confederacy is pretty awesome.


Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

So... thought experiment here. We're talking about the tearing-down of statues, lots of Robert E. Lee good-guy fee-fees, I get it, brilliant commander, brave guy, etc. I'm just gonna list a few quotes.... give 'em a read and riddle me this: would you really want a monument to this guy? In your state capital -- no, wait, fuck it. In your nation's capital, prominently displayed, we're gonna build a monument to the guy who said this:

"There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated."

"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”

“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”
Robert E. Lee


The question: would you really wanna let a monument to THAT GUY to stay standing in your capital?


Well I was gonna wait for more response on this, but it's a whole new page now and let's face it, the opportunity came and went.

The Robert E. Lee lines I quoted are fake news. They are actually attributed to Abraham Lincoln. His memorial attracts 7.9 million (presumably racist) visitors each year, about 7.8 million more than the Robert E. Lee statue ever got. If we're quantifying which monument does more to promote a racist, hands down it's Lincoln.

So the actual question is, are we gonna tear down the Lincoln Memorial, or are we gonna stop pretending this is a moral issue?

And just to clarify, now that I'm not playing pretend anymore -- I don't care what you do with your statues. If the people of Poughkeepsie want a statue of Dig 'Em the Smacks frog, that's their business. Wanna tear it down, tear it down. I do not care about statues. Of all the things we've had riots about this year, statues seem like one of the more ridiculous options. But I guess we had to have SOMETHING controversial to riot about, now that the Russia narrative is dead.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Smash
Raw
Avatar of Smash

Smash Byu too

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

Ya'll ever hear the quote, "Brevity is the soul of wit?" Because your points would be a lot more poignant, if you weren't using the shotgun method of debate.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Smash
Raw
Avatar of Smash

Smash Byu too

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

People anxious to portray Abraham Lincoln as a racist quote with gusto a portion of his remarks during the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, where he said:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way 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 between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

There it is, plain as day. Lincoln asserts that “there is a physical difference” between whites and blacks that he believes “will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality,” and, given that fact, he is “in favor” of assigning “the superior position … to the white race.” (By the way, Harold Holzer’s edition of the debates notes no difference between the accounts of these remarks offered by the Democratic Chicago Times or the Republican Chicago Tribune.)

Now, if we left it there–as so many people do–one would easily conclude that Lincoln harbored racial prejudices and believed in white supremacy, although the last sentence is a fairly roundabout way of saying that.

And that would not be very good history, although it would be an incomplete history and at best a partial understanding.

Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, the U. S. senator from Illinois, were engaged in a series of debates across Illinois in 1858. It was something of an odd exercise, because the voters of Illinois would not be voting for either man, but for members of the state legislature, who would choose the next senator. If you take the time to read the entire debates, you might come away wondering why people point to them as models of political discourse. You can find name-calling, mocking, charges and counter-charges, allegations of corruption and misbehavior, and so on. Very few political issues are discussed at all: only slavery is discussed in any depth. That might seem odd, because Illinois was a free state.

Stephen Douglas wanted to sidestep the issue of slavery’s morality. He said he didn’t care whether it was voted up or down. What got him in trouble, however, was the flawed application of his theory of popular sovereignty in Kansas Territory. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 negated the Missouri Compromise’s prohibition of slavery north of 36 degrees 30 minutes N latitude. Instead, the settlers of the territory would determine whether it would be open to slavery. The problem was simple: when would that decision be made? Would it be made in settling up a territorial government? Would it be made at the point a territory applied for statehood?

In the case of Kansas, that didn’t matter. Long story short, proslavery and antislavery/anti-slavery expansion forces clashed for years in Kansas. Douglas found himself in a difficult position. He had thought that the process of popular sovereignty would remove the issue of slavery’s expansion from Congress and place it in the territories; he thought that he was making an abstract concession to southern interests and pride, but that the practical result of popular sovereignty would be to promote free soil expansion and the rapid organization of territorial governments throughout most of the West. He was wrong. Moreover, in 1857 the Supreme Court ruled in Scott v. Sandford (commonly known as the Dred Scott decision) that Congress could not prohibit slavery’s expansion into the territories, and it could not delegate that power to territorial governments, meaning that it would not be until an application for statehood that it would be determined whether the applicant in question wanted to come into the union as a free or slave state.

That decision put Douglas in a terrible position. If he said that slavery could expand throughout the West, white northerners would be upset. Some would protest slavery as being immoral; more accepted slavery where it was, but did not want to see it expand; there were those who thought that slave labor would overpower free labor, and there were those who simply did not want to move west if that meant living alongside black people. In short, many northern whites, for a host of reasons, did not favor slavery’s expansion westward, and they would reject Douglas. On the other hand, if Douglas proposed ways consistent with the court’s ruling whereby settlers could prohibit slavery or make an area so hostile to slavery that no slaveholder would venture there, then the white southerners whose support he so dearly needed as he pursued the presidency would turn their backs on him.

Given that Douglas’s first objective was to assure the election of a Democratic state legislature to secure his reelection to the Senate, he found himself forced to choose the latter option. At the same time, however, he could not simply concede that Lincoln, too, was against slavery’s expansion. Sure, he could paint Lincoln as a rabble-rousing radical whose view of a house divided sparked sectional conflict and perhaps promised war, but that was not enough. Nor could he respond to Lincoln’s discussion of slavery as immoral by saying it was moral, because that would not gain traction with most Illinois voters: instead, he chose a pose of indifference on the morality question. But what he could do, and do with great effect, was to play the race card against Lincoln. If he could portray Lincoln as not simply someone opposed to slavery but also as someone who favored the equality of whites and blacks across the board — biological, legal, political, and social — he could play to the racist attitudes of many Illinois voters, especially those in the swing portion of the state, the middle third (most voters in southern Illinois, having migrated from slaveholding states, tended to side with Douglas anyway on this issue). Play the race card, accuse Lincoln of advocating racial equality, and that might be just enough to draw enough voters to the Democratic column in this closely contested race. There was no doubt, after all, where the senator stood on this issue:

I hold that this Government was made on the white basis, by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others. I do not believe that the Almighty made the negro capable of self-government. . . .

Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion, the signers of the Declaration had no reference to the negro whatever, when they declared all men to be created equal. They desired to express by that phrase white men, men of European birth and European descent, and had no reference either to the negro, the savage Indians, the Fejee, the Malay, or any other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men.

Douglas would not have made this declaration if he did not find it politically advantageous to do so. He did so in the third debate, at Jonesboro, on September 15. Lincoln’s reply that day did not address the issue of racial equality. He preferred to talk about slavery as a political issue. His lone reference to racial equality, ironically, was to remind listeners that one of Douglas’s own supporters, a newspaper editor from DeKalb, had called for equal privileges for blacks, including the right to vote. That Lincoln had the newspaper column in hand and proceeded to quote from it shows that he had prepared for this moment: it also shows that Lincoln himself was not above making charges when it came to which party favored black equality, although most voters knew better, and the argument did not gain traction.

This, as Lincoln traveled from Jonesboro, in the southernmost part of the state, northwards toward the center of the state at Charleston, east of Springfield, he must have done some pondering about how he would open the next debate. The debate format was simple: one speaker would speak for an hour; the other candidate would speak for an hour and a half, and the the opening speaker would close with a rejoinder lasting a half hour. At Charleston it would be Lincoln’s turn to open.

Lincoln opened the debate at Charleston, and he wasted little time in addressing what he wanted to say about his views on racial equality.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way 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 between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Those people who quote this passage as indicative of Lincoln’s racial attitudes often leave out what came next:

I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.

In short, one could argue against both slavery and racial equality, and the concept of equality had several components.

The remainder of Lincoln’s comments at Charleston, however, proved far less compelling, involving as they did the sort of convoluted charge and counter-charge that the two candidates often indulged in, pertaining to matters of Illinois politics. Douglas briefly noted Lincoln’s statement about racial equality …

Mr. Lincoln simply contented himself at the outset by saying, that he was not in favor of social and political equality between the white man and the negro, and did not desire the law so changed as to make the latter voters or eligible to office. I am glad that I have at last succeeded in getting an answer out of him upon this question of negro citizenship and eligibility to office, for I have been trying to bring him to the point on it ever since this canvass commenced.

… and then moved on. He referred to Lincoln’s supporters as “Black Republicans” and made mention of black speakers, including Frederick Douglass, all the while presenting himself as a statesman of compromise. Finally he returned to his old assertion.

Lincoln maintains there that the Declaration of Independence asserts that the negro is equal to the white man, and that under Divine law, and if he believes so it was rational for him to advocate negro citizenship, which, when allowed, puts the negro on an equality under the law. I say to you in all frankness, gentlemen, that in my opinion a negro is not a citizen, cannot be, and ought not to be, under the Constitution of the United States. I will not even qualify my opinion to meet the declaration of one of the Judges of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, “that a negro descended from African parents, who was imported into this country as a slave is not a citizen, and cannot be.” I say that this Government was established on the white basis. It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and never should be administered by any except white men. I declare that a negro ought not to be a citizen, whether his parents were imported into this country as slaves or not, or whether or not he was born here. It does not depend upon the place a negro’s parents were born, or whether they were slaves or not, but upon the fact that he is a negro, belonging to a race incapable of self-government, and for that reason ought not to be on an equality with white men.

Lincoln started his rebuttal by returning to this issue of blacks as citizens, flatly stating, “I am not in favor of negro citizenship.”

Douglas would repeat what Lincoln said about racial equality at Charleston in debates to come, usually in support of his claim that Lincoln varied his remarks according to location. There was some truth to this, but far less truth to the ensuing charge of inconsistency. Douglas knew better, and by the time of the final debate, he had heard Lincoln’s explanation enough times. He simply chose not to accept it. He knew that when it came to Illinois voters, shifting the issue from slavery to race tilted the scales in his favor.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Andreyich
Raw
Avatar of Andreyich

Andreyich AS THOUGH A THOUSAND MOUTHS CRY OUT IN PAIN

Member Seen 0-24 hrs ago

>brevity is the soul of wit

>makes a wall of text

Not sure if trolling, bait or both.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Penny
Raw
Avatar of Penny

Penny

Member Seen 15 hrs ago

Subtract all the racism, and confederacy is pretty awesome.


That counts!

*Crosses off loves the Confederacy*

BINGO!
Hidden 7 yrs ago 7 yrs ago Post by The Harbinger of Ferocity
Raw

The Harbinger of Ferocity

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

Ya'll ever hear the quote, "Brevity is the soul of wit?" Because your points would be a lot more poignant, if you weren't using the shotgun method of debate.

As is potential plagiarism? At a cursory level, your following post carries an uncanny amount of word-for-word copies and was posted within minutes of the other, as well as not even sourced to the topic it appears to be copied from. Now, I grant that you might actually be this author, as this is the internet so stranger things have happened, but you have truly brought this scrutiny on yourself. Now, I am going to assume you are just using it as reference for your argument, regardless, if you want the short answer as you so "wittily" demanded, here it is.

No one then, just as today, is innocent. You cannot just proclaim "The Confederacy was irredeemably evil because of slavery!" and ignore that many Northerners were tolerant of the practice even if they disagreed, still harboring racism even if they did not partake in actual slavery. Likewise, one cannot say "The Union was the moral high ground!" because as many of the examples in this very topic have proven, that is not the honest case. It is further dishonest to say, "Well, that's out of context for Abraham Lincoln." then turn heel and point the accusing finger at Robert E. Lee; our point was to show that and demonstrate you cannot have both, lest you now have a double standard in place. Realistically, one of these two men was assassinated and already had the morally superior winds in his sails. It takes no detective to realize why one is suddenly exalted.

One can witness this surge of support mirrored more recently with the John F. Kennedy assassination and the later attempt on Ronald Reagan. People flocked to their cause, even if they were not wholly convinced. It galvanized their ideals and made them, in many respects, heroes of history. When people remember fondly great Presidents of the United States, the other usual candidates are Washington, Jefferson, and Roosevelt.

I speak for no one but myself, but my personal message in all of this is that it is foolish to some how attribute the entire weight of a historical event, one started long before them, on the weight of one man and the faction he reluctantly served. The preservation of history is significantly more important than any loud, irate message the social justice minority will ever bring to bear. Progression is essential, but you cannot make progress in this realm by using egress. It represents nothing of the will of the people by and large and serves nothing but a cause that is the embodiment of recency.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by mdk>

That counts!

*Crosses off loves the Confederacy*

BINGO!


Whoa whoa whoa. Not "THE Confederacy." Just "confederacy." As in the first constitution of the United States of America. The guiding principle of a confederacy -- prizing local sovereignty over federalization -- is something I like a lot.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Andreyich
Raw
Avatar of Andreyich

Andreyich AS THOUGH A THOUSAND MOUTHS CRY OUT IN PAIN

Member Seen 0-24 hrs ago

Confederates aren't the only ones to espouse decentralization.
Hidden 7 yrs ago Post by Penny
Raw
Avatar of Penny

Penny

Member Seen 15 hrs ago

<Snipped quote by Penny>

Whoa whoa whoa. Not "THE Confederacy." Just "confederacy." As in the first constitution of the United States of America. The guiding principle of a confederacy -- prizing local sovereignty over federalization -- is something I like a lot.


You will not take my bingo from me!
↑ Top
5 Guests viewing this page
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet