Re: Solution to confederate monuments.

26
Maccabee wrote:
KlownKannon wrote:Just for the sake of the argument, are there such a thing as Confederate monuments that weren't put up during Jim Crow?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/new-co ... index.html
Interesting to read the SCV about page.

http://www.scv.org/about/whatis.php

Turns out they were fighting to support the rights guaranteed by the constitution!

Just another sidestepping of the facts of the war. Another attempt to forget history.
Aim past the target.

Image


Image

Re: Solution to confederate monuments.

28
lurker wrote:the constitution until 1865 neither approved nor disapproved of slavery, merely acknowledged it. that's why it took a 13th and 14th amendment to abolish slavery.
You're better than that. You know, from all the published articles of secession, the southern states left to preserve the institution of slavery. If the noble southern soldiers wanted to simply support the constitution they could have stayed home.
Aim past the target.

Image


Image

Re: Solution to confederate monuments.

29
gator68 wrote:
lurker wrote:the constitution until 1865 neither approved nor disapproved of slavery, merely acknowledged it. that's why it took a 13th and 14th amendment to abolish slavery.
You're better than that. You know, from all the published articles of secession, the southern states left to preserve the institution of slavery. If the noble southern soldiers wanted to simply support the constitution they could have stayed home.
yes, i am, thanks. try not to condescend for a minute.
i've written about this here before, but apparently you missed it, or chose not to get it.
soldiers do not fight for the same reasons that governments start wars. we see this in every war, we acknowledge it when we say "rich man's war, poor man's fight". governments lie, people die.

i happen to agree, the confederate government started the war to preserve slavery. that's not why southern men enlisted.

but let's start with the federal side first. the federal government is less clear. Marx had something to say about it. there's ample evidence that the federal government resisted secession because it could not sustain the loss of revenue that secession would entail. for the north (NOT the south), the war was about tariffs. not the only reason, but one of several which converge on the notion of keeping the union together.

the north did not begin the war with the stated goal to end slavery, that only became important with the emancipation proclamation, and even then it was out of military utility, not an end in itself. was lincoln an abolitionist? sure, but he lacked (and he knew it) the authority to abolish slavery. early in the war, federal genls. john c fremont (1856 republican candidate for president) and David Hunter faced dismissal for advocating freeing the slaves. so, not so pure.

federal soldiers enlisted for a variety of reasons, ending slavery not high among them. most enlisted as a response to a strong emotional appeal to preserve the union after the confederates fired on fort sumter. when the EP came out, many threatened to mutiny, and the citizens of new york rioted.

ok, that's the federal side. the southern state (because there was no confederacy yet) governments were clear enough if you're willing to look just beneath the surface. the articles of secession were legal documents, describing WHAT they were going to do and how, but not WHY. they rarely mention slavery. i have a copy of south carolina's here before me. there's ample evidence that it was about slavery, the keystone speech, the resolutions on secession, letters from congressmen, newspapers from the day, but not the actual articles. some of this was subterfuge, and some was just an artifact of the way our governments work, going back to the declaration of independence. what we have here is a mission statement, a statement of the why of.. secession. from britain. simply a statement of intent, and justification. it has no real legal standing. that was the articles of confederation and later the constitution. tennessee is a particularly useful example. texas, virginia and north carolina all produced similar documents, and they're clear. "our cause is thoroughly connected to the institution of slavery, the greatest economic interest in the world".

but that was not the appeal made to the people. the governments and their media mouthpieces stated it in terms of greedy northern industrialists and merchants sending foreign mercenaries to kill, burn and rape, and to compel southern men to do the same.

as i stated in another post, monuments rarely say anything about the governments or their goals, they are about soldiers. soldiers goals are not the same as governments. leave them alone.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: Solution to confederate monuments.

30
The onus as to whether a Confederate monument or statue stays or goes should be put on specific hate groups that use them for background or support. If the racist, white supremacist, nazis or whatever use one for it's background or rallying point during a demonstration, then it will be removed.

I've mixed emotions on all this removal. I personally pay them no mind, same as I don't fret over prayers in schools or Ten Commandments on govt. property, although I'm atheist - it just doesn't matter or isn't important. But that's me, YMMV. I understand some may find them offensive or a point of contention, but to me they are just a statue, some of which I seen many times never knowing what they represented other than war dead, battles or such. Never looked on them as glorifying the CSA. Renaming schools is silly IMO. It's past, it's history, it's part of who this nation is, sometimes unfortunately. By the same token, if they get removed or renamed, I won't lose any sleep over it.
"Being Republican is more than a difference of opinion - it's a character flaw." "COVID can fix STUPID!"
The greatest, most aggrieved mistake EVER made in USA was electing DJT as POTUS.

Re: Solution to confederate monuments.

31
lurker wrote:
gator68 wrote:
lurker wrote:the constitution until 1865 neither approved nor disapproved of slavery, merely acknowledged it. that's why it took a 13th and 14th amendment to abolish slavery.
You're better than that. You know, from all the published articles of secession, the southern states left to preserve the institution of slavery. If the noble southern soldiers wanted to simply support the constitution they could have stayed home.
yes, i am, thanks. try not to condescend for a minute.
Not condescending but perhaps I could be more direct.
Your suggestion that the SCV statement that they were just defending the constitution was misdirection at best. That is the myth of the "noble south" and the Lost Cause. Bullshit that was behind a century of Jim Crow, violence and KKK. I do assume you are better than that.
lurker wrote: i've written about this here before, but apparently you missed it, or chose not to get it.
soldiers do not fight for the same reasons that governments start wars. we see this in every war, we acknowledge it when we say "rich man's war, poor man's fight". governments lie, people die.

i happen to agree, the confederate government started the war to preserve slavery. that's not why southern men enlisted.
[snip]...
ok, that's the federal side. the southern state (because there was no confederacy yet) governments were clear enough if you're willing to look just beneath the surface. the articles of secession were legal documents, describing WHAT they were going to do and how, but not WHY. they rarely mention slavery. i have a copy of south carolina's here before me. there's ample evidence that it was about slavery, the keystone speech, the resolutions on secession, letters from congressmen, newspapers from the day, but not the actual articles. some of this was subterfuge, and some was just an artifact of the way our governments work, going back to the declaration of independence. what we have here is a mission statement, a statement of the why of.. secession. from britain. simply a statement of intent, and justification. it has no real legal standing. that was the articles of confederation and later the constitution. tennessee is a particularly useful example. texas, virginia and north carolina all produced similar documents, and they're clear. "our cause is thoroughly connected to the institution of slavery, the greatest economic interest in the world".

but that was not the appeal made to the people. the governments and their media mouthpieces stated it in terms of greedy northern industrialists and merchants sending foreign mercenaries to kill, burn and rape, and to compel southern men to do the same.

as i stated in another post, monuments rarely say anything about the governments or their goals, they are about soldiers. soldiers goals are not the same as governments. leave them alone.
A bunch of things here. First, monuments to generals and Jefferson Davis erected right after Plessy v Fergusson are not about soldiers. They are about white power.

Second, the southern people DID know what they were fighting for.
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary- ... ing-states
These statements are quite clear and detailed in describing the why. (Except for Virginia, which was last of these to ratify secession.)
The secession process included not just a state government vote, but also a popular vote to ratify secession. So the question was taken directly to the voting citizens, who being white men were the one who would actually be fighting.

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Vi ... tart_entry
Look under "Who Fought?"
"Most important, from the perspective of correcting old and inaccurate assumptions, the Civil War in Virginia was a rich man's fight. "
"These same studies have also revealed that slave owners were also overrepresented in the armies. "
"When considering aggregate enlistment figures for Virginia, the best predictor of whether a county would enlist a high proportion of its men was not slaveholding itself, but the percent of the population enslaved. The more people held as slaves, the higher the enlistment figures. Counties in which more than 50 percent of the population was enslaved had very high enlistment rates, most well over 75 percent."

These men knew why they were fighting. It wasn't about constitutional rights -- it was about slavery, whether the men owned slaves directly or feared what would happen to them if the slaves got free.
Aim past the target.

Image


Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests