Who was going to kill them? Was the North just going to kill southern people without war being declared? Or were the southern slave owners going to kill the majority of the population who didn't own slaves that opposed the war?
Stone Mountain, Georgia
- Thread starter treetiger
- Start date
Who was going to kill them? Was the North just going to kill southern people without war being declared? Or were the southern slave owners going to kill the majority of the population who didn't own slaves that opposed the war?
Is this the whole thing where everyone in America, sans a small segment of the south, agrees that the Civil War was fought over slavery? But that small segment is correct and all those scholars are wrong?
So because they remove a statue they're also rewrite the events of that time in a history book? Idk what to say if you think that.
What in the hell?
What does fear of slaves revolting and killing their white masters have to do with going to war against the North? How exactly is going to war going to prevent an uprising? I guess I could understand them not wanting to free slaves because they fear reprisal, but they could have just put them on ships and send them back or some other reasonable solutions. I mean since the majority didn't own slaves anyway.
If we follow that logic, do we do away with the Democratic party? Since they were the party of slavery, voting 7-0 on the SCOUTS to uphold slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, segregation, and the KKK?
I understand you now. So you are afraid of a revolt from black people feeling mistreated. So you want the monuments to remain as a reminder for blacks to "know their place."
Those Haitian weren't killing for higher wages, free healthcare, or lower taxes. They were fighting to be free of forced labor, starvation in some cases, and torture far exceeding the tactics of isis.
They just wanted to be human beings. The South was the opposite of that and had a view point of oppression as their call for freedom.
I would argue that you aren't following that logic because there are no statues built to honor the SCOTUS votes to uphold slavery.
There are a lot of great men who have done horrible things. The question is are you honoring that person because of the good they did, or the atrocities they supported? Confederate monuments honor those who fought for slavery.
Yeah but if you did that the modern day republicans would no longer exist. Saw what you tried to do there. Besides, many republicans are in agreement with not honoring these folks.
People say the war wasn't fought over slavery since very few owned slaves. As @cufan1 @VeniceTiger and @Edistoplayer all in parts said 1. The actual articles of secession from the various states say it clearly was supporting scholars on the matter 2. Who was going to kill them if they so greatly outnumbered the slave owners?
I do get folks defending themselves and their families but they could've stopped that train a lot sooner if the majority as y'all imply were not on board. If they would've so many good people on both sides would've lived.
That's the best you can't do instead of giving a counter argument? So I'm right about you?
Thanks. I'm glad folks are willing to consider others outside of themselves. Many in this thread even if not 100% in agreement on how to do it agree that we shouldn't be honoring these folks.
For the record, I don't put slaveowners in the same category. It was legal and economically necessary in order to compete in the marketplace. If you had a reputation of murdering your slaves then of course that's different and would be the reason you face the backlash. Murder not slave ownership.
If you don't want to rehash this subject, then don't comment in another thread rehashing this subject. As far as you addressing "all of those questions" in THIS thread, I would say that'a a negative.
Hello, slippery slope fallacy, we meet again. For the umoteenth time this thread.
The slippery slope people think their argument sounds so good in their heads I bet.
Take it back to 'well if we let non-landowning men vote then women are going to want to vote and then blacks are going to want to vote and then they are going to want to have equal rights and then they will complain at being shot by police and incarcerated at a disproportionate rate to the gen pop and then they are going to want all these passive aggressive racists statues taken down.
Should have just shut it all way back then because we are getting dangerously close to everyone being equal. What dicey times.
Take it back to 'well if we let non-landowning men vote then women are going to want to vote and then blacks are going to want to vote and then they are going to want to have equal rights and then they will complain at being shot by police and incarcerated at a disproportionate rate to the gen pop and then they are going to want all these passive aggressive racists statues taken down.
Should have just shut it all way back then because we are getting dangerously close to everyone being equal. What dicey times.
Large is impossible to quantify but if you look at a large part of the narrative, that's what you'll hear.
Also, this is why I said I'm still formulating an opinion on the sudden full sweep or removing/renaming anything remotely ties to the Confederacy. I think it's reactionary at this point.
A vocal (and lunatic) minority can easily get noticed and push a narrative and movement, as we've seen from many sides in the last several years.
I think it's fair to not make sudden decisions, and there are certainly valid reasons to keep them. I just don't adhere to the fear mongering arguments that removing them means history is erased and our constitution is gone.
I also don't subscribe to the narrative that a statue somewhere somehow impacts someone's life to such a great extent. It's a bandwagon movement at this point IMO.
There is truth in the bandwagon effect. But who a country (state) chooses to honor says much about the country (state).
Isn't it why a statue of Joe Paterno no longer graces Penn State. Is what he did (looking away at a crime) comparable to treason?
Then stay the fvck out of South Carolina. And pull for a team up north. I'm not racist, and think in this day in age, no one is held back by there color or religion. If you have the intelligence and the want too, you can do anything you set your mind to. I am proud of my heritage and am proud of all my friends, no matter their color. Again, if the south isn't good enough for you, then don't become a hemorrhoid, just go back up.
After reading my post, I want to state that I have voted Democrat almost exclusively. I do not want any minority, or anyone for that matter to feel unaccepted. You will never feel that way in my presence. After reading one of the responses in this thread, I don't want certain monuments removed, but like what was mentioned I would not ever want a child to feel they were practicing a game they love in front of statue that made them feel uncomfortable. I know I could have deleted my initial post , but thought both responses reflected me.
Last edited:
Could this racist remark by Abraham Lincoln warrant the removal of his monuments?
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference 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. 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 everything.” (Abraham Lincoln)
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference 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. 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 everything.” (Abraham Lincoln)
Was this before or after he freed the slaves?
Lincoln, though not perfect by today's standards, wasn't a traitor to the US; he tried to keep the nation together.
There is a difference in my mind between those who found themselves living in a slave state (and may have found themselves forced into fighting the Union) and those who led the secessionist movement and the War against the Union.
Ironically, as I learned in a NYT article today, Lee himself wanted no statues to his or other Confederate generals' memories. He wanted healing to begin.
