Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 19:51:47 GMT
From OP: "The Americans were, in fact, following an old English tradition. A year after England’s King Charles I lost his actual head in 1649, Parliament ordered his statue at the Exchange in London “to be demolished, by having the head taken off, and the scepter [taken] out of his hand.” In 1689, Protestant soldiers in Newcastle removed a statue of Catholic King James II and dragged it through the streets before tossing it in the river." It might be a good idea to actually read the thread before posting. Just sayin. Yeah, I read those two examples of a government ordering a statue removed or destruction by government soldiers at a time of war, neither of which are comparable to the mob madness of today. By the way, the 1649 Parliament was under the control of a "rebel" named Cromwell who STILL has a statue in merry ole' England, despite the return of the monarchy after Cromwell's CIVIL WAR. Thanks for the segue to the fact that the UK allows monuments celebrating her former foes, just like we did....until the animal tear them down.
Its not clear that the soldiers who removed the statue of James II were acting under the orders of parliament. Further, Americans don't tend to wait for government permission, that's how we became Americans in the first place! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 19:57:58 GMT
Mathematical fail? Are we abusing the dictionary, again? You are all set to dance but have no mind to discuss. What you did in that thread was ignore evidence, toss out insults and mangle the dictionary. No one found your arguments compelling, including myself. As far as I can tell, you had no response to the discussion in that thread. You ignored evidence endorsing "separate but equal" on the monuments themselves, after demanding to see evidence of racism on the monuments themselves. (what kind of hillbilly materialist epistemology is this?)  You also ignored the dedication speeches (and their celebration of the terror campaign waged by the KKK) and you ignored the political/cultural battles that contextualized the majority of these monuments. And for good reason. They are undeniable proof against your position, along with the Ordinances of Secession, owing to the fact they make it clear the south's cause was slavery and 2nd class status for blacks. You have nothing to say that is compelling or thoughtful about any of this. So there is no reason to continue discussing it with you. the Ordinances don't speak to the causes of secession.
South Carolina Articles of secession, adopted December 24, 1860. “The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” “These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. “We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign [sic] the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 19:58:54 GMT
Mississippi
Ordinance of Secession adopted January 9, 1861
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 20:06:47 GMT
Georgia
Ordinance of Secession adopted January 19, 1861
“The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
You get the idea. I don't need to belabor the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 7, 2020 20:08:36 GMT
Are you saying that since it dates back to the beginning of our nation, that makes it more acceptable? I don't believe that we should accept the taking/destroying of someone's possessions, no matter what the purpose. Surely there's another way to make the same point. What about tea? |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,211
|
Post by demos on Jul 7, 2020 21:38:27 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 21:54:47 GMT
I am reminded of what Maya Angelou said, "when they tell you who they are, believe them."
When you are confronted with direct quotes, formal declarations, etc, I don't know how you shrug it off. I just don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 7, 2020 22:14:07 GMT
I am reminded of what Maya Angelou said, "when they tell you who they are, believe them." When you are confronted with direct quotes, formal declarations, etc, I don't know how you shrug it off. I just don't get it.
The way one "shrugs it off" is to be of poor character.. to be dishonest.. Traits that sadly so often are passed along..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 22:27:52 GMT
I am reminded of what Maya Angelou said, "when they tell you who they are, believe them." When you are confronted with direct quotes, formal declarations, etc, I don't know how you shrug it off. I just don't get it.
The way one "shrugs it off" is to be of poor character.. to be dishonest.. Traits that sadly so often are passed along..
Perhaps but it could simply be the power of identity and bias. I like to extend the benefit of the doubt but at a certain point it becomes obvious that not everyone is approaching these issues with a willingness to let the facts lead the way. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,021
|
Post by petep on Jul 8, 2020 0:52:42 GMT
And yet you refute Hitler’s quotes about being a socialist.
Pick a side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 1:07:29 GMT
And yet you refute Hitler’s quotes about being a socialist. Pick a side. lol let's see one of those quotes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 1:08:10 GMT
Pete's going to be shocked to learn the titmouse is actually a bird.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 8, 2020 2:16:10 GMT
And yet you refute Hitler’s quotes about being a socialist. Pick a side. And yet Hitler enslaved almost as many as did the Old South.
Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 8, 2020 13:58:29 GMT
And yet you refute Hitler’s quotes about being a socialist.
For the same reasons you reject Hitler's claims of being Christian ..
Care to name what that is?
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,021
|
Post by petep on Jul 8, 2020 16:40:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 17:35:59 GMT
Pick a couple that you think really make the point. The ironic thing is I recall bringing you around about a dozen different times on this question, only for you to relapse back to the same nonsense view, time and time again, as if you learned nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 8, 2020 17:49:34 GMT
The ironic thing is I recall bringing you around about a dozen different times on this question, only for you to relapse back to the same nonsense view, time and time again, as if you learned nothing.
Yes .. I was there.
Still haven't heard from pete about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 2:55:16 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 13:01:17 GMT
And finally, you've once again confused the Ordinances of Secession with the less common Declarations of Causes. I've already had to school you on the difference before and on the fact the the Ordinances don't speak to the causes of secession.
You have nothing to teach. There is mention of slavery in the Ordinances and the Declarations. blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seceded-from-the-union-to-protect-slavery/For someone who is really focused on this part of US history, you really have a hard time getting the facts straight. Wow. Do your research. The fool who wrote this article is mixing the actual ordinances with the Declarations of Causes. And in some cases, not even getting the ordinances right.
HERE are the ordinances:
AND here are the declarations of causes:
On one of the examples in the article that you posted, the only thing mentioned is the election of Lincoln! On another (Kentucky) it just speaks of "central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society", which is far more indicative of the argument against centralization and states' rights. ALL of the quote from Kentucky was about state powers vs federal usurpation, the REAL reason why secession occurred.
For the four declarations of causes, here's the breakdown of the causes listed in each:
Note that only three speak of slavery as a majority reason. Keep in mind that the one percenters of the time were the primary authors of these declarations. If Bloomberg, Bezos, Gates and Zuckerberg issued a fiery proclamation, would that represent the sentiments of all of America? Or just the tiny group of powerful elitists who have a voice because they are rich?
And again, using a small number of fiery documents to assign motivation to the entire 19th century Southern population of which only 6% owned slaves (5% of the 6% had 5 or fewer and worked side by side with them in the fields) is statistically invalid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 13:35:31 GMT
Yep, mathematical failure because you do not have the statistical/empirical basis for the inane conclusion that you are peddling. You've done little more than try to hide your logical fallacies and lack of any real evidence by pontificating over a few indirect disjointed examples taken out of context from speeches by guest politicians! There were millions of Southerners who erected 1700 monuments. It's vacuous to draw your fictional conclusion about motivation for all Southerners and monuments based on a handful of incidental quotes and ONE 20th century memorial with separate water fountains!
You provided a single 1926 example (out of 1700 monuments) of a memorial TO ALL WARS that happened to have segregated water fountains, as if the memorial was erected solely for the fountains themselves. All of you speech excerpts are from bloviating politicians, not those who erected the monuments.
If you have a problem with my word usage, I'm open to correction, but in this case, I've used the words correctly. You're welcome to say otherwise, but let's see you back it up.
And finally, you've once again confused the Ordinances of Secession with the less common Declarations of Causes. I've already had to school you on the difference before and on the fact the the Ordinances don't speak to the causes of secession.
So, if you choose to skedaddle again, that's up to you; after all, I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think.
Let me see if I can't find a way to move us closer together. First, we have to drop the bit about these being mere anecdotes by "guest" politicians. These were dedication speeches by figures who were giving these symbols their meaning. It speaks to their context. We found numerous examples in these speeches celebrating the KKK's terror campaign during reconstruction, of support for a pure Anglo blood in the south, and references to legal separatism. We have to be able to agree that the monuments dedicated in that manner are problems, and that this is doubly true when they are in front of court houses. Now let me give you something. It is true that the speeches made at one monument do not taint them *all.* So let's be open to looking at these symbols one by one and make our judgements one step at a time. Let's review the monument itself, the dedication ceremony, the people who funded or organized it, its placement and so on and come to a conclusion that way. I am fine with that approach. The idea is to avoid making *hasty generalizations* based on *small* sample sizes. This is not a question of anecdotes as evidence because this is not anecdotal. We have textual evidence, and in some cases physical evidence on the monuments themselves. I appreciate the effort to move closer to common ground. But the assignment of meaning and context from a speech by a politician is still troubling. If the politician (who is typically a guest speaker) mentions something that is not contextual (as compared on the monument itself or those who actually erected it) during a dedication speech, is he really altering the context of that monument or is the politician just speaking for himself for that sake of political advantage?
Lincoln announced his racism during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Should that be the context of his entire political life going forward from that point?
When Trump speaks at a given public event or a dedication, does that location immediately take on the context of Trump's speech? If Trump honors an individual or organization and happens in a single paragraph of his speech to give his own take on some issue, is this one extra opinion by Trump now permanently assigned to the individual or organization being honored? Not normally, because we know that what politicians say is intended to stir up the proles and garner votes, not to give us an honest intellectual treatise.
You don't trust, believe or put any stock in what Trump or Biden says because they are politicians trolling for votes...so why do you give any more credence to a 19th century guest bloviator when the monuments themselves don't reflect that pol's message (not even the water fountain example)?
|
|
