Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 14:06:00 GMT
Who is John Mosby? I can tell you that. He was a great cavalry commander, but after the war, he's what we called a "scalawag". Mosby for his own personal profit became a sycophant of U.S. Grant and his minions. Little more than an opportunist and probably was the same when in Confederate service. After years of derision by real Southerners, I'm sure in 1894, turncoat Mosby likely hated anyone who expressed the real reasons why the South fought. But he did say this: "people must be judged by the standard of their own age".
A better source of actual Southern causes and sentiments is General Patrick Cleburne, who died fighting for Southern Independence:
"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."
"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."
"I am with the South in life or death, in victory or defeat. I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone."
All of those are quotes made PRIOR to the end of the war. All about state's rights and warning of the lies that the North now tells about the Southern cause.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,211
|
Post by demos on Jul 9, 2020 14:17:01 GMT
A better source of actual Southern causes and sentiments is General Patrick Cleburne, who died fighting for Southern Independence: Why? Because he agrees with your position? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 16:54:39 GMT
A better source of actual Southern causes and sentiments is General Patrick Cleburne, who died fighting for Southern Independence: Why? Because he agrees with your position? No, because he wasn't a turncoat liar like Mosby, a man bitter because he was hated for his post war collaboration. Cleburne spoke these truths while still fighting and he died long before the Northern lies were being fed to Southern school children. Goes to motivation. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,211
|
Post by demos on Jul 9, 2020 16:59:48 GMT
No, because he wasn't a turncoat liar like Mosby, a man bitter because he was hated for his post war collaboration. Cleburne spoke these truths while still fighting and he died long before the Northern lies were being fed to Southern school children. Goes to motivation. Lulz. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 17:54:14 GMT
No, because he wasn't a turncoat liar like Mosby, a man bitter because he was hated for his post war collaboration. Cleburne spoke these truths while still fighting and he died long before the Northern lies were being fed to Southern school children. Goes to motivation. Lulz. Bless your heart. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,211
|
Post by demos on Jul 9, 2020 19:04:03 GMT
Bless your rationalizing heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Jul 10, 2020 12:51:38 GMT
Speaking of actions that go back to the nation's founding, slavery also was a part of that "tradition". Not all details in the beginning were in the best interests of the nation. Also, women couldn't vote. Both have changed over the years.
I do rather like President Trump's Garden of Whatever for statues honoring all sorts of people who have had great influence on our nation's life. That could be worth traveling to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 20:34:44 GMT
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.
Well, there ya go, there's the proof that slavery was the major issue. If you consider that "state's rights" issues are *also* slavery issues, it is even more clear. Regarding the claim that the official declarations and speeches only represent the POV of the elite, or the "1%," that's a convenient story but where is the evidence to back it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 20:39:42 GMT
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)?
If the group funding a monument arranges for a dedication ceremony and guest speakers, that ceremony and those speeches contextualize the monument. Thats the point of a dedication ceremony. And if the ideas aren't already popularly held, it will backfire and fail as a symbol. You don't go to dedication ceremonies to hear controversial ideas. These are celebratory events. They are inclusive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2020 22:35:14 GMT
The significance of the Confederate statues is our Southern heritage. That is the significance of the Confederate statues, our origins and respecting our past. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2020 22:37:35 GMT
The significance of the Confederate statues is our Southern heritage. That is the significance of the Confederate statues, our origins and respecting our past. Because you're damn proud to be a slaver. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2020 22:38:37 GMT
The significance of the Confederate statues is our Southern heritage. That is the significance of the Confederate statues, our origins and respecting our past. Because you're damn proud to be a slaver. You have a problem with that statement? Are you sure? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2020 22:48:40 GMT
Because you're damn proud to be a slaver. You have a problem with that statement? Are you sure?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2020 23:43:04 GMT
You have a problem with that statement? Are you sure? What is your specific problem with that statement? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 0:06:08 GMT
What is your specific problem with that statement? Pretty self-explanatory Wrongway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 0:19:30 GMT
What is your specific problem with that statement? Pretty self-explanatory Wrongway. Pretend it is not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 1:59:11 GMT
What is your specific problem with that statement? Pretty self-explanatory Wrongway. Just answer the question. It's so self-explanatory it shouldn't take long. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 2:06:57 GMT
Pretty self-explanatory Wrongway. Just answer the question. It's so self-explanatory it shouldn't take long. I would, but I don't think you're bright enough to understand. Anyone that can't read a weather forecast has got to be a couple of cans short of a sixpack. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 2:08:36 GMT
Just answer the question. It's so self-explanatory it shouldn't take long. I would, but I don't think you're bright enough to understand. Anyone that can't read a weather forecast has got to be a couple of cans short of a sixpack. Stop dodging the question. Or do you not actually know? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2020 2:27:04 GMT
Just answer the question. It's so self-explanatory it shouldn't take long. I would, but I don't think you're bright enough to understand. Anyone that can't read a weather forecast has got to be a couple of cans short of a sixpack. Come on, it is so easy, right? Just say the obvious. |
|
