Yep.. the vast majority of confederate monuments were erected at a time when southern whites were trying to assert their authority through Jim Crow laws or during the civil rights era. No mistake why those statues were built.
One more reason to hate UNC
- Thread starter Swimcat76
- Start date
This is some awful logic. If a constitutional amendment was enacted to end slavery prior to the civil war, do you think the South would just abide by the amendment? And slavery doesn't just phase out when left to its own devices. Millions of lives were lost throughout history in efforts to end slavery.
Yes, we can go around and around on this, but the fact of the matter is that the Union fought to preserve the union which thereby ended slavery in the United States. The South seceded because they were nervous that the newly elected Republicans controlling the Executive and Legislative branches would abolish slavery, as it was one of their major platforms in the 1860 election.
You're advocating for the continuation of slavery in hopes that it would just phase out? Slavery, as it was existed in the south, was justifed through twisted religiuos devotion and ideas of racial superiority. That's not something that just fades away.
The very fact that a) you're blaming the state of current race relations on the Union's actions in the civil war and b) suggesting that slavery should have continued for the hopeful benefit of race relations shows us all that you should sit this one, and hopefully many others, out.
Exactly.
That part gets conveniently glossed over by all the "states' rights" people.
The north fought to uphold slavery for the first two years. Which half of the Union monuments come down?
I’d like your answer soon.
By this logic, any monument anywhere before the civil rights movement should come down. Unless you think whites elsewhere weren’t trying to assert and maintain authority.
Ripping down these statues is a dangerously stupid, irrational and ultimately obtuse exercise. You cannot pick and choose which parts of history must go and turn a blind eye to the rest.
Because slavery would still be going on, or... like it did in the North, died a natural death.
Are you incapable of separating yourself from present thought process to 150 years ?
Sure there is, the North doesn’t decide to force the South back into the Union when they seceded.
That isn’t true, that’s simply a way to hijack and demonize them.
They were built when civil war veterans were aging and dying off. It was a way to honor them before they died.
Yep, I am. Slavery is awful and should be stopped with every effort of our being.
You would think that, with all of our disagreements, everyone should be appreciative that the legal institution of slavery ceased to exist in the US after the Civil War.
This is like saying 'The Nazis would have figured out they were dicks some day'.
Nope, they fought to uphold the Union, with or without slavery. It had no bearing on their actions. You're forgetting the # 1 reason for succession by all Southern states.
But feel free to take down any Union monuments you see fit to remove.
From Silent Sam’s dedication speech:
“ The present generation, I am persuaded, scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the welfare of the Anglo Saxon race during the four years immediately succeeding the war, when the facts are, that their courage and steadfastness saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South – When “the bottom rail was on top” all over the Southern states, and to-day, as a consequence the purest strain of the Anglo Saxon is to be found in the 13 Southern States – Praise God.
I trust I may be pardoned for one allusion, howbeit it is rather personal. One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shot gun under my head.”
You’re missing my point, the South would’ve been more open to racial integration if it hadn’t happened at the end of a gun. That’s human nature.
The North freed the slaves with absolutely no intention of being around them. So they turned slaves loose on a population that had previously owned them. That sounds like a gem of an idea.
You guys look at things as North good, South bad. It was a lot more complicated than that.
Jesus. Do you even try to educate yourself?
Most of these monuments did not go up immediately after the war’s end in 1865. During that time, commemorative markers of the Civil War tended to be memorials that mourned soldiers who had died, says Mark Elliott, a history professor at University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
“Eventually they started to build [Confederate] monuments,” he says. “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s.
https://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments
No, we just know the south was fighting for slavery and thus abhorrent and not deserving of monuments. It’s that simple.
Though I already posted this, it can't be posted enough.
I am glad, but I can also be honest and take a look at an entire situation.
Nazis wanted to ELIMINATE entire races, and tried too. They wanted to rule the world, they have absolutely no comparison with the Confederacy.
By your line of thinking George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were as bad as Nazis.
What part of aging and dying off did you not understand? Clearly that doesn’t mean right after the civil war.
Between 1900 and 1920 was 40-60 years after the civil war. So a civil war vet would’ve been roughly 55-80 in that period. Aging and dying off.
No. Washington and Jefferson were slave owners who started the mechanism by which slavery would be eliminated. The confederate government contributed absolutely nothing positive to history and went to war over the belief that white people are better than black people. The Nazis established their entire ideology on similar notions.
You said it was simply a way to honor them before they died which is patently false.
No, I'm not missing your point. Ending slavery isn't 'racial integration'. It's ending the institution of slavery, and if it's not done willingly immediately, it should be done by the end of a gun.
The North freed the slaves so that they could be free. It's a much, MUCH better idea than slavery. Now you're suggesting that we should keep slavery if there are no good plans for racial integration. Once again, horribly awful logic.
I don't look at these things as North good, South bad. I look at it the way in that the Confederate States of America were formed to defend slavery as the buttress of their economy and way of life. Because of this, just about anyone fighting the CSA is by default better than the CSA. And an arbitrary statue of the CSA commemorates that ideology.
Oh, I see. You think that’s what George Washington and Jefferson were thinking? The South didnt secede with the intention to go to war.
The only reason the south seceded was because they thought white people were better than black people.
Nah dude things were awesome for black people after the civil war. Poor southern states just wanted to be left alone.
It is not patently false, it's simple common sense. Why are monuments built? To honor those who fought,as you wrote they built a majority of them between the 00's and 20's, when the civil war veterans were getting old and dying off, after reconstruction.
This notion that it was because of Jim Crow is simply a way to force removing them.
Lynchings were awful, whether they be against white or black. It's going outside the bounds of law, vigilante justice isn't justice.
No. People want them to be removed because it WAS directly related to Jim Crow and also, you know, fighting for slavery.
The statues were'nt erected for Jim Crow laws, it's absurd to think that.
You want it to be about that so it's easier to bring them down.
They fought to uphold the Union WITH slavery. They only addressed slavery at all because they were losing. If they’d won in 1861, slavery may have hung on for decades.
The point, that you dodged, is that you CANNOT pick and choose who was virtuous in 1861 based on SJW views.
1) No, it isn't. Why did some states all of a sudden redesign their flag around that time as well?
2) You should want them down just based on human decency.
So, now being opposed to slavery and the glorification of those who fought for it makes one a SJW?
This is what we've come to, huh? Amazing.
I'm applying your logic to instances in which atrocities defended by certain armies would continue if "they just figured it out". The Confederacy fought to enslave races, ergo the analogy.
GW and TJ weren't fighting or postulating against England rule to continue slavery, to the best of my knowledge, since legal slavery was still rampant in the British empire.
Maybe if we just let Nazis figure it out skinheads wouldn't be so mad.
Last edited:
Not picking who was virtuous, just picking which side was obviously more repugnant in the defense of their beliefs.
Like I said, tear down some Union soldier statues. Don't care, and I'm certainly not going to rewrite history and twist reason in hopes to support an unnecessary argument.
GW and TJ were slaveholders, how were they different than the Confederates? The Confederates weren't seceding solely to maintain slavery,slavery was legal in the US, wasn't going anywhere if they'd stayed in the Union. Not to mention that half the Confederacy didn't leave until the Union formed an Army to force them back.
The second paragraph, which is only preceded by one sentence, in Mississippi's "Declarations of Causes" for secession says
Nearly 75% of their Declarations of Causes is about slavery.
The majority of the Declaration documents for Texas and Georgia are discussing slavery. South Carolina's declaration also discusses slavery extensively.
Those are the only 4 states that offered a "Declaration of Causes" in addition to an article of secession.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Last edited:
Anybody can play the "Source" game.
Here's a link that states tariffs were the main cause:
https://www.dailyprogress.com/opini...cle_63b77f5c-dc0c-11e2-8e99-001a4bcf6878.html
Bottom line... blah blah blah... nobody's changing anyone's mind.
That said, I'm out... good luck lol.