Republicans defending Confederate symbols?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Ronstar, Jun 13, 2020.

  1. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A civil war actually in which they got their butts beat and the Old South murdered.
     
  2. logical1

    logical1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    25,426
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Back on thread title. We need to preserve history!! If we dont and try to blot it out or revise it, history may repeat itself.

    Democrats want to tear down all the pictures and statues because it reflects badly on their party, but it is and was history.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  3. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only people trying to destroy history are the Confederate historical revisionists. We learn history from books, not statues. Knowing history is WHY people have a problem with the statues.
     
    JakeStarkey likes this.
  4. logical1

    logical1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    25,426
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But there in lies the problem. Not enough people know about history, and maybe a statue will trigger some study of history.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  5. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fans of the statutes tend to be the ones with no interest in the actual history.
     
  6. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Gerrymandering started in 1812 and the "Electoral College" was instituted in 1787. Neither apparently appeased the smaller states. The US was not as it is today. People did not "shop around" for jobs, which happened much later in the 20th century.

    That gave the southern states almost 8 decades plenty to maneuver politically. According to history, this is the reason the Civil War started:
    Abolition of slavery around the world:
    [​IMG]
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  7. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Real history comes from primary sources, which I've read.
     
  8. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And does not change the fact that Lincoln assured them he would not change that and invaded to force them back into the Union with the slavery intact and in fact slavery was LEGAL in the United States all through the war even after it ended.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  9. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A war they didn't want.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    With the statements being made I would suggest not on your side.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  11. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of which means nothing. The South had no legal authority to secede, and Lincoln murdered the Old South for doing so. Yes, the South wanted war.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2020
  12. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They didn't trust Lincoln. They saw his election as a declaration of war against slavery. And Lincoln didn't make this promise until after states started seceding. Slavery was legal. The South was worried it wouldn't stay that way. Changing the subject, as you always do, to Lincoln's motivations will not change the South's motivations.
     
  13. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're welcome to join another conversation where you throw every strawman possible to avoid historical facts and avoid, at all costs, discussing the motivations of the South. Nothing new.
     
  14. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When growing up with my father who instilled in me by example a curiosity and a thirst for knowledge to the point where through primary, secondary and even college I never missed a day of classes despite when young pretty much living on the street or with friends, going home when needing access to close or other things I kept there. For much of the first 10 years of my life, my summers were spent traveling most if Ireland and then England, Scotland and most of Europe, frequently stopping at historic icons, towns and features like castles and historic battle grounds. They were all place of which my father, seemingly to me, was a wealth of information. Those visits frequently resulted in stimulating my curiosity feeding it by learning more of the history of the locations. My Da never exhibited any sort of veneration of the places we visited; the were simply markers of events, all of which I used to stimulate my learning of European history and how it shaped the Geo social political environment we see today.
    When I came to the US, my studies and later work afforded me the ability to travel to not only every state in the union, but much of Canada, Mexico, and the countries south of Mexico. I retained my interest of visiting key places of history, including monuments and statues, many of which stimulated learning more. Like my Da, I have never seen markers such as statues of historic figures as objects of veneration of the historic figure or ideology, but a representation of locational context and a marker of historic events. I visited many of the monuments, battle fields, key buildings and residents associated with the Civil War, and the Revolution all of which contributed to my becoming a self taught historian of those episodes of history amassing a large library of publications, maps, and contemporary newsprint to try to understand the history and make an attempt to even understand the events from the perspective of not only the key figures involved, but also understand what contributed to the passions that resulted in the politics, wars, and the influences, all that somehow resulted in their contributions to modern thinking and events. I would venture to say, my knowledge of US history far exceeds the majority of Americans. In seeing statues of southern Civil War figures like Lee, Davis, and others I never saw them as celebrations of the ideologies that supported slavery, but more the fact that some historic figures of stature in the Civil War existed that were willing to rise from a range of personal rationalizations to justify fighting and risking death for a cause I oppose and seem irrational to me. Rather than judging those of the past by the bias of modern standards, all of these visits continued to feed my attempts at trying to understand the factors and thinking used to justify the actions of those of the past. Among the things I learned was history cannot be understood in terms of the black and white (pun intended) of packaged 20-20 hindsight packaged in narratives for to support bias development for modern special interest agendas. Most of the historic figures that played key roles in the events leading to and during the Civil War were men, me with complexities and inequities of character, as anyone exhibits, in shades of gray, with a range of thinking patterns, personal justifications, and tribulations that should be understood in the proper historic context, an understanding that help understand how the thinking of anybody can lead to the decisions and passions they did, and use that understanding in monitoring those of the modern era, hopefully using those lessons to avoid the prospect of history repeating.
    When we see videos of those striving to eradicate evidence of history such as we see of ISIS, what we are witnessing are attempts to rewrite history and to control its narratives to control thinking. A consequence in eradicating and rewriting history is we also lose something of its context, it’s lessons, and risk repeating it.
    The tearing down of monuments to historic figures that can be construed by various narratives to be associated with slavery, will not remove the fact that slavery happened, or even to remove racism from minds as is the contention of the ‘tear down’ advocates, what it removes are the reminders of the past, of what we overcame; what we should be doing in viewing monuments of Confederate figures is using them to educate our young and to not only say ‘Never Again’, but understand how to prevent a repeat. And part of that education is to illustrate how and why we have progressed because of our history.
     
  15. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is great to be able to take your kids on vacation and go see the states and talk about the history they represent because they probably no longer learn the true history in schools
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  16. The Centrist

    The Centrist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2018
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    550
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, the problem was that the more conservative part of the country was in the South. First it was dominated by the Democratic Party and later the GOP. Nixon took advantage of the party shift.

    Here’s the proof:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2020
  17. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is of course a reason- respect for your enemies bravery, to refuse to grind them into the ground after they have been beaten, to allow them some honor for their courage.
    That takes a bigger person, a more honorable man than the trash tearing down monuments today- and there is not one among them

    Lincoln's second inaugural address, in the speech’s closing, said with the immortal words of reconciliation and healing that are carved in the walls of the Lincoln Memorial in the nation’s capital, he set the tone for his plan for the nation’s Reconstruction.

    "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

    All they had left was a flag and a reverence for the courage of those leaders they followed, and many of those leaders were greatly respected by the victors as well.

    That was all they had- because everything else, homes, crops in the fields, businesses- had been burned. What was left after that was just the land, and the carpet baggers moved in like locusts from the north to steal that.

    It's unfortunate that 156 years later some feel compelled to steal even the history. Makes you ashamed to realize the people doing that are technically Americans.

    By the way- Christopher Columbus wasn't a confederate, and not a slave owner. They tear down his statues too.
    Obviously- you missed a great deal.
     
  18. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You might want to read up more on Columbus if you think he had nothing to do with slavery. You've obviously missed a great deal.
     
  19. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
  20. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
  21. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read the links and learn
     
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The South wasn't that conservative, the Southern Democrats were not conservatives especially not by the prism of today they were Populist and Segregationist. Nixon took advantage of the Democrat Segregationist losing power and dying out and the younger generations and moves to the South by Northern conservatives so SLOWLY take back political power but that was way into the 1980's.
     
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And slavery was practiced by native peoples of the Americas so let's call it even, it was just an accepted practice of the times.
     
  24. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "native peoples of the Americas" were not a monolithic culture. And, hell, Columbus never set foot on the mainland. He did, however, destroy a civilization that he described as peaceful and friendly, absolutely brutalized them, forcing them into labor in his service on pain of death or mutilation, sending adults back to Europe as slaves, and also selling off their children as sex slaves.
     
  25. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,164
    Likes Received:
    30,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you think they have a point, present it. Pretty sure there's a forum rule about that somewhere. Also, pretty sure Columbus himself is a better source.
     

Share This Page