U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-17-2017, 08:22 AM
 
1,985 posts, read 1,383,447 times
Reputation: 1407

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BC1960 View Post
You are authorized to speak for everyone in in this country? And you know exactly whats in the minds of all 300 million people. You ARE amazing!

Ah - you're right. If anyone wants to deny the existence of the civil war, they are moron. I don't speak for them.

I think the argument that people are trying to "erase history" is more often one used to defend monuments that they don't understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2017, 08:32 AM
 
391 posts, read 240,786 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC1960 View Post
This whole "time" argument is silly and pointless. Almost all monuments are erected long after the person has died or the event has taken place. The Battle of Bunker Hill monument was started 50 years after the battle. As was construction of the Washington monument. Sherman's statue in Grand Army Plaza in New York was erected in 1902. The 17 Civil War monuments in Washington DC were all erected in the early years of the 20th century. The Korean War Memorial was dedicated 42 years after the end of the war.
You might avoid lots of annoyance if you ignore "you know who." Seems that everything he says is either silly or not backed up with any credible sources. He makes accusations yet never justifies anything. Good luck. But, as you say, the whole "time" argument is silly and pointless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2017, 08:37 AM
 
1,985 posts, read 1,383,447 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheriff of London View Post
You might avoid lots of annoyance if you ignore "you know who." Seems that everything he says is either silly or not backed up with any credible sources. He makes accusations yet never justifies anything. Good luck. But, as you say, the whole "time" argument is silly and pointless.

Credible sources like primary ones and academic research?

You either don't understand my points or are in denial.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2017, 08:46 AM
 
391 posts, read 240,786 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC1960 View Post
But here's the deal. Its just plain wrong to say the north is all good and noble, and the south is all bad and evil. Slavery existed in the north, and a large portion of the ships that transported slaves (and thus earned the profits) were from the north. No one's hands are clean. The war itself was absolutely not about ending slavery at its outset, from the northern perspective.

And what do we do about, say, the Washington Monument? Does it need to be torn down? We risk sanitizing and erasing history, which is a huge mistake. If some monuments are overly aggrandizing or insulting in some way, then remove them. But to remove all reminders of the Civil War is absurd. A statue of Lee, with appropriate information displayed with it providing explanation and context, is important to explain our national identity and make sure future generations understand the issues. The same goes for many of the monuments erected at county courthouses.
Slavery was O.K. as long as the north needed cotton and sugar products. As the industrial revolution approached, the need was less and labor in the northeast was accomplished in the sweat factories by children and women mostly. This was worse than slavery. There would have been no slaves picking cotton if not for the transportation and trading of slaves that was accomplished in whole by northern merchants. There were no slave ships out of the south. Even when slavery was ended in the U.S., these slave merchants continued in the business with South America and the West Indies.

Slavery was fine as long as the north benefited. To correct the wrong and appease northern citizens, the government and press successfully transferred all blame to the south.

The same "kind hearted" individuals that "fought to free slaves" immediately" devised a plan to eradicate Native Americans in an effort to regain land previously given to them after discovering the mother lode of silver in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

If these same dumbasses that are so adamant about removing southern statues were capable of comprehending written history from those that lived during the time of slavery and reconstruction, they would refrain from acts of violence and defiance of freedom.

I hope that proud southerners and other intelligent citizens get together and end liberal leftist stupidity. And, the idea that Trump is a racist is mind blowing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2017, 09:19 AM
 
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
21,857 posts, read 27,128,289 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essequamvideri View Post
Here are the tenets of the lost cause - that obviously still have traction today. This was a deliberate campaign to shape opinions - it worked! You've been hoodwinked!

Some of the main tenets of the Lost Cause movement were that:[41][42]
  • Confederate generals such as Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson represented the virtues of Southern nobility and fought bravely and fairly. On the other hand, most Northern generals were characterized as possessing low moral standards, because they subjected the Southern civilian population to indignities like Sherman's March to the Sea and Philip Sheridan's burning of the Shenandoah Valley in the Valley Campaigns of 1864. Union General Ulysses S. Grant is often falsely portrayed as an alcoholic.
  • Losses on the battlefield were inevitable due to Northern superiority in resources and manpower.
  • Battlefield losses were also sometimes the result of betrayal and incompetence on the part of certain subordinates of General Lee, such as General James Longstreet, who was reviled for doubting Lee at Gettysburg (the Lost Cause focused mainly on Lee and the Eastern Theater of operations, and often cited Gettysburg as the main turning point of the war).
  • Defense of states' rights, rather than preservation of chattel slavery, was the primary cause that led eleven Southern states to secede from the Union, thus precipitating the war.
  • Secession was a justifiable constitutional response to Northern cultural and economic aggressions against the Southern way of life.
  • Slavery was a benign institution, and the slaves were loyal and faithful to their benevolent masters, in contrast to the reality of its racism, brutality and dehumanization.[43]
  • Algood identifies a Southern aristocratic ideal, typically called "the Southern Cavalier ideal" in the Lost Cause. It especially appeared in studies of Confederate partisans who fought behind Union lines, such as Nathan Bedford Forrest, Turner Ashby, John Singleton Mosby, and John Hunt Morgan. Writers stressed how they embodied courage in the face of heavy odds, as well as horsemanship, manhood and martial spirit.[44]
LOL, Albert Sidney Johnson died on the 1st day of Shiloh. After the battle, Braxton Bragg was given the Army of Tennessee. Johnson's death was bemoaned throughout the war in the western theater.

As I said, I have no respect for Grant. He was known as a drinker on both sides. That's beside the point. He was known to send men into a slaughter. He attached himself to Sherman who had a brother in DC. Although it was Thomas' men who won Lookout Mountain for him, he & Sherman conspired against Thomas to make themselves look better.

Blaming Longstreet for Gettysburg was a stretch. There were others who deserved that blame, including Lee. Pickett's charge was a terrible idea. However, after the war, Longstreet did what was asked of them all & didn't plot to return to antebellum days, so he was thoroughly hated.

Nathan Bedford Forrest spent part of the war with the Army of Tennessee as well as going out as a solo act.

There's a reason for the lost cause to focus on the eastern theater. Bragg was trying to manage a den of vipers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2017, 09:49 AM
 
1,985 posts, read 1,383,447 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC1960 View Post
Those who wish to remove the monuments wish to deny the truth that the Civil War ever happened.

You have repeatedly claimed that all monuments were erected to assert and celebrate white supremacy, but have provided no proof of that. Mr. Carr's speech doesn't even prove thats true of the Silent Sam monument.
I'm not sure how to make it more clear for you. This is primary source from the transcript of the Minutes of the 14th Annual United Daughters of the Confederacy, North Carolina Division

The United Daughters of the Confederacy was started in 1894,nearly 30 years after the Civil War ended. The UDC was not started to help care for aging, aged, wounded Confederate soldiers (an 18 year-old in 1865 would have been 47 years-old in 1894 - that was an old man in 1894). It was started as part of the Lost Cause movement to mythologize the Civil War. It's goal was to build monuments to the Confederacy. To promote the myth that is the Lost Cause.


"You were the song of the Old South: you are the theme of the New South; and to-day in this high hour of peace and commercial-ism, when men are prone to forget, we find you banded together, United Daughters of the Confederacy, all still loyal to Southern rights, democracy, and, thank God, to white supremacy."



This was in 1910.


https://archive.org/stream/minutesof...3unit_djvu.txt
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2017, 10:05 AM
 
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
21,857 posts, read 27,128,289 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheriff of London View Post
Slavery was O.K. as long as the north needed cotton and sugar products. As the industrial revolution approached, the need was less and labor in the northeast was accomplished in the sweat factories by children and women mostly. This was worse than slavery. There would have been no slaves picking cotton if not for the transportation and trading of slaves that was accomplished in whole by northern merchants. There were no slave ships out of the south. Even when slavery was ended in the U.S., these slave merchants continued in the business with South America and the West Indies.

Slavery was fine as long as the north benefited. To correct the wrong and appease northern citizens, the government and press successfully transferred all blame to the south.

The same "kind hearted" individuals that "fought to free slaves" immediately" devised a plan to eradicate Native Americans in an effort to regain land previously given to them after discovering the mother lode of silver in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

If these same dumbasses that are so adamant about removing southern statues were capable of comprehending written history from those that lived during the time of slavery and reconstruction, they would refrain from acts of violence and defiance of freedom.

I hope that proud southerners and other intelligent citizens get together and end liberal leftist stupidity. And, the idea that Trump is a racist is mind blowing.
You conflate things.

During the war, women who were left behind took factory jobs in the north & south. They were a bonus to the factory owners as, by law, they could be paid half of a man's wage. When the men came back after the war, they were pushed out. It was a generation later that the problem of women & children happened.

Most of the slavery concerning sugar was in the British controlled islands in the Caribbean. Those slaves were a combination of Africans & Scottish war prisoners. The Scots who were transported to the mainland colonies were usually sold off as indentured servants to pay for the captain, ship, & crew.

A large portion of the abolishonists were Quakers. They had nothing to do with the Indian wars after the Civil War, although, just as officers in the Civil War were frequently holdovers from the Mexican American War, many of the officers in the Indian wars were holdovers from the Civil War. Plus, although you keep bringing all of this stuff up, the topic is statues & monuments put up after the war, particularly those put up after reconstruction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2017, 11:22 AM
 
391 posts, read 240,786 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295 View Post
You conflate things.

During the war, women who were left behind took factory jobs in the north & south. They were a bonus to the factory owners as, by law, they could be paid half of a man's wage. When the men came back after the war, they were pushed out. It was a generation later that the problem of women & children happened.

Most of the slavery concerning sugar was in the British controlled islands in the Caribbean. Those slaves were a combination of Africans & Scottish war prisoners. The Scots who were transported to the mainland colonies were usually sold off as indentured servants to pay for the captain, ship, & crew.

A large portion of the abolishonists were Quakers. They had nothing to do with the Indian wars after the Civil War, although, just as officers in the Civil War were frequently holdovers from the Mexican American War, many of the officers in the Indian wars were holdovers from the Civil War. Plus, although you keep bringing all of this stuff up, the topic is statues & monuments put up after the war, particularly those put up after reconstruction.
I responded to those that insist that the south was solely responsible for the institution of slavery and want no statues of respect for those poor soldiers that lost their lives defending their families and homeland. I know that neither northern or southern soldiers were purposely fighting for the freedom of negroes. That was not their concern. They were victims fighting for "da man" on both sides. One fighting for independence and the other fighting because they had to. They all deserve praise for doing what they had to do and so many dying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2017, 12:00 PM
 
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
21,857 posts, read 27,128,289 times
Reputation: 8928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheriff of London View Post
I responded to those that insist that the south was solely responsible for the institution of slavery and want no statues of respect for those poor soldiers that lost their lives defending their families and homeland. I know that neither northern or southern soldiers were purposely fighting for the freedom of negroes. That was not their concern. They were victims fighting for "da man" on both sides. One fighting for independence and the other fighting because they had to. They all deserve praise for doing what they had to do and so many dying.
No one in this country is taught that slavery never occurred in the north. We are also taught about the slavery/rum triangle. Not everyone knows that there were still slaves in NJ at the time of the Civil War.

Off the top of my head, at least a dozen of my people died during the Civil War. You have made it clear that you think that we're deficient in knowledge of our own history. We know more than you think we know. You, however, don't seem to understand the ties between Reconstruction & the lost cause. As a child, I had plenty of contact with people born during the lost cause era. What I knew of those people was not in the books that you read, but thanks for giving your opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2017, 12:12 PM
NDL NDL started this thread
 
Location: Gaston County
3,126 posts, read 3,609,225 times
Reputation: 2045
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295 View Post
I don't think that it's lack of sophistication. It's what the audience will bear.

Men who fought in the Confederate army & had been officers frequently wanted to be called by their military rank for the rest of their lives. These were usually wealthy men. As in other regions, the wealthy said & did things that were over the top. However, other regions hadn't lived through reconstruction. The whole country lived through the war & suffered. The Confederate states did suffer more because of the Union blockade. But the real difference was the reconstruction period. The Radical Republicans in DC wanted to rub their noses in the punishment. Most of these monuments in question were paid for by wealthy individuals after reconstruction. Some of the inscriptions are nothing more than well-worded temper tantrums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essequamvideri View Post
The main point, the one everyone is missing, is that these particular monuments are a result of the Lost Cause - a campaign designed to sentimentalize and whitewash the less savory truths of the south during the civil war. It was effective. Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind played well. I am against this rewrite of history. Everyone claiming the need to "preserve history" should be on my side because the Lost Cause campaign was a propaganda campaign to the fullest driven by fear of emancipated minorities and shame of their role prior.
First, you have both educated me. Thank you

I need to take a step back, and digest what you have both written.

Again, I thank you both for your time.

***
Separate from the above sentiments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essequamvideri View Post
It's responsible for so many misconceptions of the South today (civil war was about states' rights; slavery wasn't that bad; the northern aggression was unwarranted and brutal; etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essequamvideri View Post
No I don't think the majority of "folks" who revere their past do so on the basis of perceived ethnic superiority.
I am not expecting you to answer for anyone but for yourself.

But this I cannot help but ponder: since we both agree that Southern preservationists claim superiority on the basis of intellectual, nor racial, superiority, why is the reaction to persons that revere certain traditions extreme in nature?

Could such a reaction not be wearisome, at best, and slanderous, at worst?

I say that, to acknowledge the fact that the cycle of hostility is self nurturing; it will never be broken, and we will never be a united people, for as long as misconceptions exist, and we view our neighbors with suspicion and preconceived notions.

How I wish for a solution to make us a whole and united people.

What's tragic about all of this, is that if we all sat down at the same table, we would likely find ourselves with much more in common, than what we have in differences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top