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.
Why is anyone enamored with those yucky blue-green statues of confederates that were erected from the 1880’s to about 1910 or 1920?
They were erected after Reconstruction to celebrate the return to power by the white segregationists after federal troops were removed. Is the return to power of those clowns and the advent of Jim Crow something that current Americans should commenorate and take pride in?
They weren’t that attractive when they were new and they haven’t improved with age. Collectively they’re eyesores.
I wouldn’t remove anything from cemeteries or battlefield sites, but I have a hard time rationalizing this much hell being raised when a statue is removed from a courthouse square or a public park after a vote by duly elected local public officials, as anything but displaced white pride or plain old hatred and disdain for minorities.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 11-05-2017 at 04:26 PM..
From what I remember the Union needed military support of England and France against the confederates and to get that support they had to agree to end slavery if they won.
It was solely a logistical military decision there was no big push by white Americans at that time with some sort of moral decision to end slavery.
It was the South that desperately needed the support of England and France to win the war. They were the side sorely lacking in natural resources, manufacturing capacity and comparatively in population, since 40% of their inhabitants were enslaved. The fact that they were fighting to save slavery ruined any chance they might have had in winning an alliance, because the public at that time, particularly in Great Britain, was adamantly anti-slavery.
From what I remember the Union needed military support of England and France against the confederates and to get that support they had to agree to end slavery if they won.
It was solely a logistical military decision there was no big push by white Americans at that time with some sort of moral decision to end slavery.
The Confederacy, you mean. Yes, they tried to get more material assistance from the Europeans who wanted to give it to them, but insisted that the South give the slaves emancipation at the end of the war. The Confederacy couldn’t abide it.
The Union wasn’t in need of logistical help.
Moreover, had the South emancipated their slaves DURING the war and trained all able bodied slaves (probably a half million men) for battle with the promise of land and freedom for their families, the South could’ve EASILY won their independence.
This was proposed by General Patrick Cleburne in 1863 when he realized that manpower shortages would doom the Confederacy. The Confederate leadership angrily balked and tabled his proposal. This didn’t even come to light until after the war.
It’s proof that slavery was more important to southerners than independence.
John Brown was probably one of the few white men of his era who did not believe blacks were inferior. Almost all whites, including Lincoln, believed in negro inferiority.
However, he believed they were men entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It was the culture back then. No I wouldn't go snowflake and remove all the statues because of it. You learn from past mistakes, you don't pretend they don't exist, cover them up, and get all touchy feely and hold protests. Jesus christ get a job already and you won't have time to sit around and protest.
Plenty of evidence in his own words to indicate he felt black people were inferior to white.
I was at the Chicago History Museum a year ago and they almost an entire floor dedicated to Lincoln, but none of his commentary on race. Made me chuckle out loud what a whitewashing has been done over his legacy.
While he didn't believe in slavery, he also didn't think they should vote, intermarrry, etc. That made him a racist. Good book I'd White Rage.
We cannot judge people from the past, 200, 100 or even 50 years ago by our standards of today. It's clear from the historical record that Lincoln did not consider blacks to be the equal to white people and he advocated shipping former slaves back to Africa.
Is it true that blacks are inferior? Of course not, and we know that today, however in the 19th century, that wasn't widely known or believed. We cannot judge historical figures by today's standards and we shouldn't be tearing down statues or defacing these great men in such a way.
While he didn't believe in slavery, he also didn't think they should vote, intermarrry, etc. That made him a racist. Good book I'd White Rage.
Actually in his last public speech Lincoln proposed black voting rights for blacks who were literate or who had served in the military. Booth was in attendance and vowed to kill Lincoln.
Quote:
“That means n----r citizenship. That is the last speech he will ever make.”
-John Wilkes Booth upon hearing Lincoln propose black suffrage
This revisionist fawning over Abe as a social justice warrior who believed in equality of all races is bunk.
Lincoln never said that all races are equal. He believed that no man could rightfully own, buy, or sell another human being nor could they enrich themselves by the efforts of people held in slavery. But... more than that, he believed in the totality and indivisibility of the Union. His comments or beliefs on racial inequality or superiority are not relevant.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
We cannot judge people from the past, 200, 100 or even 50 years ago by our standards of today. It's clear from the historical record that Lincoln did not consider blacks to be the equal to white people and he advocated shipping former slaves back to Africa.
Is it true that blacks are inferior? Of course not, and we know that today, however in the 19th century, that wasn't widely known or believed. We cannot judge historical figures by today's standards and we shouldn't be tearing down statues or defacing these great men in such a way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie Jo
Yes we can and yes we should.
Well all righty then, lets take a look:
"Harper's New Monthly Magazine Volume 0027 Issue 160 (September, 1863)" The Religious Life of the Negro Slave [pp. 479-485]
Author: Raymond, Charles A.
"The Life of the negro slave in America is a peculiar one; and hence Christianity in him must manifest itself in many respects in a peculiar manner. I propose, from an experience of fourteen years on the cotton-growing States of the South, spent in daily intercourse with the slaves, to present a few sketches illustrating the religious life of the slaves."
A Negro Pastor in the City
In 1847 I resided in New Orleans. My first acquaintance with a negro pastor was in that city. I sometimes attended his church, and it was no unusual circumstance to meet there on Sunday many whites, both ladies and gentlemen, citizens and strangers, who were in attendance at those meetings.
This was a church composed entirely of blacks, most of whom were slaves. The congregation numbered quite a thousand persons. [p. 481]
______________
The web site to that link is provided by the library @ Cornell and what I have given is but a drop in a really large well of information of that era. If I could throw people back in time to that era, I would. I know many that would say, what? This isn't what was read in the history books and it certainly wasn't what professor whats his name proclaimed ...
A lot of people though will just regurgitate professors whats his name and never give a library with all the books on the topic written by those who were there in that time a first glance, much less a reading. ~ i shake my head ~ (Judge not, that ye be not judged ...)
btw: just reading the little snippet I gave isn't enough, unless it is.
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.
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.
