Stone Mountain/Conf flag? (Atlanta, Forest Park: buy, farm, approval)

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Stephens later insisted he was talking off the top of his head and without any notes. So he tried to walk his position back a little.

To be clear, he did not attempt to walk back the admission (as if one were necessary) that slavery was the cause of secession -- the piece I bolded for emphasis. In fact, he reiterated it:

Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.

[northwinds]

Originally Posted by tigers84

Really? Intolerance of differing views is the WORST trait of humankind? Absurd.

I find that most people who preach and moan about their beloved tolerance have ZERO tolerance for views they find distasteful. As in the above comment.

They just think that "others" should tolerate/approve of their own views. while they themselves castigate views they find objectionable.

Its hilarious when some people go about screaming about tolerance for this and that, and then immediately thereafter show incredible intolerance toward views they dont like. The irony and hypocrisy, somehow, totally escapes them.

Great post Tigers84.....its funny how "progressives" are only tolerant of other "progressives"....

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Cameron H

To be clear, he did not attempt to walk back the admission (as if one were necessary) that slavery was the cause of secession -- the piece I bolded for emphasis. In fact, he reiterated it:

Quite so. In his explanation of his remarks, Stephens said:

"(Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)"

I still can't figure out why some folks think it's so important to deny its role in the Confederacy. There's no doubt slavery was a terrible blot on American history. It lasted longer in the South but it was extensive in many other parts of the country. Even Lincoln, on the brink of the Civil War, was prepared to cut a deal to leave it alone in the South. He didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 2 years after the war had begun and even then left half a million people in slavery in the border states. And after the war, both the North and the South failed miserably to prevent the reimposition of extremely repressive conditions on blacks.

In short there's more than enough blame to go around. So why all these gyrations to "prove" that the South's motives were particularly noble? It was a bad time and if people don't own it the wounds can never be healed. Only a small percentage of Southerners actually owned slaves and not all Southerners were evil racists. But it was an era of great cultural oppression and even those who didn't directly participate were complicit in the sense that they benefited from the social order.

Anyway, enough on that for now. Attempts to whitewash the past are very dangerous. That's exactly what guys like Ahmadinejad, Milosevic, Pol Pot, Stalin, Duvalier and Amin tried to do. We've gotta do better than that.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by Danny55

I mean it was commissioned by KKK members

If you are referring to the carving, the idea originated with the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The KKK had nothing to do with it.


Stone Mountain Carving

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

If you are referring to the carving, the idea originated with the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The KKK had nothing to do with it.

The idea for the carving may have originated with Mrs. Plane, but the Klan was active in getting the project going and financially supporting it. Sam Venable owned the mountain and was a major figure in the Klan. He deeded the face of the mountain and a large tract of land to the UDC for the purpose of creating the carving. He also gave the Klan permission to use the mountain for its celebrations.

Samuel Hoyt Venable

Venable was present at the earliest meetings for the carving and continued to be a big supporter.

From the Atlanta Constitution (August 27, 1915):

"Mrs. C. Helen Plane, president of the Stone Mountain Memorial Association of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, received yesterday a letter from Gustav [sic] Borglum. the sculptor, who has been selected to draw a design for the monument they propose to establish to the heroes of the confederacy, at Stone Mountain.

Mr. Borglum’s letter is written after his first visit to the mountain, his conference with Mrs. Plane, Mr. Samuel H. Venable and others patriotically interested in this project."

That being said I personally think the carving is pretty amazing. Lee, Jackson and Davis are some of the most complex figures in American history.

[northwinds]

If eradicating slavery was so important to the North then why did their primary general, Grant, own slaves after the war was over?......

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by northwinds

If eradicating slavery was so important to the North then why did their primary general, Grant, own slaves after the war was over?......

You're mixing apples and oranges.

Eradicating slavery was not the only (and probably not even the main) reason the North went to war. There was plenty of racism in the North and many Northerners did not oppose slavery. Just before war broke out Lincoln was pushing for a deal that would allow slavery to continue in the Southern states. He didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until two years after the war had begun and still allowed slavery to exist in the border states.

However, as discussed above, preserving slavery was clearly one of the main reasons the South seceded.

That's two different things.

[northwinds]

Originally Posted by arjay57

You're mixing apples and oranges.

Eradicating slavery was not the only (and probably not even the main) reason the North went to war. There was plenty of racism in the North and many Northerners did not oppose slavery. Just before war broke out Lincoln was pushing for a deal that would allow slavery to continue in the Southern states. He didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation until two years after the war had begun and still allowed slavery to exist in the border states.

However, as discussed above, preserving slavery was clearly one of the main reasons the South seceded.

That's two different things.

So eradicating slavery was not even the main reason the North went to war...but preserving slavery wasthe main reasons the South went to war....now that's funny I don't care where you're from.......

That's kinda like saying independence from Britain was the main reason the colonies went to war...but Britain went to war for reasons other than holding on to her colonies....

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by northwinds

So eradicating slavery was not even the main reason the North went to war...but preserving slavery wasthe main reasons the South went to war....now that's funny I don't care where you're from.......

That's kinda like saying independence from Britain was the main reason the colonies went to war...but Britain went to war for reasons other than holding on to her colonies....

This isn't difficult. The Confederate states seceded and went to war over the issue of slavery. The Union went to war to preserve itself.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by northwinds

Great post Tigers84.....its funny how "progressives" are only tolerant of other "progressives"....

Wait.... really? That is your argument?

Progressives are only tolerant of other progressives just because the one thing they don't like is extreme intolerance from others?

Fail....