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.
By modern standards Lincoln was a racist. However, by the standards of his day he was pretty forward looking and was strongly opposed to slavery and its expansion. He held the union together during the country's darkest hour and he issued the emancipation proclamation.
What did Robert Lee have to say about the emancipation proclamation? He called it a, "degradation worse than death."
As for the slippery slope argument with founding fathers who owned slaves I think that is a bogus line of argument as well.
The key point is that few if any monuments to Washington and Jefferson and other slaveowning Founders were erected for the specific purpose of honoring their slaveholding. By contrast, the vast majority of monuments to Confederate leaders were erected to honor their service to the Confederacy, whose main reason for existing was to protect and extend slavery.
Its false their main reason for existing was to protect and defend slavery. But rather to resist the totalitarian economic and cultural warfare waged on them by the Northern states.
Slavery was only one aspect of that. Most southerners didn't own slaves and didn't rely on them for survival and yet still united to leave the security of their farms and fields to fight. Why do you think that is?
Over the threat of slavery ending? Something they didn't even benefit from? The fact is that the South didn't collapse once slavery was abolished, even though much of the infrastructure and billions in personal property had been destroyed by the North, thus proving, empirically, that slavery wasn't even essential to the south and provided little or no economic advantage. The impact of foreign markets for textiles and the invention of the cotton gin may have taken up some of the slack, of course, thereby lessening the impact, but the point is, it really had no major impact because most people and most of the economy didn't derive any economic benefit from slavery before the war, and if anything it hurt them via wage suppression - how much can you charge for your labor when the "competition" works for "free"?? (in actuality the cost is room and board and living expenses, but zero in cash wages).
Its false their main reason for existing was to protect and defend slavery. But rather to resist the totalitarian economic and cultural warfare waged on them by the Northern states.
Slavery was only one aspect of that. Most southerners didn't own slaves and didn't rely on them for survival and yet still united to leave the security of their farms and fields to fight. Why do you think that is?
Over the threat of slavery ending? Something they didn't even benefit from? The fact is that the South didn't collapse once slavery was abolished, even though much of the infrastructure and billions in personal property had been destroyed by the North, thus proving, empirically, that slavery wasn't even essential to the south and provided little or no economic advantage. The impact of foreign markets for textiles and the invention of the cotton gin may have taken up some of the slack, of course, thereby lessening the impact, but the point is, it really had no major impact because most people and most of the economy didn't derive any economic benefit from slavery before the war, and if anything it hurt them via wage suppression - how much can you charge for your labor when the "competition" works for "free"?? (in actuality the cost is room and board and living expenses, but zero in cash wages).
I see we have dedicated "Lost Causer" here....
It is true that most white Southern families had no slaves. Though in some heavy slave states as many as one-third did own slaves.
Two key factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery.
1) Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people today support tax cuts for the wealthy thinking somehow one day they'll be rich too.
2) The rampant and widespread belief in white supremacy provided the rationale for slavery in the south. Most white Southerners could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains. Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted race war if slavery was not protected:
“The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.”
Thus, secession would maintain not only slavery but the prevailing ideology of white supremacy and the way of life those in the south were accustomed to living.
[quote=majoun;49216299]Before Forever from St. Louis bought it, when it was Hollywood Memorial, people used to hop the fence and break in there all the time.[/QUOTE
Thanks.
But it must be the eastern wall which has some apartment buildings, what I am trying to say(maybe some aren't familiar) with the layout. HF backs up against the Paramount lot on the southern side, the main enterance is all wrought iron to the north and quite high.
It's not an easy place to get in and out of, once it gets dark and is locked up for the night.
Its false their main reason for existing was to protect and defend slavery. But rather to resist the totalitarian economic and cultural warfare waged on them by the Northern states.
Slavery was only one aspect of that. Most southerners didn't own slaves and didn't rely on them for survival and yet still united to leave the security of their farms and fields to fight. Why do you think that is?
Over the threat of slavery ending? Something they didn't even benefit from? The fact is that the South didn't collapse once slavery was abolished, even though much of the infrastructure and billions in personal property had been destroyed by the North, thus proving, empirically, that slavery wasn't even essential to the south and provided little or no economic advantage. The impact of foreign markets for textiles and the invention of the cotton gin may have taken up some of the slack, of course, thereby lessening the impact, but the point is, it really had no major impact because most people and most of the economy didn't derive any economic benefit from slavery before the war, and if anything it hurt them via wage suppression - how much can you charge for your labor when the "competition" works for "free"?? (in actuality the cost is room and board and living expenses, but zero in cash wages).
This a really long post with copy and paste text from the Declarations of Secession of several statesThe documents are readily available online, all you have to do is Google 'Declaration of Secession' to see the what state's themselves, at the time, said was the reason they were secceeding.
Georgia: 'The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.'
'While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact.'
Mississippi: 'A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.'
South Carolina: 'The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.'
'Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.'
Texas: 'The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,
The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.'
Virginia doesn't list its reasons, but still manages to mention slavery: 'The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.'
Alabama is a little more veiled, but there is really only one domestic institution they a referring to, slavery: 'WHEREAS, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security; therefore,
Be it declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama in Convention assembled , That the State of Alabama now withdraws, and is hereby withdrawn from the Union known as "the United States of America", and henceforth ceases to be one of said United States, and is, and of right ought to be, a Sovereign and Independent State.'
The other slave states don't list any reasons why they are secceeding, but all the ones that do list slavery as the primary reason. The only 'State Right' the Civil War was about is the 'right' to own slaves. Other claims are all by revisionist 'historians' who are trying to excuse inexcusable treason. To say the Civil War wasn't about slavery is ignoring the facts.
The other slave states don't list any reasons why they are secceeding, but all the ones that do list slavery as the primary reason. The only 'State Right' the Civil War was about is the 'right' to own slaves. Other claims are all by revisionist 'historians' who are trying to excuse inexcusable treason. To say the Civil War wasn't about slavery is ignoring the facts.
The biased pro-Confederate historiography requires the convenient suspension of belief. Facts can go to hell. As they say the first casualty of war is the truth...
I don't have the time to read this entire thread, so I'll just add my mere two cents.
We're going beyond "political correctness", instead, we're removing relics of a sad past that have no place in our current society. People who fought to maintain the ways of the slave economy are not the type of people, ideologies, or "culture" that we should honor and condone. It's time to remove these offensive, old-fashioned symbols of intolerance and as a collective, develop a more compassionate, inclusive nature and grow as a stronger, united society. We're still not going to see eye to eye on many issues, but for FFs, the industry of slavery was inhumane and we should not continue to embrace public statues that support those inhumane times.
This interested me so looked up some stats. So far 5 confederate statues have been removed.in the southern states.. 700 plus remain and I don't think that includes cannons. So all you confederate statue removers.. game on!!
When I was in Savannah I saw a lot of military statues in the squares. If they try and remove those they're going to have to peel them from the cold dead fingers of the Savannah historical society.
My sister is in New Orleans right now. I asked her if anyone was protesting at Jackson square. She didn't see anyone..
I think this is hyped up media again and it'll die away.
MLK was a homophobe. Will we be torching or removing his statues?
A few idiots vandalizing a statue of Lincoln is not the same as elected representatives of a political body (such as Charlottesville) deciding to remove the statue of Robert Lee.
A few idiots vandalizing a statue of Lincoln is not the same as elected representatives of a political body (such as Charlottesville) deciding to remove the statue of Robert Lee.
I know, I almost forgot...a few crazies are not representative of a group. This is especially the case with adherents of the Religion of Peace. However, one right wing crazy who mowed down that lady is representative of all "alt-right" individuals.
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.
