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.
I believe the first part of your sentence above is where the problem is. Especially the words "seems" and "trying".
All that I am trying to point out is what is Real and True.
As mentioned earlier, too many on here were more or less making the North sound "so innocent".
But just to re-cap, the North had Slaves in big numbers. They imported Slaves in big numbers. Slavery was still on the books in the 1800's in the North and in one place as late as 1865.
I will also add that yes, the South had more, and yes the North dwindled their numbers earlier, but they still had them.
I haven't seen anyone say you're wrong about that. It is real and true. What is the significance though? Does it make the south less guilty or the north more or is it just a diversion?
It's also a fact that not many people want to celebrate those days outside of the south.
But just to re-cap, the North had Slaves in big numbers. They imported Slaves in big numbers. Slavery was still on the books in the 1800's in the North and in one place as late as 1865.
Most of the Union was comprised of "free states" where slavery was illegal. There were four border states in the Union where slavery was legal.
In 1861, it could be argued that the "North" and the "Union" were not synonymous as there were no slaves, except by legal definition escaped slaves from slave states, in the northern free states.
The impassioned opposition to slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law in northern free states was demonstrated by the 1958 "Oberlin-Wellington Rescue."
Union soldiers knew what they were fighting for beyond the preservation of the Union.
<<In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free*,[14]
While God is marching on.>>
This spirit was still evident in the famed 1880 New York City speech by Presidential candidate James A. Garfield.
<<And it did gentle the condition and elevate the heart of every worthy soldier who fought for the Union, [applause,] and he shall be our brother forevermore. Another thing we will remember: we will remember our allies who fought with us. Soon after the great struggle began, we looked behind the army of white rebels, and saw 4,000,000 of black people condemned to toil as slaves for our enemies; and we found that the hearts of these 4,000,000 were God-inspired with the spirit of Liberty, and that they were all our friends. [Applause.] We have seen the white men betray the flag and fight to kill the Union; but in all that long, dreary war we never saw a traitor in a black skin. [Great cheers.] Our comrades escaping from the starvation of prison, fleeing to our lines by the light of the North star, never feared to enter the black man's cabin and ask for bread. ["Good, good," "That's so," and loud cheers.] In all that period of suffering and danger, no Union soldier was ever betrayed by a black man or woman. [Applause.] And now that we have made them free, so long as we live we will stand by these black allies. [Renewed applause.] We will stand by them until the sun of liberty, fixed in the firmament of our Constitution, shall shine with equal ray upon every man, black or white, throughout the Union. [Cheers.] Fellow-citizens, fellow-soldiers, in this there is the beneficence of eternal justice, and by it we will stand forever. [Great applause.] A poet has said that in individual life we rise, "On stepping-stones of our dead selves to higher things," and the Republic rises on the glorious achievements of its dead and living heroes to a higher and nobler national life. [Applause.] We must stand guard over our past as soldiers, and over our country as the common heritage of all. [Applause.]>>
But I look at this way. Just about every one of these statues were erected by those that lived during the Civil War. If anyone understood their meaning and the resolution it helped in bringing the Union back together, they did. Now, 150+ years later we seem to think we know more than they did. Instead of trying to understand history, not just the dates and events, but the minds and thoughts of those that lived it, we want to put our stamp on it and obviously try to make it into something different from those that actually lived it. This goes for both sides of the issue.
I think it is sad that the statues are coming down because they are a big part of American History.
I wonder who is more offended by them, whites because they are embarrassed or blacks because they are symbols of oppression ?
I think for both groups especially blacks they should serve as benchmark reminders of a terrible time in our history and be a symbol of how far we have come since then.
We have extreme groups on both sides. White supremacists are ignorant and trying to hold onto an old worn out notion. Black groups such as ones who take over the streets looking for trouble while chanting "pigs in a blanket fry them like bacon" are just as bad.
Luckily for America most of us have a bit of common sense and decency and we land somewhere inbetween these fringe hate groups.
It is the tolerant hate crowd of the left. They tolerate their own hate to the extreme .
How would you feel about a statue of Ho Chi Minh being installed next to the Vietnam War Memorial in DC? Minh was a brave soldier that was just fighting for his country against the US government much like Robert E Lee, right?
Better yet...... or more appropriately........ask an ex-ARVN how he feels about Saigon being named Ho Chi Minh city..........
Next Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. This country is finished.
I certainly would not support that since neither Thomas Jefferson nor George Washington were Confederates. And of course, the Confederacy didn't even exist until long after they were dead.
We should honor leaders and warriors of our own country, not of a country that we defeated in a bloody civil war.
I believe the first part of your sentence above is where the problem is. Especially the words "seems" and "trying".
All that I am trying to point out is what is Real and True.
OK, let me be more blunt and less polite.
You are equivocating slavery as it existed in the North in the late 18th century to slavery as it existed in the South in the first half of the 19th century, up until 1865.
And I'm dinging you for partially quoting my statement. Bad form there on your part.
Quote:
As mentioned earlier, too many on here were more or less making the North sound "so innocent".
But just to re-cap, the North had Slaves in big numbers. They imported Slaves in big numbers. Slavery was still on the books in the 1800's in the North and in one place as late as 1865.
I will also add that yes, the South had more, and yes the North dwindled their numbers earlier, but they still had them.
Dwindled, you say...
The number of slaves in the North in 1860: 2 in Kansas, 15 in Nebraska, 1,798 in Delaware, 0 in the rest of the Northern states. About 3.9 million in the Southern states. Link.
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.
