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.
You conservatives alt righters are too fascinated with statues and memorials. Lincoln was a president who was assassinated and that right there is reason enough to memorialize him.
Everyone is a combination of good and bad qualities/personality traits and ideological adherence.
(question for those who support the recent statue removals, of course)
would you support removing the Lincoln memorial? Removing the "Land of Lincoln" slogan from Illinois?
If I remember my college American history classes virtually all white people living in America at that time thought blacks were inferior even the ones in the north who were trying to end slavery. That was what I was taught in college.
Humans have been ignorant about lots of things in the past. If Lincoln was alive today I am sure he would see things very differently.
I have no issue taking down statues of people who fought against America. But Lincoln, come on. Lincoln changed the course of history in our country and his actions brought us together. And he paid the ultimate price.
Why is it that people in the past are automatically given a pass for racism with the excuse, "oh but that's just how it was back then"? Even though many white people back then gave their lives in the fight against slavery and racial oppression?
And why does this only apply to certain races/nationalities?
Do ordinary German civilians get a pass during the 30s and 40s for anti semitism and whatnot?
Why is it that people in the past are automatically given a pass for racism with the excuse, "oh but that's just how it was back then"? Even though many white people back then gave their lives in the fight against slavery and racial oppression?
And why does this only apply to certain races/nationalities?
Do ordinary German civilians get a pass during the 30s and 40s for anti semitism and whatnot?
Most white people were fighting to preserve the Union and to do so slavery, the one thing tearing it apart, had to be destroyed.
Aren't we all products of our time?
Should MLK Jr. be remembered for being a peaceful civil rights leader that greatly benefitted the country or should MLk Jr. be remembered for being an extreme sexist that thought wives who suffered from domestic violence should look at their personality as the cause of the abuse, who would tell women SCLC members to go get coffee if they offered strategy input, etc...
If we are going to start tearing down our historical figures based on 2017 standards, we won't have anyone great left to admire and people in the future may look back on us as backwards.
We can learn a lot from history. Don't ignore the bad, don't completely tear down everyone...if we were born in the same time and position as Lincoln and MLK Jr. we would likely have similar beliefs and come up far short of their accomplishments.
Most white people were fighting to preserve the Union and to do so slavery, the one thing tearing it apart, had to be destroyed.
Aren't we all products of our time?
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.
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.
No.
The Union did not need military support from England or France, but they did want England and France to remain neutral and not help the confederacy.
An added bonus of the Emancipation Proclamation was that it greatly reduced the odds that they would help the Confederacy.
There was a legitimate push to end slavery to preserve the Union. The biggest political division for decades had been slavery. It needed to be killed to preserve the Union.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
No.
The Union did not need military support from England or France, but they did want England and France to remain neutral and not help the confederacy.
An added bonus of the Emancipation Proclamation was that it greatly reduced the odds that they would help the Confederacy.
There was a legitimate push to end slavery to preserve the Union. The biggest political division for decades had been slavery. It needed to be killed to preserve the Union.
Quote:
The biggest political division for decades had been slavery.
But not a moral division ... now this is where you ask yourself, why a political division?
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.
