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.
While I disagree with the self-appointed faux-"liberals" who seek to re-write our history, it's true that the conflict over the "peculiar institution", and its legacy remains the focal point of our history and sociology, and very nearly tore the American Experiment apart.
But the point remains that while the first seventy-five years of our nationhood were devoted to postponing a terrible reckoning, our Founding Fathers had created a mechanism so adaptable, and so flexible, that it continued to serve in both the rebuilding pf the damages of Civil War and the transition from an agrarian to an urbanized economy -- a focal point of the original dispute. BTW.
The Southerners fought harder in the Civil War because the war was fought on their home turf; when it ended, many Confederate veterans found a role to plat by retuning the American military which, unlike the standing armies of Europe, was built along the traditional lines of a "well-regulated militia". And the remembrance of those soldiers through the re-naming of major bases in the South was a small, but most respectful means of healing the scars of war.
So please, progressives, tone down the most simplistic parts of the rhetoric and try to recognize that it's sometimes better to display some understanding than to appoint oneself to sit in judgement.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-26-2020 at 01:05 PM..
Slavery was a fact of life back then. Both sides of the political aisle had slaves.
Slavery is not sin. Mistreatment of people is sin. Many slave owners treated their slaves well - so that even when they were made free, many slaves remained with their owners.
I am not saying slavery is good or bad... it was just a part of life back then.
Yes, they are monuments to the cause of slavery. Soldiers who died were and still are are honored on what was Decoration Day and is now Memorial Day. They did not need monuments to the lost cause.
Slavery was a fact of life back then. Both sides of the political aisle had slaves.
Slavery is not sin. Mistreatment of people is sin. Many slave owners treated their slaves well - so that even when they were made free, many slaves remained with their owners.
I am not saying slavery is good or bad... it was just a part of life back then.
But slaves were not people - they were property, bred and sold under the law. Their children referred to as issue, sold before birth. True, many former slaves stayed in the south. It hard to go anywhere when you only get one or two sets of shoes a year, are illiterate, have probably never been out of your country, are malnourished and have the elderly and children to care for.
American slavery was unique in world history. It was race based, hereditary. Unlike slavery elsewhere, slaves in the south were bred. One of the largest slave breeding "farms" was run by Robert Lumpkin in Richmond. Other major Virginia traders in bred slaves were Franklin and Armfield (a company) and Price, Birch & Co. Bred slaves were a major commodity as they were sold south. The main routes were Alexandria and Richmond to New Orleans. The late Richard Sutch did groundbreaking research work on slave breeding. Unlike slaves in South America, slaves in the US were forbidden to marry and they could not go to court about a cruel owner.
Slavery was a fact of life back then. Both sides of the political aisle had slaves.
Slavery is not sin. Mistreatment of people is sin. Many slave owners treated their slaves well - so that even when they were made free, many slaves remained with their owners.
I am not saying slavery is good or bad... it was just a part of life back then.
Keeping people against their will is not sin? That must mean I can take somebody hostage... and as long as I "treat them well" it's not "sin".
Now that I think about it though.... maybe it still is sin..... since I didn't pay anybody in order to take them hostage.
Are monuments honoring the sacrifices of those who fought for the south during the civil war "monuments to slavery?"
Edit: The poll question was somehow truncated, but it's written in complete form above.
Those who remained loyal also fought for the south, they fought for a different version of the south. Those who fought in the Confederate Army in many ways fought against the south. They brought death and destruction on it. Of the 80,000 men from MS who left to fight, only 26,000 came home. That's not fighting for the south. It took 100 years to recover and its legacy is still with us.
They are monuments to some stupid stuff we have done that got lots of people killed
And we will be hated forever
Just like Hiroshima thanks a lot Hirohito we did not want this to happen
We will be hated forever
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.
