Lets see if I can do this without getting booted off the island.

monknomo wrote: In reply to ronholm: Here's the full text of the letter Here's a good breakdown of the letter's contents, which I've reposted below: 1. He rails against those in the North who would "interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South", then goes on to say that the only way to accomplish those goals (the Abolitionist's goals) is through civil war (because who cares about democratic institutions, right?) 2. Slavery is a greater evil to the white man than the black. 3. Blacks are immeasurably better off in America than Africa. 4. Painful discipline is necessary to improve them as a race. (Hey, it's ok to whip them and then pour salt on the wounds, because it's good for them.) 5. Emancipation will come through the influence of Christianity. But only the influence of Southern Christians, because we don't want "fiery controversy" 6. We shouldn't press for emancipation, but pray for it's end and leave it in God's hands. (Clearly men can't do anything about it. God is going to have to come down and do some smiting for it to end.) 7. It's taken two thousand years for men to be made as Christian as they are and they're still full of errors! Think of how much longer it will take for God's influence to work on slavery. 8.) Oh and the Abolitionist better not create "angry feelings in the Master" because that wouldn't be right. He [the Abolitionist] should just wait for God to make things right (even if it takes 2,000 years) 9. Abolitionism is an evil course. 10. Abolitionists are intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others (by which he really means they're intolerant of white Southerns holding slaves).

Careful how you quote things. That's not the full text of the letter.

In reply to SVreX:

I wasn't trying to quote his whole letter here.

I was trying to provide a link to it at the top. The link looks like the complete text of his letter to me (although it is dog slow to load)

What I did include was a copy-past of someone else's analysis of the contents of the letter. I also included a link to where I found their analysis, if you want to see more people writing and arguing about it. It's r/badhistory, which I usually find to be pretty good. FWIW, I agree with all the points in the analysis. They each appear to be textually supported.

STM317 wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: No one is disagreeing with you here. Likewise, if the town decided it should stay up, then it should stay up. The problem is mob mentality and the supposition of authority that the mob doesnt have. Just because a group finds the statues objectionable, they dont have the right to forcibly remove it, and vice versa. Liek I said - nowhere are you granted the right to not be offended. The FoS part comes into play in as much as erecting it it was a display of symbolism, that was presumably (Im not going back to research it) authorized by a local governing body, through proper channels. The constitution grants you the right to display that symbol, so long as you meed the civic requirements to display it on public land. If you want to display something there, get the proper permission, and bingo, you can say what you want. If the people who disagree with your display follow the proper channels, and appeal to the governing body to remove it, and win, then so be it, and your symbolic display comes down. Now, to the bigger point: if you petition your local gov't, and your petition is denied, our wonderful governance system provides you an apparatus to change the people who comprise that gov't or its legislative mechanisms (change the petitioning process or some similar measure). But, there are those self-righteous fools out there that feel some sort of entitlement, and believe theyre empowered to do what they want, regardless of the law, which is what I find repugnant and un-American.

I mostly agree with your assessment that we are a nation of laws, and going through the proper channels should always be the preferred option. But we are also a country founded by traitorous rebels who used deadly force to gain independence. Just as we should not forget the Civil War by eliminating any traces of it, we should not forget that this nation was born from people that refused to go through the proper channels any longer. I don't want to see angry mobs tearing stuff down, or getting violent but the Boston Tea Party and Revolutionary War are celebrated in our culture and provide proof that it can be a very effective change agent.

except, there really werent channels for arguing with a monarch...well, at least ones that you survived. That, and the authroity was a zillion miles away, and just communicating with them required a boat journey that was perilous at best. Also, these revolutionary events were last resorts, not knee-jerk reactions.

dculberson wrote: "do it the legal way" is such a cop-out. If you think something is an inherently moral wrong, take a stand and correct it. Should Rosa Parks have moved to the back of the bus and then filed a complaint through her lawyer? Would the civil rights movement have gotten as far as it did with a bunch of legal complaints? NO! History is filled with people standing up for what is right whether or not it agrees with the law. The law is secondary to human rights. And yes - mobs are bad news. But tearing down a statue is not the same as looting a town or setting fire to other people's properties.

No, "Do it the legal way" is most definitely not a cop out. But, it can often be the hard way, and the precious snowflakes want it now. I have no problem with people taking a stand. I think more people ought to be less complacent, and be willing to have strong convictions. Its been said that all evil requires to succeed is for good people to stand back and do nothing. However, there is a right and a wrong way.

The whole reason behind laws is to keep peace, or at least provide a framework for it that (for better or worse) was agreed upon by our conventional governance. And luckily for us, we have processes to change those laws if the public at large sees fit. By sidestepping the law, youre deciding unilaterally what is best for everyone, through your personal judgement (or, that of your mob). What happens when youre opinion on right and wrong clashes with mine? Can I just change things back later if I form a larger mob than yours? Might makes right? Who wins? No one wins when there are no rules.

Rosa refusing to move didnt destroy the bus. Dr. King sought peaceful resolution to racial discrimination. There is a broad and vast difference between standing up for what you believe in, and violent mobs destroying the city and attacking people.

I agree with Curtis73. The problem in our country today is the "radicalization" of the population. We seem to have lost the ability to negotiate with each other to solve problems. Call it greed, selfishness or what ever you want. But the "My way or the highway" attitude, IMO is a greater threat to the country than anything else.

Hal wrote: I agree with Curtis73. The problem in our country today is the "radicalization" of the population. We seem to have lost the ability to negotiate with each other to solve problems. Call it greed, selfishness or what ever you want. But the "My way or the highway" attitude, IMO is a greater threat to the country than anything else.

this ↑

IBTL where's Hess?

4cylndrfury wrote: except, there really werent channels for arguing with a monarch...well, at least ones that you survived. That, and the authroity was a zillion miles away, and just communicating with them required a boat journey that was perilous at best. Also, these revolutionary events were last resorts, not knee-jerk reactions.

You make some good points about how different the circumstances are now vs then. I'm not going to claim that you're wrong about any of that. My beef lies with the portion of Your previous post that claimed that the actions of these protestors who have gone outside of legal channels are un-American. My point was simply that some of the most Celebrated moments in American history involved going outside of legal channels, and therefore I don't consider going outside of legal channels to be unequivocally un-American.

They could certainly be considered uncivil, but that's a very important trait in our American history. It would be nice to see everyone in society calmly solve their disagreements, but let's be real here, that's not going to happen all the time.

STM317 wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: except, there really werent channels for arguing with a monarch...well, at least ones that you survived. That, and the authroity was a zillion miles away, and just communicating with them required a boat journey that was perilous at best. Also, these revolutionary events were last resorts, not knee-jerk reactions.

You make some good points about how different the circumstances are now vs then. I'm not going to claim that you're wrong about any of that. My beef lies with the portion of Your previous post that claimed that the actions of these protestors who have gone outside of legal channels are un-American. My point was simply that some of the most Celebrated moments in American history involved going outside of legal channels, and therefore I don't consider going outside of legal channels to be unequivocally un-American. They could certainly be considered uncivil, but that's a very important trait in our American history. It would be nice to see everyone in society calmly solve their disagreements, but let's be real here, that's not going to happen all the time.

Youre not wrong. I also recognize that once upon a time, a group of well organized, frustrated, and mistreated citizens took arms for what they believed in. The outcome of which resulted in our great experiment. And I would never disagree that we should absolutely celebrate our heritage. Your points are quite valid.

But, while calm resolution to disagreement may often not be the case, it seems that it is too rarely the case anymore (at least in terms of what the media portrays). Too many people decide to take things into their own hands without exhausting non-violent options. The mechanisms for peaceful change are available. It seems too few are willing to take the time or put fort the efforts to utilize them...

aircooled wrote: His point is interesting though: He seems to be implying that the leaders of the Souths reason for the war was not really primarily slavery, but that the leaders wanted it to SEEM like it was? For what possible reason?

Ian F wrote: In reply to aircooled: Because simple "hot topic rallying points" were as prevalent then as they are now.

So.... you are saying they used keeping slavery as a rallying point because it was so wildly popular in the south, yet the leaders did not really support slavery?

This does not do much to dispel the "it wasn't mostly about slavery" argument.

4cylndrfury wrote: But, while calm resolution to disagreement may often not be the case, it seems that it is too rarely the case anymore (at least in terms of what the media portrays). Too many people decide to take things into their own hands without exhausting non-violent options. The mechanisms for peaceful change are available. It seems too few are willing to take the time or put fort the efforts to utilize them...

Completely agree. The country is as divided as I've ever seen in my lifetime. The "us vs them" mentality has trickled down through the media from partisan politics and saturated nearly every demographic there is. It's easy to turn people against each other. Gay vs straight. Repub vs Dem. Black vs white. Civilians vs LEOs. Christians vs Muslims. Millennial vs Baby Boomer.

The first step towards treating each other civilly requires us all to fight stereotyping and eliminate this type of thinking, but it's easy to fall into. For example, when you call them un-American, or snowflakes, you're only contributing to the division. It's small, but you're drawing a line between yourself and another group. People like to categorize others into groups or boxes because it's easy and familiar. It can be kind of lazy though. Please don't think I'm picking on you, it's just the most poignant example I could quickly come up with. We're all guilty of it in some ways. There's a lot of work to be done, but it has to start with ourselves first.

In reply to oldopelguy:

No need to go insulty. There have been other trials and tribunals besides Nuremburg - like this one recently.

Other countries imprisoned/executed soldiers for being guards - not necessarily explicitly named or wanted for war crimes. Being an SS soldier was grounds for summary execution for some participants.

It is extraordinary that the leaders of an armed insurrection not only get a pass on prison but also get memorialized.

In reply to AngryCorvair:

Say his name three times and he appears.

monknomo wrote: In reply to SVreX: I wasn't trying to quote his whole letter here. I was trying to provide a link to it at the top. The link looks like the complete text of his letter to me (although it is dog slow to load) What I did include was a copy-past of someone else's analysis of the contents of the letter. I also included a link to where I found their analysis, if you want to see more people writing and arguing about it. It's r/badhistory, which I usually find to be pretty good. FWIW, I agree with all the points in the analysis. They each appear to be textually supported.

I know.

Your link at the top was not the whole letter. Your link heading says it is, but it is not.

I have not laid it side by side with the original to see the actual differences (and don't intend to), but the original is about twice as long.

I do know that stuff taken out of context is, well, out of context. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying it has been taken out of context, and is therefore suspect.

So be careful when you quote stuff.

GameboyRMH wrote:

curtis73 wrote: While this is an extreme example, I don't think that banning a flag or a statue is the solution any more than banning guns is a solution. It is not the *correct* solution. Its attacking the rights of the majority in a feeble attempt to strike a blow at the minority, and the worst part is, it won't work. Washing away history won't change the opinions of a white supremacist who is already entrenched in his/her beliefs.

Many problems here. First, I don't think anyone was arguing that removing these statues or flags would put an end to hate crimes or white supremacy in general. It's not about them. It's about the people who have to see their government hosting symbols of the people who fought for their ancestors' enslavement.

Anything I say in response to this is my personal opinion, but I find no distaste in a government hosting those emblems because the emblem doesn't mean those things to me. If I look at a statue of Jackson in Jacksonville FL, I recognize that its there because the city was named after our 7th president, who was a volunteer courier during the Revolutionary war, an Army veteran, and congressman. I don't focus on the fact that Andrew Jackson was a slave owner during a time when it was considered perfectly normal to own slaves. I don't think Andrew Jackson sat in his library wringing his hands with a nefarious laugh contemplating how many negroes he whipped that day. We now condemn his actions as immoral, but I don't believe that people purposely act in immoral ways just for kicks. They operate within their own moral construct. Tearing down the statues of southern generals and slave owners just because they did something that we CURRENTLY consider immoral is washing history. Period. This is the epitome of history being rewritten by the winner.

Next, I don't think a majority would support keeping those statues in place. It's probably close to 50/50. If a vote was taken and the "remove the statues" choice won, how would you feel about it?

While I must reiterate that I don't condone white supremacy or slavery, or any kind of non-inclusive stance, if this vote were to happen (and it probably has), I would feel deep pity for who we are as a nation. A statue of an old racist (who operated within moral parameters for his time) can't come under scrutiny posthumously. Nobody said we have to remove the pictures of Egyptian Kings from textbooks after we learned that they used slaves to build the pyramids. I wouldn't feel anything about a chunk of marble being destroyed other than sadness at an artist's hard work being destroyed. That, to me, is the crime. I don't care how insignificant. If you learned that the woman depicted in the Mona Lisa was a serial killer, how would you feel about that iconic painting being destroyed?

The more appropriate question would be, if these dudes are so caustic that we have to take down their statues because of what they represented 175 years ago, why aren't we changing the names of the towns? I find that to be far more of a monument to their legacy than a statue.

And third, again, I don't think these statues have any meaningful historical importance. Most are about as old as the Ford Model A and were put in place by historical revisionists. Edit: Again, I think the idea of putting them in a museum could solve any concerns of historical value.

Can't argue with you there on the revisionists topic.

aircooled wrote: His point is interesting though: He seems to be implying that the leaders of the Souths reason for the war was not really primarily slavery, but that the leaders wanted it to SEEM like it was? For what possible reason?

Because it wasn't about slavery. It was about the Supremacy Clause of Article VI and the 10th Amendment/States' rights. Slavery happened to be one of those issues involved, but they south didn't secede because they wanted to own black people. They seceded because they felt they had the right to make their own decisions on larger things (slavery being one of them)

But the reason we are taught in school (and the primary reasons listed in their statement of secession) was slavery.

Its really no different than many of the reasons we enter wars for "preventing the spread of communism" or "preventing a tyrannical regime from oppressing its neighbor." Those are what they TELL you so you swallow it. If they said "well, my buddy the senator owns major defense contracts so we're going to toss him a bone and get a kickback while millions die," you would be pissed. I'm not saying that is what happened, those are just the two sides of the coin that people argue about many of our conflicts.

Taking the government at its word is not something I think really anyone does anymore. Do they? We're all kinda in this phase of "I know that's BS, but its the government, so we have to swallow it."

In reply to oldtin:

Again with a death camp trial. Yes, obviously those who were party to war crimes are criminals, but because of the war crimes not because they were enemy combatants.

At the time of the civil war the secession of South Carolina from the United States wasn't settled as treason any more than Britain dropping out of the EU is now. That was one reason for the war in the first place. If the EU decided that England can't be allowed to leave, and declared war on them, who's side would be "right?" It's easy to blame through the lens of a century of civil rights movement, but certainly not fair to the participants.

And it's also not fair to blame slavery on just the Confederate States. Our whole country was complicit in that crime. We didn't settle our overseas war debt from the revolutionary war with trade goods from New England, not when they were still making shovels out of wood. We paid off our debt with southern crops, and the whole country benefitted.

GameboyRMH wrote:

914Driver wrote: Understood. Why now?

Dylann Roof nudged things along a bit...

Ding ding ding ding. We have a winna!

Anyone else feel like there is far more tough-guy, war-never-ended, all-tactical-all-the-time, I'm always trying to look I'm a special forces operator, don't tread on me, I'm not a Bob Costas, punch a nazi, "Centrism Sucks", and "Peaceful Marches Didn't Beat the Nazis" type of machismo flying around?

It's like both sides are trying to prove to one another who is more tough.

I can't stand machismo. Owning a gun (complete with every tactical bolt on available), driving a Mustang or Lifted Jeep (or owning a Harley/Sportbike), being all military-esque even though you're no longer military, or a willingness to assault people whom you may disagree with is not something I admire or respect. Sorry.

I'm very much a "speak softly and carry a bit stick" kind of guy. Some of this is just too loudly "I'm ready for civil war."

In reply to SVreX:

You know, you're right, it is only selections from his letter.

I'll stand by the quotes pulled from it though. I don't think more context would improve them, but if you find the full text and disagree I'll read it.

STM317 wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: But, while calm resolution to disagreement may often not be the case, it seems that it is too rarely the case anymore (at least in terms of what the media portrays). Too many people decide to take things into their own hands without exhausting non-violent options. The mechanisms for peaceful change are available. It seems too few are willing to take the time or put fort the efforts to utilize them...

Completely agree. The country is as divided as I've ever seen in my lifetime. The "us vs them" mentality has trickled down through the media from partisan politics and saturated nearly every demographic there is. It's easy to turn people against each other. Gay vs straight. Repub vs Dem. Black vs white. Civilians vs LEOs. Christians vs Muslims. Millennial vs Baby Boomer. The first step towards treating each other civilly requires us all to fight stereotyping and eliminate this type of thinking, but it's easy to fall into. For example, when you call them un-American, or snowflakes, you're only contributing to the division. It's small, but you're drawing a line between yourself and another group. People like to categorize others into groups or boxes because it's easy and familiar. It can be kind of lazy though. Please don't think I'm picking on you, it's just the most poignant example I could quickly come up with. We're all guilty of it in some ways. There's a lot of work to be done, but it has to start with ourselves first.

Divide and conquer, split the nation into various opposing factions to keep the people warring amongst themselves. Keeps the heat off of the corrupt ruling class.

curtis73 wrote: Anything I say in response to this is my personal opinion, but I find no distaste in a government hosting those emblems because the emblem doesn't mean those things *to me*. If I look at a statue of Jackson in Jacksonville FL, I recognize that its there because the city was named after our 7th president, who was a volunteer courier during the Revolutionary war, an Army veteran, and congressman. I don't focus on the fact that Andrew Jackson was a slave owner during a time when it was considered perfectly normal to own slaves. I don't think Andrew Jackson sat in his library wringing his hands with a nefarious laugh contemplating how many negroes he whipped that day. We now condemn his actions as immoral, but I don't believe that people purposely act in immoral ways just for kicks. They operate within their own moral construct. Tearing down the statues of southern generals and slave owners just because they did something that we CURRENTLY consider immoral is washing history. Period. This is the epitome of history being rewritten by the winner.

History is only rewritten if we actually rewrite history, moving some statues does nothing to change the historical narrative.

curtis73 wrote:

Next, I don't think a majority would support keeping those statues in place. It's probably close to 50/50. If a vote was taken and the "remove the statues" choice won, how would you feel about it?

While I must reiterate that I don't condone white supremacy or slavery, or any kind of non-inclusive stance, if this vote were to happen (and it probably has), I would feel deep pity for who we are as a nation. A statue of an old racist (who operated within moral parameters for his time) can't come under scrutiny posthumously. Nobody said we have to remove the pictures of Egyptian Kings from textbooks after we learned that they used slaves to build the pyramids. I wouldn't feel anything about a chunk of marble being destroyed other than sadness at an artist's hard work being destroyed. That, to me, is the crime. I don't care how insignificant. If you learned that the woman depicted in the Mona Lisa was a serial killer, how would you feel about that iconic painting being destroyed?

Well I think we have to separate their historic, symbolic, and artistic value, and agree that we're not talking about destroying these statues but relocating them, possibly to a museum. Like I've said, history should be recorded in the history books and the statues have roughly zero historical value as records of the civil war. Nobody's talking about purging civil war history from the history books.

Symbolically, these statues celebrate the cause of the confederacy. The Mona Lisa wouldn't be celebrating a serial killer if we found out she was one. If it showed her posing heroically with a knife it might be a different story.

Artistically, these statues do have a great deal of value which is the primary reason I think they shouldn't be destroyed.

curtis73 wrote: The more appropriate question would be, if these dudes are so caustic that we have to take down their statues because of what they represented 175 years ago, why aren't we changing the names of the towns? I find that to be far more of a monument to their legacy than a statue.

Actually the names of parks and schools are being changed, and even name changes to military bases have been considered.

In reply to curtis73:

I am up for renaming towns and roads. Sign me up to live in Shermanville or drive on the Huey P Newton Expressway.

You say it's about the Supremacy Clause of Article VI and the 10th Amendment. What right, specifically, was being violated?

I believe one of the complaints was that the northern states refused to enforce southern state's laws and return fugitive slaves. I really haven't read any "state's right" complaints that amount to anything more than "we would really like to own slaves and be immune to criticism for it"

curtis73 wrote: ...They seceded because they felt they had the right to make their own decisions on larger things (slavery being one of them)...

I am not sure you have dissuaded me from the opinion that the primary reason was because of slavery.

Their economy was heavily agrarian. The farms where heavily dependent on slavery. It is certainly simplistic to say the war was about slavery, but I think reasonable to say it was mostly about it since it was an integral to their economy.

Slavery may have been overplayed by the north for other gains, but the fact that the south would not give it up and the north demanded it (despite it having a large effect on the then United States) still makes it a major aspect.

Would there have been a war if there was no slavery? Unlikely I think.

Hal wrote: I agree with Curtis73. The problem in our country today is the "radicalization" of the population. We seem to have lost the ability to negotiate with each other to solve problems. Call it greed, selfishness or what ever you want. But the "My way or the highway" attitude, IMO is a greater threat to the country than anything else.

So here's a question...

There are two major people protesting out there right now, both who want their way or the high way.

One side is demanding that they get the same rights that everyone else out there gets. And is not discriminated because of who they are.

The other side is demanding that only people like them get full rights and that everyone else is beneath them.

Are they both really radical?

IMHO, it's NOT radical to demand that you be treated equally- and that sitting in the front of the bus because of laws that separate people is not American.

On the other hand, it IS radical to demand that separation because you think we are not equal.

I'm phrasing that very openly, BTW, because I see it fair that white supremacists are binned equally with radical Islam.

The two sides are very far from the same thing.