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

In reply to aircooled:

The worth of the 4 million slaves in the US was ~$3.5 billion (I believe in 1850 dollars, because that's about $800 a slave, which seems low for 2017 dollars), which was more than the manufacturing and railroad sectors combined. (from David Blight's course @ Yale). 60% of North Carolina was enslaved.

Asking the south to quit using slaves would be like asking NASDAQ listed companies to quit using computers. It implied throwing away all their wealth. It's no wonder it was a big deal.

pheller wrote: 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."

I do, and it makes me cringe. IMHO, it's far more brave to sit down and talk than to just react with force. But that opinion seems to be not cool.

alfadriver wrote: ...The two sides are very far from the same thing.

Nazi's are an extreme minority in the US. Antifa (generally communists) is an extreme minority in the US. Both make a lot of noise (although Antifa is generally currently a bit ignored by most media) They are polar opposites on some scales, but VERY similar in many ways.

To quote someone else

You see, fascists will appropriate your life, your property, and your freedom for the good of the one-party nation-state while appealing to tradition. Communists on the other hand will appropriate your life, your property, and your freedom for the good of the 'workers of the world' through their one-party state while appealing to newness.

Characterizing any larger populations by either of those groups is of course very unfair.

Wow, seven pages of well reasoned discussion. I will type nothing else.

I like think that's because for the most part we don't have many racists, hard-core nationalists, or Nazis on the board. We're all for the most part on the same page.

We also don't have many minority groups on the board to weigh on what those statues/monuments mean to their communities.

aircooled wrote:

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.

As I mentioned earlier, there was a much stronger association with one's home state back then. More so than even the country itself. Remember these states were only a few decades removed from being independent colonies rather than part of a loose association called The Unites States.

Combine that with some rhetoric about Northerners pushing the idea that black folk were their equals (even if said Yankees didn't believe it themselves), it wasn't too hard to get poor white farmers to fight for an ideal fairly abstract to them personally.

There is also a difference between pitching your fight to those who you need to help finance the war - slave owning plantation owners (who usually could read) - and those you need to do the actual fighting - the aforementioned farmers (who often couldn't read). Communication was considerably different as well, with much lower literacy rates among those poor farmers. A lot of what was written leading up to the war was never read by those farmers who spent the majority of their time trying to eek out a living. They were recruited by local plantation owners and other operatives who knew how to rile them up to fight.

Lee's command was over the "Army or Northern Virginia". He sided with Virginia more than the Confederacy specifically. His command quickly included the various brigades and divisions from other states, so he is generally associated as the leader of the southern army, but there was also the Army of Tennessee commanded by other generals who were not under Lee's command.

In reply to alfadriver:

I'd say that ideals are not the only way to define radicalism. I think you can be emotionally radical too. If two people have the same ideals, but one is calm and rational while the other shouts or resorts to violence, then the person who loses control of their emotions certainly comes off as more radical because they are seen as more aggressive or threatening.

How is this thing still alive?

STM317 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I'd say that ideals are not the only way to define radicalism. I think you can be emotionally radical too. If two people have the same ideals, but one is calm and rational while the other shouts or resorts to violence, then the person who loses control of their emotions certainly comes off as more radical because they are seen as more aggressive or threatening.

I get that, but the current "radicals on all sides" is the current mantra.

Is it really radical to stand up to people preventing you from getting the same rights that everyone else gets?

Vs standing up to actually prevent people from getting the same rights that you do?

Again- that's the two sides right now. People who are loudly demanding to be treated the exact same as everyone else, and others who loudly demand that nobody but them get all of the rights.

I just don't see groups demanding that they be treated the same as being radical.

aircooled wrote: Antifa (generally communists)

Anti Fascists are communists? Where did that come from?

Sorry, that seems like a massive stretch.

I see that they are labeled anti-Capitalists and even anarchists. But just being anti-capitalists does not mean communist. Just not for capitalism.

I don't want to get into this really, but just say, Curtis73, well done sir!

The news just said the Governor of NC has called for the removal of all confederate monuments on public property.

I think you only need look to General Lee himself. He worked hard to reconcile the South to the North after his defeat. At his funeral, there were no flags, he was not buried in his old Confederate Uniform, nor did any of his surviving troops wear theirs.

As his Daughter wrote "His Confederate uniform would have been ‘treason’ perhaps!"

Hey, one less thing the government has to maintain, iamright?

spitfirebill wrote: The news just said the Governor of NC has called for the removal of all confederate monuments on public property.

Real thing, but it's just a statement of his position on the matter:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/charges-sought-toppled-confederate-statue-49226601

In reply to mad_machine:

Exactly! Which is why it is frustrating to me both sides screw it up. I hate to see his name co-opted by a bunch of racist dirtbags as much as I dislike people who would follow a bastard like Gen. McClellan into battle pretending to be civil rights champions. It just doesn't add up.

At the end of the day the war was about slavery because it was made to be about slavery. The 1864 election was centered on the issue and the (sorry) Northern Democrats were all about taking down "Abraham Africanus", and they almost did. Yet at the end of the day to say it was a war about slavery is to miss the truth.

I had a customer once who is the CEO of a local hospital. He does Civil War reenacting. A black southern gentleman who would die before donning a Blue uniform. He told numerous stories of his bloodline fighting and dying for the south..

The struggle with that history is Union soldiers got paid. There is a record black soldiers were paid less and sent on death missions by their leadership. With the south history is harder to nail down because many of them didn't get paid and records were few and far between.

Louisiana Free Black Men said: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15." As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, "Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood."

Abe Lincoln said: "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

alfadriver wrote: I get that, but the current "radicals on all sides" is the current mantra. Is it really radical to stand up to people preventing you from getting the same rights that everyone else gets? Vs standing up to actually prevent people from getting the same rights that you do? Again- that's the two sides right now. People who are loudly demanding to be treated the exact same as everyone else, and others who loudly demand that nobody but them get all of the rights. I just don't see groups demanding that they be treated the same as being radical.

As has been said, and it bears repeating. Civil Rights is NOT a pie. To give somebody else their due rights does not mean you get less. Just imagine how much greater this country (and world) would be if we could stop with the petty squabbles over skin colour and gender

alfadriver wrote: ...I get that, but the current "radicals on all sides" is the current mantra....

As I mentioned, Antifa is the essential equivalent to the Nazis on "the other side". There were not present in this situation in any number (that I know of) but they do very much exist. They are very active in suppressing speech that "they don't like", which is certainly a bit Nazi like.

Regarding Antifa being anti-facist and not communist: Yes, their origin is anti-facist, but in the US I think you will find they tend toward Communism (not a huge expert on them, but the stated beliefs of the members I have seen seem inline with that). I would say they are more anarchistic, but they seems to have a pretty well defined political direction.

So someone vandalized a local monument the other day

It seems to be a grey area (ha, get it?)

Anyway, former Confederate officer. Also US Army officer later.

Shown on horse but NOT in either military uniform.

Did a lot for the parks and our city...apparently.

Statue is on natl register of historic places.

Statue has been there since 1913 (I think).

Someone painted 'never again' on it.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/36124533/well-known-monument-in-highlands-neighborhood-vandalized

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Castleman_Monument

This is how the locals are approaching it.

http://www.live5news.com/story/36141201/sc-secessionist-party-black-nationalist-movement-call-for-peace-civil-discourse

In reply to Toyman01:

Bravo.

alfadriver wrote: 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?

When the group that is being discriminated against wants not just non-discrimination but also special treatment. Yes, they are.

alfadriver wrote:

STM317 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I'd say that ideals are not the only way to define radicalism. I think you can be emotionally radical too. If two people have the same ideals, but one is calm and rational while the other shouts or resorts to violence, then the person who loses control of their emotions certainly comes off as more radical because they are seen as more aggressive or threatening.

I get that, but the current "radicals on all sides" is the current mantra. Is it really radical to stand up to people preventing you from getting the same rights that everyone else gets? Vs standing up to actually prevent people from getting the same rights that you do? Again- that's the two sides right now. People who are loudly demanding to be treated the exact same as everyone else, and others who loudly demand that nobody but them get all of the rights. I just don't see groups demanding that they be treated the same as being radical.

I don't necessarily think it's the ideals of both sides that are seen as radical. It's their methods. Shouting, angry mobs will always be seen as 'radical' by more moderate people, regardless of their ideology. Hostility is a more radical approach than civility regardless of the message behind the emotion.

So if one group is emotionally reacting radically in support of a non-radical idea, and another group uses more tempered methods to promote a radical idea, they're all radicals, just in different ways. Of course in extreme cases you'd have people doing both and acting radically in support of radical ideas and those people are typically grouped together as terrorists.

I got as far as page three so far but i wanted to say:

This is what Hungary did with their statues

"This park is about dictatorship. And at the same time, because it can be talked about, described, built, this park is about democracy. After all, only democracy is able to give the opportunity to let us think freely about dictatorship."

cheers guys!

Hal wrote:

alfadriver wrote: 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?

When the group that is being discriminated against wants not just non-discrimination but also special treatment. Yes, they are.

What special treatment is being asked for?

Not what is being provided to try to get the minorities more in an equal position in the world, but actual special treatment are the minorities demanding?