Princess of Tap

Jim Crow Confederate Monuments Go Down in America

557 posts in this topic

As the Confederate monuments go down--what's next?

 

As The Monuments to the lost cause of the Confederacy go down in New Orleans, there is still controversy about their relevance and what to do with them.

 

"I don't want to see them moved period," said JC Hanna, Commander of the Louisiana division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. "I don't know of anywhere else in New Orleans they could be put where they'd have a place of respect."

 

The Jefferson Davis statue was taken down on May 11.

 

Not surprising black citizens of New Orleans have a different opinion about the Confederate statues.

 

" There's an idea that (they) represent Southern Heritage. I just guess for someone who wants to believe that, it must be real. It certainly is not the case for a good percentage of the population," said Marcus Cox, a professor at Xavier University in New Orleans, specializing in African American Civil and military history.

 

Mr Cox was on the faculty of The Citadel in June 2015 when Dylann Roof killed nine people at the Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church about 3 miles from the military academy's campus in Charleston South Carolina.

 

The racially motivated shooting prompted a nationwide protest against Confederate symbols.

 

Thomas Payne, the executive director of Beauvoir, the Confederate Presidential Library and estate of Jefferson Davis in Biloxi Mississippi, has shown some interest in receiving the Confederate statues.

 

 

Source: The New Orleans Times-Picayune, May 12, 2017

The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, is one huge monument to South Carolina's participation in the Confederate Army.  In fact, it was created partially to provide a ready military force in Charleston in the event of a slave uprising.

Interesting that Dr. Cox worked there and has apparently done nothing to advocate removing the references to the Confederacy there?  Of course, he was able to use his education and experience there to obtain his current position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, we should, if we're going to preserve monuments to the confederacy, also e r e c t monuments to ABBIE HOFFMAN and TIMOTHY McVEIGH.

 

They too, advocated an overthrow of the present standing federal government of their times.

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, we should, if we're going to preserve monuments to the confederacy, also e r e c t monuments to ABBIE HOFFMAN and TIMOTHY McVEIGH.

 

They too, advocated an overthrow of the present standing federal government of their times.

 

 

Sepiatone

The Confederacy did NOT advocate the overthrow of the federal government.

They advocated the right to secede from the United States of America.  At the time, this was considered a right of the states.  New England states and other Northern states had also considered/threatened it.

In essence, the Southern states wanted to do exactly what the American Colonies had done in 1776.  Secede from the mother country.

The monuments for the most part are not to the Confederacy, but to the soldiers who fought for their states in the Confederate Army.

Maybe we should change the name of Washington to Trumpton, since Washington was a major slave owner and advocated it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should change the name of Washington to Trumpton, since Washington was a major slave owner and advocated it?

 

Malcolm X would have liked that -- changing the name, not the Trump part.

 

As he once said: "George Washington traded a slave for a barrel of molasses -- it could have been my grandfather. And if you tell me I have to look up to this kind of man as a founding father, you are out of your mind." 

 
malcolm.jpg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Confederacy did NOT advocate the overthrow of the federal government.

They advocated the right to secede from the United States of America.  At the time, this was considered a right of the states.  New England states and other Northern states had also considered/threatened it.

In essence, the Southern states wanted to do exactly what the American Colonies had done in 1776.  Secede from the mother country.

The monuments for the most part are not to the Confederacy, but to the soldiers who fought for their states in the Confederate Army.

Maybe we should change the name of Washington to Trumpton, since Washington was a major slave owner and advocated it?

 

Either these Confederate soldiers fought in a civil war (an internal conflict between groups within a nation),  or they fought for an independent nation,  the Confederacy,  against the USA.      So these soldiers were either traitors or foreign combatants.    Regardless of which one they are,  why should citizens of the USA honor them?

 

In addition the main reason for these states to secede was to ensure the continuation of slavery.    I fail to see any honor in that.   

 

I do support leaving these 'things' where they are but adding verbiage that labels what these so called monuments represent (which would be very negative).    To me that is a reasonable compromise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, we should, if we're going to preserve monuments to the confederacy, also e r e c t monuments to ABBIE HOFFMAN and TIMOTHY McVEIGH.

 

They too, advocated an overthrow of the present standing federal government of their times.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

Sep--

 

When I was a freshman in college, the Student Union, actually invited Abbie Hoffman to come and speak to the student body at Allen Fieldhouse. I believe it was during the time of the Chicago 8 Trial in Chicago.

 

The defendants were allowed to go on speaking tours during the recess periods of the trial to make money, believe it or not.

 

It's been a long time, but as I can recall, very well, Abbie Hoffman was not that well received by the student body.

 

He Had a very, what I would call, minimalist language of profanities and an anarchistic viewpoint that did not impress most of the students.

 

The majority of us had been protesting against the Vietnam War, but we were so much a part of the establishment that we certainly did not find his speech worthwhile.

 

We had the attitude to try and improve and change some things, not to destroy everything, so that total chaos would ensue.

 

However, I can say from experience that he was an extremely charismatic and volatile personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sep--

 

When I was a freshman in college, the Student Union, actually invited Abbie Hoffman to come and speak to the student body at Allen Fieldhouse. I believe it was during the time of the Chicago 8 Trial in Chicago.

 

The defendants were allowed to go on speaking tours during the recess periods of the trial to make money, believe it or not.

 

It's been a long time, but as I can recall, very well, Abbie Hoffman was not that well received by the student body.

 

He Had a very, what I would call, minimalist language of profanities and an anarchistic viewpoint that did not impress most of the students.

 

The majority of us had been protesting against the Vietnam War, but we were so much a part of the establishment that we certainly did not find his speech worthwhile.

 

We had the attitude to try and improve and change some things, not to destroy everything, so that total chaos would ensue.

 

However, I can say from experience that he was an extremely charismatic and volatile personality.

 

Since my other brother was a radical hippie I was into Hoffman and read his book (in fact we stole Steal this Book) as well as a comedy album he made.  Two days after Hoffman supposedly committed suicide I was at a bar in Anaheim CA.   An older man sat next to me.  We started talking and it was David Dellinger,  a fellow member of the Chicago 8.     He said he didn't believe the government story about the suicide since he had talked to Abbie a few days before and he was fine and wasn't depressed.   I purchased him a drink and we talked for about an hour about Abbie,  Chicago,  and all the things related to his causes. 

 

Wow what an evening and a one-in-a-million chance occurrence.    I do recall looking over my shoulder a few times after I left him since I had just seen The Parallax View. 

 

Here is what Wiki has related to this:  Among the more vocal doubters at the service today was Mr. Dellinger, who said, 'I don't believe for one moment the suicide thing.' He said he had been in fairly frequent touch with Mr. Hoffman, who had 'numerous plans for the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since my other brother was a radical hippie I was into Hoffman and read his book (in fact we stole Steal this Book) as well as a comedy album he made. Two days after Hoffman supposedly committed suicide I was at a bar in Anaheim CA. An older man sat next to me. We started talking and it was David Dellinger, a fellow member of the Chicago 8. He said he didn't believe the government story about the suicide since he had talked to Abbie a few days before and he was fine and wasn't depressed. I purchased him a drink and we talked for about an hour about Abbie, Chicago, and all the things related to his causes.

 

Wow what an evening and a one-in-a-million chance occurrence. I do recall looking over my shoulder a few times after I left him since I had just seen The Parallax View.

 

Here is what Wiki has related to this: Among the more vocal doubters at the service today was Mr. Dellinger, who said, 'I don't believe for one moment the suicide thing.' He said he had been in fairly frequent touch with Mr. Hoffman, who had 'numerous plans for the future

Wow, that's a great story. It seems like things like that only happen in bars.

 

Is David Dellinger the one who became a Wall Street stockbroker? If not, do you remember who that was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a great story. It seems like things like that only happen in bars.

 

Is David Dellinger the one who became a Wall Street stockbroker? If not, do you remember who that was?

 

It was fellow C-8 comrade Jerry Rubin that became a businessman and a yuppie.   This topic was discussed between Dave and me that night since I also had joined corporate America as a software engineer.    I asked Dave if he considered young people like me sell-outs but he said he didn't.   Instead he just stressed that what was important was being for justice, against racism,  sexism etc..  As a young man this provided me confidence that I was taking a sound path in life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either these Confederate soldiers fought in a civil war (an internal conflict between groups within a nation),  or they fought for an independent nation,  the Confederacy,  against the USA.      So these soldiers were either traitors or foreign combatants.    Regardless of which one they are,  why should citizens of the USA honor them?

 

 

This debate could, and probably will, go on longer than the Trump ones.

The distinction between the American Civil War and almost all others is that it was between two distinct, geographical, political areas, not groups as you stated.  

Furthermore, The Confederate States of America basically began with total control of their geographic areas and governmental institutions.  Something lacking in civil wars or even rebellions.  Maintained most of it between 1861 and sometime in 1864.

Incidentally, the official records created by the US Government after the war are referred to as the Official Records of the War of The Rebellion, althought that is not the actual title.

 

Your use of "foreign combatants" is closer to accuracy than traitors.  Just as the American soldiers and sailors in the Revolution were "patriots," rather than" traitors or foreign combatants."  Of course, Great Britain saw them as traitors, but Americans won so they got to decide who we were.

Most people today do not understand the political and governemental philosophies in the United States prior to 1865.  A huge number, North and South, believed that it was a cooperative of States, with the States being superior to the Federal government.

Hence, the War Between the States nomenclature, as in the states of the North and the states of the South.

Almost all the forces in both armies were actually units from each state, who were then grouped into divisions, corps and armies of either the Union or the Confederacy.  The US Army did have a small force of regulars.

 

Regardless, there is nothing about the "citizens of the USA" honoring them.   It is strictly an issue for the communities and states in The South that have honored them in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate could, and probably will, go on longer than the Trump ones.

The distinction between the American Civil War and almost all others is that it was between two distinct, geographical, political areas, not groups as you stated.  

Furthermore, The Confederate States of America basically began with total control of their geographic areas and governmental institutions.  Something lacking in civil wars or even rebellions.  Maintained most of it between 1861 and sometime in 1864.

Incidentally, the official records created by the US Government after the war are referred to as the Official Records of the War of The Rebellion, althought that is not the actual title.

 

Your use of "foreign combatants" is closer to accuracy than traitors.  Just as the American soldiers and sailors in the Revolution were "patriots," rather than" traitors or foreign combatants."  Of course, Great Britain saw them as traitors, but Americans won so they got to decide who we were.

Most people today do not understand the political and governemental philosophies in the United States prior to 1865.  A huge number, North and South, believed that it was a cooperative of States, with the States being superior to the Federal government.

Hence, the War Between the States nomenclature, as in the states of the North and the states of the South.

Almost all the forces in both armies were actually units from each state, who were then grouped into divisions, corps and armies of either the Union or the Confederacy.  The US Army did have a small force of regulars.

 

Regardless, there is nothing about the "citizens of the USA" honoring them.   It is strictly an issue for the communities and states in The South that have honored them in the past.

 

",,, there is noting about the citizens of the USA honoring them"?????    Come on,  the current people in the South (in the past and today) that wish to honor those that died fighting for the Confederacy are mostly citizens (they aren't illegal immigrants!).    Your last sentence implies the people in these 'communities and states in The South' are NOT citizens of the USA.    

 

My view is that the Confederacy was a group of traitors \ rebels (just like our founding fathers were).   After the war ended they were all pardoned, even their leaders like Davis,  and I believe that was the right thing to do.    But putting up monuments to honor said traitors \ rebels is a slap in the face to the USA government that granted such pardons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a great story. It seems like things like that only happen in bars.

 

Is David Dellinger the one who became a Wall Street stockbroker? If not, do you remember who that was?

I think it was JERRY RUBIN.  At least I recall seeing a photo of him in the newpaper with a clean shaven face, white shirt and a wide double knit necktie sometime in the late '70's.  Some kind of investor or something.

 

You may also be thinking of RENNIE DAVIS who after the smoke cleared became a venture capitalist.

 

 

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

",,, there is noting about the citizens of the USA honoring them"?????    Come on,  the current people in the South (in the past and today) that wish to honor those that died fighting for the Confederacy are mostly citizens (they aren't illegal immigrants!).    Your last sentence implies the people in these 'communities and states in The South' are NOT citizens of the USA.    

 

My view is that the Confederacy was a group of traitors \ rebels (just like our founding fathers were).   After the war ended they were all pardoned, even their leaders like Davis,  and I believe that was the right thing to do.    But putting up monuments to honor said traitors \ rebels is a slap in the face to the USA government that granted such pardons.

Your statement re: "citizens of the USA" implies ALL citizens of the entire USA are being required to honor them.  This would include citizens in CA, NY, AK, HI, etc.  I did not imply, although you may have inferred, that people in the South are not citizens of the USA. I clearly stated that it is an issue with which the people who live in the communities and states where the statues and memorials exist have to deal.

 

James said: "the Confederacy was a group of traitors/rebels (just like out founding fathers were). "...putting up monuments to honor said traitors/rebels is a slap in the face to the USA ...." (emphasis added)  Although he probably only meant monuments to Confederate "traitors/rebels."   However, since the Founding Fathers were "traitors/rebels," perhaps we should remove their monuments as well?

 

Regardless, erecting a monument or memorial to a person or group does not require that everone honor that person.  We have hundreds of thousands of monuments, memorials, highways, buildings, etc. dedicated to individuals or groups.  There is no requirement that everyone in that community, state or US must "honor" the person or group.

 

This thought did occur to me.  France has monuments and memorials to Napoleon.  Yet he was an egotistical dictator whose ambition to conquer and rule most of Europe resulted in the deaths of between 3 and 6 million people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your statement re: "citizens of the USA" implies ALL citizens of the entire USA are being required to honor them.  This would include citizens in CA, NY, AK, HI, etc.  I did not imply, although you may have inferred, that people in the South are not citizens of the USA. I clearly stated that it is an issue with which the people who live in the communities and states where the statues and memorials exist have to deal.

 

James said: "the Confederacy was a group of traitors/rebels (just like out founding fathers were). "...putting up monuments to honor said traitors/rebels is a slap in the face to the USA ...." (emphasis added)  Although he probably only meant monuments to Confederate "traitors/rebels."   However, since the Founding Fathers were "traitors/rebels," perhaps we should remove their monuments as well?

 

Regardless, erecting a monument or memorial to a person or group does not require that everone honor that person.  We have hundreds of thousands of monuments, memorials, highways, buildings, etc. dedicated to individuals or groups.  There is no requirement that everyone in that community, state or US must "honor" the person or group.

 

This thought did occur to me.  France has monuments and memorials to Napoleon.  Yet he was an egotistical dictator whose ambition to conquer and rule most of Europe resulted in the deaths of between 3 and 6 million people.

 

Oh give it up Cid;  "why should citizens of the USA honor them", doesn't imply ALL citizens.   Instead it implies why should ANY citizen honor traitors or enemy combatants.

 

Yes, the founding fathers where traitors and rebels but they were OUR traitors and OUR rebels.    Those that took up arms against the USA are not OUR soldiers,  or OUR traitors or OUR rebels.   (but it appears they are yours).

 

Ok,  you wish to honor people that took up arms against the USA.   To each his own.   I just wouldn't do that even if that person was my great grandfather.    I would forgive him for his actions but NOT honor him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh give it up Cid;  "why should citizens of the USA honor them", doesn't imply ALL citizens.   Instead it implies why should ANY citizen honor traitors or enemy combatants.

 

Yes, the founding fathers where traitors and rebels but they were OUR traitors and OUR rebels.    Those that took up arms against the USA are not OUR soldiers,  or OUR traitors or OUR rebels.   (but it appears they are yours).

 

Ok,  you wish to honor people that took up arms against the USA.   To each his own.   I just wouldn't do that even if that person was my great grandfather.    I would forgive him for his actions but NOT honor him.

James:  I will take your advice and give up.  Maybe it is a California thing, but you will never understand nor accept someone else's viewpoint.  So be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Battle over Confederate Monuments

 

By Jelani Cobb

 

(Excerpts)

 

o-KKK-FLYER-facebook.jpg

 

The Story of Reconstruction is that of interracial government and white terrorism that brought it to an end. It sits awkwardly in the narrative of an America Defined by continual progress and the inevitable triumph of good over evil.

 

Reconstruction has largely been disparaged as a failure.

 

That perception was cemented in popular perception by DW Griffith's white supremist melodrama The Birth of a Nation (1915).

 

In 1935 when W.E.B. DuBois, a historian who was the first black person to receive a Ph.D from Harvard, published Black Reconstruction, he identified the true disaster as political horse-trading that ended Reconstruction and left emancipated blacks at the mercy of their former enslavers.

 

This has everything to do with the tumult that emerged in New Orleans last week. The New Orleans City Council voted to remove The Monuments in the wake of Dylann Roof's murderous assault on the Emmanuel AME Church in June 2015--

 

An act tied to the Confederate cause.

 

In response, South Carolina removed the Confederate flag from the the grounds of the state capitol; other monuments to the Confederacy have been removed since then.

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center noted last year that there are more than 700 Confederate monuments throughout the South and as far away as Arizona and Massachusetts.

 

The Union cause is sequestered in textbooks--

 

The cause of Insurrection, of States Rights, of the Unalloyed Brutality of Human Enslavement-- that cause still Towers in the region where the war was fought.

 

As much else in TRUMP'S Version of America, the protesters who lined up to defend The Monuments wish to maintain an à la carte relationship with history.

 

They have cloaked their defense of the monuments by presenting it as a recognition of the Valor of the men who fought for the Confederate cause.

 

But that excuse Falls flat when recognizing that there is no Monument to the mass Slave Revolt that took place in 1811, when some 200 men who had endured the brutality of bondage marched on the city, killing two white men and burning plantations as they went.

 

This is not the recognition of valor recognized by the crowd in front of the Robert E Lee monument, or those phoning in death threats to the mayor's office in New Orleans.

 

At the same time there is a valid, if lesser, risk in removing the Confederate Monuments: the possibility that their absence is too neatly exculpatory--

 

That Future Generations may know little about the Acts of Inhumanity that took place in the South,

 

And even less about the Misguided Impulse that GLORIFIED those incidents for More Than a CENTURY.

 

The Confederate Monuments are NOT RELICS of a BYGONE ERA,

 

they're indications of the One We're Still Living In.

 

 

 

Source: The New Yorker, May 12, 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James:  I will take your advice and give up.  Maybe it is a California thing, but you will never understand nor accept someone else's viewpoint.  So be it.

 

Now you're being a baby.    I understood your viewpoint here.   You wish to honor those that took up arms against the USA.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Story of Reconstruction is that of interracial government and white terrorism that brought it to an end. It sits awkwardly in the narrative of an America Defined by continual progress and the inevitable triumph of good over evil.

 

Reconstruction has largely been disparaged as a failure.

 

That perception was cemented in popular perception by DW Griffith's white supremist melodrama The Birth of a Nation (1915).

 

In 1935 when W.E.B. DuBois, a historian who was the first black person to receive a Ph.D from Harvard, published Black Reconstruction, he identified the true disaster as political horse-trading that ended Reconstruction and left emancipated blacks at the mercy of their former enslavers.

 

This has everything to do with the tumult that emerged in New Orleans last week. The New Orleans City Council voted to remove The Monuments in the wake of Dylann Roof's murderous assault on the Emmanuel AME Church in June 2015--

 

An act tied to the Confederate cause.

 

In response, South Carolina removed the Confederate flag from the the grounds of the state capitol; other monuments to the Confederacy have been removed since then.

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center noted last year that there are more than 700 Confederate monuments throughout the South and as far away as Arizona and Massachusetts.

 

The Union cause is sequestered in textbooks--

 

The cause of Insurrection, of States Rights, of the Unalloyed Brutality of Human Enslavement-- that cause still Towers in the region where the war was fought.

 

As much else in TRUMP'S Version of America, the protesters who lined up to defend The Monuments wish to maintain an à la carte relationship with history.

 

They have cloaked their defense of the monuments by presenting it as a recognition of the Valor of the men who fought for the Confederate cause.

 

But that excuse Falls flat when recognizing that there is no Monument to the mass Slave Revolt that took place in 1811, when some 200 men who had endured the brutality of bondage marched on the city, killing two white men and burning plantations as they went.

 

This is not the recognition of valor recognized by the crowd in front of the Robert E Lee monument, or those phoning in death threats to the mayor's office in New Orleans.

 

At the same time there is a valid, if lesser, risk in removing the Confederate Monuments: the possibility that their absence is too neatly exculpatory--

 

That Future Generations may know little about the Acts of Inhumanity that took place in the South,

 

And even less about the Misguided Impulse that GLORIFIED those incidents for More Than a CENTURY.

 

The Confederate Monuments are NOT RELICS of a BYGONE ERA,

 

they're indications of the One We're Still Living In.

 

 

 

Source: The New Yorker, May 12, 2017

 

More misinformation and subjective interpretation by Princess and Jelani Cobb of The New Yorker.  

South Carolina left the Union by Ordinance of Secession, not by the Declaration of the Immediate Causes.  Just as the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document as is the Constitution of the United States.

Both Declarations are basically rationales used to justify an action.

The actual Ordinance of Secession is the document S.C. used to dissolve the Union.  

Poor documentation to cherry pick phrases from one document to justify a position you have already taken.  The entire Declaration goes into much more detail.

While it is true that slavery and the protection of it are basic to why the war began, it goes far, far beyond that.

 

Regardless, the issue is not defending the Confederacy or slavery, but allowing states to determine how to recognize those that have served it.  Incidentally, Mr. Cobb and Princess are in error when they say "the Union cause is sequestered in textbooks" as there are probably as many monuments and memorials to Union soldiers and saliors.  The current uniform of the US Army is based on the uniforms worn by Union soldiers during the Civil War.

Perhaps we should also not honor those who served in Vietnam or Iraq or some other conflicts?  Just forgive them?  Nor should we honor dictators who launched wars of conquest that resulted in millions of deaths, such as Napoleon?

 

As I told James, I will now give up on responding to you as well.

 

Read the Declaration here: 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James: I will take your advice and give up. Maybe it is a California thing, but you will never understand nor accept someone else's viewpoint. So be it.

 

Cid-- I understand your Viewpoint. And I accept and I respect your viewpoint--as an American you have freedom of speech, opinion and thought.

 

I simply don't agree with your viewpoint.

 

But you have the choice not to respect me or to accept my freedom of speech, opinion or thought.

 

In my opinion- - no matter how you turn it on with what Linguistics or historical minutiae--your relentless and persevering defense of these insurrectionists monuments make you look like an apologist for the Confederacy.

 

I could be wrong, but that's the way it looks to me.

 

I believe there's no excuse for promoting any form of support for the Confederacy because the Confederacy only has a heritage of slavery, Jim Crow Domestic Terrorism and white supremacy.

 

Of course, that is just my opinion.

 

I recognize that you have every right to your Viewpoint and I don't personally have a problem with your freedom to express it.

 

I believe no matter where people come from that they have a right to their own opinions.

 

I have an innate respect for people who speak their own mind.

 

One of the advantages of an education in French Literature is that you get to study the Enlightenment and the writings of Voltaire--

 

This French humanist's writings in philosophy were once summed up like this--

 

" I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."

 

That's what I learned from the French.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More misinformation and subjective interpretation by Princess and Jelani Cobb of The New Yorker.  

South Carolina left the Union by Ordinance of Secession, not by the Declaration of the Immediate Causes.  Just as the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document as is the Constitution of the United States.

Both Declarations are basically rationales used to justify an action.

The actual Ordinance of Secession is the document S.C. used to dissolve the Union.  

Poor documentation to cherry pick phrases from one document to justify a position you have already taken.  The entire Declaration goes into much more detail.

While it is true that slavery and the protection of it are basic to why the war began, it goes far, far beyond that.

 

Regardless, the issue is not defending the Confederacy or slavery, but allowing states to determine how to recognize those that have served it.  Incidentally, Mr. Cobb and Princess are in error when they say "the Union cause is sequestered in textbooks" as there are probably as many monuments and memorials to Union soldiers and saliors.  The current uniform of the US Army is based on the uniforms worn by Union soldiers during the Civil War.

Perhaps we should also not honor those who served in Vietnam or Iraq or some other conflicts?  Just forgive them?  Nor should we honor dictators who launched wars of conquest that resulted in millions of deaths, such as Napoleon?

 

 

 

I think many equate the veneration of the South's Civil War relics along the same lines as German or Austrian veneration of Nazi monuments and symbols, which are largely outlawed in Germany and Austria.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cid-- I understand your Viewpoint. And I accept and I respect your viewpoint--as an American you have freedom of speech, opinion and thought.

 

I simply don't agree with your viewpoint.

 

But you have the choice not to respect me or to accept my freedom of speech, opinion or thought.

 

In my opinion- - no matter how you turn it on with what Linguistics or historical minutiae--your relentless and persevering defense of these insurrectionists monuments make you look like an apologist for the Confederacy.

 

I could be wrong, but that's the way it looks to me.

 

I believe there's no excuse for promoting any form of support for the Confederacy because the Confederacy only has a heritage of slavery, Jim Crow Domestic Terrorism and white supremacy.

 

Of course, that is just my opinion.

 

I recognize that you have every right to your Viewpoint and I don't personally have a problem with your freedom to express it.

 

I believe no matter where people come from that they have a right to their own opinions.

 

I have an innate respect for people who speak their own mind.

 

One of the advantages of an education in French Literature is that you get to study the Enlightenment and the writings of Voltaire--

 

This French humanist's writings in philosophy were once summed up like this--

 

" I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."

 

That's what I learned from the French.

then you agree that white southerners are entitled to their historical perspective. :D

 

"now we are all friends again." -otto preminger, stalag 17

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many equate the veneration of the South's Civil War relics along the same lines as German or Austrian veneration of Nazi monuments and symbols, which are largely outlawed in Germany and Austria.

I don't think I'm alone in the United States in equating the Confederate flag with the swastika.

 

The people who fly the Confederate flag in Kansas have a little motto on their bumper stickers that says "Heritage not Hate".

 

I would take that one step further, in saying that the heritage of the Confederate flag is nothing but hate.

 

Only when this country completely decides to turn its back on the white supremacist racism, born of the enslavement of black people, will we truly start to make progress in this country.

 

Trump's presidential electoral win was one last gasp of that racist sentiment-- one that did not win the popular vote-- but one that none the less shows just how far we still have to go in this country to redeem our true democratic values of freedom and justice for all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cid-- I understand your Viewpoint. And I accept and I respect your viewpoint--as an American you have freedom of speech, opinion and thought.

 

I simply don't agree with your viewpoint.

 

But you have the choice not to respect me or to accept my freedom of speech, opinion or thought.

 

In my opinion- - no matter how you turn it on with what Linguistics or historical minutiae--your relentless and persevering defense of these insurrectionists monuments make you look like an apologist for the Confederacy.

 

I could be wrong, but that's the way it looks to me.

 

I believe there's no excuse for promoting any form of support for the Confederacy because the Confederacy only has a heritage of slavery, Jim Crow Domestic Terrorism and white supremacy.

 

Of course, that is just my opinion.

 

I recognize that you have every right to your Viewpoint and I don't personally have a problem with your freedom to express it.

 

I believe no matter where people come from that they have a right to their own opinions.

 

I have an innate respect for people who speak their own mind.

 

One of the advantages of an education in French Literature is that you get to study the Enlightenment and the writings of Voltaire--

 

This French humanist's writings in philosophy were once summed up like this--

 

" I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."

 

That's what I learned from the French.

 

Cid appears to be saying his viewpoint is this:  "Regardless, the issue is not defending the Confederacy or slavery, but allowing states to determine how to recognize those that have served it".

 

If that is his viewpoint then I agree with him 100%.    Each state that joined the Confederacy should be allowed to determine how they wish to recognize those that served the Confederacy.   I.e. The Federal Government should NOT impose on any state in this regard.

 

But that is what occurred in New Orleans;   The City Council decided to take down those monuments by a 6 to 1 vote.   Therefor at least in New Orleans there is no 'issue'.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I'm alone in the United States in equating the Confederate flag with the swastika.

 

The people who fly the Confederate flag in Kansas have a little motto on their bumper stickers that says "Heritage not Hate".

 

 

Sure.  But if that "heritage" IS one of hate, it's a counterproductive epithet.  Kind of like saying...."I don't HATE spinach, it's just that I never LIKED it."

 

I have a good friend who's national "heritage" is German.  Yet, I don't ever see the German OR Nazi flag flapping anywhere at HIS house.  To him it's just the country his family immigrated  from 'bout the turn of the 20th century.  He really never gives it that much consideration.

 

 

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us