|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 3, 2024 16:23:17 GMT -5
That's the thing that really gets me about the memorials. Most of them were put up in the decades right after the war by towns grieving their dead sons, brothers and fathers. The people who went to fight for the south didn't necessarily own slaves, nor did they necessarily even support the institution of slavery. Most of them were conscripts who fought because the law required them to do so - or because if they didn't, someone like W. T. Sherman might show up and burn everything they own. I don't care about any larger "cause" that might be involved. Trying to stop someone from burning your farm is a valid reason to fight. The typical southern soldier's monument exists mostly as a town's collective wail of grief over lost loved ones, NOT as some monument to slavery. I get why a lot of highly politicized people simply will not allow themselves to see that, but that's a them problem. Tearing down these monuments is the equivalent of vandalizing a grave. People who advocate for it are ghouls. Monuments to specific generals are a little different and need to go case-by-case. But if we're going to be honest with ourselves, Lee and a few others worked hard after the war to bring the country back together. Monuments to these men furthered unification of the country after the war. Tearing down monuments to the men who fought on the "wrong side" but worked to unite the country later is an act of ignorance and should be resisted. I can understand wanting to pull down a monument to someone like Nathan Beford Forrest because he went and started the KKK. Some of the people who fought for the south really are irredeemable and pulling down monuments to them is like pulling down a monument to Stalin. Well written and thoughtful post. Proof you can actually do it. I still disagree, however, but at least you presented it in a sane, logical way. Please do more of this from now on. I've read that between 10-30 percent of confederate soldiers owned slaves, and half of the generals owned slaves. Regardless of whether a soldier owned a slave or not, regardless of whether they fought for their own reasons, they were still fighting for the side that made it very obvious what they were fighting for: the continuance of slavery and the belief in white supremacy. It's there in the articles of secession. It's there in the Cornerstone Speech. Go seek them out if you need a reminder of why the south was REALLY fighting. Sherman's march to the sea occurred three and a half years after the south fired on Sumter so that excuse as to why a conscript was fighting in 1861 doesn't hold water. I get they fought for their state, but their state was fighting for the continuance of slavery and the belief in white supremacy. These are just the facts as they are, as inconvenient as they may be for a specific person. All roads lead to Rome, all civil war narratives lead back to slavery and white supremacy. Many of these statues were not erected so innocently as you claim. For example, read Julian Carr's dedication speech at the Silent Sam statue at the University of North Carolina: So as for the monuments, let the cities decide what to do with them. And for the most part, that is what has happened. If a city, whether it be majority Black like Baltimore or Richmond no longer wants the statues erected for southern "heroes" it should be up to them. Why should a city or town be forced to keep a statue it longer wants? Taking down statues to confederates isn't defacing a grave because these statues aren't graves. They're monuments to men who fought to keep other men in chains. You know, I'd like to post nothing but high minded, well thought out arguments. But this board is full of posters like you who don't understand that W. T. Sherman isn't the only northern general who committed what we would call atrocities today, and that those monuments that aren't graves were the only thing most families got because their loved ones never arrived home to bury.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 3, 2024 17:51:13 GMT -5
Well written and thoughtful post. Proof you can actually do it. I still disagree, however, but at least you presented it in a sane, logical way. Please do more of this from now on. I've read that between 10-30 percent of confederate soldiers owned slaves, and half of the generals owned slaves. Regardless of whether a soldier owned a slave or not, regardless of whether they fought for their own reasons, they were still fighting for the side that made it very obvious what they were fighting for: the continuance of slavery and the belief in white supremacy. It's there in the articles of secession. It's there in the Cornerstone Speech. Go seek them out if you need a reminder of why the south was REALLY fighting. Sherman's march to the sea occurred three and a half years after the south fired on Sumter so that excuse as to why a conscript was fighting in 1861 doesn't hold water. I get they fought for their state, but their state was fighting for the continuance of slavery and the belief in white supremacy. These are just the facts as they are, as inconvenient as they may be for a specific person. All roads lead to Rome, all civil war narratives lead back to slavery and white supremacy. Many of these statues were not erected so innocently as you claim. For example, read Julian Carr's dedication speech at the Silent Sam statue at the University of North Carolina: So as for the monuments, let the cities decide what to do with them. And for the most part, that is what has happened. If a city, whether it be majority Black like Baltimore or Richmond no longer wants the statues erected for southern "heroes" it should be up to them. Why should a city or town be forced to keep a statue it longer wants? Taking down statues to confederates isn't defacing a grave because these statues aren't graves. They're monuments to men who fought to keep other men in chains. You know, I'd like to post nothing but high minded, well thought out arguments. But this board is full of posters like you who don't understand that W. T. Sherman isn't the only northern general who committed what we would call atrocities today, and that those monuments that aren't graves were the only thing most families got because their loved ones never arrived home to bury. And you don't seem to understand that "The Burning" was a late-war tactic used by the north to bring the south to its knees. So your argument still doesn't hold water. Everyone who lost someone during the CW is long dead. So maybe it's OK if a city or town decides to take these monuments to slavers down.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 3, 2024 18:05:39 GMT -5
You know, I'd like to post nothing but high minded, well thought out arguments. But this board is full of posters like you who don't understand that W. T. Sherman isn't the only northern general who committed what we would call atrocities today, and that those monuments that aren't graves were the only thing most families got because their loved ones never arrived home to bury. And you don't seem to understand that "The Burning" was a late-war tactic used by the north to bring the south to its knees. So your argument still doesn't hold water. Everyone who lost someone during the CW is long dead. So maybe it's OK if a city or town decides to take these monuments to slavers down. Less than 5% of the Confederate soldiers were from families that owned slaves. Why would you call 95% of non slave owning people slavers?
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 3, 2024 18:14:10 GMT -5
And you don't seem to understand that "The Burning" was a late-war tactic used by the north to bring the south to its knees. So your argument still doesn't hold water. Everyone who lost someone during the CW is long dead. So maybe it's OK if a city or town decides to take these monuments to slavers down.Less than 5% of the Confederate soldiers were from families that owned slaves. Why would you call 95% of non slave owning people slavers? I've seen numbers ranging between 10-30 percent for infantrymen (when you consider if their parents owned slaves when they left home to fight) and around half the generals being slave owners. I've also read that lower numbers is lost cause myth in action. Either way, they were fighting for the continuance of slavery. Not exactly something any city or town should be forced to commemorate if they don't want to. RangerJohn (and now you apparently) seem to argue for the forced display confederate monuments. Is that what you support?
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 3, 2024 18:37:40 GMT -5
Less than 5% of the Confederate soldiers were from families that owned slaves. Why would you call 95% of non slave owning people slavers? I've seen numbers ranging between 10-30 percent for infantrymen (when you consider if their parents owned slaves when they left home to fight) and around half the generals being slave owners. I've also read that lower numbers is lost cause myth in action. Either way, they were fighting for the continuance of slavery. Not exactly something any city or town should be forced to commemorate if they don't want to. RangerJohn (and now you apparently) seem to argue for the forced display confederate monuments. Is that what you support? After reading many different journals, biographies and letters from soldiers on both sides I don't believe many at all thought they were fighting for or against slavery especially before the EP. Most union soldiers said they were fighting to preserve the union and most southern soldiers were fighting because their homes were being invaded/attacked. It is interesting that people who died over 150 years ago are so hated now even after those they fought against made peace with them after the war. They made a truce that modern people seem to want to break. Even their descendants are hated. Its amazing.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 3, 2024 18:43:40 GMT -5
I've seen numbers ranging between 10-30 percent for infantrymen (when you consider if their parents owned slaves when they left home to fight) and around half the generals being slave owners. I've also read that lower numbers is lost cause myth in action. Either way, they were fighting for the continuance of slavery. Not exactly something any city or town should be forced to commemorate if they don't want to. RangerJohn (and now you apparently) seem to argue for the forced display confederate monuments. Is that what you support? After reading many different journals, biographies and letters from soldiers on both sides I don't believe many at all thought they were fighting for or against slavery especially before the EP. Most union soldiers said they were fighting to preserve the union and most southern soldiers were fighting because their homes were being invaded/attacked. It is interesting that people who died over 150 years ago are so hated now even after those they fought against made peace with them after the war. They made a truce that modern people seem to want to break. Even their descendants are hated. Its amazing. I don’t hate anyone. The dead have been dead for 150+ years. But there’s also a flip side to it and the continued worship of a 4 year failed rebellion that wanted to continue slavery is puzzling. It’s almost as if this nation hasn’t done anything worthy of memorizing since. Nope, just statues to those pro-slavery slavers. I also don’t understand the forced display of confederate monuments you seem to be advocating for. If a city or town wants to take them down they should be allowed to. Self determination, right?
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 3, 2024 18:53:03 GMT -5
After reading many different journals, biographies and letters from soldiers on both sides I don't believe many at all thought they were fighting for or against slavery especially before the EP. Most union soldiers said they were fighting to preserve the union and most southern soldiers were fighting because their homes were being invaded/attacked. It is interesting that people who died over 150 years ago are so hated now even after those they fought against made peace with them after the war. They made a truce that modern people seem to want to break. Even their descendants are hated. Its amazing. I don’t hate anyone. The dead have been dead for 150+ years. But there’s also a flip side to it and the continued worship of a 4 year failed rebellion that wanted to continue slavery is puzzling. It’s almost as if this nation hasn’t done anything worthy of memorizing since. Nope, just statues to those pro-slavery slavers. I also don’t understand the forced display of confederate monuments you seem to be advocating for. If a city or town wants to take them down they should be allowed to. Self determination, right? You claim you are puzzled but it appears by your constant complaining that you are really angry that people still memorialize their Confederate ancestors. I always said that they should have made sure they put the statues on private property so that they couldn't be removed by a city or town. That's not self determination that is private property rights.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 3, 2024 18:55:22 GMT -5
You know, I'd like to post nothing but high minded, well thought out arguments. But this board is full of posters like you who don't understand that W. T. Sherman isn't the only northern general who committed what we would call atrocities today, and that those monuments that aren't graves were the only thing most families got because their loved ones never arrived home to bury. And you don't seem to understand that "The Burning" was a late-war tactic used by the north to bring the south to its knees. So your argument still doesn't hold water. Everyone who lost someone during the CW is long dead. So maybe it's OK if a city or town decides to take these monuments to slavers down. The atrocities were not limited to "The Burning." The Union Army spent a lot of time living off the land. Taking crops and livestock for food and looting were common as well. Again, being conscripted into the CSA or taking up arms to defend your farm or your family doesn't make one a "slaver." Presumably though you'll be in the cemeteries next, to desecrate the graves of people who were identified and got a proper burial.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 3, 2024 18:56:54 GMT -5
I don’t hate anyone. The dead have been dead for 150+ years. But there’s also a flip side to it and the continued worship of a 4 year failed rebellion that wanted to continue slavery is puzzling. It’s almost as if this nation hasn’t done anything worthy of memorizing since. Nope, just statues to those pro-slavery slavers. I also don’t understand the forced display of confederate monuments you seem to be advocating for. If a city or town wants to take them down they should be allowed to. Self determination, right? You claim you are puzzled but it appears by your constant complaining that you are really angry that people still memorialize their Confederate ancestors. I always said that they should have made sure they put the statues on private property so that they couldn't be removed by a city or town. That's not self determination that is private property rights. Tell it to RJ. He’s advocating for the forced display of these statues. If people wanna honor and celebrate losers and white supremacists on their own property it’s a free country. Meanwhile the south fought to keep millions in chains.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 3, 2024 19:02:09 GMT -5
And you don't seem to understand that "The Burning" was a late-war tactic used by the north to bring the south to its knees. So your argument still doesn't hold water. Everyone who lost someone during the CW is long dead. So maybe it's OK if a city or town decides to take these monuments to slavers down. The atrocities were not limited to "The Burning." The Union Army spent a lot of time living off the land. Taking crops and livestock for food and looting were common as well. Again, being conscripted into the CSA or taking up arms to defend your farm or your family doesn't make one a "slaver." Presumably though you'll be in the cemeteries next, to desecrate the graves of people who were identified and got a proper burial. Guy who defends the mass slaughter of women and children calls Union soldiers “living off the land” an atrocity. And what did you say about the genocide in Gaza? Hamas is responsible for it? Well, the south started the war. So any “atrocities” committed by the Union troops are to be blamed on southern aggression and firing the first shot. FAFO.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 3, 2024 19:07:02 GMT -5
You claim you are puzzled but it appears by your constant complaining that you are really angry that people still memorialize their Confederate ancestors. I always said that they should have made sure they put the statues on private property so that they couldn't be removed by a city or town. That's not self determination that is private property rights. Tell it to RJ. He’s advocating for the forced display of these statues. If people wanna honor and celebrate losers and white supremacists on their own property it’s a free country. Meanwhile the south fought to keep millions in chains. Forced display? I think they should be in prominent locations but on private land. There are a couple of very large Confederate flags flying next to major interstates but the poles are on private land. Do you have a problem with that? Some schools in Virginia will get their original Confederate names back. www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68985412
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 3, 2024 19:20:14 GMT -5
Tell it to RJ. He’s advocating for the forced display of these statues. If people wanna honor and celebrate losers and white supremacists on their own property it’s a free country. Meanwhile the south fought to keep millions in chains. Forced display? I think they should be in prominent locations but on private land. There are a couple of very large Confederate flags flying next to major interstates but the poles are on private land. Do you have a problem with that? Some schools in Virginia will get their original Confederate names back. www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68985412 Do I have a problem with it? Of course not. It’s their property deface it as much as you want with trash, garbage, pro-slavery flags, etc. Will I have my own thoughts about someone who does that? Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 3, 2024 19:39:21 GMT -5
Forced display? I think they should be in prominent locations but on private land. There are a couple of very large Confederate flags flying next to major interstates but the poles are on private land. Do you have a problem with that? Some schools in Virginia will get their original Confederate names back. www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68985412Do I have a problem with it? Of course not. It’s their property deface it as much as you want with trash, garbage, pro-slavery flags, etc. Will I have my own thoughts about someone who does that? Absolutely. The point is that is put in a location where everyone going down the highway can see it. You were talking about being forced to see this stuff on public land but you can still be forced to see it on private land.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 3, 2024 19:59:27 GMT -5
Do I have a problem with it? Of course not. It’s their property deface it as much as you want with trash, garbage, pro-slavery flags, etc. Will I have my own thoughts about someone who does that? Absolutely. The point is that is put in a location where everyone going down the highway can see it. You were talking about being forced to see this stuff on public land but you can still be forced to see it on private land. LOL. I know you have outed yourself as uninformed today (we always knew you were) but surely you had to know that I’ve only ever advocated for the removal of these relics to slavery from public land. If someone wants to fly their slavery flags or move these monuments to private lands that’s their prerogative. At the very least it lets people in that town know where the ignorant and/or racists live.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 3, 2024 21:20:08 GMT -5
The point is that is put in a location where everyone going down the highway can see it. You were talking about being forced to see this stuff on public land but you can still be forced to see it on private land. LOL. I know you have outed yourself as uninformed today (we always knew you were) but surely you had to know that I’ve only ever advocated for the removal of these relics to slavery from public land. If someone wants to fly their slavery flags or move these monuments to private lands that’s their prerogative. At the very least it lets people in that town know where the ignorant and/or racists live. But you didn't want people to be forced to see them. I am saying they will be forced to see them on private property as much as public property.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 4, 2024 6:06:02 GMT -5
LOL. I know you have outed yourself as uninformed today (we always knew you were) but surely you had to know that I’ve only ever advocated for the removal of these relics to slavery from public land. If someone wants to fly their slavery flags or move these monuments to private lands that’s their prerogative. At the very least it lets people in that town know where the ignorant and/or racists live. But you didn't want people to be forced to see them. I am saying they will be forced to see them on private property as much as public property. No, I am against city or state sanctioned worship of confederates.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 4, 2024 11:08:25 GMT -5
If one fights on behalf of a polity one must perforce agree with what it stands for. The Confederacy first and foremost stood for slavery. So, therefore, did its soldiers. The question of whether they owned slaves or not is irrelevant. They were fighting for their right to own slaves. And that makes the contemptible.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 4, 2024 11:30:56 GMT -5
If one fights on behalf of a polity one must perforce agree with what it stands for. The Confederacy first and foremost stood for slavery. So, therefore, did its soldiers. The question of whether they owned slaves or not is irrelevant. They were fighting for their right to own slaves. And that makes the contemptible. EY hating on dead people. LMFAO
Regardless of your irrational hatred they are entitled to be memorialized by their descendants.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 4, 2024 12:04:21 GMT -5
I don't think it's "hating on dead people" so much as setting the record straight about what the confederacy's ultimate goal was (slavery) and whether that cause is worthy of honoring. For me, I don't think cities or states should be celebrating a rebellion whose 1A goal was to prolong slavery and create a nation with a foundation of white supremacy.
While I can respect a person's right to do that on their own dime and time, I personally question their motives for doing so. If the confederacy's main objective for existing was to prolong slavery, how can one divorce from that evil a noble cause? So does one support the south's main goal? Or are they simply ignorant of the real causes for the war and the CSA's existence?
These are the issues that conflict with one another in this argument.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 4, 2024 19:01:12 GMT -5
I don't think it's "hating on dead people" so much as setting the record straight about what the confederacy's ultimate goal was (slavery) and whether that cause is worthy of honoring. For me, I don't think cities or states should be celebrating a rebellion whose 1A goal was to prolong slavery and create a nation with a foundation of white supremacy. While I can respect a person's right to do that on their own dime and time, I personally question their motives for doing so. If the confederacy's main objective for existing was to prolong slavery, how can one divorce from that evil a noble cause? So does one support the south's main goal? Or are they simply ignorant of the real causes for the war and the CSA's existence? These are the issues that conflict with one another in this argument. The problem with your thinking is you assume that your take is correct and anyone who sees it differently is immoral. Whether you are correct or not not everyone believes the southern men were evil like you want to believe. If you knew how Lincoln treated Maryland and its' citizens it's no wonder 25,000 of them went south and fought when they didn't have to. They were fighting against Lincoln not for slavery. Things were not as simple as you want to think. And now you want to demonize anyone who wants to memorialize their ancestors.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 4, 2024 19:45:52 GMT -5
I don't think it's "hating on dead people" so much as setting the record straight about what the confederacy's ultimate goal was (slavery) and whether that cause is worthy of honoring. For me, I don't think cities or states should be celebrating a rebellion whose 1A goal was to prolong slavery and create a nation with a foundation of white supremacy. While I can respect a person's right to do that on their own dime and time, I personally question their motives for doing so. If the confederacy's main objective for existing was to prolong slavery, how can one divorce from that evil a noble cause? So does one support the south's main goal? Or are they simply ignorant of the real causes for the war and the CSA's existence? These are the issues that conflict with one another in this argument. The problem with your thinking is you assume that your take is correct and anyone who sees it differently is immoral. Whether you are correct or not not everyone believes the southern men were evil like you want to believe. If you knew how Lincoln treated Maryland and its' citizens it's no wonder 25,000 of them went south and fought when they didn't have to. They were fighting against Lincoln not for slavery. Things were not as simple as you want to think. And now you want to demonize anyone who wants to memorialize their ancestors. You’re putting words in my mouth and using Strawman arguments. I never said every person who fought for the south was evil. I said the confederate cause was evil. And anyone who fought for the south, regardless of their reasoning, fought for the side of evil. That’s factual. If someone wants to “memorialize” their ancestors they’re free too. No one has argued that. Do it on your own dime and time.
|
|
|
Post by augustwest on Jun 5, 2024 6:33:07 GMT -5
And you don't seem to understand that "The Burning" was a late-war tactic used by the north to bring the south to its knees. So your argument still doesn't hold water. Everyone who lost someone during the CW is long dead. So maybe it's OK if a city or town decides to take these monuments to slavers down.Less than 5% of the Confederate soldiers were from families that owned slaves. Why would you call 95% of non slave owning people slavers? Trump would call them suckers
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 5, 2024 8:41:30 GMT -5
The problem with your thinking is you assume that your take is correct and anyone who sees it differently is immoral. Whether you are correct or not not everyone believes the southern men were evil like you want to believe. If you knew how Lincoln treated Maryland and its' citizens it's no wonder 25,000 of them went south and fought when they didn't have to. They were fighting against Lincoln not for slavery. Things were not as simple as you want to think. And now you want to demonize anyone who wants to memorialize their ancestors. You’re putting words in my mouth and using Strawman arguments. I never said every person who fought for the south was evil. I said the confederate cause was evil. And anyone who fought for the south, regardless of their reasoning, fought for the side of evil. That’s factual. If someone wants to “memorialize” their ancestors they’re free too. No one has argued that. Do it on your own dime and time. No you don't specifically say every person who fought for the south was evil but you certainly implied it. Your statement that anyone who fought for the south fought for the side of evil is nothing more than your opinion, not factual at all. Evil and good are moral issues that are based on whatever religion one happens to follow. For someone who says they have no problem with memorializing Confederates you sure complain about it a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 5, 2024 8:51:35 GMT -5
You’re putting words in my mouth and using Strawman arguments. I never said every person who fought for the south was evil. I said the confederate cause was evil. And anyone who fought for the south, regardless of their reasoning, fought for the side of evil. That’s factual. If someone wants to “memorialize” their ancestors they’re free too. No one has argued that. Do it on your own dime and time. If you fight for evil can you avoid becoming evil? That's a difficult question. I believe the answer is "no". If you fight for evil without realizing it is evil then your parents may have neglected your moral education too much. That, I believe, describes the common Confederate soldier who bought into what his slaver masters told him to do. And in my view there is no reason to memorialize such men. Pity them as sad artifacts of an immoral polity, maybe. And the larger problem remains: the Lost Cause people who ask and expect us to believe they only venerate the people, and not the evil thing of which they were a part. I don't believe most of them. I think they DO venerate the evil system because, fundamentally, most of them are racists. If they were not they would never believe the Lost Cause. They would understand, fundamentally, how evil the Confederacy was.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 5, 2024 9:08:22 GMT -5
You’re putting words in my mouth and using Strawman arguments. I never said every person who fought for the south was evil. I said the confederate cause was evil. And anyone who fought for the south, regardless of their reasoning, fought for the side of evil. That’s factual. If someone wants to “memorialize” their ancestors they’re free too. No one has argued that. Do it on your own dime and time. No you don't specifically say every person who fought for the south was evil but you certainly implied it. Your statement that anyone who fought for the south fought for the side of evil is nothing more than your opinion, not factual at all. Evil and good are moral issues that are based on whatever religion one happens to follow. For someone who says they have no problem with memorializing Confederates you sure complain about it a lot. Nonsense. You took from my clearly written posts what you wanted to see, not what was there. You do this a lot. I am not a religious person and don't practice any religion. I can still view people and things as evil. Do you believe slavery and white supremacy are not inherently evil? Do you believe the Nazis were not inherently evil? The only thing I "complain" about is the state sanctioned honoring of men who fought to continue slavery.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 5, 2024 9:41:31 GMT -5
No you don't specifically say every person who fought for the south was evil but you certainly implied it. Your statement that anyone who fought for the south fought for the side of evil is nothing more than your opinion, not factual at all. Evil and good are moral issues that are based on whatever religion one happens to follow. For someone who says they have no problem with memorializing Confederates you sure complain about it a lot. Nonsense. You took from my clearly written posts what you wanted to see, not what was there. You do this a lot. I am not a religious person and don't practice any religion. I can still view people and things as evil. Do you believe slavery and white supremacy are not inherently evil? Do you believe the Nazis were not inherently evil? The only thing I "complain" about is the state sanctioned honoring of men who fought to continue slavery. Your ideology is your religion. I believe slavery and white supremacy are wrong. Hitler was evil. Do you believe historical slavery by southern whites is more evil or wrong than slavery by non whites then and now?
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 5, 2024 9:45:18 GMT -5
Nonsense. You took from my clearly written posts what you wanted to see, not what was there. You do this a lot. I am not a religious person and don't practice any religion. I can still view people and things as evil. Do you believe slavery and white supremacy are not inherently evil? Do you believe the Nazis were not inherently evil? The only thing I "complain" about is the state sanctioned honoring of men who fought to continue slavery. Your ideology is your religion. I believe slavery and white supremacy are wrong. Hitler was evil. Is historical slavery by southern whites more evil or wrong than slavery by non whites then and now? Denying humans their natural right to freedom and equality while viewing an entire race as subhuman is evil. I know those were different times, but we've evolved since then and can now view history properly, which is why I believe city and state-sanctioned statues and monuments to these men who fought for those things should be removed. Hitler and the Nazis have more in common with the pro-slavery south than not. And Germany removed all the statues of Hitler and Nazis. For some reason the south (and some sympathizers in the north) can not let a 150 year old failure of a rebellion go.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 5, 2024 9:56:41 GMT -5
Your ideology is your religion. I believe slavery and white supremacy are wrong. Hitler was evil. Is historical slavery by southern whites more evil or wrong than slavery by non whites then and now? Denying humans their natural right to freedom and equality while viewing an entire race as subhuman is evil. I know those were different times, but we've evolved since then and can now view history properly, which is why I believe city and state-sanctioned statues and monuments to these men who fought for those things should be removed. Hitler and the Nazis have more in common with the pro-slavery south than not. And Germany removed all the statues of Hitler and Nazis. Are you saying it isn't evil if the slaveowner and slave are of the same race?
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Jun 5, 2024 9:58:55 GMT -5
Denying humans their natural right to freedom and equality while viewing an entire race as subhuman is evil. I know those were different times, but we've evolved since then and can now view history properly, which is why I believe city and state-sanctioned statues and monuments to these men who fought for those things should be removed. Hitler and the Nazis have more in common with the pro-slavery south than not. And Germany removed all the statues of Hitler and Nazis. Are you saying it isn't evil if the slaveowner and slave are of the same race? Yes, but our discussion is about the antebellum south where slave owners were white and slaves were black. And many southerners viewed them as subhuman. It doesn't get any more evil than that.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 5, 2024 10:18:50 GMT -5
Are you saying it isn't evil if the slaveowner and slave are of the same race? Yes, but our discussion is about the antebellum south where slave owners were white and slaves were black. And many southerners viewed them as subhuman. It doesn't get any more evil than that. Not all southern slave owners were white. www.abbevilleinstitute.org/black-slaveowners/I wonder if the slaves thought slavery wasn't evil if their owners were black.
|
|