Tango01 | 11 Jun 2020 2:55 p.m. PST |
""American history is not all glorious… George Washington was a slave owner. We need to call slave owners out for what they are. Whether we think they were protecting American freedom or not, he wasn't protecting my freedoms," the network contributor said…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
Major General Stanley | 11 Jun 2020 3:04 p.m. PST |
Who could see that coming? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you! |
JMcCarroll | 11 Jun 2020 3:24 p.m. PST |
Why stop there? After what Abraham Lincoln said about putting them all on boats and sending them back. Racist I say. |
SgtPhilco | 11 Jun 2020 3:44 p.m. PST |
More rubish from the Communists News Network |
PK Guy Brent | 11 Jun 2020 5:49 p.m. PST |
I remember an episode of the PBS show "Finding Your Roots" featuring Ted Danson. Turns out that an ancestor of Ted's was a slave owner. Guess that means that he should never work in Hollywood again. Burn every episode of Cheers. Obviously that is sarcasm. The point is that you can't judge those in the past by current standards, and you can't punish the current for deeds from past ancestors. |
Thresher01 | 11 Jun 2020 9:38 p.m. PST |
I'm astounded by this "surprising development" too, since it came so quickly out of "left field". People have only been warning about this for 20 – 30+ years or so now. Then, of course, they'll need to be expunged from the history books, since you can't mention them. AND then, there's that little, flawed document called the US Constitution that has ALL their names on it, so that will have to be torn up, and/or destroyed too, because we can't have that. What period can we go back to, and which documents, laws, guidelines, and leaders shall we use to guide woke America, and to keep us safe? |
42flanker | 11 Jun 2020 11:54 p.m. PST |
Ted Danson has atoned with a lifetime of veganism. |
14Bore | 12 Jun 2020 2:15 a.m. PST |
|
ZULUPAUL | 12 Jun 2020 2:33 a.m. PST |
|
arthur1815 | 12 Jun 2020 2:38 a.m. PST |
It would obviously have been better if the American colonies had not become independent of Great Britain, because slaves were set free in the British Empire in 1833, so the speaker's ancestors would have been emancipated thirty years earlier. The only period that won't be tainted by these accusations is that before the arrival European colonists – so return the whole country to the Native Americans! Washington and the Constitution certainly didn't protect their freedoms, either. |
Brechtel198 | 12 Jun 2020 5:21 a.m. PST |
What a crock. The author of this abortion is a screeching harpie who cannot get over the fact that there was once slavery in the United States. The English settlers in Virginia bought the slaves brought by the Portuguese and the Americans inherited this from the British. Both nations outlawed the slave trade ca 1808 and the British abolished it in 1834 and the US in 1865 after a brutal civil war which caused the deaths of 630,000 Americans. Residual racism certainly remains in the US and that is both ignorant and stupid. There is also religious bigotry, a virulent strain of which is anti-Catholicism, which is a holdover from colonial roots. |
Max Schnell | 12 Jun 2020 6:27 a.m. PST |
Next museums. The outraged will always find a cause to be outraged about. |
robert piepenbrink | 12 Jun 2020 6:50 a.m. PST |
"It would obviously have been better if the American colonies had not become independent of Great Britain, because slaves were set free in the British Empire in 1833, so the speaker's ancestors would have been emancipated thirty years earlier." Depends. If the Outraged Person's ancestors were slaves in Massachusetts, they'd have been freed 45 years earlier than slaves in Canada. The Outraged always use the last state to abolish slavery rather than the first, because any standard by which the US looks better than another country is just wrong. |
Extrabio1947 | 12 Jun 2020 6:53 a.m. PST |
I wonder how history might have changed if cotton could have been grown in the North? Maybe nothing? Maybe the creation of a northern plantation culture? |
Thresher01 | 12 Jun 2020 7:03 a.m. PST |
There was slavery in Britain and Africa too, and a lot of other places. Even if we'd remained under UK rule, people would be complaining. I see little mention of those capturing and selling the slaves to the Portugese, Americans, and others, which was wrong as well, too, but common practice back in the day. |
Legionarius | 12 Jun 2020 8:59 a.m. PST |
There is a big difference between the eighteenth century figures who accepted the current status quo and mid-nineteenth century ones who wanted to maintain a system that had been condemned and outlawed by the governments of Western Europe as well as the northern states. These confederates, by the way, violated their oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. |
robert piepenbrink | 12 Jun 2020 9:02 a.m. PST |
Actually, extrabio, there were slave-worked tobacco plantations in Connecticut at the time of the Revolution. It still passed a gradual emancipation law in 1784. I think you'll find Rhode Island was similar. And in Virginia, as cotton and tobacco grew less economic, slave plantations were trending toward mixed agriculture. I suspect culture rather than climate was decisive. |
Extrabio1947 | 12 Jun 2020 10:13 a.m. PST |
I disagree, Robert. I'm certain there were a number of people wishing to abolish slavery for moral and altruistic reasons, but had there been sufficient economic incentive, those voices might have been drowned out. You are correct with regards to your example of Virginia, but as these crops waned in importance, the "industry" of breeding slaves for sale to other states where cotton, tobacco, and sugar were the economic mainstays, grew apace. At the beginning of the ACW, Virginia was the largest source of slaves in the South, as Britain had all but shut down The Middle Passage. When you scrape away all the rhetoric, simple economics is the foundation of many social injustices, whether that is in the form of slavery or sweatshop labor. Industry has – and probably always will – follow the cheapest source of labor. It's why the US is awash with shuttered textile mills and factories. There's a reason your Levis were made in Malaysia. I can't help but believe that had slavery been as economically viable (seen dispassionately as an input of production) in the North as it was in the South, history would have been radically different. I'm done. |
14Bore | 12 Jun 2020 12:01 p.m. PST |
link 1780 in Pennsylvania with some bondage held over that |
doc mcb | 12 Jun 2020 4:28 p.m. PST |
Slavery was dying until the cotton gin. Then dying again in the 1850s. Lincoln and Jeff Davis agreed that to contain the spread was eventually to kill it. |
Brechtel198 | 12 Jun 2020 5:49 p.m. PST |
Lincoln and Jeff Davis agreed that to contain the spread was eventually to kill it. Do you have any sourcing to support that idea? If that was so, then why was there a war over it? |
JMcCarroll | 13 Jun 2020 5:42 a.m. PST |
Maybe we are going at this the wrong way? Let's just ask the Taliban how they cleansed their country of non-conforming history. |
Thresher01 | 13 Jun 2020 6:27 a.m. PST |
Uh oh, this is rather inconvenient. Apparently, if the news is "true", the last Prez's family had ties to slavery too, so I wonder if any and ALL statues, libraries, schools, references, etc., to him will be removed, abolished too, due to that? I'm guessing no, but it should cut both ways if we are being consistent, and not hypocritical. JMC, I suspect they used and/or are using the Chairman Mao method. |
USAFpilot | 13 Jun 2020 7:03 a.m. PST |
Those who would ban books and pull down statues are the American Taliban. |
Brechtel198 | 13 Jun 2020 7:06 a.m. PST |
Vandalism of any type is wrong and illegal. However, a state, county, or city and town that votes to remove a statue and put it into storage is legal, agree with it or not. Using the term 'American Taliban' is a bit much, and tends to emotion and not to reason. |
doc mcb | 13 Jun 2020 7:22 a.m. PST |
Reread what I wrote. Davis and Lincoln agreed that slavery had to spread or die. Doesn't say they both WANTED that. |
doc mcb | 13 Jun 2020 7:24 a.m. PST |
The issue was not slavery where it existed. Lincoln made that plain, e.g. in his First Inaugural. The issue was always whether slavery would expand into the western territories |
Legionarius | 13 Jun 2020 9:23 a.m. PST |
Issues in war are both stated and unstated, often leaders and public figures are cautious and behind public sentiment. Yes expansion of slavery into the west (and into Cuba and the Caribbean for that matter) were issues. But so was the morality of slavery in existing slave states. Then as now, state rights are used as cover for reactionary conservatism and to confuse and delay social progress. In short, "the issue" or casus bellí in the ACW evolved and sharpened over time. The existence of the south's cherished "peculiar institution" was, in one way or the other, at the very heart of the matter. |
doc mcb | 13 Jun 2020 10:48 a.m. PST |
The abolitionists were a small minority in the north. Republicans like Lincoln repudiated them. The North would never have gone to war to abolish slavery where it existed, but only to preserve the Union. However, when the cost in blood was already incurred, then it was wise to extend the war aims to the abolition of slavery: two good things for the one blood price. AND, are santuary cities examples of "states rights"? Yes. Now, as then, the states rights argument was used by whichever side did not hold power at the time. See, e.g., the Hartford Conventiopn, and Personal Liberty Laws. "Social progress" versus "reactionary conservatism" huh? My goodness, aren't we proud of our virtue!! |
Brechtel198 | 13 Jun 2020 11:30 a.m. PST |
The issue was not slavery where it existed. Slavery was the national issue and was the cause of the war. That has been clearly demonstrated in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom which is excellent and excellently sourced. |
Rudysnelson | 13 Jun 2020 1:16 p.m. PST |
DocB he did not understand the teaching point. Slavery was part of both Federal and State law for established States. Western land were territories Nader federal control. As such it had not been determined what laws would be enforced in their land once they became States. War prevented a Democratic Congress from stalling the abolitionist legislation. Lincoln tried to change the Supreme Court illegally to suit hm. He also enforced numerous actions against Maryland. Not a nice man |
doc mcb | 13 Jun 2020 1:51 p.m. PST |
Davis actually had more respect for individual rights and a free press than Lincoln did; of course Lincoln WON. Kevin, how about reading Lincoln's 1st Inugural, in which he offers the south a constitutional amendment to protect slavery where it already existed. The fact that he would offer that, and the new Confederate states weren't interested, is ample evidence that it was the extension of slavery into the west that mattered. Battle Cry is a fine general history of the war, but if he insists it was slavery per se and not expansion into the west, he is simply wrong. I doubt he actually wrote that. |
doc mcb | 13 Jun 2020 1:59 p.m. PST |
Look up "Corwin Amendment." The Wiki article on it is good. |
doc mcb | 13 Jun 2020 2:07 p.m. PST |
Lincoln to Horace Greeley, August 1862:I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. |
USAFpilot | 13 Jun 2020 3:24 p.m. PST |
I heard there is a movement now to take down the Pyramids because they were built by slaves. |
doc mcb | 13 Jun 2020 4:52 p.m. PST |
|
doc mcb | 13 Jun 2020 8:19 p.m. PST |
link There is a war on America's history and on America. Whatever you think of Robert E. Lee, you'd better prepare to stand against the Vandals. |
Zephyr1 | 13 Jun 2020 9:15 p.m. PST |
"I heard there is a movement now to take down the Pyramids because they were built by slaves." The ISIS-types over there want to blow them up for some religious reason or other, hence one of their desires for nukes… The End Game Objective: Smear and remove the American Founders from history, then you can repudiate the documents, and government, they created. Then the concept of Freedom can be removed from memory… |
Brechtel198 | 14 Jun 2020 4:00 a.m. PST |
There is no excuse for vandalism. If offensive statues are considered for removal to another place by competent authority that is one thing; defacing and/or destroying monuments is quite another. Using mob violence to get your way is not only morally corrupt, it is against the Constitution, as means of redressing grievances have been established since the Founding. And it should be noted that the statues of Confederate leaders were made and put up during the Jim Crow period not as a result of history, but as the result of oppression against black Americans in the postwar South. |
doc mcb | 14 Jun 2020 8:46 a.m. PST |
I think the reason Confederate statues went up after 1890 was that the Southern states had little money before then. I live near Chickamauga and have spent many hours driving and walking there. The northern monuments are huge and plentiful; the southern, not so much. The Ranger (back then) used to explain that the southern states had little money for such luxuries. I agree that Jim Crow WAS oppressive, but hardly think statues of RE Lee were put up in order to make blacks look at them. They were put up because the Confederate Army was honored, with the acquiescence of the north, as a sop to southern pride, as part of the very critical task of reunifying the culture. That mattered, e.g. in 1898, when former Confederate generals commanded parts of the US Army against Spain. |
Brechtel198 | 14 Jun 2020 11:18 a.m. PST |
The statues were put up as a sign of white supremacy and prejudice against the Blacks. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Rudysnelson | 14 Jun 2020 12:00 p.m. PST |
One reason for the increase in statues during the 1890-1910 was in anticipation for nationwide 50 year anniversary celebrations on both sides. There was also a large number of local and regional publications on the war. Many of these can be found in county historical centers or libraries. I have read many of them in my area and have some in my own collection. Unit histories are popular in all areas. Recollections, as they were called, can be found about battles fought in their area. Similar publishing efforts occurred during the 1860-65 centennial era and the Revolution 1776 bi-centennial era of the 1976. |
Dn Jackson | 14 Jun 2020 4:37 p.m. PST |
"The statues were put up as a sign of white supremacy and prejudice against the Blacks." So why did the Union soldiers put theirs up? |
Brechtel198 | 14 Jun 2020 5:28 p.m. PST |
As memorials to honorable service in the War of the Rebellion. |
doc mcb | 14 Jun 2020 6:27 p.m. PST |
The statues were put up as a sign of white supremacy and prejudice against the Blacks. Nothing more, nothing less. Any evidence for that? |
doc mcb | 14 Jun 2020 6:28 p.m. PST |
I see they are after Ghandi's statue now. Of course he WAS a racist . . . . |
USAFpilot | 14 Jun 2020 7:18 p.m. PST |
The following quote if from a book on Napoleon with respect to Trajan's column in the Place Vendome. "The column's imperial symbolism led to its being destroyed in 1814, replaced in the 1830s but destroyed again in 1871, and finally restored in 1875." I found it humorous. Stupid people have been tearing down statues throughout history. |
Brechtel198 | 15 Jun 2020 5:43 a.m. PST |
|
USAFpilot | 15 Jun 2020 9:28 a.m. PST |
The Napoleonic Wars by Richard Holmes |
Virginia Tory | 15 Jun 2020 11:01 a.m. PST |
I wonder if any of these idiots have read up on African Empires that made slavery an art form? The Arabs? It's part of history. Getting histrionic and stupid about it is ludicrous. But that's not stopping them because this is about more than that--this is about "resetting" and airbrushing history to use as a political tool, just as Orwell described. |