Serenity

"To Our Confederate Dead"

Recommended Posts

Wow, are people actually defending EITHER side, other than history? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

Wars looooong over, sorry but, chip on shoulder or not, this nation, is not the same nation from then. And thats a good thing, not a rally round the campfires of either cause thing.

I liked the history discussion that was going on, now this has sorta taken on the life of serious stupidity.

Plus, the vampires started it.

What are you even talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the greatest of our founding fathers owned slaves.... morality was not the same as it is now, so that is why I just can't picture them as evil. Sure, some slave owners were evil... some industrialists were also evil.

Which is why Labor Unions became necessary. Many a 19th-Century Industrialist treated his workers worse than most Plantation owners treated their slaves.

Slavery was certainly a terrible ordeal, something none of us can fathom, not even the side that wants it torn down. But I don't think tearing it down helps cure racism.
Down here we're too ignorant to realize

That the North has set the <black man> free

Yes he's free to be put in a cage

In Harlem in New York City

And he's free to be put in a cage in the South-Side of Chicago, the West-Side

And he's free to be put in a cage in Hough in Cleveland

And he's free to be put in a cage in East St. Louis

And he's free to be put in a cage in Fillmore in San Francisco

And he's free to be put in a cage in Roxbury in Boston

They're gatherin' 'em up from miles around

Keepin' the <black men> down

So much for your Northern "moral superiority."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you even talking about?

VVVV

Not sure what's wrong with the analogy. The North almost literally beat the South to death, not just during the war, but after with the carpetbaggers and various measures designed to keep the South "in line."

Which, by the way, is one of the biggest reasons that "the South" still has an enormous chip on its shoulder.

Put some more thought into what other people say before dismissing it next time.

Also, dead horse is dead. We all realize by now that you blame the South for taking the first shot.

No one ever knows.

The vampires started it.

Sheesh, like you guys never read the real biography of the greatest ass kicking President this nation's ever seen.

Ignorant all of you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British General: Lord Cornwallis, General Washington is bringing his troops from the north and the French have landed to the east.

Cornwallis: Fetch me my brown pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when politics leaves the Political forum.

It becomes a travesty of poorly attempted trolling in between useful posts by about six people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm.. Hope my posts weren't considered trolling as I was contributing my opinion.

EDIT: Nevermind. I must've missed the large amount of bullshit that this this page on my reload after getting back from a meeting.

On the matter, I did not say the South were completely at fault for a war but I would not discredit their first act of war. Call that narrow minded if you so choose. I think small details are what makes the larger picture easier to read.

Also, thank you for pointing out my typo's Agnarr. I've been in too much of a hurry to proof read like I usually do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hm.. Hope my posts weren't considered trolling as I was contributing my opinion.

EDIT: Nevermind. I must've missed the large amount of bullshit that this this page on my reload after getting back from a meeting.

On the matter, I did not say the South were completely at fault for a war but I would not discredit their first act of war. Call that narrow minded if you so choose. I think small details are what makes the larger picture easier to read.

Also, thank you for pointing out my typo's Agnarr. I've been in too much of a hurry to proof read like I usually do.

My question to you still stands, and to the 'thread' as a whole.

If its current context/wording is a problem, then what would be a good change of wording and/or context for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And my vampire jokes aren't really trolling, just me trying to keep the mood light (failing miserably obviously), and keeping people educated on an awesome TRUE TELLING OF THE REAL WAR!

Vampires.

Then did it.

<3 u Ellsbet. Don't hurt me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question to you still stands, and to the 'thread' as a whole.

If its current context/wording is a problem, then what would be a good change of wording and/or context for it?

Still thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically, this is about history, not politics. In theory.

And a monument or something. Serenity, has any more news developed on the matter?

True true true. It's just whenever racism gets brought up on a message board it tends to turn into something very crazy.

And I won't hurt you Jeedup. You're Blue Glowy. It's May Fourth today.

So may the 4th be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also seperation of government and religion? Your smoking crack if you think the founding fathers said a single peep about it. Every one of them was a church goer, all religions in America at the type basically came down to Christianity or some slight variation thereof and they put the words "In God we Trust" on our money and opened the constitution meetings with a silent prayer. Nuff said.

Not 'nuff' said. "In God we trust" first appeared in American money in 1860s, so founding fathers certainly were not involved. Also, Thomas Jefferson made his own version of the Bible, that omitted all the supernatural elements, as he did not believe in them. Naturally, he strongly supported the separation of church and state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not 'nuff' said. "In God we trust" first appeared in American money in 1860s, so founding fathers certainly were not involved. Also, Thomas Jefferson made his own version of the Bible, that omitted all the supernatural elements, as he did not believe in them. Naturally, he strongly supported the separation of church and state.

"In God We Trust" showed up on currency and as the official motto of the US as early as the 1860s, but it only became 'official' in the 1950s during Eisenhower's administration, as a reaction to the godlessness of Communism. The Pledge of Allegiance was a product of the 1880s--initially written by a socialist-leaning Baptist preacher named Francis Bellamy. "Under God" was added in 1954, again, as a reaction against the godlessness of Communism.

While Jefferson was a skeptic, he was one of only a handful of the Founding Fathers who would consider themselves deists. The vast majority were Presbyterians (hence why it was referred to as "the Presbyterian Revolt" in Britain) or Episcopalians.

Similarly, Jefferson's "separation of church and state" letter was written to the Danbury Baptist Church as an assurance that there would be no official denomination, like the Church of England (the "Established Church"). Heck, even the various states often had "official denominations" at this point--Maryland and Roman Catholicism, for example.

Franklin, Adams and other Fathers were quick to point to religion and morality as a public good.

John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Franklin: "Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."

Even Jefferson's skepticism was not with the teachings of Jesus (hence why his edited version of the Bible, sans miracles, was called "The Life and Morals of Jesus") but with the supernatural elements.

Also, Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1893).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a monument to the dead it should be left alone. While the people may have died for causes that may not be agreed with, they were still people.

There's lots of Vietnam war memorials to honor the soldiers that died then too... I would hope that any movement to dismantle them would NOT be supported just because the Vietnam war was a horrible, politically masterminded and blundered clusterfuck that was fed by paranoia and the idea that America needed to control the entire world... lest Russia have gotten to control it first.

My grandmother's brother died in World War II... I think I'd probably slap anyone that wanted to tear down the monument where his name was listed on there, even if I never met the guy, know next to nothing about him, and he has had no effect on my life.

The only time commemorative things like these ever hurt anyone is when people go around looking for reasons to be offended by them, and quite frankly it's really past the time for people to stop devoting energy and brain cells to useless endeavors like these and focus on things that will actually have an impact in the present and in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a colossal statue of Robert E Lee astride my house.

Keep the monument.

People will always find something to be offended about... best idea... ignore them, like the Redskins and Chiefs have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my question... why is it "ok" to have huge statues of Robert E Lee in various places in the south, what about Stone Mountain? What about every other Confederate monument in the South? Hell... Stone Mountain was where the second Klan was formed in 1915, and has one of the largest carvings in the world of... R.E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis on their respective fav. rides.

AND if you don't think the North was bitter, Arlington was Robert E Lee's estate. So I think building it right after the war, wasn't happning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have deleted some comments, because there is a straying of conversaton. Think, key, speak - it's not just for voice comms people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been really busy the last week with classes and just got around to reading this thread. I am sorry for the history rant that is about to ensue. I am by no means an expert on American history, especially early American history because I find it dull. However, I just took an entire class on this material this semester, so I have an idea what I'm talking about.

1.) The Civil War was much more than about slavery, as has been pointed out before. In the 30-40 years leading up to the actual outbreak of the War there were numerous arguments and bills proposed to try and limited or eliminate slavery in the South because it was seen as cruel and harsh by the North but was an important labor source to the South. It is my own opinion that many of the abolitionists at the time were more appalled at the treatment that the slaves had to endure from these southern plantation owners rather than the institution of slavery itself. Slavery has been seen since the beginning of history, but American slavery is the first time that a particular race has been enslaved simply because they are of that race. Most all abolitionists were also, what we would define today, racist. Starting in the 1830s, after the Trail of Tears and the movement of the Indians to the west, the focus seemed to shift more towards the slavery issue, largely because of the west ward expansion was allowing more states to come into the union. With the Compromise of 1850 (which was a long debate over if the new states that were entering the U.S. at that time should be allowed to be free states or slave states. The Compromise was that some entered free and some entered slave, like Kansas was divided and California was free. I can't remember the others at the moment.) From this Compromise, there was a huge escalation of abolitionists verses slave owners, some slave supporters even went so far as to travel to Kansas and cause large amounts of chaos and killing, these were known by the name Border Ruffians. Look up Lawerence, Kansas if you are interested about this. The Compromise of 1850 also led to the Caning of Charles Sumner where a Northern abolitionist stood up and said that he thought a amendment to the Compromise was unfair and unconstitutional (this provision being the Fugitive Slave Act, which would allow slave catchers to move where ever in the country and capture what they thought to be runaway slaves (even if they were free) and return them to the south. These slave catchers were known to not only be cruel and harsh but also rapists.) Sumner wanted this part of the Bill repealed and a Southern congressmen, who felt that his honor had been offended by Sumner got up and beat Sumner with his cane, literally knocking him into a coma and causing severe brain damage. Slave supporters then sent new canes to this Southern congressmen. So the issue of slavery had been very heated long before the Civil war. Also look up John Brown's Holy War, for an interesting abolitionist.

When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many of the southern states felt it was just the end to life as they knew it. Things had been tense over the subject of slavery, as I talked about above, for several decades and with this Republican coming into office, 5 Southern states seceded. Now Szor, I hate to argue with you but the North was certainly not blameless in the battle of Fort Sumner. Before this battle had even taken place, when the Confederate government was originally formed, they sent delegates to Washington to try and meet with Lincoln to negotiate. The Southern states were very concerned about their rights to slavery, BUT it was not the only problem they had was the large amount of government power that they felt the newly elected republicans would enforce over the south because of all this tension in politics and in general life with the issue of slavery. So it was about slavery but it wasn't about slavery, if that makes any sense. Many southerns saw it as a removal of their constitutional freedoms for the government to say that slavery was unconstitutional, even though the censuses at that time counted slaves as 2/3 of a human being. At the actual battle of Fort Sumner, which was a Union fort stronghold before the Civil War, Lincoln discovered that the supplies were very low there, so thus sent supply ships. Lincoln notified the Confederate leaders that it was a fleet of supply ships and only supply ships. The then President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, decided (along with his cabinet members) that they could not allow the fort to be supplied, so they fired on the supply ships. Shortly after this, several more states left for the Confederacy.

Race was still a huge issue during the Civil War, anyone seen the movie Glory? One of the Union brigades was an all black volunteer unit, the Mass. 54th, and was treated horribly by the rest of the Union army and was notoriously under supplied and neglected. The Union also had a LOT more man power and resources than the South (Hello, you can't eat cotton). And the potato famine was going on in Ireland at this time, so many Irish were trying to immigrate to the U.S. for a better life (which they went through New York's Ellis Island) and large amounts of these Irish men were stepping off the boats and being handed guns and told to go fight for the Union.

The other thing to keep in mind is that most everyone didn't expect this war to last more than a couple of weeks. At one of the first actual battles of the Civil War, you had rich folks bringing picnic lunches to watch the battles.

2.) The statue should stay, it's a historical monument and if anything, it might make people that are interested about it go take a closer look at their history books about the events, rather than simply believing everything they are told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tempted to say it should stay. I am from Tennessee and tourist town because of our proximity to the Shiloh Battlefield. (google it) I do however know that the people HERE waving confederate flags are doing so for one reason. It's the same people with "The South Will Rise Again" bumper stickers, and the kkk. We also have literally hundreds of confederate and civil war statues. I don't mind them, but I think they're all appropriately displayed. I'm not sure what the area the statue is in your town, but maybe the location is the problem. Perhaps it could be moved? The paper write up you spoke of when it was erected speaks to the fact that it wasn't truly meant to be just a memorial and instead kind of a racist F.U. SOOOO, I'm not sure what should happen. I don't think moving it is an unfair option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize this thread was almost a year old Corey? That and of all the posts you had to necro why this one? Better to let sleeping dogs lie Karkarov says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead