florduh

Southern Pride

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I'm only concerned with the quote itself.  It doesn't resonate as a real quote.  I couldn't find a lot references to "traitors" or other terms.  "Rebel" seems to be preferred (and co-opted by the south).  It seems out of place for the time.  The quote seems something constructed to counter modern arguments (ie. by modern standards the south were traitors).

 

          mwc

 

 

The syntax is as if it was an answer to a question, as if in response to an interviewer who used the term or someone who accused him or those under his command of being traitors.

 

He did do several post war interviews, it's not implausible that he might have been asked such a question and may have answered that way. Particularly involving questions revolving around his indictment for treason, which I can find reference to several interviews that included that topic, yet can't for the life of me dig up an actual copy of the interview articles themselves. If it happened, that's likely when it did.

 

I think it is more than likely a real quote given what evidence I can find seems to support that it does reflect his mindset and there was reason and opportunity that he might have been asked such a question, but it's a bitch to source it and I can't directly confirm it.

 

I can find no reference to him ever actually using the term "Rebel" to describe himself, the Confederacy, or any soldiers. I get the impression he was not fond of the term, though I also can't find any examples of him saying anything negative about it either. It is unlikely that he would call himself one given what I could find. I would actually find a quote where Gen. Lee is attributed to using the term "Rebel" to refer to himself or his men to be the more suspect quote to be honest.

 

As an interesting aside, it was General Grant who blocked the trial against General Lee for treason. He threatened to resign if the terms of the surrender were not honored, and President Johnson was forced into the political corner of having the very popular Grant stand against him and the proceedings and was forced to relent and back off. As far as anyone knows, Lee never found out how far Grant went to protect him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

 

The syntax is as if it was an answer to a question, as if in response to an interviewer who used the term or someone who accused him or those under his command of being traitors.

 

He did do several post war interviews, it's not implausible that he might have been asked such a question and may have answered that way. Particularly involving questions revolving around his indictment for treason, which I can find reference to several interviews that included that topic, yet can't for the life of me dig up an actual copy of the interview articles themselves. If it happened, that's likely when it did.

 

I think it is more than likely a real quote given what evidence I can find seems to support that it does reflect his mindset and there was reason and opportunity that he might have been asked such a question, but it's a bitch to source it and I can't directly confirm it.

 

I can find no reference to him ever actually using the term "Rebel" to describe himself, the Confederacy, or any soldiers. I get the impression he was not fond of the term, though I also can't find any examples of him saying anything negative about it either. It is unlikely that he would call himself one given what I could find. I would actually find a quote where Gen. Lee is attributed to using the term "Rebel" to refer to himself or his men to be the more suspect quote to be honest.

 

As an interesting aside, it was General Grant who blocked the trial against General Lee for treason. He threatened to resign if the terms of the surrender were not honored, and President Johnson was forced into the political corner of having the very popular Grant stand against him and the proceedings and was forced to relent and back off. As far as anyone knows, Lee never found out how far Grant went to protect him.

     I think you're reading in a lot more than I'm saying but that's okay.  My fault for not spending paragraph after paragraph on this.  If you find the (legit) source I'm interested.  I don't think it's out there.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mwc said:

     I think you're reading in a lot more than I'm saying but that's okay.  My fault for not spending paragraph after paragraph on this.  If you find the (legit) source I'm interested.  I don't think it's out there.

 

          mwc

 

 

I'm not getting your point here. Aside from you seem a bit salty for some reason.

 

He's attributed as making what is essentially the exact same statement worded slightly differently in several verified sources that were written by him personally.

 

At worst it's a paraphrase, and it is clearly an accurate representation of his views according to verifiable sources.

 

Plus, it's worth noting that you suggested that it was questionable because he didn't reference himself or his men by a term that I can find absolutely no record or reference of him ever using, and such a reference would be even more out of character for him than what you're questioning, which actually fits quite well with his speaking style and sentiment in numerous writings by his own hand.

 

On top of that, you seemingly missed that it is phrased as a reply or answer, and it's really very obvious that it was. The syntax is pretty straightforward a reply of some sort and not an unsolicited statement as you seemed to imply.

 

In the end it doesn't really matter if the quote is paraphrasing him or if it's just from an obscure source that is difficult to verify for some reason, it's an accurate enough representation of what he did frequently state that it's valid as an accurate example of what it was intended to convey.

 

Maybe he didn't use those exact words in that exact order, but he did actually say what the quote conveys more than once in his writings and statements both before and after the war.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone remembers the Nazi march at Skokie, Illinois.  I think it was in 1978.  Everyone was appalled that this would be allowed to take place in a town where there were a lot of holocaust survivors.  It was big news at the time. Litigation and everything.  But due to free speech the march was allowed to go on, but the Nazis never showed up.  They were possibly shamed into not making an appearance.  Would something like this happen today, not on your life!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

 

I'm not getting your point here. Aside from you seem a bit salty that I've effectively killed your argument.

 

The only reason to bring it up is to discredit it as a false representation of the man. I've pretty much shut down that idea even if it is a misquote. He's attributed as making what is essentially the exact same statement worded slightly differences in several verified sources that were written by him personally.

 

At worst it's a paraphrase, and it is clearly an accurate representation of his views according to verifiable sources.

 

Plus, it's worth noting that you suggested that it was questionable because he didn't reference himself or his men by a term that I can find absolutely no record or reference of him ever using, and such a reference would be even more out of character for him than what you're questioning, which actually fits quite well with his speaking style and sentiment in numerous writings by his own hand.

 

On top of that, you seemingly missed that it is phrased as a reply or answer, and it's really very obvious that it was. The syntax is pretty straightforward a reply of some sort and not an unsolicited statement as you first suggested.

 

To put it quite bluntly, all this together suggests you don't really know what you're talking about.

 

It doesn't really matter if the quote is paraphrasing him or if it's just from an obscure source that is difficult to verify for some reason, it's an accurate enough representation of what he did frequently state that it's valid as an accurate example of what it was intended to convey.

     I brought up the quote because I do this quite regularly with quotations.  All I cared about was the quote.  I said that.  You didn't believe me.  That's all on you.  I made my whole case known about these monuments known early on.  I have no reason to do anything with Lee or his representation at this point.  But you can't see that.

 

     Defend your Pinterest quote.  It has no source.  I believe it to be false.  I don't care what it represents.  You clearly do.  Understand that if you have a thousand more paragraphs to educate me I will likely not read them like the thousand that have come before.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Deva said:

I don't know if anyone remembers the Nazi march at Skokie, Illinois.  I think it was in 1978.  Everyone was appalled that this would be allowed to take place in a town where there were a lot of holocaust survivors.  It was big news at the time. Litigation and everything.  But due to free speech the march was allowed to go on, but the Nazis never showed up.  They were possibly shamed into not making an appearance.  Would something like this happen today, not on your life!

 

Well I remember watching the Blues Brothers and asking my Dad about the Nazi rally scene. Illinois Nazi's. He mentioned that free speech extends to the freedom of political parties. And that we have both communist and nazi parties in the US which are allowed to exist. That seems to be the deeper issue here. My agreement with certain left bent and liberal views has more to do classic liberal ideals than anything else. Such as free speech and the sort of freedom that extends even to these obscure communist and nazi parties that we tolerate, and allow. 

 

That's just it, though. I'm looking at a movement that seems to be intolerant of intolerance, and which loves to hate, hate. Not exactly classical liberalism and not very American either. That's why I'm so skeptical of all things left these days. It's a let down. I grew up religious on the right. I lost religion and belief and swung left. Found a lot of nonsense on the left and don't have a real home on either side any more.

 

I'm stuck there in the middle somewhere, politically homeless.... 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I brought up the quote because I do this quite regularly with quotations.  All I cared about was the quote.  I said that.  You didn't believe me.  That's all on you.  I made my whole case known about these monuments known early on.  I have no reason to do anything with Lee or his representation at this point.  But you can't see that.

 

     Defend your Pinterest quote.  It has no source.  I believe it to be false.  I don't care what it represents.  You clearly do.  Understand that if you have a thousand more paragraphs to educate me I will likely not read them like the thousand that have come before.

 

          mwc

 

 

So, you're just being anal about a quote that is possibly a paraphrase, but still an accurate representation of verifiable things the man has said on record, and don't care about evidence to that effect and won't bother to look at it anyway.

 

Right. Gotya.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ContraBardus said:

 

So, you're just being anal about a quote that is possibly a paraphrase, but still an accurate representation of verifiable things the man has said on record, and don't care about evidence to that effect and won't bother to look at it anyway.

 

Right. Gotya.

 

 

 

     Caught me again.  You fell into my trap where paraphrases aren't quotations.

 

     I know I made this to easy.  I asked if you knew the source to a quote that you posted.  You could have said you'd have a look and then said you didn't know.  That's fairly easy.  I've been there.  I actually appreciated the work you put into finding the quote.  At least at first.  But you're making this out like I have an agenda to character assassinate Robert E. Lee.  Especially when I don't want to read pages of your "educational" materials.  This isn't the case.  It's turned personal and I'm doing my best to stay out of pissing matches.

 

     I really want you to understand me when I say all this.  Take this all at face value.  I just wanted the source as I don't believe it is legit.  I appreciated your efforts.  I have no agenda on Robert E. Lee as I am already familiar with him.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mwc said:

     Caught me again.  You fell into my trap where paraphrases aren't quotations.

 

     I know I made this to easy.  I asked if you knew the source to a quote that you posted.  You could have said you'd have a look and then said you didn't know.  That's fairly easy.  I've been there.  I actually appreciated the work you put into finding the quote.  At least at first.  But you're making this out like I have an agenda to character assassinate Robert E. Lee.  Especially when I don't want to read pages of your "educational" materials.  This isn't the case.  It's turned personal and I'm doing my best to stay out of pissing matches.

 

     I really want you to understand me when I say all this.  Take this all at face value.  I just wanted the source as I don't believe it is legit.  I appreciated your efforts.  I have no agenda on Robert E. Lee as I am already familiar with him.

 

          mwc

 

 

That's the wall we've hit then. I'm afraid you are incorrect.

 

Paraphrasing is still a form of quotation. It's just not a direct literal quote.

 

A paraphrase conveys the same meaning using different wording and paraphrasing quotes is quite common.

 

The best example that proves paraphrasing is quotation is when it's used to translate phrases from one language to another. The syntax of one language often doesn't fit another, so the quote is paraphrased to make sense in the language it is translated into.

 

Other times it's used for brevity, often omitting segments of the original statement.

 

As an example, Occham is often quoted as saying that "The simplest answer is usually correct" but the actual literal quote is "Plurality should not be posited without necessity" which means the exact same thing, but doesn't make sense to most people because the speech is so archaic.

 

Despite that it isn't word for word what he said, it is still correct to attribute the quote "The simplest answer is usually correct" to Occham.

 

Another good example would be the famous Empire Strike's Back line. "Luke, I am your father." This happened because the actual line "No. I, am your father" doesn't make sense without the context of the scene. Changing the first part of the line provides enough context for people to understand the reference. Despite being different, the line is still considered a quote.

 

The quote I cited may have actually been said word for word by him at some point. However, even if it wasn't it is a very close paraphrase of statements he has made that can be easily verified. Either way, it's a legitimate quote, it's just that it may not be a direct literal quote.

 

Another possibility is that the quote may be from historical fiction. There's a lot of it surrounding the Civil War, and it may actually be from a fictional version of Robert E Lee. If it is, it's well researched because it fits his writing/speech style, mentality, and sentiment very well.

 

If that is the case, it would still be a Robert E Lee quote, though it should also have the name of the work tacked on to clarify that it is from a character and not the actual man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

 

That's the wall we've hit then. I'm afraid you are incorrect.

 

Paraphrasing is still a form of quotation. It's just not a direct literal quote.

 

A paraphrase conveys the same meaning using different wording and paraphrasing quotes is quite common.

 

The best example that proves paraphrasing is quotation is when it's used to translate phrases from one language to another. The syntax of one language often doesn't fit another, so the quote is paraphrased to make sense in the language it is translated into.

 

Other times it's used for brevity, often omitting segments of the original statement.

 

As an example, Occham is often quoted as saying that "The simplest answer is usually correct" but the actual literal quote is "Plurality should not be posited without necessity" which means the exact same thing, but doesn't make sense to most people because the speech is so archaic.

 

Despite that it isn't word for word what he said, it is still correct to attribute the quote "The simplest answer is usually correct" to Occham.

 

Another good example would be the famous Empire Strike's Back line. "Luke, I am your father." This happened because the actual line "No. I, am your father" doesn't make sense without the context of the scene. Changing the first part of the line provides enough context for people to understand the reference. Despite being different, the line is still considered a quote.

 

The quote I cited may have actually been said word for word by him at some point. However, even if it wasn't it is a very close paraphrase of statements he has made that can be easily verified. Either way, it's a legitimate quote, it's just that it may not be a direct literal quote.

 

Another possibility is that the quote may be from historical fiction. There's a lot of it surrounding the Civil War, and it may actually be from a fictional version of Robert E Lee. If it is, it's well researched because it fits his writing/speech style, mentality, and sentiment very well.

 

If that is the case, it would still be a Robert E Lee quote, though it should also have the name of the work tacked on to clarify that it is from a character and not the actual man.

     Alright, we're stuck.  We have a quote that we cannot demonstrate is from the person it claims to be from.

 

     As I see things, I believe that it is not genuine without more evidence that actually ties it to the person in question while you believe it is genuine because it seems to reflect the person in question.  Correct me if I'm wrong on your part.

 

     I've used all the places I know to search and have come up empty handed for anything that resembles that quote.  I find that disappointing since I was hoping to come up with something (at least a part of it).  If you manage something I'd appreciate a shout-out.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Alright, we're stuck.  We have a quote that we cannot demonstrate is from the person it claims to be from.

 

     As I see things, I believe that it is not genuine without more evidence that actually ties it to the person in question while you believe it is genuine because it seems to reflect the person in question.  Correct me if I'm wrong on your part.

 

     I've used all the places I know to search and have come up empty handed for anything that resembles that quote.  I find that disappointing since I was hoping to come up with something (at least a part of it).  If you manage something I'd appreciate a shout-out.

 

          mwc

 

 

Still working on it actually, not because of this, just because it's interesting. I ended up reading all of "Recollections and Letters of General Robert E Lee".

 

There are several quotes that resemble the quote, but none of them are an exact match. Particularly quotes in his letters regarding his resignation to General Scott, his sister, and brother.

 

It seems like this quote might have been pieced together from them, though there is no mention of the term "traitor" in any of them.

 

Another possible source is interviews he did after Johnson tried to indict him. I've seen mention of interviews where the subject came up, but can't find copies of the articles themselves. They don't seem to be available online.

 

As I mentioned, it could also be from a historical fiction source, which would be even harder to pinpoint given how much of it there is.

 

For anyone interested, I found that book on Archive.org, which is an amazing website for any history buff. Lots of old books that are very interesting reads and a great place for research.

 

Here's the link for "Recollections and Letters of General Robert E. Lee".

 

And another for "The early life, campaigns, and services of Robert E. Lee" another book I dug up to research this that I'm ending up reading just because it's interesting.

 

The site is a free, non-profit, internet library, containing books, various audio, video resources, images, and even software. It includes resources from various major public libraries, the Library of Congress, the Smitsonian, various public records, and all sorts of other cool things. It's a great research tool for all sorts of things, or just a great place to kill time online. Seriously check it out if you weren't aware of it before now. It's one of the best free resources on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/08/2017 at 0:44 PM, florduh said:

That is true in any war. Currently American soldiers don't own any oil companies or care about enriching bankers and arms manufacturers yet they fight for their masters anyway. 

 

 

Don't mean to derail the thread, but this reminds me of  Smedley Butler, a highly decorated Marine and General....Butler said, in effect, it wasn't until after he retired from duty that he realised that his military life was about putting down the locals to increase the power and money for American corporations.

 

 "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The US Civil War was wholly unnecessary, a bloodbath intended only to coalesce state power over the then-existing decentralized states. The Civll War was not about the abolition of slavery. The abolition of slavery could have been achieved without the mass murder of violent military conflicts. This you need to know. Slavery could have been ended without using violence to coerce the southern states to remain in the Union. Every history of the Civil War, including Ken Burns and the academic counter parts, assume that the Civil War was inevitable. That's a great, big capitalist-state lie. If the industrial northern capitalists were to centralize state power in Washington, then, yes, the Civil War was necessary to achieve that goal. Few Americans understand that the USA of the antebellum period was not the USA of the post-reconstruction and modern era."

Via: Mark Mason

 

Agree with this. You don't free people by killing hundreds of thousands of people and destroying an infrastructure of an entire civilization. We keep falling for this bullshit argument today too when we are asked to send our sons and daughters to rescue some poor spot on the globe from a dictator. The people are never left better off after a war than they were before, even if they were enslaved. It stands to reason. Better a live slave than just dead or left without a home, food to eat, minus limbs and an economy. 

Even if the war was about freeing the slaves (dubious claim IMO), it was more than the worst possible approach to the problem. It was an approach that was far more immoral than slavery, which I think we all agree was horrific. We have all been brainwashed to normalize war, but war is the worst possible state of the human condition and should be treated as such. It can never solve problems as it always creates much greater problems. We may be victims of human nature to some arguable degree, but we also have brains and a conscience. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2017 at 3:30 AM, Fweethawt said:

I did not mean that as an insult. Did you look at that link? And actually try what it says?

 

Holy shit... yes... I thought this is nutty... then I tried searching European people art. Was expecting some knights, kings queens etc.... white ones. Dafaq did I end up looking at? African people art?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vigile said:

Even if the war was about freeing the slaves (dubious claim IMO), it was more than the worst possible approach to the problem. It was an approach that was far more immoral than slavery, which I think we all agree was horrific. We have all been brainwashed to normalize war, but war is the worst possible state of the human condition and should be treated as such. It can never solve problems as it always creates much greater problems. We may be victims of human nature to some arguable degree, but we also have brains and a conscience. 

 

I agree with this.

 

Britain abolished slavery in 1833 and they didn't have a war over it.

 

The US didn't abolish until 1865 - after a brutal war.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a southerner I would like to put my two cents in on this topic. One thing that drives this is that during the Civil War both sides suffered great losses. This was a time of disparity for both sides of the war. However because the south were on the losing end our fallen soldiers were greatly disrespected. The south in general was and to some degree still is treated with disrespect. How many Television shows do you watch that are southern based that don't portray us as back woods idiots? Not many. Most portray southerners as uneducated to some degree or another. 

 

     After the war there was a federally funded effort to retrieve all the lost soldiers of the federal army. However the effort to retrieve confederate troops was left to the families of the fallen and whatever state or local efforts there may have been. You can imagine the sheer anger families would have felt knowing that their loved ones were left to rot in unmarked Graves, creeks, or even in the open. For some soldiers the confederate memorials are the only tombstone that they will ever have. 

 

    I will agree that the war was fought for mostly the wrong reasons. While the side issues may have been fighting against federal govt overreach and state rights, the core issue was slavery and I agree slavery was wrong and needed to be stopped. However I think it could have been done more peacefully if left up to the states discretion. It would have taken longer. But even great Brittain stopped the slave trade without a war. So it could have been done.

 

     As far as the states secession. They felt they were practising a right granted to them by the constitution. And they were. During the war they were a separate country. It was the United states fighting against the confederate states. Should the people who lost the war be forgotten in history? I don't think so. Even as horrible as Hitler and his war was. There are even a few memorials for the fallen German soldiers in world War 2. As well as world War 1. Both wars that they lost. For a long time the south probably had the mentality that they were still a separate country ruled and governed by the winning federal states. Even now we southerners hold onto our rights much more fiercely than most states who were on the federal side of the war do. And a lot of us...... including myself..... feel that the federal govt has continued to overstep their bounds as outlined by the constitution ever since that time. It was a huge mark in our history and made a monumental change in american politics and I personally don't think it should be forgotten. In today's time it's not a testament of slavery as much as it is a testament of our rebellion and a reminder to the federal govt that the people have risen up before so don't think we won't again. So yeah it's a big Bird finger saying fuck you, then and now. 

 

     Now at the same time we have to call "fair is fair". Along side all those confederate memorials we have down here. We have a multitude of memorials for the federal troops as well that the north came down and erected. If you explore Chickamauga battlefield here in north ga you might find that there are just as many, if not more! Memorials for the Northern troops as there are for the confederate troops. So if they were to bring down all of the confederate memorials I would likewise say that all memorials for Northern troops should be taken down aswell. If you want to forget the Civil War you have to forget it on both sides.. 

 

     The problem is that the racial divide has been brought to the forefront by the media. Republican biased and democratic biased alike. Our former president Obama insighted racial divide in such Instances as his remarks on the Treyvon Martin case and Michael brown case. Both instances where the courts rightfully ruled a justified use of lethal force. Yet the president fanned the flames of racial divide. President trump hasn't done anything to lessen tensions either but in his defense anything he says will be twisted by the media to sound bad. He wasn't my choice and honestly neither candidate was worth a damn but the media is the real culprit in dividing America. Both sides twist words and acts to fit their agenda for better ratings. 

 

I grew up in the eighties and nineties and was taught by my southern mom not to treat anyone different because of their skin, she taught me not to say the word "nigger", and I never felt a racial divide between black and white while in school. I even dated a black girl in highschool for awhile. But I found as I got older that there was more black on white racism than white on black racism. I started losing my hair so I decided to shave my head because a half bald head is just...... let's just say I don't find it attractive. But instantly African American women at my wife's work were asking her if I was racist. To assume someone is racist because of a hairstyle is in itself racist. I would actually get glared at when I went through the drive thru by black cashiers. It was ridiculous.

 

And it has only gotten worse over the past several years and once again I blame the media for spreading it for profit. And now there aren't many black people that seem open to talk to me. Racism has been revived and is being fueled by the media.

 

Those are my thoughts,

 

Dark Bishop

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     It may not been about slavery for everyone but it was about slavery for the people who mattered.

 

     The Republican platform was anti-slavery and that bothered people.  It bothered them to the point that they were determined to secede if a Republican won.  One did.  So they seceded.  Not only that but the first state to go, who had plenty of abolitionists, made their case for leaving.  They decided the Constitution was a contract and they contract had been broken so both parties could part ways.  The first thing they bring up is slaves aren't being returned.  They also bring up the states being able run their own institutions (slavery).  And so on down the line.  It's slavery to the ones running the show.

 

     Could this all have gone away without a war?  Probably.  In the Confederate States of America.  They seceded after all.  It was triggered by an election.  Looking back after the fact and thinking that "The United States could have..." becomes false.  The United States we know ceases to exist along with the history we know about it if secession occurs.  Moving forward the continent would have taken an entirely different shape.  Perhaps entirely different wars would have been fought as expansion West happened.  Maybe worse wars.  Continuing wars.  People who were once brothers but are now enemies fighting over what they feel is rightfully theirs?  It could be worse than what we have now.

 

          mwc

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blow back starts....in Alabama.  If the whiny cunts want to piss and moan, and try to tear it down, they may get something they don't want.  

 

 

Quote

 

New Confederate memorial unveiled in Alabama

 

More than 200 people attended an unveiling ceremony for a new Confederate monument Sunday afternoon in Alabama's Crenshaw County.

The modest stone marker commemorates the "unknown Confederate soldiers" who died in the Civil War but have been forgotten by history, particularly those from Crenshaw County and the surrounding area.

 

The memorial now stands in a confederate memorial park first opened in May 2015 on private land in an unincorporated area next to Dry Creek RV Park about three miles north of Brantley. It sits among existing monuments, replica cannons and tall flagpoles flying Confederate and other flags. [Snipped]

 

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/more_than_200_people_attend_un.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mwc said:

     It may not been about slavery for everyone but it was about slavery for the people who mattered.

 

     The Republican platform was anti-slavery and that bothered people.  It bothered them to the point that they were determined to secede if a Republican won.  One did.  So they seceded.  Not only that but the first state to go, who had plenty of abolitionists, made their case for leaving.  They decided the Constitution was a contract and they contract had been broken so both parties could part ways.  The first thing they bring up is slaves aren't being returned.  They also bring up the states being able run their own institutions (slavery).  And so on down the line.  It's slavery to the ones running the show.

 

     Could this all have gone away without a war?  Probably.  In the Confederate States of America.  They seceded after all.  It was triggered by an election.  Looking back after the fact and thinking that "The United States could have..." becomes false.  The United States we know ceases to exist along with the history we know about it if secession occurs.  Moving forward the continent would have taken an entirely different shape.  Perhaps entirely different wars would have been fought as expansion West happened.  Maybe worse wars.  Continuing wars.  People who were once brothers but are now enemies fighting over what they feel is rightfully theirs?  It could be worse than what we have now.

 

          mwc

 

 

 

Ok..... I said the biggest issue was slavery. But that doesn't change the fact that southern families wanted their family members death to be remembered. They wanted their losses to go down in history. Slavery was bad we know that. No one wants slavery back. But the Civil War happened. The war, the people in it on both sides, and the slaves that were freed from that war are done a disservice by taking down the monuments. It is our history whether you like it or not. It happened. Fighting over the monuments only divides us more. Their are monuments to the north, their are monuments for slaves and underground rail road operators, but the only ones anyone else has a problem with are the monuments for confederate soldiers and generals who fought and died aswell. Hello..... they are the other half of the story whether they were wrong or right.

     It was different times back then. Up to that point slavery was acceptable. Our first president had slaves. Do we need to take George Washington off everything too because of slavery and a bunch of marshmallows that wear there feelings and prejudices on their sleeves? Nah I don't think so.

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Ok..... I said the biggest issue was slavery. But that doesn't change the fact that southern families wanted their family members death to be remembered. They wanted their losses to go down in history. Slavery was bad we know that. No one wants slavery back. But the Civil War happened. The war, the people in it on both sides, and the slaves that were freed from that war are done a disservice by taking down the monuments. It is our history whether you like it or not. It happened. Fighting over the monuments only divides us more. Their are monuments to the north, their are monuments for slaves and underground rail road operators, but the only ones anyone else has a problem with are the monuments for confederate soldiers and generals who fought and died aswell. Hello..... they are the other half of the story whether they were wrong or right.

     It was different times back then. Up to that point slavery was acceptable. Our first president had slaves. Do we need to take George Washington off everything too because of slavery and a bunch of marshmallows that wear there feelings and prejudices on their sleeves? Nah I don't think so.

 

DB

     I already made a post here somewhere where I say what I think about what should happen to these monuments.  I don't know if it's what you might want but I don't know if it's entirely what looks like you're assuming I want either.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I already made a post here somewhere where I say what I think about what should happen to these monuments.  I don't know if it's what you might want but I don't know if it's entirely what looks like you're assuming I want either.

 

          mwc

 

I found it. Yeah I can agree with that. Leave the battle fields and designated memorial alone and put the others in a museum. But there is also the problem of "give an inch, take a mile". 

 

    In my lifetime I've seen all the rebel flags taken off state flags. My own state flag included. Which I tend to agree with. The Civil War has been over a long time it was time to change the flags. 

 

    But they are never satisfied. They are making just as much hype about these monuments as they were the flag. If we move them to museum then they will be pissed about the designated memorials. If we take em all down. Repurpose state memorials, and put what we can in museums then they will be pissed about that. 

 

So when do we say enough is enough? And when do we get out of everyone else's business? This country was built on the priniciple that all men could pursue happiness as long as it didn't violate others in there pursuit basically. We can be proud of our revolutionary, confederate, union, slave, Vietnam, world wars, Iraq war, and any other ancestor that we want to. Let those that are proud of former slaves put up monuments. I don't think we would have issues with that. Hell every town in the south has a street named after MLK. I don't think a memorial for slaves would be shunned. But don't shun our confederate ancestors either. 

 

Live and let live is a good rule to live by.

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and @mwc,

 

Yeah we have a church on every street corner in the south. But like you said the food is Delicious. Next time your down we could hook up and I will grill out for ya. My wife loves my BBQ 😃.

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Oh and @mwc,

 

Yeah we have a church on every street corner in the south. But like you said the food is Delicious. Next time your down we could hook up and I will grill out for ya. My wife loves my BBQ 😃.

 

DB

     I don't know when I'll be out that particular way again but I sure won't say no out of hand.  My wife just happened to win a contest that got us out there (she wins those sorts of things).  It just covered some airfare but that was still alright.  We drove across South Carolina a couple of times while we were out there checking out all the old history.  We really liked seeing this stuff in person.

 

     We must have eaten BBQ all but 2 or 3 days of the couple of weeks we were out there.  I know it was a lot.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daffodil said:

 

I don't really have a problem with this one; or rather, I care a whole lot less. There is hardly a bigger asshole in our history and he wasn't even made a hero or made a major part of the school curriculum until last century when Italian-Americans promoted him. Moreover, removing him won't cause a clash of civilizations the way removing confederate statues will. 

I'm generally not a fan of removing any statues though. I don't respect reactionary politics.

  • Like 1

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