Chop the Confederacy, now?

I'm not sure that confederate monument should be blown up though. I think not. Its private property not a government edifice or symbol. I think of the Taliban blowing up all those antiquities in Afghanistan and think those are probably crimes against humanity, all by themselves.

Let the defeated generals stand there and erode for 2000 years. All the tales of their stand and fall will be forgotten and the symbols they once stood for will be meaningless.

Sherman's March to the Sea
Savannah Campaign
Sherman's March to the Sea (also known as the Savannah Campaign) was a military campaign of the American Civil War conducted through Georgia from November 15 until December 21, 1864, by Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army. The campaign began with Sherman's troops leaving the captured city of Atlanta on November 15 and ended with the capture of the port of Savannah on December 21. His forces followed a "scorched earth" policy, destroying military targets as well as industry, infrastructure, and civilian property and disrupting the Confederacy's economy and its transportation networks. The operation broke the back of the Confederacy and helped lead to its eventual surrender. Sherman's bold move of operating deep within enemy territory and without supply lines is considered to be one of the major achievements of the war.

The worst thing that people can do is to attempt to erase the past, as by demolishing something that can provide insight into past history.

Tom, no one is suggesting an erasure of history.

The End of Communism by Josh London"One death," Joseph Stalin was said to have remarked, "is a tragedy, one million is a statistic." What about, one must wonder, 80 or 100 million deaths? In reading the "Black Book of Communism," a groundbreaking effort by a group of French scholars to document the human costs of communism in the 20th century, one is immediately confronted with such discomfited figures. Stephane Courtois, in his introduction, crunches the numbers:

U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths; China: 65 million deaths; Vietnam: 1 million deaths; North Korea: 2 million deaths; Cambodia: 2 million deaths: Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths; Latin America: 150,000 deaths; Africa: 1.7 million deaths; Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths; The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths… The total approaches 100 million people killed.

I do not understand why you want to CELEBRATE traitors to the United States? They fit the definition in the Constitution. They were in favor of tearing the US down. Is that your position?

Socialism is the leading man-made cause of death and misery in human existence.

Idea that "socialism" is evil is astonishingly stupid. Like something I'd expect from Sean Hannity.

the more interesting question is who the fuk

actually

likes these things

?

Power Crux

people are now able to speak up against them without fearing a visit from the klan

But Ken. They were also residents of their native state. Were they to be traitors to the Feds or traitors to their very own heritage, the only one they truly knew? It's where they came from. Kinda like calling the revolutionaries traitors of their mother England, no?

Arne

Gnome Ofthe Diabase

climber
Out Of Bed

Jan 21, 2019 - 09:02am PT

Anyone who wears the red hat, the uniform of the new nazi party needs to be called out!

Anyone who wears the red hat, the uniform of the new nazi party needs to be called out!
--Gnome ofhis meds

The "Confederates" didn't have a "platform of racism." They had a platform of anti-federalism, and that platform was widely held from even before the framing of our constitution.

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

The "Confederates" were NO more "racist" than the North, and slavery was already effectively out the window by the time the Civil war happened. The Civil war was not about slavery, and IT did not free the slaves nor end racism in either the North or the South.

The "Confederates" didn't have a "platform of racism." They had a platform of anti-federalism, and that platform was widely held from even before the framing of our constitution. Slavery and "racism" are red herrings in a discussion of the Civil war and the Confederacy. Lincoln USED the slavery issue for strategic purposes, but Lincoln himself repeatedly said that he would abandon the slavery issue if he thought that the Union could be thus preserved. It had strategic value to him, nothing more.

And, as I say, the South would have voluntarily abandoned slavery within a few years anyway. The cost of keeping slaves had rendered slaves not an economical workforce. Already machines were in widespread use that were much less costly. This fact is well known by those not ignorant of history.

What were the North's motivations to wage war against the South?

I haven't seen any reputable analysis that indicated slavery was going to stop any time soon.

That is the question nobody seems to want to answer, isn't it. And while I don't know what the North's motivation was, it is worth repeating the words of Abraham Lincoln, during his debates with Stephen Douglas in the run-up to the presidential election in 1860:

“I am not now, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black race; I am not now nor have I ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I, as much as any man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Yeah, that was Lincoln. The Great Emancipator.

Susan, condescension will get you nowhere with me and not very far with Ghost,
but he won’t put it so bluntly.

Ghost, I don't think you understand what the word emancipation means.

If you actually read the entire speech that quote was taken from, Lincoln is absolutely arguing to end slavery. He was arguing for emancipation.

At the time, the idea of full equality for blacks was not even on the table. Maybe it was because even Lincoln believed the races to be inferior or maybe he was being pragmatic and not trying to overreach in his goals. But Lincoln was an abolitionist and definitely against slavery.

...7th graders have a far better understanding of the basic facts than the confederate apologists here.....

The men on the Stone Mountain monument were decent, honorable men.

The men on the Stone Mountain monument were decent, honorable men. They were praised as such, even by their bitter enemies, during their lifetimes and long thereafter. If you're going to tear down recognitions of such people because they didn't agree with you ideologically, you've got a LOT of work ahead of you.

The men on the Stone Mountain monument were decent, honorable men. They were praised as such, even by their bitter enemies, during their lifetimes and long thereafter. If you're going to tear down recognitions of such people because they didn't agree with you ideologically, you've got a LOT of work ahead of you.

It is so tempting, and frankly, intellectually lazy, to paint the South as "that place" when in reality, the majority of the major cities are just as metropolitan and diverse as any enlightened East Coast/West Coast bastion you can name.

Yankees were....

Decent, honorable men. Who believed

Wars and politics (and forums!) have at least one thing in common: people just like to fight.

NOBODY here is justifying slavery or racism. But some of us ARE saying that conflating the "Confederacy" (including, specifically, the men that are honored on that monument) with "racism" and "slavery" is taking an amazingly narrow-minded view of the historical realities.

The revisionists posting earlier to this thread are stunningly stupid.

Oh, and remember de Tocqueville? Are you aware that he literally "rated" the states on their level of racism during his travels? He found the upheaval over race relations fascinating, and he carefully assessed the situation everywhere he traveled. He wrote: "The prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States which have abolished slavery, than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those States where servitude has never been known." He flatly said that the majority and the worst of the racist pricks resided in the North.

The North was chock-full of segregationist, racist bastards, with Lincoln himself at the head of the class. And the South was NO more "racist" than the North. Slavery was an evil institution that NOBODY knew how to transition away from. And even its elimination was NOT designed by any of the Northern leaders to produce some sweet, kumbaya society of equality with the former slaves.

But please, stop with the wall of words excuse-making.

Proof it was done on rappel, not ground up! Chop it!

Oh, good! My work is done here.

It seems to me Richard's thoughtful academic posts are very persuasive. I grew up in the deep south in the 1940s and 1950s, so I saw clearly racism in action. But here's an interesting observation: I had a rural cousin, much older than me, who, in the 1940s, owned coon dogs and was a Klan member. When I returned to Alabama in 1962, my wife and I went out to visit him. In the previous years a huge tire factory had been established in the area, and many poor country folk were hired at decent wages. I was surprised to find he and his wife no longer living in a large shack, but in a nice brick home. He opened the door and I saw a middle age man, neatly dressed and groomed. In his living room he introduced me to a close friend and work colleague: A pleasant black man neatly attired. I saw no vestiges of racism.

It's convenient to point the finger at Southern States when discussing racial tensions. It's also intellectually lazy. The South has a higher population of blacks than any other region, by far. Yet, the hotbeds of racial unrest are rarely in The South. It's places like Oakland... or Chicago.. or Milwaukee... or St. Louis... or Baltimore. True, The South gets credit for Charlotte and Charlottesville. But looking at the population distribution of blacks around the country and the frequency of racial unrest around the country, it appears that The South ain't the problem.

This may be cliche, but it's also true - the worst places for African Americans are Northern or West Coast urban areas, that have been controlled by Democrats for decades.

Here's an interesting article on "the 15 worst cities for black Americans".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/16/racial-disparity-cities-worst-metro-areas-black-americans/38460961/

None of the cities are in The South.

Atlanta is over 50% Black. Metro Atlanta is 32% Black. Charlotte is 35% Black. Both cities have relatively healthy race relations. I wonder how the compare to Oakland or Chicago???

When was the last time there was racial unrest in Chicago?

That there is either intellectual laziness or some damn weak trolling,
or maybe the mother ship didn’t prepare you very well for yer mission.

Oh, you were there too and had a different experience? I marched with Stillman College students at that time and celebrated with Joan Baez in their auditorium. I was there in a math class at the U of Alabama when George Wallace stood in the door, blocking a black man from registering. One of the ancient ROTC cannons went off for some reason and one of my classmates said "I hope they hit the bastard this time!" He was speaking of Wallace. My father upon retirement donated his library to Stillman College.

Please tell of your experiences in the south during that period. It sounds like you had a rougher time.

I don’t have time to write a tome in response.

Maybe instead you ought to read a f*#king history book for once.

SusanA posted “Jody” and a link to Jody’s bikini thread on Grossman’s SPAMMERS thread and then Jody and his bikini thread got the chop that evening. She then deleted her post on the SPAMMERS thread to erase the evidence.

Her post was on this page, before it disappeared.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=892624&tn=840

imminent domain

Perhaps the most traitorous of the whole time was hawkish Lincoln himself, because he was just fine with spilling the blood of 600,000 Americans in order to FORCE people who did not want to participate in HIS form of government anymore.

Of course, I have a desire to just skim MB1's "Walls of Words,"

Of course, I am weak on my reading Southern histories of the American Civil War.

Perhaps MB1 can quote the source, but I'm betting he can't.

perhaps the most traitorous of the whole time