Chop the Confederacy, now?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 101 - 120 of total 141 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Jan 24, 2019 - 08:28pm PT
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.

Really? Racism and slavery were THE primary reasons we even know their names and why their images are carved into stone. The 'historical realities' are well documented in their own words in the Declarations of Secession in which they state their frame of mind and beliefs clearly and without ambiguity. Not conflating the "Confederacy" with racism and slavery is the torturous revisionism the South has engaged in since the end of the Civil War.

apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jan 24, 2019 - 08:57pm PT
"But many (most) Confederacy monuments were erected much later--seventy, eighty, ninety, one hundred years. Let's face it, these later so-called monuments were put up to remind, badger, intimidate southern blacks who were doing little more than demanding their Constitutional rights long overdue. I have no problem tearing down twentieth century monuments to intimidation."


Works for me!
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jan 24, 2019 - 11:49pm PT
Stunningly stupid.

More frequent blackouts.

Extreme weather induced catastrophes.

Welcome to the new normal.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 25, 2019 - 09:41am PT
The revisionists posting earlier to this thread are stunningly stupid.

Actually, what is stunningly stupid is how superficial of a perspective is willfully maintained by those who see just what they are looking for everywhere they look.

For example, regarding Joe's post, wow. Just wow. So, Mississippi apparently just EQUALS the "Confederacy" and ALL it stood for, and the war apparently was ALL and ONLY about slavery. Just look! That's exactly what Mississippi SAYS! Wowwwww.

Joe, are you aware that of ALL the ordinances of separation ultimately passed by the 11 seceding States and Territories, only six mentioned slavery? So, just half of the seceding entities assert that slavery was even A factor in their decision. And of the 6 that mention slavery, half of those mention it as A factor among many, with slavery being cited as an ECONOMIC issue.

Without exception ALL of the ordinances revolve around federal overreach, and various federal policies were WIDELY considered overreach and even unconstitutional throughout the North as well!

So, your totally superficial citation of Mississippi as THE OBVIOUS motivation for secession is literally not sustained by the totality of secession documents. But, again, you see what you're looking for.

See, nobody here is arguing that slavery wasn't AN issue. What at least I am arguing is that to paint the "Confederacy" and ONLY the "Confederacy" with the "racist/slavery" brush, so as to paint the Stone Mountain monument AS a monument to racism, is literally bizarre!

I guess we should tear down the Lincoln memorial in DC! Lincoln was NOT a great and honorable man, and more than, say, Stonewall Jackson was. Lincoln was a racist prick who actually tried to get Congress to pass a bill to segregate ALL the darkies into a colony on some island somewhere.

And here's what the "hero" Lincoln thought about all those darkies:

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform-opposition to the spread of slavery-is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization."

Just imagine a President saying something even in that DIRECTION today.

Oh, wait. You can't thus imagine. Because you have NO interest in interpreting events and causes in the CONTEXT of the times.

And as soon as he became President, Lincoln stated: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races."

The litany of anti-negro and full-on racist comments and writings by Lincoln is legion!

So, we'd better tear down EVERY monument to that racist prick!

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.

It is NOT "revisionism" to recognize that the schism between the North and South had been building for DECADES prior to the split, and THE issue was economic rather than "about" slavery. Lincoln clearly USED the slavery issue in an attempt to economically cripple the South and bring them to heel.

THE issue was that if the South actually seceded, the loss of revenue and agricultural products from the South would be devastating. Moreover, and VERY importantly, the Southern coastal States had flatly said that they intended to open their ports to international trade WITHOUT TARIFFS. That move alone would have economically crippled the North, and it would have opened the floodgates of European products onto this continent without Northern protectionistic tariffs.

The fundamental issue was a complicated set of economic skirmishes that highlighted the VAST differences between the urban/industrial North and the agricultural South. Slavery was economically necessary to the South, which is why it became a strategic point as the separation neared.

But to cast "heroes" of the North as gods of equality, and the "evil bastards" of the South as, well evil bastards, is ridiculously narrow-minded and actually an amazingly revisionist account of the complexities of that time!

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.

I repeat: Lincoln himself wanted to solve the problem by offshoring all the former slaves onto some island colony somewhere. Integration was the LAST thing on his mind!

What's "revisionist" AND stupid is to assert that Lincoln and the North were the good guys, and all and only the South were the bad guys.

So, yeah, go ahead and tear down every "racist" monument. But don't stop in the South! You've got LOTS of work to do in the North as well. Or, you could just mellow out and realize that it was a terrible time for the ENTIRE nation, and there are no clear-cut "heroes" or clear-cut "demons" on either side.
Lituya

Mountain climber
Jan 25, 2019 - 09:46am PT
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.

I find this is still true today--with modern American liberals holding onto their own peculiar brand of smug, paternal racism. IMO, far more insidious than the in-your-face brand you occasionally find on the right.

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.

And who could forget his Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in Confederate states he had no control over at the time--but exempted the northern slave states of Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri.

Hypocrisy then, hypocrisy now.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Jan 25, 2019 - 10:38am PT
Could not agree more.

I live in the land of Frederick Douglass and The Underground Railroad.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jan 25, 2019 - 10:46am PT

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

I don't think there's an easy answer on this one. IMO for a lot of the monuments you could move them to a museum where people could visit them, and either learn from the past, appreciate the history/artwork, etc. They could be put in context. Generally I'm favor of removing reminders of pro-slavery forces from public spaces where they may be terribly offensive to some people, but I'm not in favor of destroying them. Of course in this case we can't do that. So what to do? I like the idea of leaving it since it's historical and protected, but adding something to put it in context and show this was the past, today we believe in freedom and equality for all people.

Kind of like this...

















































artist who proposed to add Outkast :-)


EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Jan 25, 2019 - 10:56am PT
Herschend Family Entertainment still has 25 years on its Stone mountain lease. I wouldn't count on anything happening to the Confederate Memorial before their lease is up.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 25, 2019 - 11:38am PT
But please, stop with the wall of words excuse-making.

Nobody is "making excuses" or denying that slavery was front and center in the whole debacle.

What I can't abide is the simple-minded "Sooo Good vs. Sooo Bad" mantra that most people here are mindlessly chanting.

Lincoln was JUST AS EVIL as the people engraved on that monument that has everybody's panties in a wad. So, either tear down the Lincoln memorial along with the Stone Mountain one, or just acknowledge the actual fact, which is....

Human beings, myself included are a varying-proportional mix of goodness, greatness, and evil. And we are ALL in significant respects products of our times. Singling most people out for special condemnation and painting them with broad and simple-minded strokes is, flatly, ridiculous. There have been VERY few purely evil people in history, and Stonewall Jackson was NOT one of them.

So, mellow out and park the hobby horse it its stall.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 25, 2019 - 11:39am PT
Proof it was done on rappel, not ground up! Chop it!

Finally, there's an argument with a solid foundation in objective morality! Excellent!
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Jan 25, 2019 - 11:56am PT
So is saying the north was full of racist bastards,was that a broad brush by a simple mind?

The Underground Railroad happened in the north,if they were caught in the south they were hanged. Once they reached here they were accepted and protected.

Did the south do that?

Lincoln had his faults ,for sure,but abolition was supported here,regardless of who was their leader.

And , I am not saying there are no racist up here,in fact a statue of Frederick Douglass ,near his home in Rochester,has been vandalized a few times in the last two years.

#therearegoodpeopleonbothsides
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 25, 2019 - 12:11pm PT
BTW, good points, Lituya, imo.

DMT, your "traitor" line indicates nothing more than the fact that such terms get to be defined by the winners.

Just be aware that Lincoln's advisors, almost to a man, including his leading generals, urged upon him the sentiment: "If our Southern brothers wish to depart, let us not spill blood, but instead let them peacefully go."

General Scott explicitly told Lincoln: "Let the wayward sisters depart in peace."

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. And he himself had earlier denied the very principles upon which he took up arms against the South.

Lincoln gave a speech in the House during the Mexican/American war (12 years prior to becoming President) in which he said:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right — a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

And the MAJORITY of the framers (federalist and anti-federalist alike), as well as essentially all of the signers to the constitution expressed like mind. The idea that you can legitimately FORCE a group of people to "stay with you," whether they want to or not, is anathema to the very principles of our founding.

Lincoln's hypocrisy was in believing in the right of secession prior to when it really mattered to HIM, and then swapping ends on the very issue of forcing people (by killing them off in mass quantities!) to stay with a form of government that they had rejected decades earlier.

So, "traitor" is a very strong word, once the entire context is carefully considered. Or, you could stick with the superficial interpretation and go with "history is written by the winners."
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 25, 2019 - 12:15pm PT
wilbeer, I'm advocating not painting EITHER to North OR the South with such broad brushes.

There was a massive evil, and the vast majority of people in the North didn't care. They were NOT behind the civil war. You can cherry pick out some "good guys" in the North and some "bad guys" in the South.

But read that de Tocqueville quote again. The North was chock-full of racists, indeed the vast majority of them.

As with the Revolutionary War, and as with today, MOST people just want to get on with their lives, and they are not about to "get involved," even politically, in "the issues of the time." History almost always gets decided by a tiny minority of zealots!

I'm just advocating to take a broader view and not cherry-pick who the "evil ones" are according to caricature!
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jan 25, 2019 - 12:24pm PT
That's where I used to climb in the 1950s. Right up around the horse's hoofs. Creaky girders swaying in the wind.


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.

Just a tale from the backwoods.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 25, 2019 - 12:34pm PT
Thank you, John.

DMT:

Oh, good! My work is done here.

LOL... well played. :-)
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Jan 25, 2019 - 01:29pm PT
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???
SusanA

Sport climber
Bay Area
Jan 25, 2019 - 01:33pm PT
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.

You saw no vestiges of racism, in Alabama, six years before Martin Luther King was murdered?

Because you had a white friend that had a "neatly attired" black friend?

Dear Lord, please help us!
SusanA

Sport climber
Bay Area
Jan 25, 2019 - 01:41pm PT
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???

The mayor of Atlanta has been a Democrat since 1879.

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

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jan 25, 2019 - 02:03pm PT
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.
SusanA

Sport climber
Bay Area
Jan 25, 2019 - 02:30pm PT
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.

No Reilly, it is an honest question and one you have not answered. There is street crime in Chicago, much of it committed by African Americans. But there are no race riots or Charlottesville style Klan gatherings there.

There was one recent high profile incident of a white cop murdering an African American in Chicago, but that happens everywhere and far too often in many American cities, including the south.

I don't exactly get why the white old men like to bash Chicago but you all trying to convince yourselves everything is cool because there is no racism in the south is comical and sad.
Messages 101 - 120 of total 141 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta