Can’t be said any better. I would only amend that it’s not “The North” that won’t let it go. It’s the Left that won’t let it go.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. When Industry found ways to make machines more capable than slaves, it would have ended in the South due to simple economics. The combustion engine made one farmer more productive than 100 slaves, if not more.
Much of the South was like Lee, and was morally opposed to slavery. However opposed they were, they had mouths to feed. Thanks to the economic oppression from the North, there was not much alternative.
I MIGHT agree IF you can find for us ONE person alive today who was “victimized” by American State-approved slavery. Until you can do that, leave the monuments ALONE!
Do you think it’s alright to tell a Jew who didn’t live through the holocaust, to support a statue of Heinrich Himmler?
What of modern-day Koreans of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the man who lead the invasion of Korea in the 1600s, killing over 1 million of their people?
I suspect you have a double-standard Dave.
Supposition. I’m with Mom; there’s more than a little power trip with slave owning.
Money or religion drives all wars through history.
We’re not discussing Himmler or Hideyoshi here, AS. Nice try at deflection, though.
Hey Slim, if your tired of beating a dead horse in this thread, there is a new one on the President’s common sense legal immigration reform. You can update us all with the Chamber of Commerce and Club for Growth party line on why it is a disaster.http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f10/president-trump-carries-through-america-first-immigration-policy-51689/#post778433
I never said you did…but I have run into and I daresay here. FROM northerners and with subtlety cause they think we’re too stupid to get it. HOWEVER…I hear it all the time in the media, in textbooks, from politicians, the entertainment elite and others.
it is my money that pays for these statues. It is my money that pays for this land that the government calls theirs. WE do it on our own damn dime. How else do you think these things were paid for. Now. I’ve got a request. You damn yanks stay home and stop telling us what we can and can’t do about the confederate flags and monuments to southern heroes.
The second war for independence is long over. When does the south get to stop paying reparations by enduring insults and revisionist history.
Now let me ask you something…how 'bout politicians and northerners stop requiring my tax money AGAINST MY MORALS and beliefs to fund pornographic, obscene, insulting anti-Christian ‘art’. USE your own money for THAT and keep it off public land. Quit forcing me to fund ‘monuments’ to America haters and those that would oppress me more if it were openly legal. You want pisschrist and Madonna in dung. DO IT ON YOUR OWN DIME.
You’re not the Federal Government, you’re not every Federal Taxpayer. To insinuate otherwise would be dishonest.
Do it with your own money that you raise with volunteers, no more taxpayer subsidies.
> Now. I’ve got a request.
You’re taking taxpayer money from people in the North, and other parts of the country to build those statues. My request is to kindly Knock it off.
> You damn yanks stay home and stop telling us what we can
If you’re using my money to do it? I will tell you, and I’am clearly in my right to do so.
If you don’t want my voice, stop taking other people’s money. It’s that simple. As an American, you should know not to do that anyway.
If they’re my party line, then you’re giving me license to freely call yours fascism.
The reasoning is the same; you conveniently want the same thing, so you must come from their camp.
Is that how you want things to go old dog? Or do you honestly fail to realize that the Chamber of Commerce isn’t a voice for free markets?
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”
“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races…I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position…Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals.”
No reasonable person can possibly deny Lincoln’s staunch and vociferous advocacy of apartheid and white supremacy. On 17 July 1858, he said: “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” And in the fourth of his debates with Douglas (on 18 September), he vowed: “I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes.” Lincoln enthusiastically supported the Illinois Constitution, which at that time prohibited the emigration of black people into the state; he also backed the infamous Illinois Black Codes, which deprived the small number of free blacks residing within the state any semblance of citizenship; and he applauded the Fugitive Slave Act (1850), which compelled Northerners to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners.
“The prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists.”
Alexis de Tocqueville
This already came up. As pointed out, Alfonzo Rachel refutes this point beautifully, by showing what Lincoln’s opponents were saying of him:
<div class=“lazyYT” data-youtube-id=“xryXpK042pQ” data-width=“480” data-height=“270” data-parameters=“feature=oembed&wmode=opaque”></div>
Lincoln was anti-slavery, a non-abolitionist, but his positions evolved over time. He used to support the Liberia idea, then gradually abandoned it. He said he wasn’t for equal rights, but then advocated that black soldiers be offered the right to vote.
Lincoln saw the Constitution as something intended to subvert, and tear down slavery overtime. He believed equally that this is what the Founders wanted, given that they had dismantled the international slave trade, and were the first to implement policies to prevent slavery’s spread to North-western territories.
Lincoln thought that slavery undermined the very fabric of the Republic, and that Africans at the very least had the right to the proceeds of their own labor, to self-govern, and to improve their condition. None of which Douglas or his other Southern opponents believed in.
> “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races…I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position…Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals.”
> Abraham Lincoln
Since you list this quote, let me show you how its begins:
> Mr. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and otherwise a chief actor in the revolution; then a delegate in Congress; afterwards twice President; who was, is, and perhaps will continue to be, the most distinguished politician of our history; a Virginian by birth and continued residence, and withal, a slave-holder; conceived the idea of taking that occasion, to prevent slavery ever going into the north-western territory. He prevailed on the Virginia Legislature to adopt his views, and to cede the territory, making the prohibition of slavery therein, a condition of the deed. Congress accepted the cession, with the condition; and in the first Ordinance (which the acts of Congress were then called) for the government of the territory, provided that slavery should never be permitted therein. This is the famed ordinance of ‘87 so often spoken of. Thenceforward, for sixty-one years, and until in 1848, the last scrap of this territory came into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all parties acted in quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what Jefferson foresaw and intended—the happy home of teeming millions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave amongst them…
> I can not but hate [the declared indifference for slavery’s spread]. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world – enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites – causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty – criticising [sic] the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.
> No reasonable person can possibly deny Lincoln’s staunch and vociferous advocacy of apartheid and white supremacy.
I don’t need to. Lincoln wasn’t even the topic. The topic is the moral aberration of forcing African-American to pay to build statues to their oppressors. Everyone here knows that this is wrong.
Personally, I don’t hold Lincoln up as a saint, just simply as someone who had good enough moral rectitude to see that slavery was evil, and sought to ensure that its gradual extinction would continue.
He didn’t see Negros as equals, but he did see them as men, and it bore on his conscious that so many were deprived of that recognition.
Despite his doubts on whether Negors could be on the same level as whites, he brought us closer to equality, to embracing the fuller meaning of the natural rights the Founders wanted. To the fuller meaning he believed God wanted everyone to affirm.
That is a far cry from the ideology of the South. One that claimed Negros, as an inferior race, deserved to be subjugated, and to remain there for all time. That the Founders were mistaken, and that they [the South] represented what God wanted for us all.
It’s the imperfect advocate vs the devil’s advocate. You can’t hide evil by being relativistic.
Power drives it, too.
I’m not deflecting the topic at all. You say it isn’t relevant because modern African-Americans didn’t live during slavery.
So I’am asking you straight: is it alright then to force other groups to build statues to people who tried to oppress them?
Is this ever correct Dave? Or are you simply being argumentative?
Is it “right” to force Christians to pay for, and “accept,” groups of people who HATE Christianity and Christians and vow to kill them if they refuse to convert, then? There are tens of thousands of things the government spends money on that they have NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do. The pittance that’s involved in allowing Confederate statues to remain on “public lands” should be the LEAST of these idiocies that we should concern ourselves with. I dare say that those who FAVOR those statues remaining FAR outnumber those who want them removed–at TAXPAYERS’ expense, by the way.
The original subject of this thread was confederate statues. I have no problem with that. Despite my disagreement with what actually happened, there were many good men among their leaders. I name specifically General Lee, and T.J. Jackson.
As far as who won’t let it go, this is the first thread on these topics that I have seen that wasn’t started by a Southerner. So much for who won’t let it go.
No, I’m completely fine with states rejecting refugees.
But I’m not fine with stopping people who want to house refugees voluntarily in their own homes and churches. That is rightfully their own decision to make.
Blocking them is just as bad as me forcing you to stop building a statue you were making with your own money, on your own land.
> There are tens of thousands of things the government spends money on that they have NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do.
Yes, and I say stop every bit of it. All of it.
Stand against all of it, at every turn. That’s what a conservative does. We’re against subisidies, propping up special interests, or people’s pet causes.
The Federal Government no more owes you statues of Jefferson Davis than Muslims funding to build a mosque.
> I dare say that those who FAVOR those statues remaining FAR outnumber those who want them removed
It doesn’t matter Dave; you’re still forcing people to pay for them. Popularity doesn’t make it less wrong.
More people speak for Ethanol subsidies than against them, that’s why they’ve remained for so long; it doesn’t justify their existence.
The Senator isn’t a Southerner? It’s all an act? :eusa_think: