‘Silent Sam’ Confederate Statue

[Jhhnn]

They would have burned the northern cities, desecrated the US Constitution, and enslaved the free black folk just as surely as Hitler would have murdered the remaining Jews in Europe. They had designs on the enslaving Caribbean too.

I think that's projection. Other than that I'm in agreement.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No, those are the ACTUAL facts of the Civil War as evidenced by the statements from the participating southern states.

Don't do this, all respect is lost if you deny that the main reason and for some states the ONLY stated reason was to keep slaves becasue this is beyond question.

I am not denying it. I don’t subscribe to Lost Cause revisionism. I came to know the generals of the Civil War, both north and south, as celebrated military commanders, so I tend to approach this conversation from a different perspective.

The state militias of the time and its officers were loyal to their states to an extent that is simply unrelatable today. The notion of state loyalty is foreign to contemporary Americans .

Take James Longstreet for example. He did not support slavery, but felt compelled to support secession due to state loyalty and a belief in state’s rights independent of slavery.

Also, take Sherman for example. He was not an abolitionist nor did he support equality for freed slaves, yet he served with distinction in the Union Army. Some would argue that the Confederacy received leniency, especially its officers, because many Union leaders were somewhat sympathetic to the south.

Finally, had there not been a Civil War, we would be celebrating generals like Lee and Longstreet as heroes of the American campaigns of Manifest Destiny against Mexico and Native American tribes...campaigns with significant white supremacist undertones.

So yes, the Civil War was about slavery, but that is also a simplistic way to frame it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Trying to make the reasons for the civil war more complicated just sounds like an opportunity to obfuscate and make the Confederate cause more noble than it was.

Historical context is not obfuscation. It just doesn’t support a particular narrative.

They fought for slavery under a white supremacist banner.

And the banner many of those same generals fought under in the campaigns of Manifest Destiny?

They would have burned the northern cities, desecrated the US Constitution, and enslaved the free black folk just as surely as Hitler would have murdered the remaining Jews in Europe. They had designs on the enslaving Caribbean too.

Doubtful, except maybe the part about designs for conquering the Caribbean.

 

[Bitek]

I think that's projection. Other than that I'm in agreement.

It's alt history, sure, but why would they have just stopped at DC? Would the North surrender, or keep fighting from Philly, NY and Boston, etc?

Any reason slavery wouldn't have extended into the West? How long would slavery have endured? Into the 20th century?

Could a divided America defeated Germany in the world wars? Would we have even ended up on the same side? Is it reasonable to think a slave holding 20th century South would have allied with liberal, democratic UK and France, or fascist, eugenic Axis powers?

How much longer could the butchery have endured?

Thankfully well never know the answer as the bad guys lost.

 

[Jhhnn]

And the banner many of those same generals fought under in the campaigns of Manifest Destiny?

At the time, that banner was also the banner of slavery. The Union invaded Mexico to protect their claim on the slave state of Texas & to claim all the southwest & California. Before that, the 1836 war of Texas independence was over slavery. Mexico outlawed slavery in 1829 & set out to enforce that wrt Anglo Texas planters.

 

[Starbuck1975]

At the time, that banner was also the banner of slavery. The Union invaded Mexico to protect their claim on the slave state of Texas & to claim all the southwest & California. Before that, the 1836 war of Texas independence was over slavery. Mexico outlawed slavery in 1829 & set out to enforce that wrt Anglo Texas planters.

You just made my point. Most of the generals of the Confederacy fought in wars or campaigns under an American flag to promote or sustain slavery, specifically Texas and the westward expansion.

What changed between the 1840s (Mexican War) and 1860s (Civil War) that accelerated the cause of abolition in the north but not the south?

It was the Irish potato famine of the 1840s and European indentured servitude that resulted in mass waves of cheap immigrant labor to the industrialized north that eliminated the need for slaves. The agrarian south did not benefit from these immigration waves and were still economically dependent on slavery. Some of the most vocal proponents of secession, in Virginia especially, were those whose wealth and fortunes were tied to the slave trade.

There was a socio-economic resolution to the prevent the Civil War.

 

[senseamp]

That is an unsurprisingly myopic understanding of the Civil War.

I am sorry, it was fought over states "right" to allow slavery. Happy now?

 

[senseamp]

You just made my point. Most of the generals of the Confederacy fought in wars or campaigns under an American flag to promote or sustain slavery, specifically Texas and the westward expansion.

What changed between the 1840s (Mexican War) and 1860s (Civil War) that accelerated the cause of abolition in the north but not the south?

It was the Irish potato famine of the 1840s and European indentured servitude that resulted in mass waves of cheap immigrant labor to the industrialized north that eliminated the need for slaves. The agrarian south did not benefit from these immigration waves and were still economically dependent on slavery. Some of the most vocal proponents of secession, in Virginia especially, were those whose wealth and fortunes were tied to the slave trade.

There was a socio-economic resolution to the prevent the Civil War.

The South never misses an opportunity to be backward. Clinging on to slavery, then clinging on to white supremacy, and now clinging on to monuments to the above. How about being forward thinking for a change and not being dragged into modernity kicking and screaming as always?

 

[Jhhnn]

You just made my point. Most of the generals of the Confederacy fought in wars or campaigns under an American flag to promote or sustain slavery, specifically Texas and the westward expansion.

What changed between the 1840s (Mexican War) and 1860s (Civil War) that accelerated the cause of abolition in the north but not the south?

It was the Irish potato famine of the 1840s and European indentured servitude that resulted in mass waves of cheap immigrant labor to the industrialized north that eliminated the need for slaves. The agrarian south did not benefit from these immigration waves and were still economically dependent on slavery. Some of the most vocal proponents of secession, in Virginia especially, were those whose wealth and fortunes were tied to the slave trade.

There was a socio-economic resolution to the prevent the Civil War.

That's bullshit. Slavery ended in the north prior to 1840.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's bullshit. Slavery ended in the north prior to 1840.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states

It’s not bullshit. The north gradually eliminated slavery, enabled and offset by waves of laborers from places like Ireland. It would also explain the lingering animosity between Irish and African American communities, as newly freed slaves were now competing for jobs with economic refugees from Europe.

 

[fskimospy]

While it’s impossible to know what the South would have done with the North had it somehow won in a general sense you can be confident they would have engaged in the mass enslavement of black people because that’s what they actually did when they came across free black people in northern territory they occupied.

We should never forget what absolute human monsters made up the confederacy. The fact that we have any monuments to people who fought for that regime is a national disgrace.

 

[Jaskalas]

So yes, the Civil War was about slavery, but that is also a simplistic way to frame it.

It's a simplistic way to frame the people involved, particularly our military.

Honoring our fellow Americans for their service was part of the peace offering. Reunification was a pretty big deal, it wasn't just granted - it had to be earned. Part of that was the respect of being our fellow Americans again. Not traitors. But our brothers and sisters.

 

[senseamp]

Anyways, the Silent Sam problem appears solved. On to the next.

 

[Jaskalas]

Anyways, the Silent Sam problem appears solved. On to the next.

Oh, I know the next one! Tear down those slave owners!

 

[Starbuck1975]

I am sorry, it was fought over states "right" to allow slavery. Happy now?

No, because that isn’t the point. Again, you are trying to distill into simple sound bytes something that has layers of complexity.

 

[Starbuck1975]

We should never forget what absolute human monsters made up the confederacy.

Were they monsters when they fought for American interests, mainly the perpetuation of slavery, during the Mexican War, the war during which many Union and Confederate officers honed their craft...ultimately using the same playbooks against one another during the Civil War to achieve unprecedented battlefield carnage

 

[Josephus312]

I am not denying it. I don’t subscribe to Lost Cause revisionism. I came to know the generals of the Civil War, both north and south, as celebrated military commanders, so I tend to approach this conversation from a different perspective.

The state militias of the time and its officers were loyal to their states to an extent that is simply unrelatable today. The notion of state loyalty is foreign to contemporary Americans .

Take James Longstreet for example. He did not support slavery, but felt compelled to support secession due to state loyalty and a belief in state’s rights independent of slavery.

Also, take Sherman for example. He was not an abolitionist nor did he support equality for freed slaves, yet he served with distinction in the Union Army. Some would argue that the Confederacy received leniency, especially its officers, because many Union leaders were somewhat sympathetic to the south.

Finally, had there not been a Civil War, we would be celebrating generals like Lee and Longstreet as heroes of the American campaigns of Manifest Destiny against Mexico and Native American tribes...campaigns with significant white supremacist undertones.

So yes, the Civil War was about slavery, but that is also a simplistic way to frame it.

So, basically if they hadn't done what they did we'd be celebrating them?

They did what they did and fought aginst the US of A as traitors to the nation and the idea of equality.

Now the statues were not built to remember them for their duties in Manifest Destiny at all and you know that.

How about OBL, an excellent tactician, why not put a statue of him on the WTC grounds so we can remember history? He helped the US before he went terrorist just like your beloved southern Generals.

 

[fskimospy]

Were they monsters when they fought for American interests, mainly the perpetuation of slavery, during the Mexican War, the war during which many Union and Confederate officers honed their craft...ultimately using the same playbooks against one another during the Civil War to achieve unprecedented battlefield carnage

I don’t know when they became monsters and it doesn’t really matter. Nazis weren’t always monsters either and the confederacy is a lot closer to Nazi Germany than most people are comfortable admitting.

What we know is in the end they made a choice to fight for a cause whose explicit stated purpose was to perpetuate race based enslavement of other human beings. Whether they believed in slavery or not doesn’t really matter, the cause they fought for was evil.

 

[Blackjack200]

Oh, I know the next one! Tear down those slave owners!

OOOOH, GOT EM!

There's nothing funnier then the idea that Mt. Rushmore or the people that are on it should be venerated.

 

[senseamp]

Oh, I know the next one! Tear down those slave owners!

I am sure the relevant folks will find something more local and Confederate

 

[senseamp]

No, because that isn’t the point. Again, you are trying to distill into simple sound bytes something that has layers of complexity.

Complexity that does not and should not take away from the fact that the Civil War was fought because the South wanted to keep slavery. Just because they had economic reasons or Northern sympathizers provides context but does not alter the underlying reason for the Civil War.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

Yes, next up, let's ensure that a statue of OBL is raised on the grounds of the WTC, dont' you fucking whine about it either, it's there so you don't forget your fucking history AND a piece of art.

I am unafraid of art and would be ok with any new installations.

 

[Blackjack200]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...confederate-flags_us_5b856016e4b0162f471cb9ea

Pareene. A real one.

 

[Alpha One Seven]

I fly the Gadsden flag at our home.

 

[Jhhnn]

I fly the Gadsden flag at our home.

So what? It never was a symbol of the Confederacy or Jim Crow.