• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"Offensive" passage in a Confederate book displayed in Republican congressman Drew Ferguson's office

HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
At least according to members of The American Federation of Government Employees Union, who were there to meet with the congressman. The book, "General Robert Edward Lee; Soldier, Citizen and Christian Patriot, written in 1897 was on display in the congressman's office. Octavius Miller, a representative of the union who was in Ferguson's office at the time, told CNN that he noticed the book displayed in a glass case while waiting in the reception area. The following passage is what got the attention of Octavius...
"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially, and physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a race, and, I hope, will prepare and lead them to better things."
Click to expand...

The congressman's chief of staff is claiming he didn't know the book was there. Make your own judgement

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...derate-books-racially-offensive-passage-about
 
Love how "offensive" is in quotation marks lol. That word has become a joke simply because everyone finds everything offensive. It has no real meaning anymore.

Anyhow, regardless of if you find it "offensive", do you believe that the quote is mistaken? If so do you care to explain?
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Love how "offensive" is in quotation marks lol. That word has become a joke simply because everyone finds everything offensive. It has no real meaning anymore.

Anyhow, regardless of if you find it "offensive", do you believe that the quote is mistaken? If so do you care to explain?
Click to expand...
The quote is from Octavius Miller. He took a picture of the page.

Just curious, forget "offended" for a second because I think I know your answer, what is your opinion of the passage on its own?
 
WelshBloke said:
"The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a race..."

Seriously?! You need that explained to you?
Click to expand...

I'm mostly referring to the first portion: "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially, and physically. "

Of course - one major factor is what timeline you're referring to though.
 
A book on General Lee wouldn't be all that surprising. The book was written in 1897? But the quote you highlight from it talks about slavery as a present tense. So what is the full context, exactly? Is it a quote from someone? From a confederate? From General Lee himself? Or from the author? Would seem awfully strange to say "The painful discipline they are undergoing" in 1897.

The questionable context and meaning aside, are we book burning anything from the bygone era? Why would its existence be shameful? You focus on a single line from it, though I suspect a book written in 1897 has MANY offenses. I imagine it was put forward in its glass case for another reason. The Congressman must have liked or otherwise found what it said of General Lee as notable and/or worthy of display.

See, it's a book, but you are essentially having us judge it by its cover, or in this case a single sentence. Yet the line seems out of place in 1897 and that quote is probably not the endorsing reason for it being present in the first place.
 
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

Wow...that's a new level. "Guys, offensive doesn't mean anything, so this guy having a book turned to a page that says blacks are better here as slaves and that its for their own good so they can be instructed as a race on how to act like decent human beings, that's not actually offensive because everyone finds everything offensive! Also, regardless of if you think its offensive, kinda have to agree, don't ya? Er, I mean explain so I can pretend that I'm actually interested in discussion and not just being a trolling dumbfuck."

Gee, just cannot figure out why people might portray you as sorta racist and kinda a dipshit.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

Wow...that's a new level. "Guys, offensive doesn't mean anything, so this guy having a book turned to a page that says blacks are better here as slaves and that its for their own good so they can be instructed as a race on how to act like decent human beings, that's not actually offensive because everyone finds everything offensive! Also, regardless of if you think its offensive, kinda have to agree, don't ya? Er, I mean explain so I can pretend that I'm actually interested in discussion and not just being a trolling dumbfuck."

Gee, just cannot figure out why people might portray you as sorta racist and kinda a dipshit.
Click to expand...
Republicans on 2 occasions I remember openly opined about the good ole' days of slavery and how it was much better for blacks. It was during the CPAC conference.
 
Also history is history. I honestly don't care if someone reads a sentence from a book and gets butt-hurt. Now If he had this book opened with this quote highlighted with a racist comment that was sitting next to his Klan robe, then I might be more alarmed.
 
Jaskalas said:
A book on General Lee wouldn't be all that surprising. The book was written in 1897? But the quote you highlight from it talks about slavery as a present tense. So what is the full context, exactly? Is it a quote from someone? From a confederate? From General Lee himself? Or from the author? Would seem awfully strange to say "The painful discipline they are undergoing" in 1897.
Click to expand...
It's a quote from a letter Lee wrote to his wife in 1856.

Note that I don't have any information as to how the quote was being used in the book in question, but I recognized the quote itself from discussions I've had about Lee's feelings on slavery.
 
Last edited:
I'm not buying the idea that he can have no connection to something he put in a display case turned to a specific page. I'd say the more plausible defense would be to pick a different paragraph on the page and claim that was his interest.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Love how "offensive" is in quotation marks lol. That word has become a joke simply because everyone finds everything offensive. It has no real meaning anymore.

Anyhow, regardless of if you find it "offensive", do you believe that the quote is mistaken? If so do you care to explain?
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't think you'd admit so readily to being racist.

Of course it's mistaken. It states, with no ambiguity, that black people were better off in slavery and subjugation in the US than they were as free, independent people in Africa. It states that black people needed to be 'elevated' by whites.

Do you accept the truth that those views are wrong, or are you going to try and defend a racist Confederate leader?
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Also history is history. I honestly don't care if someone reads a sentence from a book and gets butt-hurt. Now If he had this book opened with this quote highlighted with a racist comment that was sitting next to his Klan robe, then I might be more alarmed.
Click to expand...

This isn't a book on his shelf that they thumbed through. It was in a display case turned to this page.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Also history is history. I honestly don't care if someone reads a sentence from a book and gets butt-hurt. Now If he had this book opened with this quote highlighted with a racist comment that was sitting next to his Klan robe, then I might be more alarmed.
Click to expand...
You still haven't said what you think of the actual passage.

Also that book is almost 600 pages. Think is is a coincidence that's the page put on display?
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Love how "offensive" is in quotation marks lol. That word has become a joke simply because everyone finds everything offensive. It has no real meaning anymore.

Anyhow, regardless of if you find it "offensive", do you believe that the quote is mistaken? If so do you care to explain?
Click to expand...


It's weird how no matter how much I lower my expectations some of the right-wingers on here still manage to surprise me by going beneath the floor. It's like a political Escher staircase, that keeps on going downward.
 
interchange said:
This isn't a book on his shelf that they thumbed through. It was in a display case turned to this page.
Click to expand...

Oh, I had missed that in the OP. Hard to mistake the meaning then. There had better be some damn good excuse for that particular display. In this context, I believe no apology is acceptable without an adequate motive for the display. An alternative, better, context for that particular page. Short of that, the racist meaning is clear.
 
Jaskalas said:
Oh, I had missed that in the OP. Hard to mistake the meaning then. There had better be some damn good excuse for that particular display. In this context, I believe no apology is acceptable without an adequate motive for the display. An alternative, better, context for that particular page. Short of that, the racist meaning is clear.
Click to expand...
Well, a good explanation would be if that particular page just happened to be the midpoint of the book, which would be a natural spot for a book to be open to when displayed in a case. I'll bet the Congressman probably never even read the book--just wanted to some "cool Confederacy stuff" to decorate his office with.
 
UNCjigga said:
Well, a good explanation would be if that particular page just happened to be the midpoint of the book, which would be a natural spot for a book to be open to when displayed in a case. I'll bet the Congressman probably never even read the book--just wanted to some "cool Confederacy stuff" to decorate his office with.
Click to expand...


Still a heck of a stretch. There's a wide range of pages that would constitute 'the middle bit' of a book. Of course, maybe that book has obnoxious sentiments expressed on every other page and if it wasn't this one it would be something else? In which case wouldn't one think twice about decorating an office with it?
 
HomerJS said:
Republicans on 2 occasions I remember openly opined about the good ole' days of slavery and how it was much better for blacks. It was during the CPAC conference.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm well aware of this viewpoint of Republicans and conservatives. It is not a rare sentiment if you have to spend much time around them. Its often predated by, "I'm not racist, but..." or "I hate people pulling the race card, but by the way..." or "I don't look at people by their race, but you have to admit..."

Don't forget when conservatives were tripping over their dicks to portray the Grand Dragon of the Bundy Klan as some great conservative hero, only to have him decide to opine on race in America.
 
ewdotson said:
It's a quote from a letter Lee wrote to his wife in 1856.

Note that I don't have any information as to how the quote was being used in the book in question, but I recognized the quote itself from discussions I've had about Lee's feelings on slavery.
Click to expand...


I only recently heard a podcast about General Grant, and was actually pleasantly surprised to find he was a lifelong firm abolitionist. I had kind-of assumed fighting the war was just a 'job' to him, or purely about patriotism, but was intrigued to realise he actually believed in the cause. So Lee was ideologically just as firmly in the other camp, then?

(I guess this all this is absolutely common knowledge to Americans, but I never read up on it much before, beyond Thurber's "If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox" which was the first thing relating to the civil war I ever read).

Grant sounded like a fascinating chap. Terrible with money, I gather.
 
pmv said:
I only recently heard a podcast about General Grant, and was actually pleasantly surprised to find he was a lifelong firm abolitionist. I had kind-of assumed fighting the war was just a 'job' to him, or purely about patriotism, but was intrigued to realise he actually believed in the cause. So Lee was ideologically just as firmly in the other camp, then?

(I guess this all this is absolutely common knowledge to Americans, but I never read up on it much before, beyond Thurber's "If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox" which was the first thing relating to the civil war I ever read).

Grant sounded like a fascinating chap. Terrible with money, I gather.
Click to expand...
There are Confederate apologists who will insist that Lee was anti-slavery and only fought for love of Virginia. It's a really hard argument to support though. For example, they'll cite that he never owned slaves himself - ignoring that his wife did and that he took a personal interest in overseeing them. I think the best evidence is that he was *very* "white man's burden". Which was common enough for the era, not that that's a true defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top