"Let's bitch about Southern/Confederate History!" NSFW warning

For every single black man hanged one statue has to come down:

But you know what Johnny will say. He will say that the Sons of the Confederate Veterans is not about lynchings. It's about preserving historic markers like the civil war memorials. Why do you want to destroy history you damn bigoted liberal?

You need a better argument, KKS. Because a memorial all by itself really isn't a threat to anyone. It's just an old sculpture.

The argument I'm trying to make is this:

1. The rash of Confederate memorials were erected as part of an effort to hoodwink the public about civil war history.
2. A false civil war narrative has been used and is being used to normalize the idea that armed rebellion against the US government is a legitimate form of political action. Also white supremacy is perfectly reasonable.
3. The US has always had extremists at the margins of our political life but now those extremist voices are suddenly in the mainstream.
4. We must actively oppose the extremists with facts and rational argument. That means possibly removing or adding context to signifiers of false civil war narratives in our public places.

I've been struggling to explain why "preserving the Union" was such an imperative for many educated Americans in the 1800s. Yesterday I stumbled on a comment that makes the point pretty well:

BRB, fetching the Gettysburg Address. First let's put ourselves in the shoes of people acutely aware of the fragility of the "American experiment." Maybe goosebumps? I dunno. We shall see.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I've read more of Lincoln's words this past week than I did in school. There is something arresting about that man.

Care to explain your logic behind this?

And why the unnecessary size of the text in your message?

1911 was the 50th anniversary of the start of the war and 1961 was the 100th anniversary of the start of the war.

Has anyone even bothered to stop and think that those monuments were put up in commemoration?

Maybe you would do well to read these words of his as well.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm

I wish them worse than that... Buring in eternal hellfire would be nothing compared to what horrible suffering I have in mind...

Well looks like I don't have to say it then!

I can look at your link later. But really, I'm more interested what *you* think.

"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His [Jefferson Davis'] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason."~Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase: Vol. III 1974 Shelby Foote trilogy pg. 1035.

Of Lincoln?

I read Lincoln's words in the debate. From the vantage point of the present, these words are shameful and indefensible. But Lincoln, like all of us are, was a creature of his time.

I don't know whether Lincoln was shaping his words to suit his audience, or whether he genuinely could not grasp, in 1858, the concept that there was no honest reason to insist on the superiority of the 'white race'.

It may well be that, in order to achieve the goals he sought, Lincoln found it pragmatic or even necessary to appease his electorate. Politics is replete with such dirty deals and compromises.

It is debatable whether such pragmatism, in the long run, does more harm than good. Subsequent events suggest that it is questionable.

Well said.

A truck driver was killed during a crash when the city of Dallas sent a crane to remove the Robert E. Lee monument there....

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/...e-down-lee-statue-during-cowboys-game-9863362

Please don't say this is equal to Heather Heyer

The argument Chase was making was novel and, frankly, a bit crazy. He argued that the US had no citizens. Therefore, treason against the US was impossible.

Would Chase's argument have won if Davis' attorneys decided to use it? We will never know because Johnson pardoned him before his trial.

You want to make a point about something. But instead of stating your point in your own words you post a link. That strikes me as a weasel. You should state your point and copypasta the bit from your link that illuminates your point.

I don't know if your point is about Lincoln or something else because I do not have ESP.

I don't have time to read a whole big thing right now.

From VanAllen's post it looks like Lincoln said whites were intellectually and morally superior to blacks. That is hardly surprising. Find me someone from that era who argued that whites and blacks were equals intellectually and morally. I would be curious about the evidence used to support that position. Certainly whites contributed more to science, technology, literature, and the arts up to that point.

The people in my college class were intellectually superior to the people in my high school class. But I never supported the idea that my high school peers ought to be enslaved.

Similarly, plenty of abolitionists viewed blacks as more limited intellectually yet still thought slavery was horrible.

Lincoln was opposed to slavery. But he was even more opposed to the loss of the "American experiment." Some revisionists try to argue that Lincoln was a hypocrite or talked out of both sides of his mouth. Maybe that is where you are going. But I'm not seeing a contradiction.

The case against Jefferson Davis was weird. Important documents had a habit of going missing.

It's unusual for a judge about to preside over a criminal matter to go out of his way to assist attorneys working for the defense by suggesting legal arguments. And c'mon, look at that argument and tell me it isn't nuts:

1. The US constitution doesn't define US citizenship.
2. Therefore treason against the US is impossible.

I say "nuts" because every country that has ever existed understands that traitors are real and not imaginary threats.

Chase's argument reminds me of a 5th grader future lawyer arguing, "Ma, I know you said I couldn't watch TV. But you didn't say I couldn't *listen* to TV."

I'm guessing Chase had to deal with death threats. Lucky for him that Johnson got him off the hook.

That Arizona monument was put up by the "United Daughters of the Confederacy," a group that reminds me very much of Scientology. Very militant, self-righteous, not grounded in facts, willing to use threats and intimidation against critics, politically ambitious, likes to get academics fired, pays for fake academics to create a veneer of scholarship used to fool the public. The UDC are an intellectual cancer.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/may/07/news/mn-27481
There has been racism in the Thomas Jefferson family foundation that looks after Monticello.

I'm sure the UDC are far worse than the DAR.

After the civil war when many southerners were broke as fuck, it was strangely easy to raise large sums if you asked people to donate to a memorial for fallen Confederate soldiers. Pride, patriotism, and not wanting to seem like a complete dick were powerful motivations to give. And thus the birth of a major charity scam.

In service to the scam the UDC re-wrote history, painting the Confederates as victims of an evil US Federal government. In that narrative, you really are a bastard if you turn down a request to give.

Considering that fake Confederate history is being used by Russia to incite sectarianism and race riots, we have to clean this shit up now as soon as we can.

Put yourself in the shoes of daddy's little girl. When Col. Beauregard Moneybags kicks off, she and her siblings are going to inherit a bundle. But if *all* the colonel's heirs get included at the reading of the will --including all the darker ones running around the plantation-- she may find herself inheriting the wind.

Plenty of white men fucked black slave women. I mean, c'mon. Who is going to let that opportunity pass? If sheep can't be guaranteed safety you know that pretty young slave girls aren't safe. So it's funny to hear neo-Confederates saying that segregation makes sense because people naturally want to be with their own kind.

The bullshit "Lost Cause" narrative apologizes for the wealthy slave traders and plantation owners who corrupted politicians and sank the nation into war. Subsequently we got people apologizing for the people who promoted the Lost Cause lies. These apologists claimed that southern white men had fragile egos that needed to be stroked or else the butthurt would never stop.

My fellow human beings, next time we hear people telling us lies are necessary because "OMG the butthurt," let's say, "No fuck the lies. Butthurt is no excuse. Plus butthurt goes away once people get a grip."

Was Jefferson Davis an honest man? I would say, no. Because he claims that slaves were contented with their lot. However, if that were the case there would have been no need for laws forbidding slaves education and the opportunity to marry. Plus mountains of evidence that slaves were quite miserable being bought and sold like pieces of meat.

I wasted a couple of hours trying to find the original source for this quote. It must exist, what with ellipses and brackets and all, indicating an editor (presumably Mr. Foote) being careful to indicate that which is original and that which has been added for clarity.

But nope. No such quote can be found in any of Salmon P. Chase's writings.

Turns out that Shelby Foote is not a historian. He is a popularizer of history and a story teller known for inserting little imagined conversations and thought bubbles into his narratives.

Johnny, I hope you will reflect upon the people feeding you Lost Cause info. They have recruited you as an unwitting foot soldier in their army that fights for things you don't understand. Because they don't want you to understand. If they did, they wouldn't lie about Salmon P. Chase's words.

But maybe I'm wrong. The Internets are big and my Google-fu fails me sometimes. If you can find the source document for Salmon P. Chase's quote, I will change my position and I will thank you for the correction.

Johnny Rebel - Complete collection

Do individual states have a right to secede from the Union?

I've been looking for pre-civil war evidence of this right but I'm not finding it. Sometimes I find quotes that seem to support the idea but the argument fizzles out once I see the quote in context.

John Marshall, a Virginian, a Founding Father, and a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote the 1821 majority opinion in Cohens v Virginia which includes these words:

"It is very true that whenever hostility to the existing system shall become universal, it will be also irresistible. The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."

Johnny_Reb, I hope you realize that the reason the Confederate monuments are in the news has very little to do with history. Nobody cares all that much whether old dead people were right or wrong. What they care about is rebellion against the US right now.

Far right groups in the US want to rebel in various ways against the Federal government. They're looking for feedback from all of us ordinary citizens. Are we largely tolerant of their ideas? Or are we going to fight back?

The civil war began several years before the attack on Fort Sumter. There are dox showing political agitation for armed rebellion after the War of 1812, maybe earlier. But I'm really hazy on that part of American history. Imma try to learn more because there may be similarities between pro-civil war agitation going on then and now --which most people don't take serious, though signs of organization and strength are increasing.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgewash377893.html

"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His [Jefferson Davis'] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason."~Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase: Vol. III 1974 Shelby Foote trilogy pg. 1035.

There are a bunch of Lost Cause books out there using this quote but I still can't find the original sauce. Example below with an annotation from me about the contradiction:



Chase says that "by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion," and so bringing Davis to trial for rebellion would be wrong.

But then he says it's "common knowledge" that Davis led an "armed uprising" aka a rebellion.

DIS A CONTRADICTION!!!!!!!!!!

Surely I am not the only person who can see this. Surely this is obvious to you, Johnny. Right?

After a war breaks out, regardless of who started it, both sides are going to be assholes to each other. Human memory being what it is, it's easy for people to put events in the wrong sequence.

Let's say you are shooting at an army and then the army sets your house on fire. Later you tell people, "Those motherfuckers burned down my house so I shot them."

To fix a confused memory like this it's useful to ask, "But what did the army do before you started shooting at them, you know, before they burned your house?"

Likewise, I would like to ask Johnny, if he ever returns, what bad stuff did the US Federal government do to the southern states before they seceded?