I was never a slave and so I am owed no restitution. I think those that personally owned slaves should pay the slaves they owned for the wages they would have earned if they were not slaves though.
But I still think dissolving the US is a good idea.
Yes we know you would lynch people for disobeying state laws forcing them to live with white supremacist monuments in their neighborhoods. You made that very clear.It's amazing how many people mistakenly think the civil war was about slavery. It was about States rights to self govern.
On the bright side the police arrested 7 of the people that were protesting the statue and removed it forcibly.
They fought the law and the law won.
Yep. It's my true nature to prosecute and incarcerate those that break the law. Shocking isn't it?
The fact that I am black has nothing to do with obeying the laws and legally changing the laws you disagree with.
It's amazing how many people mistakenly think the civil war was about slavery. It was about States rights to self govern.
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals;
...an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. (fugitive slave act.)
Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted race war if slavery was not protected. “The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.”
...belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: “It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.” Given this belief, most white Southerners — and many Northerners, too — could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains.
Simply amazing one clings to that fantasy, while what was being said and written by the Confederate states for the justification for seceding says something completely different.
I see it as a bit of both. The south seceeded over state’s rights, with slavery being the most significant given the dependency of the south’s agrarian economy on slave labor. Slavery is the original sin in the founding of this nation, and I don’t think we can ever reconcile it.Pfft. What they said and wrote is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what they truly felt, and they felt that the cause for secession was states' rights.
It's amazing how many people mistakenly think the civil war was about slavery. It was about States rights to self govern.
On the bright side the police arrested 7 of the people that were protesting the statue and removed it forcibly.
They fought the law and the law won.
Yep. It's my true nature to prosecute and incarcerate those that break the law. Shocking isn't it?
The fact that I am black has nothing to do with obeying the laws and legally changing the laws you disagree with.
I see it as a bit of both. The south seceeded over state’s rights, with slavery being the most significant given the dependency of the south’s agrarian economy on slave labor. Slavery is the original sin in the founding of this nation, and I don’t think we can ever reconcile it.
Also, its a bit of revisionism to paint the average Union soldier as a holy crusader against slavery. Some of the officers certainly were, as they tended to come from prominant abolitionist families. Most of the rank file were conscripted. Conscription was the final straw that caused Virginia to choose secession, very much a state’s rights issue.
Also, it’s not like the freed slaves received a very welcome reception once they started migrating to the industrialized north. Also, many of the officers, north and south, served together under the campaigns of Manifest Destiny, which complicates the narrative a bit...when friends and colleagues find themselves at war with one another.
Lastly, Union leaders did not see it fit then to prosecute Confederate officers and leaders as traitors, so it is pointless to do so now.
These statues have simply become another useful distraction. Having said that, I have no problem with either removing them or repurposing their symbolism with a contemporary interpretation.
That's the problem, NC Republicans explicitly banned these from being moved to museums, cemeteries, or any places that are less prominent than where they are now. Because of how rigged NC politics are with filibuster and vote suppression, civil disobedience was the only option left to communities who didn't want these statues honored in public places.
Oh please. Those who protest these statues are perfectly fine with pre-exempting the will of the people for other issues ranging from abortion to Voter ID and tons of things in between.
Perhaps. By tearing down the statue, the narrative shifts to the criminality of destroying the statue itself.That's the problem, NC Republicans explicitly banned these from being moved to museums, cemeteries, or any places that are less prominent than where they are now. Because of how rigged NC politics are with filibuster and vote suppression, civil disobedience was the only option left to communities who didn't want these statues honored in public places.
Perhaps. By tearing down the statue, the narrative shifts to the criminality of destroying the statue itself.
Also, I don’t think its appropriate to judge historical figures by contemporary standards. Patton was a racist, yet there are numerous statues to him.
It's amazing how many people mistakenly think the civil war was about slavery. It was about States rights to self govern.
Those statues were not raised to further the cause of white supremacy. Nor were statues of Jefferson, Washington et al.
What have the statues done to advance the cause of white supremacy? To me it's entirely appropriate that dead Confederate generals seems to exist solely to accumulate birdshit on their heads. I certainly would oppose any effort to erect a new one or even maintain existing ones, but likewise don't think we need to wink and nod at mobs tearing them down either.
Perhaps. By tearing down the statue, the narrative shifts to the criminality of destroying the statue itself.
Also, I don’t think its appropriate to judge historical figures by contemporary standards. Patton was a racist, yet there are numerous statues to him.
If you get into power through gerrymander and vote suppression, sit quietly, collect your paycheck, and don't mess with people. It's that simple. People will take care of their local communities without you forcing them to do the wrong thing and preventing them from doing the right thing, thank you very much.Oh please. Those who protest these statues are perfectly fine with pre-exempting the will of the people for other issues ranging from abortion to Voter ID and tons of things in between. So unless you're down with approving of widespread civil disobedience for anyone with a grievance about a government decision then spare us the holier-than-thou statements about the "will of the community" since that will evaporate as soon as that same community decides they want something you're politically opposed to. The way we get rid of stupid laws (and this NC law is stupid) is by voting out those who passed it and voting in those who would repeal it, otherwise you're just setting the mental groundwork for the next riot. I'm guessing you weren't in favor of these guys exercising their version of "civil disobedience."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
Boston Tea Party was a criminal act too. So was tearing down the Berlin Wall. Who cares?
What's your point? Are you a moral relativist? Everything is the same?So is burning down a black church. Is that something you care about?
What's your point? Are you a moral relativist? Everything is the same?
So I'm not being sufficiently discerning of the fine differences between destructive mobs? Do you think this is like choosing a pinot noir to go with your dinner? I'm going to oppose destructive mobs every time.
What have the statues done to advance the cause of white supremacy? To me it's entirely appropriate that dead Confederate generals seems to exist solely to accumulate birdshit on their heads. I certainly would oppose any effort to erect a new one or even maintain existing ones, but likewise don't think we need to wink and nod at mobs tearing them down either.
Let's say you're a black person. Now imagine seeing a statue that celebrates the people who oppressed you, because they oppressed you, every single day. Would you just shrug and say "oh well, at least birds are taking a shit on them every day?"
Hell no. The very existence of those statues is a slap in the face to every black person in the country. And it's telling that Republicans in former Confederate states purposefully obstruct legal paths to tearing the statues down, and rig elections to make sure you can't vote people in who would order those statues removed. These Republicans love racism, they thrive on it, and the statues to them represent a way of telling black people to 'know their place.'
It's rather sad that you've been conditioned to think all civil disobedience involving destruction of property amounts to "mobs." When you're faced with a clear injustice and the political system purposefully silences your voice to maintain that injustice, acts like this are frequently your only recourse.
So which is it, we live under a democratic "majority rules" system or one where any minority that disagrees with the majority and the way it voted gets to destroy stuff they see as a "clear injustice"?
There were loyalists to the British crown in the United States. I imagine the fates of the Founding Fathers would be quite different had we lost the revolution.Boston Tea Party was a criminal act too. So was tearing down the Berlin Wall. Who cares?
There were loyalists to the British crown in the United States. I imagine the fates of the Founding Fathers would be quite different had we lost the revolution.
For the Berlin Wall, there was no remaining authority willing to defend it.
The victors get to write history. The victors of the Civil War chose reconciliation, and now we have two competing narratives born of historical ignorance.
There is no consensus on Confederate leaders, at least not yet. To some, they are traitors, which is a modern revisionist sentiment that ignores reconciliation and has only recently become more vocal in response to the alt-right.
To others, they were the defenders of states’ rights, the “Lost Cause” revisionist sentiment, which ignores the white supremacism implications of Confederate symbols.