Posted on 07/10/2021 7:33:14 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
The city of Charlottesville, Virginia, officially removed its statues of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson on Saturday.
Viewing areas for the removal of the statues were erected so that bystanders could watch cranes lift the statues from their plinth blocks; the process was nearly complete just before 9 a.m.
Photos and videos posted to social media show a crowd gathered to watch the process on Saturday morning.
Charlottesville Mayor Nikuyah Walker spoke at Saturday's gathering, calling the removal "one small step forward" in an effort to dismantle White supremacy, according to VPM reporter Ben Paviour.
Initial plans to remove the Lee statue came about in 2016, prompting White supremacists and other extremist groups to use the monument as a focal point for events such as the 2017 "Unite the Right" rally.
The statues will be held on Charlottesville property until they are sold, according to a Thursday press release from the city.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
More attention should be paid to the ordinary whites of the South and what made them act as they did in 1861. Probably most of them would have spoken in terms of defending their homes from the Yankees. But why had they come to see the Yankees as so different from themselves that they did not want to be in the same country with them?
Of course few people when the war started expected it to result in the abolition of slavery. If it had not been for secession and the Civil War, the institution of slavery would have lasted much longer--it's hard to see how it would have been abolished.
“... it’s hard to see how it would have been abolished.”
The nation was already fighting politically over whether new states and territories would be slave or free. The issue was coming to a fight one way or the other.
Looks to me like you fit the description and are ashamed of it.
The Republican Party was committed to a “free soil” position, not to allow slavery to spread. The Lincoln administration was open to a constitutional amendment protecting slavery where it already existed (although Lincoln was hopeful that it would eventually die out). The abolitionists were a small minority in the North. Poor whites in the North were probably no more enlightened in their racial views than poor whites in the South. States like Oregon forbade free persons of color from coming into the state. It wasn’t just the economics of slavery (which directly enriched only a small number of families) but racial attitudes, and perhaps fear of a Haiti-style massacre of whites if the slaves were suddenly set free.
Probably because the Northern zeal for civil war was so pronounced that a warning about it was included in the 1859 State of the Union message to Congress.
"Whilst it is the duty of the President "from time to time to give to Congress information of the state of the Union," I shall not refer in detail to the recent sad and bloody occurrences at Harpers Ferry. Still, it is proper to observe that these events, however bad and cruel in themselves, derive their chief importance from the apprehension that they are but symptoms of an incurable disease in the public mind, which may break out in still more dangerous outrages and terminate at last in an open war by the North to abolish slavery in the South. "
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/third-annual-message-congress-the-state-the-union
Good post but it is lost on an America hater.
The Pyramid’s should immediately be removed as the Egyptian’s ALSO had slaves.
Tear the MoFo’s down!!!!!
It's bad enough we have to deal with the democrats blaming us for their history, without the confederacy amen corner helping them.
14 paragraphs down, if you want to skip to the point at hand.
Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln Frederick Douglass | April 14, 1876
Lincoln stated the goal of the war was not about slavery at all. He made that very clear.
14 paragraphs down, if you want to skip to the point at hand.
Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln Frederick Douglass | April 14, 1876
The confederacy was a democrat temper tantrum
This premise is popular with hacks who think that fake history will help them score points in current debates. Beck and D'Souza are two who have that habit. Maybe they are your source, you certainly haven't done any research in the subject. The Confederacy didn't have any political parties. Its officials were a mix of former Democrats and Whigs, including one of the four Whig US Presidents. In the North the Lincoln administration employed Democrats in important roles. VP Andrew Johnson, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. Generals George McClellan, Benjamin Butler, John Dix. Ohio Governor John Brough. The Civil War wasn't "a Democrat temper tantrum" despite the firm belief of the illiterate.
But please don't embarrass the right by adopting the dems' history as ours.
I would be embarrassed if I was scolding someone over something about which I knew so little. But seeing you do it is pretty amusing.
So not every confederate was a democrat and not every democrat was a confederate. So what? The democrats’ ties to the confederacy and slavery are so thoroughly documented that you would have to be a rabid leftist to deny them. That Whigs were also involved does nothing to refute this. Everyone can search for “democrats the confederacy and slavery” and decide for themselves who did what.
That’s certainly a popular child’s version of history, but children have an excuse for being ignorant. Adults not so much. Slavery in the US preceded the Democratic party by 200 years and when the party was founded in 1828 slavery wasn’t part of the national debate. Tariffs, internal improvements, and the national bank were the issues day, the same ones that dominated the 1824 election. One of the two Founders of the Democratic party, Martin Van Buren, was opposed to slavery, was opposed to the admission of Texas as a slave state, and was an outspoken abolitionist. Apparently he didn’t get the memo informing him that the party he co-founded was “the slave party”. Go figure. Maybe that’s what happens when google isn’t your primary source.
When Van Buren was in power, he made his peace with the slaveowners and didn't act on whatever dislike he may have had for slavery. He supported the gag rule that forbade Congressional debate on slavery because he thought it would keep the country (and the party) from falling apart.
Van Buren was not an abolitionist, though he wasn't a fervent supporter of slavery either. After his White House years he grew disillusioned with slavery, arguing that the Founders had wanted slavery to be abolished eventually.
That was an uncommon position for a Democrat to take in his day, but one that did have some support in the country and wasn't considered abolitionist in the sense that Garrison, Douglass and others were.
Van Buren ran on the Free Soil ticket in order to keep slavery out of the territories, not to free the slaves. His nomination had a lot to do with the fact that his son was one of the party leaders. Van Buren temporarily left the Democratic Party to run on the Free Soil ticket. Afterwards he was back to supporting Pierce, Buchanan and Douglas and discouraging debates about slavery.
If...
FU a$$hole.
Confederates were neither Nazis or fascists. Bad analogy.
The Democrats of the mid 19th century were the wild eyed liberals of their time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.