Fact -When the Civil War started, Lincoln asked Robert E Lee to lead all Union troops

[middleview]

Oh, there are any number of good ideas expressed in the CSA constitution. There's no point in discussing them. You don't care that Cromwell supported slavery, but all you care about when it comes to the CSA leadership is slavery. But even if their motives were as completely impure as you would have them be, what does that have to do with statues erected 40 years later, that have now been in place for 100 years? They motives of the people who put those up were largely no different from their counterparts who put up statues to their former leaders.

No, I do not care about Cromwell...you want to know why? He did not go to war to preserve slavery. He went to war to overthrow royalty. Did he support slavery?
Don't know. But you should also know by now that I'm not a voter in the UK and therefore their statues don't mean shit to me.

What do the statues mean to me? Not a lot. But they clearly mean something to people who know their heritage is of ancestors brutally kept as property, raped and beaten...murdered with impunity. I recognize that their reaction to those statues is valid...
More so than the racists who showed up with their KKK robes and Confederate battle flags trying to preserve the legacy of a war to preserve slavery.

 

[trapdoor]

No, I do not care about Cromwell...you want to know why? He did not go to war to preserve slavery. He went to war to overthrow royalty. Did he support slavery?
Don't know. But you should also know by now that I'm not a voter in the UK and therefore their statues don't mean shit to me.

What do the statues mean to me? Not a lot. But they clearly mean something to people who know their heritage is of ancestors brutally kept as property, raped and beaten...murdered with impunity. I recognize that their reaction to those statues is valid...
More so than the racists who showed up with their KKK robes and Confederate battle flags trying to preserve the legacy of a war to preserve slavery.

Your first sentence simply ignores Cromwell's history. He preserved and expanded slavery under his rule.

How is their reaction more "valid" than the reaction of someone who's great grandfather fought in the CSA Army and wasn't a slaveowner? How is it more valid than the veterans who put the statue in place? Everyone's view is valid. For the most part, there wasn't a KKK robe anywhere near these statues. The KKK was force in the 1870s, largely fell apart, and re-emerged as a political force in the 1920s. It didn't put these statues in place.
Yes, they fought to preserve slavery. So what?

 

[middleview]

Your first sentence simply ignores Cromwell's history. He preserved and expanded slavery under his rule.

How is their reaction more "valid" than the reaction of someone who's great grandfather fought in the CSA Army and wasn't a slaveowner? How is it more valid than the veterans who put the statue in place? Everyone's view is valid. For the most part, there wasn't a KKK robe anywhere near these statues. The KKK was force in the 1870s, largely fell apart, and re-emerged as a political force in the 1920s. It didn't put these statues in place.
Yes, they fought to preserve slavery. So what?

I ignore Cromwell's history because it is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[middleview]

Your first sentence simply ignores Cromwell's history. He preserved and expanded slavery under his rule.

How is their reaction more "valid" than the reaction of someone who's great grandfather fought in the CSA Army and wasn't a slaveowner? How is it more valid than the veterans who put the statue in place? Everyone's view is valid. For the most part, there wasn't a KKK robe anywhere near these statues. The KKK was force in the 1870s, largely fell apart, and re-emerged as a political force in the 1920s. It didn't put these statues in place.
Yes, they fought to preserve slavery. So what?

Their reaction is more relevant because we are talking about two completely separate and different realities. The descendants of slaves are people who's ancestors were captured and hauled off to work in the south. The ancestors who signed up to fight to destroy our country did so voluntarily. I have ancestors who were in the army of Virginia. I feel no urge to honor them for their experience in the army of rebellion.

 

[trapdoor]

Their reaction is more relevant because we are talking about two completely separate and different realities. The descendants of slaves are people who's ancestors were captured and hauled off to work in the south. The ancestors who signed up to fight to destroy our country did so voluntarily. I have ancestors who were in the army of Virginia. I feel no urge to honor them for their experience in the army of rebellion.

Yes, the key word there is "ancestors." They themselves are not slaves, were not slaves and did not know any slaves. Their view is no more "valid" than the person whose ancestors owned slaves -- the person whose ancestor owned slaves didn't own any slaves, doesn't know anyone who did, and doesn't know anyone who did. You may not feel the urge to honor them, but fortunately you're not being called on to honor them. You're being called on to mind your own business while the people who want to honor them do so. But you won't do that, until the Washington and Jefferson memorials are torn down (slave owners, don'tchaknow), etc.

 

[trapdoor]

I ignore Cromwell's history because it is irrelevant to the issue.

As Cromwell was a: a rebel leader and b: fought to end the governmetn; and c: promoted an expanded slavery it is as relevant as any other example to the example of the CSA leadership.

 

[middleview]

Your first sentence simply ignores Cromwell's history. He preserved and expanded slavery under his rule.

How is their reaction more "valid" than the reaction of someone who's great grandfather fought in the CSA Army and wasn't a slaveowner? How is it more valid than the veterans who put the statue in place? Everyone's view is valid. For the most part, there wasn't a KKK robe anywhere near these statues. The KKK was force in the 1870s, largely fell apart, and re-emerged as a political force in the 1920s. It didn't put these statues in place.
Yes, they fought to preserve slavery. So what?

Just as an aside...Cromwell would certainly not have been the first military leader to have sold the conquered into slavery. That was a feature of warfare around the globe for centuries. The Nazis didn't sell the soldiers of conquered armies into slavery...they just dragged them off to work in factories and farms in Germany.

 

[middleview]

Yes, the key word there is "ancestors." They themselves are not slaves, were not slaves and did not know any slaves. Their view is no more "valid" than the person whose ancestors owned slaves -- the person whose ancestor owned slaves didn't own any slaves, doesn't know anyone who did, and doesn't know anyone who did. You may not feel the urge to honor them, but fortunately you're not being called on to honor them. You're being called on to mind your own business while the people who want to honor them do so. But you won't do that, until the Washington and Jefferson memorials are torn down (slave owners, don'tchaknow), etc.

Geez....the statues are not being torn down because they owned slaves.

 

[middleview]

Yes, the key word there is "ancestors." They themselves are not slaves, were not slaves and did not know any slaves. Their view is no more "valid" than the person whose ancestors owned slaves -- the person whose ancestor owned slaves didn't own any slaves, doesn't know anyone who did, and doesn't know anyone who did. You may not feel the urge to honor them, but fortunately you're not being called on to honor them. You're being called on to mind your own business while the people who want to honor them do so. But you won't do that, until the Washington and Jefferson memorials are torn down (slave owners, don'tchaknow), etc.

By the way....the people who want to tear down the statues are as entitled to their opinions as are those who do not. The statues sit on public land. If you want to have one of those statues moved to your front yard...go for it.

 

[middleview]

As Cromwell was a: a rebel leader and b: fought to end the governmetn; and c: promoted an expanded slavery it is as relevant as any other example to the example of the CSA leadership.

So tell me...who wants to tear down those statues of Cromwell? I don't really care about them.

I'm sure that you wouldn't find any statues of him in Ireland.

 

[trapdoor]

By the way....the people who want to tear down the statues are as entitled to their opinions as are those who do not. The statues sit on public land. If you want to have one of those statues moved to your front yard...go for it.

Or simply leave them be and mind your business?

 

[trapdoor]

So tell me...who wants to tear down those statues of Cromwell? I don't really care about them.

I'm sure that you wouldn't find any statues of him in Ireland.

I know of no one who desires their removal, which is sort of my point. But if you must remove Lee, when do we remove Washington, Jefferson, really any of the first five or six presidents all of whom either owned slaves or came from slaveholding states?
Don't tell me this is a made-up issue. It was already an issue 25 years ago when schools in New Orleans renamed Washington and Jefferson schools to remove the "slaveholder."

 

[middleview]

Or simply leave them be and mind your business?

I'm in Colorado. We don't see statues honoring people who wanted to destroy our country around here. Bottom line is that I am minding my own business.

The people in southern states who want those statues torn down are just as entitled to their opinions as you are...so maybe you should mind your own business unless you live near one of those statues honoring men who wanted to tear the country in two.

 

[trapdoor]

I'm in Colorado. We don't see statues honoring people who wanted to destroy our country around here. Bottom line is that I am minding my own business.

The people in southern states who want those statues torn down are just as entitled to their opinions as you are...so maybe you should mind your own business unless you live near one of those statues honoring men who wanted to tear the country in two.

I want to see a statement from anyone in the CSA leadership where they identified, as a goal of their program, the destruction of the United States. Separation from that organization was not a destruction of it, leaving it intact with the members that chose to stay.
The people are entitled to their opinions. They're not entitled to tear down publicly owned monuments. And you did not answer my question about Washington and Jefferson.

 

[middleview]

I want to see a statement from anyone in the CSA leadership where they identified, as a goal of their program, the destruction of the United States. Separation from that organization was not a destruction of it, leaving it intact with the members that chose to stay.
The people are entitled to their opinions. They're not entitled to tear down publicly owned monuments. And you did not answer my question about Washington and Jefferson.

You are entitled to your opinion...as are those who do not want those statues on public property...

 

[trapdoor]

You are entitled to your opinion...as are those who do not want those statues on public property...

So no statement on the destruction of the U.S.? Thought not. Vandalism is its own reward I guess, when it comes to "opinions."

 

[middleview]

So no statement on the destruction of the U.S.? Thought not. Vandalism is its own reward I guess, when it comes to "opinions."

"Destruction of the US"?

If there had not been a war in 1861 and somehow there had been a division of the country into two parts at that time...the war would have come over trade or the incorporation of new territories as free or slave. There would have been a war eventually.

If you think the balkanization of the nation to preserve slavery would have been a productive thing...as I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[trapdoor]

"Destruction of the US"?

If there had not been a war in 1861 and somehow there had been a division of the country into two parts at that time...the war would have come over trade or the incorporation of new territories as free or slave. There would have been a war eventually.

If you think the balkanization of the nation to preserve slavery would have been a productive thing...as I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

That isn't what I asked. I asked for a single STATEMENT from CSA leadership that the destruction of the U.S. was the goal of that government. Would there have been future conflicts? Maybe. Or maybe the CSA would have realized by about 1880 that slavery was obsolete in the face of powered farm equipment and pursued reunification. We can speculate about about all sorts of things, but as a matter of fact, the CSA leadership did not call for destroying the U.S. The balkanization would indeed have been unproductive -- I don't think you can find anywhere where I said secession was a good idea. All I've ever said is that there was a pretty good legal argument that it wasn't forbidden by the Constitution.

 

[middleview]

That isn't what I asked. I asked for a single STATEMENT from CSA leadership that the destruction of the U.S. was the goal of that government. Would there have been future conflicts? Maybe. Or maybe the CSA would have realized by about 1880 that slavery was obsolete in the face of powered farm equipment and pursued reunification. We can speculate about about all sorts of things, but as a matter of fact, the CSA leadership did not call for destroying the U.S. The balkanization would indeed have been unproductive -- I don't think you can find anywhere where I said secession was a good idea. All I've ever said is that there was a pretty good legal argument that it wasn't forbidden by the Constitution.

Whether or not they made the statement is irrelevant. That would have been the result and they knew it and were indifferent to it. If the "United" States had split into two or more entities it would have resulted in a much lesser nation than we have today. My opinion...everybody gets to have at least one.

 

[trapdoor]

Whether or not they made the statement is irrelevant. That would have been the result and they knew it and were indifferent to it. If the "United" States had split into two or more entities it would have resulted in a much lesser nation than we have today. My opinion...everybody gets to have at least one.

How would they know that would be the result? I agree it would have been a lesser nation -- that isn't the point. The point is that they did not say they wanted to destroy that which they wanted to leave.