Ok, you can't have it both ways. Either the Confederacy was its own nation and Jefferson Davis was its President OR Virginia was a U.S. State at the time. In the first instance, why would we include him in the pantheon of American presidents if the Confederacy was its own nation? In the second case, the United States (Virginia, being one of them) had a president during that time period, and his name sure as he*l wasn't Jefferson Davis.

I get that but what I don't get is how people from 2017 can criticize and demean actions of a culture that happened over a hundred years ago,...in a time when these things (slavery, public executions, scarlet letters,pooping in a outbhouse etc.) were commonplace.

Its a Civil War...between brothers of ONE Country. It Had to be completely maddening to know you could be shooting at a family member.

It's, this erasure of all things Confederate, Monday morning quarterbacking at the Nth degree by people that have absolutely no idea what was really going on at the time.

Removing all traces instead of embracing and understanding is, in my opinion, a wrong move.

I've never understood why people don't follow the money when it comes to the civil war.

Where did it all go?

Where are these vast fortunes that southern plantation owners made off the backs of slaves? Sure there are some really nice plantations, but to look at where the south is economically now it just doesn't make sense.

The banking and shipping centers in the north certainly made a profit from what was going on at the time. Why does no one denigrate them for profiteering as much, or more, than the southern plantation owners?

My point isn't that the south should be held harmless, I just think there is a lot more blame to be spread around. If everyone would realize that the country, as a whole, was a part of this (well, all the white folk in charge anyway) I think there could be a lot more reconciliation and less finger pointing.

Me personally, I'm half Canadian and grew up in Kentucky. My family in Kentucky could barely afford a pot to piss in at that time of the civil war. I've got no guilt, but I'm ashamed of what happened. There are some statues in my hometown that could probably be moved. Wouldn't bother me a bit. It also wouldn't bother me if they stay, as long as the true and honest history of who those people were is presented.

I see this as moral relativism. Just because those things were common in 1861 doesn't mean they were right. I think the point that you are getting at is that everything happens within a context, and that our 2017 context is very different than that which faced the nation in the 1860s. I agree that context is important in understanding the past, but shouldn't be used to excuse immoral behavior.


Hmmmm, yes and no. The southern states seceded - voluntarily severing their ties with the United States. But yeah, the war created many terrible fissures within families and between friends.

when they gonna start burning history books

What my post was getting at is exactly this: the moral relativism. The North profited greatly from all the moral transgressions as much, if not more so, than the south.

If slavery was at the center of all this why was the emancipation proclamation signed so late in the war?

Do you really think politicking and fake news are a recent phenomenon?

maybe a nuclear holocaust is what we need . start fresh. stop being a pussys and get your balls back

No.

Then people will forget what has happened and it will repeat. If not in the previous form, another.

You think some groups won't call him a sellout or Uncle Tom, saying he was working with white people? If they haven't already, I'm sure they will... Probably BP or NBP, which no one cares about, but I bet it's been said...

By the left constantly pushing race issues that don't exist (to the extent they're claiming it does), they're CREATING animosity towards black people.

You have a group of people demanding preferential treatment, NOT equality... You can either get special treatment or be treated the same as everyone else, you can't have it both ways...

Then you have issues with false narratives driven by the media and fractured communities..... Riots over criminals getting shot...Communities that glorify criminal activity, saying he 'had to' break into a house because he couldn't get money, and how they won't give them money so they have to take it, and he shouldn't have been shot because it's whitey's fault......

As I've said, you got communities who don't know what accountability is, and just want shit their way...

MULTIPLE generations on welfare, being told they don't have to work and they can get what they want, and they wonder why people act so entitled... Same shit with the trust fund babies... Daddy buys her a Mustang but she wants a Lexus so she wrecks the Mustang so her dad 'has to' buy her a Lexus...

Shit gets old....

Stop talking about race, stop treating people differently based on race, stop blaming everything on race.

Pretty soon it's gonna be 'The boy who cried Racist!', and no one will listen, even if it is a legitimate case of ignorance rearing its ugly head..

Now add in the LGBTQMNOP that are being told they can be/do whatever they want, then wanna blame patriarchy when they can't land a $100k/yr job after they spend 10 years getting a doctorate in Lesbian Dance Theory....

It's a whole fuckshit of shit... everywhere..

They're saying Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc are racist.

Is it just me or are they attacking the foundation of this country? Maybe in an attempt to give themselves the moral ground they need to continue? Perhaps an attempt to delegitimize the country itself, to overthrow it?

Just like that...

Any former slave in the US should be entitled to reparations.
Unfortunately the last one died in 1971.

There are more people in slavery today than there were at any other time in world history.
And nobody really seems to give a shit.
Other than a bunch of rich folks getting together and making up a stupid hashtag.

When you say "late in the war" what do you mean? The idea of emancipation was first floated by the U.S. in the summer of 1862, and the rebel states were given the opportunity to return to the union or face emancipation. The proclamation itself went into effect on January 1, 1863. 20 months had elapsed since the start of hostilities and the war would go on for almost 30 more months. I don't know that I'd say something that occurred less then halfway through the war was "late." The proclamation was of course a political tool that attempted to leverage the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery to force them back into the Union, and probably had little to do with Lincoln's desire to do the right thing with respect to the black population of the south.

I don't think I ever said or implied that slavery was a central issue - at least at the outset - for the United States. Lincoln's specified aim was preservation of the Union. That being said, slavery was undeniably THE central issue for the Confederate States. And those who say it was about "state's rights" are correct. It WAS about state's rights........to own slaves and to expand the institution of slavery into new territories. One need only to read the Declaration of Causes issued by many of the confederate states to understand this to be true. Some of them can be found here:

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary- ... ing-states

It's kind of a long read, so to save some effort, here are some of the highlights:

Georgia:
"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."

Mississippi:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
"[The Union] advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."
"[The Union] has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction."

South Carolina
"For many years these laws (regarding fugitive slaves) were executed. But 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."

Texas
"The [Union States], by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions" (meaning slavery....)

Furthermore, the Vice President of the C.S.A. lays the fact out in no uncertain terms in what is known as the "Cornerstone Speech" which can be found in its entirety here:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary- ... one-speech

These are PRIMARY SOURCE documents. They say and mean exactly what their authors wanted them to, at the time that they were written. After reading any of that, can any intellectually honest individual actually conclude that slavery was NOT central to the secession of the southern states?

Edited to fix typo.

So, not a President of the United States.