Does erasing history cure racism?

[rebound]

What is there to respect about Grant then, using that logic.  He had slaves.  He worked to kill hundreds of thousands.  He was also President while Indian genocide was going on.

Marias Massacre
Skeleton Cave Massacre
Sappa Creek Massacre
Battle of the Big Hole

Nobody has clean hands.

And we haven't even gotten to Andrew Jackson, who is still on our money!  You gonna start calling for his removal a while, I presume??  Since we are all into "pious mode" right now...!

Isn't Jackson getting replaced by Harriet Tubman?

And Grant, for all his (real) faults,  picked the right side in the war and wasn't a traitor to his country.

[Hoss]

Isn't Jackson getting replaced by Harriet Tubman?

And Grant, for all his (real) faults,  picked the right side in the war and wasn't a traitor to his country.

Let's not forget that Grant is on the $50, that should make him more valuable as a president. 

[erfalf]

Isn't Jackson getting replaced by Harriet Tubman?

And Grant, for all his (real) faults,  picked the right side in the war and wasn't a traitor to his country.

I'm under the impression that secession at the time was viewed as a check on the federal government, which everyone was skeptical of (rightly so it would seem). And it was generally understood that states could in fact secede and leave the union. Is that not accurate?

If it is, then Lee was not a traitor at all. He was conquered. Ya know, like the Indians. But he let his white privileged let him get pardoned. ;-)

From Wikipedia (the sources I believe are all from one or two biographies):
The evidence cited in favor of the claim that Lee opposed slavery included his direct statements and his actions before and during the war, including Lee's support of the work by his wife and her mother to liberate slaves and fund their move to Liberia,[69] the success of his wife and daughter in setting up an illegal school for slaves on the Arlington plantation,[70] the freeing of Custis' slaves in 1862, and, as the Confederacy's position in the war became desperate, his petitioning slaveholders in 1864–65 to allow slaves to volunteer for the Army with manumission offered as a reward for outstanding service.[71][72]

[patric]

There were probably still family members that recalled "the union". There were states, and then there was a country. I'm sure many probably viewed their allegiance in that order as well. I still view Lee as a person worth respecting, but one whose allegiance ultimately ended up putting him on the wrong side of history.

As I noted, Lee saw his country as Virginia, as did many at the time.  He didnt see himself as a traitor by defending his homeland from invaders.

I believe much has changed in the century and a half since, but not everything.  If you think Texans see themselves as their own country, go visit Virginia.
OTOH, im surprised to see so much public school stereotypes of CW history here, today.  Fighting for slavery?  Really?

[swake]

You found an article that was biased.  Did you ever bother to doublecheck any of their facts?   There were enough inconsistencies and outright errors in the story that you should have been skeptical.  

Put anyone's life under a microscope and you can find things to hold against them.  Not that it matters.

So what are the errors we should check?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/robert-e-lee-slaves.html?mcubz=1

[patric]

Let's not forget that Grant is on the $50, that should make him more valuable as a president. 

Some of you missed the deadline to surrender those all into me by midnight.

There's not much we can do to fight against White Supremacists in America, but this is something we CAN do. You'll thank me afterwards for getting those out of your wallet conscience.
Then we can go to work on all the supremacist symbolism here:



...and to think they thought they could get away with that.  

[swake]

I'm under the impression that secession at the time was viewed as a check on the federal government, which everyone was skeptical of (rightly so it would seem). And it was generally understood that states could in fact secede and leave the union. Is that not accurate?

If it is, then Lee was not a traitor at all. He was conquered. Ya know, like the Indians. But he let his white privileged let him get pardoned. ;-)

From Wikipedia (the sources I believe are all from one or two biographies):
The evidence cited in favor of the claim that Lee opposed slavery included his direct statements and his actions before and during the war, including Lee's support of the work by his wife and her mother to liberate slaves and fund their move to Liberia,[69] the success of his wife and daughter in setting up an illegal school for slaves on the Arlington plantation,[70] the freeing of Custis' slaves in 1862, and, as the Confederacy's position in the war became desperate, his petitioning slaveholders in 1864–65 to allow slaves to volunteer for the Army with manumission offered as a reward for outstanding service.[71][72]

The southern states did say they could succeed, because they did.

The succession papers from the southern states made very clear why they were doing so. It was slavery. The overreach they cited by the federal government was working to get rid of slavery.

I've posted quotes from a number of the state's succession statements in the past. I can do so again.

[erfalf]

The southern states did say they could succeed, because they did.

The succession papers from the southern states made very clear why they were doing so. It was slavery. The overreach they cited by the federal government was working to get rid of slavery.

I've posted quotes from a number of the state's succession statements in the past. I can do so again.

Was there a mechanism that could have kept the southern states from seceding at that point in time? Other than war that is. That is what I am trying to discern, not the why.

[swake]

Was there a mechanism that could have kept the southern states from seceding at that point in time? Other than war that is. That is what I am trying to discern, not the why.

War is generally considered a failure of politics, that or it's end state. What mechanism can override when people want to go to war?

[rebound]

Was there a mechanism that could have kept the southern states from seceding at that point in time? Other than war that is. That is what I am trying to discern, not the why.

There is quite a lot written on this.   There were leading politicians on both sides that thought the states did have the right to secede.  Lincoln, and others, did not.  (Obviously)  The war settled that, except for some idiots in TX that still claim they have that right.  (They don't.)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Isn't Jackson getting replaced by Harriet Tubman?

And Grant, for all his (real) faults,  picked the right side in the war and wasn't a traitor to his country.

But a traitor to humanity.  As in committing crimes against humanity.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The southern states did say they could succeed, because they did.

The succession papers from the southern states made very clear why they were doing so. It was slavery. The overreach they cited by the federal government was working to get rid of slavery.

I've posted quotes from a number of the state's succession statements in the past. I can do so again.

4 of them directly said they were seceding because of slavery.  Couple others alluded to it.  I have talked about that too - the flag is not about history as being lied about today.  It had mostly disappeared by the 1950's but revisited as protest to the civil rights efforts that finally seemed to be getting some traction - in particular, school desegregation.  State flags were changed about that time to have the stars and bars.  And certainly not a St Andrew's cross...    It's a pretty flag - just a shame it became associated with slavery, like the swastika was perverted by Nazi's.

[swake]

But a traitor to humanity.  As in committing crimes against humanity.

Scorched Earth was certainly evil.

[patric]

Meanwhile, the slope got a lot slipperier:
Maryland State House Removes Statue Of Judge Who Wrote Dred Scott Decision
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/18/544407092/maryland-state-house-removes-statue-of-judge-who-wrote-dred-scott-decision

...and slipperier:

Anti-Muslim Oklahoma legislator calls for removal of mosques
http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/anti-muslim-oklahoma-legislator-calls-for-removal-of-mosques/article_96a85a6a-d7af-5369-96cd-084557b203d1.html

[heironymouspasparagus]

We better go ahead and get rid of all the Founding Father's monuments and take them off the money.  After all, THEY are the ones that enabled - nay, demanded - that slavery not be infringed on.

Article 4, Section 2.  US Constitution.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.


We would not have had a Constitution nor a United States without the evil perpetrated by the likes of the Founding Fathers.   Is this a case of "ends justifies the means..." ??