This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

You should judge them through the lens of the time. Even back then, they were judged harshly. So many people felt slavery was wrong they went to war over it. Most of the developed world had abolished slavery by that point.

The idea that nobody knew slavery was wrong during the Civil War is bunk. Plenty of people knew it was wrong, and acting like the South didn't know any better is a copout. They were given opportunities to end slavery and they made it very clear they'd rather die.

It's not like they had slaves because everybody else was doing it, they were the principle people driving it.

---

Very few people in the history of the world stand on principle. That is just fact. People, the great majority of people, make decisions based on what is good for them economically as well as the pleasure of getting ahead in life and getting enjoyment while you are living.

There were about an equal number of states that were slave states versus non slave states when the Civil War began. But the economy of the northern states was many times greater in the north than in the south and the new territories on the horizon knew it. And the power in the country was going more and more with the northern states so the South was getting marginalized and pushed out of power in the process.

So, we will agree to disagree on this I guess. I say what people do in life realistically is rooted in their own selfishness and not with anykind of concept of principle. I admire those who can do that and we all should try to do it more so that we do.

I guess what I am saying is that a white baby born in the South back then would have a hard time growing up with his parents believing that slavery was necessary for their well being, their religion taught condoing it and when someone tells them that they need to defend their home and well being that they wouldn't agree to sign up to fight for their country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

Yes, a lot of people knew that slavery was wrong. However, it was the fact that the southern states were losing any control that they had in a say so with the federal government if it was removed . The origin of the Civil War was really about states rights and the decision whether new states coming into existing territories would be slave states or free. In short, this was about power and the economy not the wrong or right about slavery itself originally.

---

Yes, the right of states to keep slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

Also, The US was expanding so fast economically that if the South had its way and remained its own country, it would have had the 4th largest economy in the entire world. And eventually modern agricultural machines and the industrial inventions as well as abolition itself would have removed slavery as the economic lever that it was.

---

So what? Then they simply chose money over morality — lots of folks do that, still. Nevertheless, that line of reasoning does nothing to suggest that they did not know that it was wrong (which it was).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

Yes, the right of states to keep slavery.

So what? Then they simply chose money over morality — lots of folks do that, still. Nevertheless, that line of reasoning does nothing to suggest that they did not know that it was wrong (which it was).

---

Its so very easy to say that, though now. Back then it was different. Not when you think about it. The Southern states were poor in general. Cotton and tobacco were their only real economic enterprises and they were both heavily labor intensive. Immigration to the south wasn't happening then. Northern states were the industrialized and the jobs were there for immigrants to find. Not so in the south.

I've said this many times before and it is 100% true. The economy and power are all what the world is all about. It was the same way then. Religion even was wrong in their teachings back then across the entire world. Hell, slavery still exists all around the world and people, powerful people, look the other way or help to expand it. Look at China and Africa for example.

I'm not saying that slavery is right. It is 100% evil. But if we are looking at what the world was thinking back a century and a half ago, it is hypocritical to assail what a southern boy did in joining the Confederacy back then. It just is unfair to that boy and his motives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

Very few people in the history of the world stand on principle. That is just fact. People, the great majority of people, make decisions based on what is good for them economically as well as the pleasure of getting ahead in life and getting enjoyment while you are living.

There were about an equal number of states that were slave states versus non slave states when the Civil War began. But the economy of the northern states was many times greater in the north than in the south and the new territories on the horizon knew it. And the power in the country was going more and more with the northern states so the South was getting marginalized and pushed out of power in the process.

So, we will agree to disagree on this I guess. I say what people do in life realistically is rooted in their own selfishness and not with anykind of concept of principle. I admire those who can do that and we all should try to do it more so that we do.

I guess what I am saying is that a white baby born in the South back then would have a hard time growing up with his parents believing that slavery was necessary for their well being, their religion taught condoing it and when someone tells them that they need to defend their home and well being that they wouldn't agree to sign up to fight for their country.

---

First Bolded: Your motivations being economic doesn't excuse you from the crimes you commit. If someone robs a bank and kills someone because they needed the money, we still hold them accountable of murder.

Second Bolded: The northern economy was not dependent on slave labor because they made their economy that way. They chose to eschew slavery, while the south chose to embrace it. These were not predestined differences in their economies, they were a direct result of ones embracing of slavery and the others rejection of it.


Bottom line: Just because you understand the human condition doesn't give people a pass for doing evil things. It becomes even harder to argue for the Slave owning Generals who fought both during the war and before it to perpetuate slavery. If you want to make exceptions for the poor southern white boy enlisted to fight, OK.

That's not who the statues are of. The statues are of the Generals and politicians who pushed to perpetuate the practice. It's not that they didn't know any better, it's that nobody else knew any better because of them. They are the ones who stood on the Senate floor and said "over my dead body" when it came to abolishing slavery.

I also find it ironic that the same general people who talk about judging the entirety of confederate slave owner fighting for slavery's character are generally the same people who show zero compassion for those who get shot and killed by the police because they "shouldn't have been breaking the law".


Imagine if they were as compassionate towards black people today as they are towards slave owners from 200 years ago...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natepro

This is pretty significantly understating the number of places where slavery was being ended before before and during their presidencies.

---

Well, the US was behind about one generation, yeah. But slavery was entrenched in a very large country that was very young in its history was it not? It didn't yet have the industrial expertise that several other world power had either yet. It was expanding, though, and on its way to be a world power.

The South was agricultural back then and labor intensive to the extreme and trying to stay independent of the northern neighbor states control. Many in the north still wanted the south to remain in the union and not secede from a standpoint of over-all ability to become both an economic and military world power.

Somehow, history always shows the north being somekind of heroic entity in the civil war but I don't believe that to the extent that some do. I believe that it was more that it more self preservation of their ability to become a world power and that they believed that they couldn't afford to lose the population and agricultural base that the south would provide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

OK, but agreeing to take down a Confederate General's statue doesn't mean you are then obligated to take down Washington or Jefferson. You can be for one and not the other.

Would you say we need to keep up a statue of Stalin or Mao because if they come down, so does Washington?

Stop using Washington or Jefferson as a shield for defending Confederate General statues. As you yourself said, we should judge them on their individual merits. Do the statues deserve to come down or not on their own merits.

---

Im not using Washington or Jefferson as shields. This isn't a slippery slope argument. Your side has already requested statues of those men to be removed, as well as Lincoln. Your issue is with those individuals. Confederate soldiers were not enough. That's the typical MO for the liberal side. Give an inch. They take 3,000 feet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

Well, the US was behind about one generation, yeah. But slavery was entrenched in a very large country that was very young in its history was it not? It didn't yet have the industrial expertise that several other world power had either yet. It was expanding, though, and on its way to be a world power.

The South was agricultural back then and labor intensive to the extreme and trying to stay independent of the northern neighbor states control. Many in the north still wanted the south to remain in the union and not secede from a standpoint of over-all ability to become both an economic and military world power.

Somehow, history always shows the north being somekind of heroic entity in the civil war but I don't believe that to the extent that some do. I believe that it was more that it more self preservation of their ability to become a world power and that they believed that they couldn't afford to lose the population and agricultural base that the south would provide.

---

We were behind by only one generation because we fought a war to stop it. Had we not, there's no telling how many generations behind we'd have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Im not using Washington or Jefferson as shields. This isn't a slippery slope argument. Your side has already requested statues of those men to be removed, as well as Lincoln. Your issue is with those individuals. Confederate soldiers were not enough. That's the typical MO for the liberal side. Give an inch. They take 3,000 feet.

---

The second bold is literally a slippery slope argument...

It's interesting that you're like "I have to support slavery and slave owners and fighting for slavery because otherwise they'll cancel Jefferson".

You don't have to. Defending Jefferson and Washington does not mean you have to also defend fighting for slavery.

I think you just really want to defend fighting for slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I'd be fine with having a vote on individual statues. If more people vote to remove it, than remove it. If more people vote to keep it, keep it and move the **** on. I personally don't care enough about the statues. I have no connection to them. I'd be more willing to fight for OJs bust in the HOF. But i know a lot of people do care about those statues. And i know some people are offended. It shouldn't be the squeaky door getting the oil on this. That is, whichever side is louder. That's when we see fringe elements from either side.

---

Joey: I don't get why you beta cucks accuse me of being racist

Also Joey: I'd rather fight for preserving the honor of a murderer than fight against preserving the honor of a slave owner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

EDIT: You keep talking about this in empty platitudes (I suspect to hide from the fact you would support and vote for most if not all Confederate Generals statues to remain standing).

How about some specific examples. Who are some Confederate Generals who should be taken down or kept up because of why?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I also find it ironic that the same general people who talk about judging the entirety of confederate slave owner fighting for slavery's character are generally the same people who show zero compassion for those who get shot and killed by the police because they "shouldn't have been breaking the law".


Imagine if they were as compassionate towards black people today as they are towards slave owners from 200 years ago...

---

I mentioned earlier Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Both men were decorated generals before the civil war. Both men seemed to be in the very least to be compassionate towards slaves/black people and in some cases helpful towards them.

Weirdly enough, i said previously. Just a few comments ago in fact, that we should look at these on a case by case basis. Much like i do with cops being racist or black men who are killed by police. Yes, some cops are racist. Some are good guys doing a difficult job. Some black men are killed by police for justified reasons. Some are killed in cold blood. Some Confederate generals were only intetested in maintaining the horrible act of slavery and preserving a way of life they've become accustomed to. But some joined for a variety other reasons and their good deeds deserve to be honored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

Joey: I don't get why you beta cucks accuse me of being racist

Also Joey: I'd rather fight for preserving the honor of a murderer than fight against preserving the honor of a slave owner

---

You're making absolutely no sense, cupcake. Maybe you should stick to emojis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I mentioned earlier Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Both men were decorated generals before the civil war. Both men seemed to be in the very least to be compassionate towards slaves/black people and in some cases helpful towards them.

Weirdly enough, i said previously. Just a few comments ago in fact, that we should look at these on a case by case basis. Much like i do with cops being racist or black men who are killed by police. Yes, some cops are racist. Some are good guys doing a difficult job. Some black men are killed by police for justified reasons. Some are killed in cold blood. Some Confederate generals were only intetested in maintaining the horrible act of slavery and preserving a way of life they've become accustomed to. But some joined for a variety other reasons and their good deeds deserve to be honored.

---

I think you need to go read up a little more on Robert E Lee.

He inherited slaves from his wife's father and they were supposed to be set free with in 5 years, Lee would strictly punish and would keep delaying their release so much so that they would later revolt against him. after the revolt was put down he would sell the to a slave trader to be worked hard and punished until the 5 years were up. yeahhh not the most favorable to black people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

You're making absolutely no sense, cupcake. Maybe you should stick to emojis.

---

My sincerest apologies if that was too complicated for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I mentioned earlier Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Both men were decorated generals before the civil war. Both men seemed to be in the very least to be compassionate towards slaves/black people and in some cases helpful towards them.

Weirdly enough, i said previously. Just a few comments ago in fact, that we should look at these on a case by case basis. Much like i do with cops being racist or black men who are killed by police. Yes, some cops are racist. Some are good guys doing a difficult job. Some black men are killed by police for justified reasons. Some are killed in cold blood. Some Confederate generals were only intetested in maintaining the horrible act of slavery and preserving a way of life they've become accustomed to. But some joined for a variety other reasons and their good deeds deserve to be honored.

---

PackerBum was correct in that it appears you need to read up more on Robert E. Lee if you think he was this slave sympathizer.

Do you think we should look at the members of the Nazi party and the KKK and judge them on a case by case basis? Do you think there is ever an organization whose very purpose is so evil it by association condemns any who willingly participate in it?