Read 49232 times

Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #620 on: February 18, 2021, 09:20:26 am »
This is just bizarre.  Who's the fatcat we're talking about? Be specific, thanks.

And what the eff does Cold Harbor have to do with anything?  You just blathering, eh?

Oh, and please talk about Johnson's role in the lack of penalties. 

Next you're going to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery ...
The fatcats were the politicians in Congress or the War Department that would do things like supply the men with dysfunctional gear or give long winded speeches while the men ate hardtack. Or the person who paid for a substitute while they were conscripted.

Cold Harbor was one of the worst battles in the war for sheer senseless carnage right up there with Spotsylvania Court House and the Mule Shoe (which had preceded it) and the latter Siege of Petersburg.

Johnson had his own role for sure, but his policy was largely an extension of Lincoln's. Lincoln continually emphasized leniency and healing. There was no talk of significant reprisals or mass hangings by Lincoln.

While Johnson had little interest in the welfare of black ex-slaves, he was quite interested in seeing former Confederate leaders tried and convicted.

https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/grant-protects-lee-from-treason-trial/

Anyways, I think you need to do further reading on the subject because you seem to have some misconceptions.

The War happened because of slavery and was about slavery. Nice try imagining what I was going to say, then blaming me for it, then using that to justify your position.

Anyways, the point still stands- Why do people in 2021 have more hatred towards Confederates than people who actually fought them?

That's not mentally healthy. Something is wrong with your perception of reality if you're shaking your fist at people who have been dead for 100 years.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #621 on: February 18, 2021, 11:00:05 am »


While Johnson had little interest in the welfare of black ex-slaves, he was quite interested in seeing former Confederate leaders tried and convicted.


The initial response to a Johnson presidency was optimistic. Even the so-called Radical Republicans, who would pursue impeachment proceedings three years later, supported the new president. "By the Gods," proclaimed Senator Ben Wade of Ohio, "there will be no trouble now in running this government." Such good relations quickly soured, however, as Johnson's views on Reconstruction surfaced. Within weeks, Johnson opposed political rights for freedmen and called for a lenient reconstruction policy, including pardoning former Confederate leaders.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Johnson.htm

You keep confusing generals with political leaders.  Johnson pardoned thousands of white leaders so they could return to hold office again, where they went right back to their racist policies.

Quote

Anyways, the point still stands- Why do people in 2021 have more hatred towards Confederates than people who actually fought them?

That's not mentally healthy. Something is wrong with your perception of reality if you're shaking your fist at people who have been dead for 100 years.

I think a better question is why people still wrap themselves in the Confederate battle flag and protect statues of the founder of the KKK?  I think the reaction to these people that the statues and symbols they adore need to be removed from the public square and relegated along with their philosophy to a museum is perfectly rational. 


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #622 on: February 18, 2021, 11:40:54 am »
You keep confusing generals with political leaders.  Johnson pardoned thousands of white leaders so they could return to hold office again, where they went right back to their racist policies.
During sustained wars, particularly the U.S. Civil War, the line between political figure and general gets significantly blurred.

In the case of the ACW, politicians functioned as generals- Dan Sickels, the Cobb brothers, Ben Butler, Breckinridge, Franz Sigel, James Kemper, etc. In fact the term "political general" is one that comes from the American Civil War. You really can't separate the two.

In turn, generals exerted considerable political influence and influence over public opinion- McClellan, Grant, Sherman, Lee, etc. all saw their clout increase. Lee pretty much overshadowed Davis by 1863. Grant by the end of the war was in a position to refuse a direct order from the President.

And again, Johnson being lenient is simply him both following his predecessor and the fact that the will and the means to enforce mass reprisals simply didn't exist. Johnson is not a dictator and magician. He can't just wave his arms and demand that volunteers and conscripts who desperately want to go home now that the war is over spend the next 4 years chasing down ex-Confederates and torching homes that shelter them.

Quote
I think a better question is why people still wrap themselves in the Confederate battle flag and protect statues of the founder of the KKK?  I think the reaction to these people that the statues and symbols they adore need to be removed from the public square and relegated along with their philosophy to a museum is perfectly rational.
The rationale of allowing ex-Confederate generals to be recognized was due to several factors. Our country wanted to heal and move on. It was thought that by honoring the "manly spirit on both sides" that this would build unity and prevent future enmity. Obviously it wasn't wholly successful but it wasn't a total failure either and on balance, it seems to have worked. It enabled a unified America in her future conflicts. Think if that wasn't the case and instead the South truly was a place of constant dissension and rebellion? How would that have been a good thing in 1941? Hitler got nothing from the American South. Think that would have been the case if there had been nonstop Northern dominance and repression over the past 80 years (no matter how justified)?

Anyways, I think both are good questions. But you need to ask why this is such a burning issue. I'd also suggest that being irate at statues of people most Americans dont even know and whose primary function is to hold up a skateboard or to serve as a stand for a Coolatta is really the best way to address the problems you think this country faces.

Seems like its more raging than solving to me.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #623 on: February 18, 2021, 02:12:54 pm »

The rationale of allowing ex-Confederate generals to be recognized was due to several factors. Our country wanted to heal and move on. It was thought that by honoring the "manly spirit on both sides" that this would build unity and prevent future enmity.

You are seriously suggesting that these statues were erected to "build unity" and "heal and move on"?

They sure waited a long time to decide to build unity and heal the country by statue.  I consulted the wikipedia list of Robert E Lee monuments (just for an example), and looked up all of them I could.  The very first General Lee monument was erected in 1884, so they waited 19 years after the war ended to start on healing.

The other statues/monuments I could find were: 1890, 1897, 1910, 1912, 1917, 1924, 1928, 1933 and 1936.  Unity and healin' sho' be takin' a long time, suh!

Looking at a different timeline, these statues were "just in time".  The rise of "Jim Crow" laws as the Southern whites pardoned by Johnson got their power back in the late 1870s; the second surge of the "Lost Cause" myth was as the last Confederate soldiers were dying out and some people wanted to preserve their memory, around WWI.   

"Unity" sounds less and less reasonable, but reasserting white supremacy begins to look like a pretty strong theory.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 03:39:21 pm by Mr C »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #624 on: February 18, 2021, 05:59:57 pm »
You are seriously suggesting that these statues were erected to "build unity" and "heal and move on"?

They sure waited a long time to decide to build unity and heal the country by statue.  I consulted the wikipedia list of Robert E Lee monuments (just for an example), and looked up all of them I could.  The very first General Lee monument was erected in 1884, so they waited 19 years after the war ended to start on healing.

The other statues/monuments I could find were: 1890, 1897, 1910, 1912, 1917, 1924, 1928, 1933 and 1936.  Unity and healin' sho' be takin' a long time, suh!

Looking at a different timeline, these statues were "just in time".  The rise of "Jim Crow" laws as the Southern whites pardoned by Johnson got their power back in the late 1870s; the second surge of the "Lost Cause" myth was as the last Confederate soldiers were dying out and some people wanted to preserve their memory, around WWI.   

"Unity" sounds less and less reasonable, but reasserting white supremacy begins to look like a pretty strong theory.
That attempt at unity started with Lincoln himself while the war was still going on. After his reelection and the SIege of Petersburg, the writing was on the wall. Lincoln and Grant were considering what to be done and both wanted the thing over with and for life to go on.

The writings of the time, the various events, and reunions, the fact that many of the officers had all known each other and fought together in Mexico made thigs much different. A lot more went into it than just looking at dates of statues.

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that Lincoln, Grant, etc. did not pursue a path a mass retribution and that our country was better off for it.

White Supremacy then and now were not the same thing. Even many abolitionists said things that would be cringey now.

If these things were such magnets for white supremacy and failed at unity, why did our Southern boys fight the ultimate white supremacist from 1941-1945 in vehicles named "Lee", "Stuart", and "Jackson" while training at places named "Hood", "Benning", and "Bragg"?

If your view of things was true, these people, who were far more racist then, should have ran up the Stars and Bars next to the Swastika and opened fire on the Yankees in the name of the Great White Race. They didn't.

Seriously, the Civil War was over decades ago. You tell Southerners to get over it and rightly so. Well, you need to get over it too.


  • gogators!
  • Waygook Lord

    • 5245

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #625 on: February 18, 2021, 08:05:31 pm »
Nothing says "Neo-Confederate" like constantly emphasizing the actions of Grant and Lincoln.

Are you going to actually cite facts or are you just going to attach labels and hope no one asks you for facts?

If you aren't knowledgeable about something, the correct response is to learn and do your own research, not insult the person for pointing out facts.
Labels are quite helpful. They are informative and put things in perspective.

As for you and facts, LOL.


  • gogators!
  • Waygook Lord

    • 5245

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #626 on: February 18, 2021, 08:08:41 pm »
The fatcats were the politicians in Congress or the War Department that would do things like supply the men with dysfunctional gear or give long winded speeches while the men ate hardtack. Or the person who paid for a substitute while they were conscripted.

Cold Harbor was one of the worst battles in the war for sheer senseless carnage right up there with Spotsylvania Court House and the Mule Shoe (which had preceded it) and the latter Siege of Petersburg.

Johnson had his own role for sure, but his policy was largely an extension of Lincoln's. Lincoln continually emphasized leniency and healing. There was no talk of significant reprisals or mass hangings by Lincoln.

While Johnson had little interest in the welfare of black ex-slaves, he was quite interested in seeing former Confederate leaders tried and convicted.

https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/grant-protects-lee-from-treason-trial/

Anyways, I think you need to do further reading on the subject because you seem to have some misconceptions.

The War happened because of slavery and was about slavery. Nice try imagining what I was going to say, then blaming me for it, then using that to justify your position.

Anyways, the point still stands- Why do people in 2021 have more hatred towards Confederates than people who actually fought them?

That's not mentally healthy. Something is wrong with your perception of reality if you're shaking your fist at people who have been dead for 100 years.
Hey Kreskin, where's your evidence comparing the emotional states of mind of Civil War soldiers and contemporary Americans? 

Facts, you said. Let's see them.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #627 on: February 18, 2021, 08:21:43 pm »
That attempt at unity started with Lincoln himself while the war was still going on. After his reelection and the SIege of Petersburg, the writing was on the wall. Lincoln and Grant were considering what to be done and both wanted the thing over with and for life to go on.

The writings of the time, the various events, and reunions, the fact that many of the officers had all known each other and fought together in Mexico made thigs much different. A lot more went into it than just looking at dates of statues.

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that Lincoln, Grant, etc. did not pursue a path a mass retribution and that our country was better off for it.

White Supremacy then and now were not the same thing. Even many abolitionists said things that would be cringey now.

If these things were such magnets for white supremacy and failed at unity, why did our Southern boys fight the ultimate white supremacist from 1941-1945 in vehicles named "Lee", "Stuart", and "Jackson" while training at places named "Hood", "Benning", and "Bragg"?

If your view of things was true, these people, who were far more racist then, should have ran up the Stars and Bars next to the Swastika and opened fire on the Yankees in the name of the Great White Race. They didn't.

Seriously, the Civil War was over decades ago. You tell Southerners to get over it and rightly so. Well, you need to get over it too.

I'm pretty much done with this nonsense, for one thing, you keep confusing military and civilian leaders.  You have no response to the timing of the southern re-emergence of CW generals so you, as you so often do, deflect--abolitionists said things that would be cringey now?  What does that have to with it?  Of course Lincoln wanted healing and rebuilding, but many in the South did not, especially if it meant recognizing black people as citizens.  And once Reconstruction ended, they set about it.  Those "dates of statues" are quite telling, despite your dismissal.

You're doing what you usually do, picking out one oak in a forest full of pine trees--you refuse to see the forest for the tree.

But let me just point out that people are not entirely as simple as you seem to think.  For example, US forces worked together with the Soviets, knowing that they were philosophical enemies, but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Patton kept getting in trouble for calling this out.  Well, among other things.

And the US didn't join the war in Europe to save the Jews, so I don't know where you're coming from on that (other than being obfuscatory and dishonest).  The depths of Nazi depravity were unknown to most until very late in the war.

And too many of the people trying to defend these Confederate symbols deny the atrocities of the Holocaust, and many even think 6MWNE.  To them, the Civil War is NOT over, and the Fourth Reich can't come soon enough. 

Symbols matter, and they are important, and these ones need to be removed from the public square, relegated to history.  Why are you denying this simple, obvious fact?


  • Savant
  • The Legend

    • 2814

    • April 07, 2012, 11:35:31 pm
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #628 on: February 18, 2021, 08:47:01 pm »
"I fought the Nazis so how can I be a racist?" is Marty's argument? haha

Is that the WW2 version of "I'm not a racist because at least one of my friends is black."


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #629 on: February 18, 2021, 11:15:54 pm »
I'm pretty much done with this nonsense, for one thing, you keep confusing military and civilian leaders.
As I've shown- Civil War military and civilian leaders overlapped. Political figures were granted general's commissions and fought in the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_general

Among the Confederate political generals includes a former f*ing Vice-President of the United States, TWO former governors of Virginia, the former governor of Massachussetts, members of Congress, and the foremost figure in the German-American community.

Military leaders were political leaders and political leaders were military leaders. They overlapped. Anyone who knows anything about the Civil War knows this. If you tried to dispute this you'd be laughed out of any Civil War historian's office.

Quote
You have no response to the timing of the southern re-emergence of CW generals
Yes, as Reconstruction both failed and receded, former Confederates became more and more prominent? What does that have to do with the point that there were no large-scale reprisals and the country wanted to move on? That bolsters my point.

Quote
Of course Lincoln wanted healing and rebuilding, but many in the South did not
And many more in the South did. It was one country. People moved on and accepted that it was one country. There was no sustained guerilla campaign, which was one of the big fears of the North. Did everyone forgive? Of course not, but overwhelmingly the public accepted that they were one American nation.

Quote
Those "dates of statues" are quite telling, despite your dismissal.
You're drawing your own conclusions by them. The fact that statues are built at various dates does not prove your point (which seems to vacillate over whether or not these statues were or were not about healing). People building statues as people are aging or dying? I'm shocked! Clearly that means they want another revolution or whatever it is you're trying to claim. Some were undoubtedly built for racist reasons and to push "Lost Cause" narratives. But not all. Many were in built in acknowledgment of military prowess. Regardless of what side he fought on, Jackson was a brilliant general who conducted one of the great campaigns in military history, one that is still studied and taught around the world.

Quote
But let me just point out that people are not entirely as simple as you seem to think.  For example, US forces worked together with the Soviets, knowing that they were philosophical enemies, but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Patton kept getting in trouble for calling this out.  Well, among other things.
That's my point- That common soldiers did not hate the other side en masse simply because they shot at each other.

Quote
And the US didn't join the war in Europe to save the Jews, so I don't know where you're coming from on that (other than being obfuscatory and dishonest).
Where did I say they did, Mr. Obfuscatory and Dishonest? FFS dude, do you actually read what you type and check and see if you're doing the thing you accuse the other of doing?

Quote
The depths of Nazi depravity were unknown to most until very late in the war.
No, but Hitler's ideology was known quite well before the war.

Quote
And too many of the people trying to defend these Confederate symbols deny the atrocities of the Holocaust, and many even think 6MWNE.  To them, the Civil War is NOT over, and the Fourth Reich can't come soon enough.
You got any numbers to support your claim that people not wanting statue removal consists of way too many denying the Holocaust and supporting a Fourth Reich? Are you suggesting that a sizeable number of those polled below embrace Holocaust denialism? The rally at Charlottesville, which was supposedly THE big gathering, had like what, 3-500 people tops?

https://morningconsult.com/2020/06/10/confederate-statue-flag-polling/

Dude, you're delusional if you think there are mass numbers of Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists running around.

Quote
Symbols matter, and they are important, and these ones need to be removed from the public square, relegated to history.  Why are you denying this simple, obvious fact?

1. Because it assumes that something is a source of inspiration and problems when it isn't
2. It assumes that it's removal will have any tangible benefit, when it won't
3. Wanting to tear down some statue, of a person who has been dead for generations, whose own enemies at the time didn't loathe to that level, that serves at present as a place people place their beverages and lean their skateboards as a way to combat racism, is an act of mental illness and extreme irrationality.

If these statues are such a magnet for your energy and efforts, it really calls into question what exactly you think is wrong in America and what is actually impacting things.

Tearing down the statues would have about as much impact on race relations in America as tearing down some colonial era building in Korea would have on Korean-Japanese relations- Not solve anything and just serve as a scapegoat for people's issues and a distraction from real problems.

I think Korean-Japanese relations have some troubles. I think race relations in America have problems. You know what doesn't enter my head as a solution? "Let's tear down a building or a statue."


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #630 on: February 18, 2021, 11:18:57 pm »
Question- What exactly is your move after tearing down these statues? Like what is supposed to accomplish? What will it do? What's your next move afterwards?

Is the next move to tear down a statue of History's Greatest Monster, Jimmy Carter, because he wasn't vocal enough on Civil Rights?


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #631 on: February 18, 2021, 11:21:06 pm »
Question- What exactly is your move after tearing down these statues? Like what is supposed to accomplish? What will it do? What's your next move afterwards?

Is the next move to tear down a statue of History's Greatest Monster, Jimmy Carter, because he wasn't vocal enough on Civil Rights?
Bu-bye.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #632 on: February 18, 2021, 11:23:23 pm »
"I fought the Nazis so how can I be a racist?" is Marty's argument? haha

Is that the WW2 version of "I'm not a racist because at least one of my friends is black."
No, that wasn't my argument.

My argument was if these statues and vehicle names and forts really were inspiration for Nazism and White Supremacy, how come they didn't have that effect on millions of Americans in the South? Like shouldn't they have rebelled and sided with Hitler if what you claim those statues have the ability to do, is true? I mean, surely people were MORE RACIST back then. Hitler was at the height of his power from 1933-1941. His views were well known. And yet there was no mass Nazi movement across the South. Why?


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #633 on: February 18, 2021, 11:27:07 pm »
Hey Kreskin, where's your evidence comparing the emotional states of mind of Civil War soldiers and contemporary Americans? 
Like, everything after Appomattox? Like, the recorded terms of Grant's surrender negotiations with Lee? Lincoln's recorded thoughts and writings? Like post-war reunions of Unions and Confederates which had people from both sides shake hands and embrace, and weren't filled with brawls and violence?

Seriously, you have MORE vitriol than someone who actually fought them and these people have all been dead for like almost 100 years. That's NOT mentally healthy. Something is seriously out of whack with your brain if you are wound up that much about them.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #634 on: February 18, 2021, 11:30:59 pm »
Quote
Question- What exactly is your move after tearing down these statues? Like what is supposed to accomplish? What will it do? What's your next move afterwards?

Is the next move to tear down a statue of History's Greatest Monster, Jimmy Carter, because he wasn't vocal enough on Civil Rights?

Bu-bye.
Translation: I have no answers for those questions, haven't thought of them, and now that I'm thinking about them for the first second of my life, it shows how ludicrous my position is.

Also, I think you missed the joke and the reference. Or maybe you do and it kind of shows the ridiculousness of a statue-destroying mob.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czfKPaypNsU
« Last Edit: February 18, 2021, 11:32:39 pm by Mr.DeMartino »


  • gogators!
  • Waygook Lord

    • 5245

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #635 on: February 19, 2021, 01:34:05 am »
Like, everything after Appomattox? Like, the recorded terms of Grant's surrender negotiations with Lee? Lincoln's recorded thoughts and writings? Like post-war reunions of Unions and Confederates which had people from both sides shake hands and embrace, and weren't filled with brawls and violence?

Seriously, you have MORE vitriol than someone who actually fought them and these people have all been dead for like almost 100 years. That's NOT mentally healthy. Something is seriously out of whack with your brain if you are wound up that much about them.
Now you're psychoanalyzing me---thanks but no thanks. But while you've got your couch out, why don't you explain your need to habitually lie? SERIOUSLY.

Why don't you explain why the South still resents the North?

Grant and Lee were trying to reunify the nation and build a post-slavery South. Unfortunately, Lincoln was shot by one of your peace-loving Southerners and Reconstruction went all to pieces even while former soldiers held hands and sang kumbaya around the campfire.



Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #636 on: February 19, 2021, 09:22:18 am »
I feel that I was right all along. Trump lost the election, he was unable to take the loss, and on January 6th, he incited the insurrection. His supporters made up of fascists and white supremacists have stormed the capital to a point that they wanted
to go in the house chamber and kill Democrat representatives for certifying Joe Biden as the president. So yes, there was violence that happened why? Because these Trump supporters who stormed the capital are hot headed terrorists. They all should have been arrested and locked up in jail, but have they all been arrested and jailed? No. Why? Because there were not enough police to stop them. This is the kind of double standard that exists in American law enforcement that explains why American police are the worst police in the OECD. If it was black people trying to storm the capital they would be crushed. But no, they allowed these violent terrorist rioters to storm the capital because they give white people a pass.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #637 on: February 19, 2021, 10:08:04 am »
Why don't you explain why the South still resents the North?
The South is not a monolith. It wasn't then and it certainly isn't now.

Some Southerners have plenty of insecurities and resentments. You know what doesn't help? Treating the entire region as a monolith and constantly mocking and insulting it and the people there.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #638 on: February 19, 2021, 10:10:25 am »
I feel that I was right all along. Trump lost the election, he was unable to take the loss, and on January 6th, he incited the insurrection. His supporters made up of fascists and white supremacists have stormed the capital to a point that they wanted
to go in the house chamber and kill Democrat representatives for certifying Joe Biden as the president. So yes, there was violence that happened why? Because these Trump supporters who stormed the capital are hot headed terrorists. They all should have been arrested and locked up in jail, but have they all been arrested and jailed? No. Why? Because there were not enough police to stop them. This is the kind of double standard that exists in American law enforcement that explains why American police are the worst police in the OECD. If it was black people trying to storm the capital they would be crushed. But no, they allowed these violent terrorist rioters to storm the capital because they give white people a pass.
You're right. Rather than the outcome we had where 5 rioters were killed. We should have had the police open up so 50 rioters were killed.

There's this constant claim that if it was black people it would have been crushed. How many protests related to BLM were "crushed" nationwide last year?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2021, 10:14:01 am by Mr.DeMartino »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #639 on: February 19, 2021, 10:19:44 am »
Good point. And in the future, when you're asked where you where on Jan. 6, 2021, you can say, "I was on the internet trying to sow doubt about the validity of elections in predominantly black counties, without evidence to support my claims. I did this in service to a man that I acknowledged to be a 'a liar', 'a conman' and 'a piece of shit'".

That will contextualize this event for future generations quite well, I think.
Only if you selectively read what I wrote does that work. I also predicted a Biden win, and blasted some of the batshit conspiracy stuff. My point was shared by Kyndo- This wasn't exactly done in a way that promoted confidence. If Trump had won we would gave had accusations of voter suppression and who knows what else. We already had the Russia nonsense.

This declining confidence in American elections combined with conspiracy theories goes across both parties and the powers that be don't seem to be taking the best steps to promote transparency and access.