The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by elphenor

Abolition was a huge grassroots movement in the north, extensively documented

To throw your cynicism even more for a loop it was also an extremely religious movement

If I were to hold your view on religion I might say Christianity ended slavery in N America

The ONLY abolitionists were fringe Christians who actually believed in the New Testament. This idea that the north was morally superior to the south is just bull**** revisionism to reinforce patriotism with the dishonest narrative that the good guys won and America fights for freedom. The only issues at play were money and greed. The north was industrialized and the south used blacks as agricultural machinery. The north didn't give a **** about blacks they just wanted to extend their economic advantage.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I actually think it's a lot more similar to the dictator analogy than you realize tbh. Lee is essentially a leader of a foreign country that laid stake on US soil.

Lee was a general. Jefferson Davis was the leader. I agree with your point though.

[Frownland]

I know, that's why I said "a leader" instead of "the leader".

[Lisnaholic]

Thanks for the translation, Frownland!

Originally Posted by Frownland

Zero years.

^ I didn't know that the statue had always been controvertial. Anybody know when it was first put up?

I actually think it's a lot more similar to the dictator analogy than you realize tbh. Lee is essentially a leader of a foreign country that laid stake on US soil.

^ I didn't realise that people felt like this either. I had a more "Gone with the Wind" perception, that a political dispute between erstwhile brothers, Americans all, somehow got out of hand. Perhaps I need to review my thinking on this topic....

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

I can see that it's still a very contentious issue in a country that isn't mine and I don't want to disrespect the feelings of Americans

It really isn't contentious anymore except for a select group of gun toting Southerners. I highly doubt anyone in this discussion has any emotional investment in the Yankee v. Rebel debate.

^ Strictly speaking, the Civil War was about Federal vs State control; the whole issue of slavery was just an add on from Lincoln after they had already been fighting for years:-

No, it was about slavery. The North wasn't so much pushing for abolition before the war as they were trying to prevent new states entering the Union from being slave states, as there was a power struggle between North and South and at the time 3/5 of the slaves in a state counted towards representation in the House of Representatives, and since the agrarian South had different political interests than the industrial North both sides were basically staring each other down over the issue.

I'm sure there was worry in the South over possible eventual abolition, but unless I'm misremembering my history it was really a political issue.

Originally Posted by Frownland

I actually think it's a lot more similar to the dictator analogy than you realize tbh. Lee is essentially a leader of a foreign country that laid stake on US soil.

I don't think it's really that clear. I'm certainly not an apologist who thinks the war was about the South fighting for its rights, but at the time as far as I know the issue of a state's right to secede from the Union either hadn't been properly addressed or at least settled. I think it would be a reasonable assumption in 1860 that a state was ultimately a sovereign power that was voluntarily ceding some measure of authority to the central government for the sake of keeping a functional country, but still had the right to declare independence and claim their soil as their own.

[Frownland]

Nah, by 1860, national supremacy was firmly established.

Hop down to the supreme court interpretations section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

I can see that it's still a very contentious issue in a country that isn't mine and I don't want to disrespect the feelings of Americans. Everyone can see that the Civil War was a huge tragedy; huge partly because the country was so evenly divided, and at the time Lee was a military hero to many Americans. The Civil War is now part of American history, as in fact is the statue itself. How long has it been standing there without exciting comment? Why not leave historical memorials in place, even if they commemorate things or people that are controvertial by modern standards of thinking? Another way to show disdain for Robert E. Lee would be to put a new, dated, plaque under the statue explaining when the statue was put up and how his cause is now largely discredited, but please leave your historical artifacts in place.
When a dictator is overthrown, it's very common that his statues are destroyed in the excitement of victory, but that doesn't apply in this case and imo no country should go around smashing up the monuments it doesn't approve of.

The monuments aren't being smashed up, they're being moved to museums or put in storage. And just for context, many of these monuments were erected decades after the war as statements of white supremacy. Here's the plaque that was originally on a monument recently removed from New Orleans:



The descendants of Confederates always cry about how moving these statues hurts their precious little feelings, but what about the descendants of the people the Confederates enslaved? Why should they have to endure monuments to the atrocities committed against their ancestors? I say take them down and put them in a museum, they should never have been erected in the first place.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Nah, by 1860, national supremacy was firmly established.

Hop down to the supreme court interpretations section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Is there something specific there or is this just about the Clause itself? Cause I already know that state law is superseded by federal law, but as far as I know that doesn't specifically address a state's right to actually leave the Union. I highly doubt many or any of the states would have voted to ratify the Constitution if that was clear. As far as I can tell it seems one of those things left either unaddressed or vague at the time of ratification for the sake of not having to have a contentious discussion.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Is there something specific there or is this just about the Clause itself? Cause I already know that state law is superseded by federal law, but as far as I know that doesn't specifically address a state's right to actually leave the Union. I highly doubt many or any of the states would have voted to ratify the Constitution if that was clear. As far as I can tell it seems one of those things left either unaddressed or vague at the time of ratification for the sake of not having to have a contentious discussion.

It wasn't established until 69 in Texas v White, so you might be right.

I'll post this quote I saw in my lazy wiki read

"The right of revolution expressed in the Declaration was immediately followed with the observation that long-practised injustice is tolerated until sustained assaults on the rights of the entire people have accumulated enough force to oppress them; then they may defend themselves."

So unless the slaves were revolting I don't think they have a case.

[OccultHawk]

many of these monuments were erected decades after the war as statements of white supremacy.

Stone Mountain wasn't completed until like the 1960's or some ****. Now they're talking about putting an MLK thing on it. It's like the guy who gets out of prison but still has his Nazi Low Riders tattoo.