Last updated on 2017-08-20
Looking for the proper response to the specious “what-aboutism” that Donald Trump is aping to defend statues to swiftly toppling traitorous Confederates? You don’t have to enflame Greg Belfrage with a rhetorical call to blow up the morally complicated Mount Rushmore. Get the proper logical three-point response from a debate coach:
The main arguments against removing the statues– here the term “argument” is stretched to the point of being nearly unrecognizable–have been “what about this person’s sin or transgression or moral failing or slave ownership or . . . ”
When debate class starts in a few days, my young’uns will be taught that “what about” is a red herring. (I will stay away from the hot button issue of the day, but there are examples aplenty.) They will also be taught three responses. First, the “what about . . .” response doesn’t answer the question under consideration. Second, the fact that two people committed the same act doesn’t mean that both should be celebrated. Freshmen might simplify that to “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Third, “what about . . . ” doesn’t refute anything. In the current controversy, pointing out that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves doesn’t assert that slavery is moral or that rebellion against the United States was justified. It’s saying that both Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jefferson committed the same moral crime, slavery. The assertion, however, doesn’t show that Jefferson led soldiers into Pennsylvania to wage war on the United States of America [Leo Kallis, “What About That One Time In 1972 When That One Guy Did Something I Didn’t Like,” The Displaced Plainsman, 2017.08.18].
Confederates were traitors to the United States Constitution shooting U.S. Army soldiers to defend slavery. Nothing you can say about Thomas Jefferson changes the historical and moral facts about the treasonous, racist Confederacy and the logical conclusion: Confederates do not deserve public statues.
Hate: it’s what Cory is about
Speaking of a red herring, that comment you just made, stunk like one.
Whataboutism have been around for a long time, but I have never seen such flagrant use of them as this past week.
OldSarg, Stace Nelson and a few others have mastered the art of them here on Dakota Free Press.
They bring up 160 year old history, abortion and what other distractions they can think of to deflect the conversation.
They refuse to acknowledge the real enemies of America, Nazism and White Supremacy. They would rather attack Cory and President Obama than attack Nazi’s and southern traitors that march in American streets showing their hate and contempt for our country and our government.
Good one, Roger.
Your red herring link doesn’t work, but I think while being factually correct, you are altering perceptions with this statement: Confederates were traitors to the United States Constitution shooting U.S. Army soldiers to defend slavery. Nothing you can say about Thomas Jefferson changes the historical and moral facts about the treasonous, racist Confederacy and the logical conclusion: Confederates do not deserve public statues.
At the time slavery was legally written into the Constitution, and Lincoln’s main goal was to keep the nation together regardless of the outcome of slavery: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” He actually did not think they should be given full civil rights.
So along your lines, does Abraham Lincoln deserve a public statue? Or Teddy Roosevelt who had horrible things to say about Native Americans?
To an overriding degree I object to removing the statues because they are historical, we are all a product of our time, and we need these markers to explain to ourselves who we are. Not all Native Americans want to see team names changed for example.
Also kind of interesting it was a Vice reporter who spoke with Anderson Cooper and said there were no “good people” in the white supremacist crowd. I thought it was possible there might be people there who saw the importance of history, but who would want to be there and in any way identify with white supremacists?
The point I think being pushed aside is the critical importance of free speech. As hateful and ignorant as their beliefs, we only learn through openness and a dedication to physical nonviolence of an aggressive nature. If you agree with Civil Nationalism, which I think is your take on a pluralistic society, then a dedication to the legal principles of The Constitution is paramount, as it was for Lincoln, even though now looking back he was flawed, as people will look at us.
Sometimes violence is necessary to defend non-violence. The anti-facists group goes back to times fighting Mussolini and is a wholly valid response to violent white supremacists. IMHO (And HC, I don’t argue my opinions.)
Cory’s link is absolutely correct and spells out in no uncertain terms what has happened this past week.
To some extent I think those Nazi’s and white Nationalist in Charlottesville have forfeited their citizenship, including freedom of speech.
happy camper is doing precisely what Cory is talking about, while his history is somewhat interesting it does address the underlying issue of being able to recognize Nazi’s and White Supremacy as enemies of America.
In the strongest words and possible action, these people have by their actions declared war on America and need to be exterminated.
If you feel that is too strong of a comment, stuff it.
Cory writes:
I have mixed feelings about the statues, but the suggestion that white Americans in the Confederate states were all evil racists and traitors is counterproductive and untrue.
Damn right Porter, this country was founded using violence against Native Americans and British.
It has continue to preserve itself by fighting the Civil War and continue with World War I and II, the Vietnam War, and constant wars in the Middle-East. And likely with Trump in office, fighting Americans on our soil just as we did in the 1860’s.
Kurt,
Precisely where did Cory suggest “that white Americans in Confederate states were all evil racists and traitors”?
Roger asks me:
Cory had written:
To paint the traitors from the south as anything but racists is the absolute truth. The proof positive is what they did as returning veterans to deny the vote and to initiate Jim Crow as proof of their racist intent and the continuation of that racism white supremacy. Some here say that the statues are historical, my answer would be to what? These statues were mostly erected during Jim Crow days and into current times like within 5 years. No these did not honor anyone, they served notice of who was the boss farmer and where the Black place was. Look, I get it Kurt, your good Book is not against slavery and seems to condone it or accept it in some passages, but do you feel like it was right? What about you happycamper, do you feel it acceptable to own the rights of another human being into forced slavery?
Roger nails it as well and that proof is what we live with today in South Dakota. The racism reeks here much like it always has. Further proof is the 61% who supported a known white supremacist by the name of trump and still do. Anyone who did not know that trump was a white supremacist is a damned ignorant fool that cannot read or reason.
Well, then the same could be said about the left, that they are using a red herring to distract from the dynamics of this disagreement.
Until Charlotteville the MSM has largely not reported on Antifa, and in many cases not done so honestly. Granted they are hard to exactly define, but anarchists seem the best description.
They are not progressive good guys, Cory on steroids, they use violence when it is unnecessary, to stop free speech like at Berkeley with Milo Yiannopoulos. Don’t romanticize them like they are saving the free world, they want to disrupt a system that is largely working. White supremacists have no political power.
Do you really want vigilantes to decide who should and shouldn’t have free speech?
A more balanced view of Antifa:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/
Jerry writes:
No, I don’t. At the beginning of His public ministry Christ identified Himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1, announcing that God had sent Him to proclaim liberty to captives. The Bible addresses the reality of chattel slavery but clearly presents liberty as a better alternative.
Kurt, you clearly fit right into the whole racket of making crap up as you go. The Book is clear on allowing slavery and even goes into making sure your lady slaves submit to the master’s horndog plans. “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)” The Book is full of this gibberish because it was the thing man, it was the thing. The very first neo-liberals came out of Exodus and they are still screwing up the world in a big way.
Happy try to keep up and stay on topic in this debate regarding what-aboutism and you drift into what-aboutism. No wonder 3rd grade for you was tough. The question is about slavery and the racist antics of the traitors from the south, every dog gone one of them..in the Civil War. Read some up above to see that you are upset that Cory said the truth. Do you, happy camper, feel it appropriate to own another human being that was forced into slavery?
Jerry writes:
I’m wondering exactly where you’d say the Bible goes into that.
The founders were slave owners, and as Lincoln said his concern was not slavery, Native Americans enslaved other Native Americans, Muslims enslaved Christians including Americans, Africans enslaved other Africans. The United States helped put an end to that in no pure form, that’s no red herring that’s history.
What’s going on right now is just anti-Trump and a way to delegitimize his presidency.
Americans standing up and protesting against Nazi’s and White Supremacist are now called anarchists, go figure.
Trump has delegitimizes his own presidency with every tweet he post and every word he speaks.
happy camper is at it again, his giving us an unneeded history lesson on slavery is that whataboutism Kal Lis and Cory are speaking about.
Jerry and Porter, I just saw this on Facebook and couldn’t resist posting it here:
Trump Has Turned the Entire Country Into Mississippi and It’s Burning.
All judges. No juries.
You didn’t live then. You weren’t a part of the culture in the mid 1800’s. You sit looking back at statues, books and pictures without doing any research or putting in any thoughts. “Tear it down!” you screech. “Burn the books!” At one time there was a statue across from Main Street Square in downtown Rapid that depicted a Native Brave with his arms bound behind him. The artist’s message was what he saw as the plight of the Native; bound and hurt by today’s society yet standing tall against it. “Protestors” claimed it meant something else so it was taken down and replaced by an old Indian woman with small children. Idealic, at peace. See, the messsage was now gone and wiped away to show something that is not true. All this because the uninformed were hurt by an image. Today the statues being torn down are of a different time and each represent a different message but for you the message is not important. Important for you is the ignorant hurt you suffer. “I blame this! I blame that!”
You are fools.
That statue was taken down because the Wasicu felt guilty about what they’d done to subserviate such a proud race. We may be fools but it’s still in question, as compared to you, of which the answer is fully obvious.
Porter as much as you think your views are infallible you are wrong. Fact and history do not change and nor does the truth. I was there. You were not. You are from Colorado. You are no longer a part of South Dakota. Just like the statues you wish to tear down memory of you and what you think you represented have faded and no longer have meaning. You are no more than a nasty memory, forever old and forgotten.
I’m looking out over the small bay at Block Island ordering breakfast. I’m thinking Eggs Benedict.
You’ll never have Civil Nationalism without respecting law and order. Antifa does not respect the state. If you respect their lawlessness there will be chaos. They really are fascists, just the kind you like. For now.
Sir/Ma’am/Trans … The truth is you feel embarrassed to be a Republican. I would too. Give me a list of the statues depicting black women being lynched. We’ll put that list next to the statues of their white oppressors and do a body count. We’re happy to build some new, real history statues. But, you’d just be more embarrassed about your race and what good would that do for USA?
Antifa kicked your white supremacist asses and they’ll do it again.
Portly is an old feeble minded fool spouting threats at the wind.
I did order the Eggs Benedict. Service is a little slow. . . I wish I could post a picture on here. Everything coming out of the kitchen looks wonderful!
I just told the cook to spit in your food. Cooks are tight. Bigots are blight.
It’s amazing how some people will twist themselves into pretzels to defend treason and white supremacy as long as Johnny Reb is involved. Maybe instead of all the specious “history” and tendentious, quasi-legalistic arguments to justify that It Was All Okay, read Josh Marshall’s article about General Henry Thomas, a Virginian who remained loyal to the Union. Rewriting Civil War history began immediately after the Confederate traitors lost, but General Thomas was having none of it.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-battle-for-memory-started-immediately
Nothing about Drumpf’s presidency is legitimate. We had. whether you accept it or not, interference from at least one foreign nation hell bent on electing Drumpf.
We have an illegitimate bogus pous doing everything he can to prevent or disrupt investigations into his and his families finances and business dealings with Russia and various Russians.
The idea of freedom is a relatively new thing, slavery was everywhere, but the United States is now probably the most free place on earth. It’s strange to look the U.S. as though it only happened here and this one country is fully responsible for this sin. It’s part of human history.
From Wikipedia: “The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom.”
Slavery was known in the very first civilizations such as Sumer in Mesopotamia which dates back as far as 3500 BC, as well as in almost every other civilization. The Byzantine–Ottoman wars and the Ottoman wars in Europe resulted in the taking of large numbers of Christian slaves. Slavery became common within much of Europe during the Dark Ages and it continued into the Middle Ages. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Arabs and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600.
Although slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world,[5] human trafficking remains an international problem and an estimated 25-40 million people are enslaved today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
Happy don’t go posting facts! It ruins their justification for their hate.
Shorter HappyCamper: “Slavery is really old, so we need to celebrate white supremacist traitors.” That’s a creative argument, but not very persuasive.
If we’re really interested in preserving history—rather than glorifying Confederate traitors with statues that were erected during Jim Crow and the civil rights era—how about something more appropriate, like Jefferson Davis standing atop a mound of human skulls? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/676699cd654264ba0c6912cd261ef531dc0197873c073a3f92ec4bfcee852a1b.jpg
The Submission of Slaves to Masters (1 Peter 2:18-25)18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.
Old Peter was quite a fellow. “Slaves were not allowed to marry; but they cohabited; and the children born of such a partnership were the property of the master, not of the parents, just as the lambs born to the sheep belonged to the owner of the flock, and not to the sheep.” Hence the old horndog was taken care of and if there was a child, dude got to own it, nice.
This was more or less the sex trade that was condoned at the time by the very men who wrote the Book directed against women.
I’m not celebrating white supremacy, I’m saying we have to more fully understand all of human history. Not pretend it didn’t exist. White supremacy like any sort of racism which has occurred with every color of skin is horrible and ignorant.
But the point remains our country is so incredible because of free speech, which must include what we don’t want to hear. Think about it, or we would never change and grow. It was free speech that got people to think slavery was wrong. What if everyone against it had been shut down?
happycamper rewrites are done now by showing that the book Book shows you can do the slavery thingy by changing the role of master to Master regarding slavery. In other words, the now reading would show that you are subject to God only. Nice try, close but no cigar.
Prisoners of war were made slaves, in Rome alone there were approximately 4 million slaves. Where happy and Kurt go into full Nazi is that slavery was considered a war prize for the legions as well as with any conquering forces at that time, so it was very common because of continued conflict.
What made the American slave trade different was that the bondage was done strictly for commerce. There was no warring between America as a whole and Africa, it was strictly for money. Here are the traitor states reasoning for seceding from the union. https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
In each ones case, there are no mentions of war prizes or of conflict with Africa. Strictly commerce is the reason for even the lowest of social classes, they would have the ability for ownership of a human being. So even the lowliest of privates in the south owned or could own ownership of a human being. That is what they went to war over. The private knew that if the slaves were free then the rich landowners would stop the sharecropping and put them in the fields picking cotton and smelling mule flatulence for food and a crappy shanty to live in.
Still on Block Island. Now I’ll tell you why. I am here for a memorial for a man who served with me. He was from Manhatten. Worked the design of the Toss Bomb. Claimed to be an atheist but requested a Christian service for his memorial. Today I will spread his ashes over the Island he loved. In a place he found peace. On this island there are no statues of Warriors, only sailors. One day there will be those who wish to tear these statues down as well. As I ready myself to spread the ashes I think of the words Jim would like me to pass onto those who wish to destroy history. I think it would go something like “NUTS!”. I would say it more along the lines of “F you and all your destruction!” Best wishes losers!
Heidelberger, are you seeing now why some of us were so afraid and critical of the PC Police? It has emboldened the most radical elements to become dictators of what can be said, of who can gather. This slippery slope is a dangerous one. Even here on your own thread Roger and Porter feel justified acting outside of the law. Cause the ends justify the means? Not in a nation of laws where we all have to accept those values. This American thing is special.
I can certainly see why you are afraid of addressing the actual issue, the “red herring” status of what-aboutism (not to mention the sheer fallacy of the slippery slope), as clearly explained by one of the smartest logicians in the state.
Whataboutism: The Cold War tactic, thawed by Putin, is brandished by Donald Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/whataboutism-what-about-it/2017/08/17/4d05ed36-82b4-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html?utm_term=.e599a4e88f6e&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1
Excellent article Dr. Newquist and speaking of Putin, he showed up in Charlottsville as well. In the Nazi hatefest, there were chants that “Russia is our friend” over and over. Turns out, Putin and Russia are the Nazi’s BFF http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-trump-putin-russia-perspec-0517-20170516-story.html The coup will continue with more hate marches scheduled all courtesy of Vlad Putin and the Russia that will dominate us into their will. All those boats a floating around that we have paid dearly for and all those bombers that we see flying around don’t mean a thing as the Russians have already invaded to willing accomplices. Thanks republicans or should you be called comrades now. Will you support Nazism under trump or Dominionism under Pence those are our two choices…if we allow either.
HappyCamper needs to let Israel and Germany know that they’re doing history wrong. They need to have public monuments to Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, and Mengele in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Berlin, or else everyone will forget history. Similarly, Iraq needs to have statues of Saddam Hussein everywhere to remind their people of history too. And those Eastern Bloc countries that tore down Soviet-era statues or moved them to history museums? They’re doing it wrong too.
It’s weird how everybody’s doing history wrong except the Confederate apologists. Remember the Noble Lost Cause . . . er, I mean fair, impartial history!
Chris S
happy camper would probably be willing to rebuild the Berlin Wall as a reminder of history.
His assistance in rebuilding the Berlin Wall will lend expertise in the construction of Trump’s Mexican Wall.
Speaking of Trump’s Wall, and that’s what it will be called if it is ever constructed, would be another piece of history that will need to be torn by the next generations of Americans.
Drumpf’s wall, if built, is officially Hatrian’s Wall, because I have spoken and he is a hater.
Ouch Roger, that point hit the mark man. Indeed, Kurt and happy want Angela to rebuild the Berlin Wall because of history and such that also shows a second place thingy. Hey in keeping with the trump hate towards Mexico and demanding they pay for it, maybe Angela and Germany can demand Putin and Russia pay for the thing. If it fits, you must acquit as another what-aboutism…or close enough.
You’re gonna love this!
Today in Boston the Nazi’s and White Supremacy groups organized a “Free Speech” rally that was shutdown by 15,000 to 20,00 Americans protesting them. There were about two dozen hateful organizers.
Americans literally put the Nazi’s and Confederates on the run.
This needs to happen wherever haters organize.
If the what about is directly relevant it’s not a red herring. Trump’s error was to say there were good people on both sides, when it does not look as though any peace-loving history buffs were mixed in with the white supremacists. He should have condemned their beliefs while acknowledging their right to free speech, to gather peacefully, and reinforced what we mutually believe, but to me, and I think most of the country, this was much, much more about the violence and loss of life. Hey, I didn’t vote for him, but everyone, including Antifa, have to abide by the laws until the next election. Don’t get crazy.
happy camper 2017-08-19 at 00:38 for the win!!! The first post to use whataboutism on a thread about the wrongs of whataboutism reasoning.
http://www.stonekettle.com/2017/08/no-mans-land.html
Naughty langwidge aside, Wright nails white supremacist, Nazi lovers and slavery apologists right below the belt.
On a different note-the ACLU sez they will no longer defend armed hate groups.
http://thehill.com/homenews/347053-aclu-revises-policy-to-avoid-supporting-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms
This should make many right wing nutty groups happy as they have nothing good to say about the ACLU.
What aboutism Russia money laundering with trump at SOHO? What aboutism is that all about? There is a red herring in the caviar, brothers and sisters. So happy camper is money laundering trying to legitimize trump, how do you see that?
Stop trying to change the subject. Cory doesn’t like it when you get off topic.
Disagree, we are also talking about your boy trump in all forms as you say that we here are just trying to “de legitimatize” trump’s presidency. I think you said that whataboutism did you not? As you were the one who made this remark, it is only fair to bring that into the equation in my view. Please proceed, do you think money laundering is trying to de legitimize trump?
OK fine, I hadn’t heard about it. As far as I am concerned anything truthful is up for consideration and not a diversionary tactic. The thing is, Trump is a narcissist celebrity for sure, but being racist uncertain. After that press conference which was supposed to be about infrastructure, he perked up later when asked about Charlottesville which gave him an opportunity to brag about his vineyards down there. He’s a child in a man’s body, but yes, I think the leftist media made it their mission to take him down and not report fairly on things like Antifa which I told you about weeks ago, and gave you the link to Tim Pool’s reporting. He was moving when Charlottesville occurred or we may have actually got more accurate feet on the ground information. I will have to read about this possible Trump connection before having any opinion: https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate
tick tock.
Way back at the top, against Hap’s allegation: Neither Kallis’s explanation of logic nor my argument about Confederates and statues pushes aside the critical importance of free speech. Kallis says we must be critical in our exercise of free speech: specifically, when people resort to fallacies to obscure their bad arguments, we must explain their error, and they must acknowledge and cease their error. I say we must be honest and moral in our exercise of free speech: if someone says something false or immoral (which, by extension, includes honoring racists and traitors with public monuments), we have a right and duty to say, “What you are saying is false/immoral; you should stop saying such things.”
No one can argue against your words Cory, that’s the way it should be, but actions usually differ. When “What Abouts” confirm a group bias, they good! Pile on. Fair reporting (or observation) usually leaves both sides displeased. Your own writing is highly biased, so if you want to be as ethical as you describe, you’ll have to change the way you do things, and all of your commenters should hold your feet to the fire to your own words, which they’ll never do. DFP is a bias factory. You’re not a reporter, you’re a propagandist. A pretty good one, but that’s what you are.
I’m no Trump fan but also no fan of biased reporting. One of the reporters yelled at Trump something like: Do you support the Confederacy? Watching that press conference you can see how they were just dying to create the narrative they wanted.
That link didn’t look good for Trump Jerry, but they said it was murky. I would have to know a lot more before making a judgment. In today’s highly polarized environment, one has to be very careful about trusting the media.
Cory, You call people names and do not discourage it from posters, ask your Students what they think about that form of debate.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/point-counterpoint-lee-marvin-and-michelle-triola/2846665?snl=1
The other thing that gets me hot are these pinheads that need their red meat every day, served up just the way they like it, and Cory serves it up just right. Ring the bell they come a runnin.
It’s beneath what you can do, and you feed hateful people, and give a forum for the likes of your most extreme who are obviously unstable. Like that’s responsible? And where are you heading cause you don’t want to become them, or encourage others to become them.
“What about Cory” is also a red herring. Confederates are still traitors. Monuments to Confederate generals still celebrate treason, promote racial oppression, and have no place on public property.
My essays against racism and treason lead to no logical conclusion like that of the white supremacists, who ultimately would disenfranchise, jail, deport, or kill everyone whom they don’t like. My essays are perfectly responsible, honest, and moral… unlike those of Confederate defenders, who are still peddling racism and treason.
What about Jews in the civil war? As the racists chants were directed towards Jews as well as people of color that trump embraced, what about them? Thousands of Jews fought and died defending slavery while thousands of Jews fought and died to abolish slavery. What about the fact there were 9 northern Jewish generals in the civil war against slavery? What about the facts there were also several southern Jewish generals defending human bondage, slavery? What about that? What about white supremacists claiming their hatred of Jews during a Nazi march with claims they defend statues of the very commander that the Jewish generals and soldiers supported and died for, all in the name of slavery?
What about a president that gives full support, that we can see in those who advise him that are clearly anti Semitic, white nationalists who support the traitor flag and the other Nazi rag? What about the Zionists in Israel (Netanyahoo I am looking at you) that support the Nazism, white nationalists we see on our streets here? What about who is white and who is not in America? What about a blood quantum to decide who is white? What about if we find that we are all a blend of white? So then what about actually dealing with the problems we all share, like a government that has to pit us white blended people against all the rest of us white blended people in order to control and steal from us white blended people while we argue over what and how much of a blend we all are? What about the white blood in Latinos? What about that? What about the white blood in Indians? What about that? What about the white blood in Blacks and Muslims? What about that?
What about recognizing that the civil war was completely about slavery? What about that? What about defending slavery instead of defending the statues that supported that evil? The floor is yours, defend slavery and why you think it should never have been abolished in the United States of America. What about that?
OK, I’ll agree this far: Trump should have immediately disavowed white supremacy, said there is no place for it in American society, that he didn’t want any of their support or votes, that it sickened him.
Then a further discussion could have been had about the What Abouts, some of which are important, some much less so. The main What About are radicals (Antifa) good cause they fight Nazis? Easy to say yes, but: “The greatest Nazi-killer of the 20th century was Josef Stalin. He also killed millions of his own people and terrorized, oppressed, enslaved or brutalized tens of millions more. The fact that he killed Nazis during World War II (out of self-preservation, not principle) doesn’t dilute his evil one bit. This should settle the issue as far as I’m concerned. Nazism was evil. Soviet communism was evil. It’s fine to believe that Nazism was more evil than communism. That doesn’t make communism good.”
Jonah Goldberg wrote that in his thoughtful piece. My own words can not be thoughtful enough. I try to count to ten first, but sometimes only make it to seven. Even Krauthammer pointed out many of early statues were gifts from the north, to make reconciliation and a legitimate part of Civil War history, but the later statues in the south were in support of Jim Crow laws, and not acceptable to be on public display.
To make a point about comments, Pat Powers said a regular from this blog from Colorado was threatening to the point he had to contact authorities. That’s not free speech and that’s not liberal.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Antifa-radicals-aren-t-good-because-they-11882595.php
Jerry had written:
I’d replied:
Jerry writes:
There’s no mention of lady slaves or “horndog plans” in that passage. I’m wondering whether you’d also argue that being submissive and respectful to an unreasonable employer requires fornicating with him.
I’m not sure why you’re claiming that’s relevant to me. I’ve already told you above that I don’t feel chattel slavery in the Confederate states was right (2017-08-19 at 00:10).
Thanks for posting the link, Jerry. It’s hard for me to see how an honest person could read that information and still suggest states’ rights had nothing to do with the formation of the Confederacy.
There’s strong historical evidence that many Confederate soldiers detested the slavery in their home states.
My only comment here regarding Confederate statues was that I have mixed feelings about them (2017-08-18 at 23:12). I definitely don’t want Angela Merkel to rebuild the Berlin Wall.
Cory writes:
There’s nothing inherently false or immoral about honoring flawed men, and in any case the suggestion that white Americans in the Confederate states were all evil racists and traitors is counterproductive and untrue.
White supremacy leads to the conclusion that no black American is worthy of honor. Your writing leads to the conclusion that no Confederate or defender of Confederates is worthy of honor. It’s obviously not identical, but it’s similar.
The suggestion that anyone who defends Confederates is peddling racism and treason is counterproductive and untrue.
Threatening violence is also a fallacy, perhaps the worst red herring to which anyone can resort.
DWC throwing around such unsubstantiated accusations is a particularly desperate what-about. I have yet to see any of DWC’s accusations of criminal threats or other criminal activity turn into any serious prosecution. (Recall his slanderous accusation that I had broken into Chad Haber’s non-existent locked desk or attempted to pay a witness thousands of dollars for a story.)
Well, Krut, we can keep running around the mulberry bush, but the use of Confederate symbols by opponents of the civil rights movement makes pretty clear their racist intent, and the plain treason of the Confederacy is an unavoidable historical fact. The only ways in modern America in which one can “defend Confederates” without also defending racism and treason are ignorance and dogged devil’s advocacy.
And it is perfectly logical to say every Confederate—every person who left the Union, supported seccession, took up arms against Union soldiers—is indeed a traitor. No such traitor is worthy of honor by statues erected by the government they betrayed.
This What About chatter is just another way to entirely discount another person’s argument, like yelling fake news if they cite a source you don’t like. Right now there is a greater portion of African Americans who want the statues, 44% keep, 40% remove, 11% unsure.
Yankee Boy we don’t understand their culture. What About: The King and Queen of England. They are a symbol of repression to me. They have no place in government, get rid of them, but the British people love their monarchy. Other people also have valid perspectives.
You attempt to slice every argument down to such a basic it loses its meaning. At that point everything may seem logical and perfectly consistent to you, which is probably why you do it, but is a teddy bear still a teddy bear after you’ve shaved off every piece of hair?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/poll-most-black-americans-dont-want-confederate-statues-removed/
What about those 44% of black people who want the statues?
You can’t say those words What About! They have been banned, therefore I do not even have to consider what you have to say.
Another problem solved by the liberal mind.
happy, yes Tucker Carlson says that 44% of Blacks loves them some confederate statues. Tucker Carlson also said that for trump to look up at the eclipse with no eye protection was as follows:
” Donald Trump’s decision to look right at the sun and potentially boil his own eyeballs was “perhaps the most impressive thing any president has ever done”, according to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.”
Tucker Carlson and happy camper both sound like they go together like peas and carrots.
Kurt Evans, what ever possessed you to think that all slaves were male? Are you possessed?
“There’s no mention of lady slaves or “horndog plans” in that passage. I’m wondering whether you’d also argue that being submissive and respectful to an unreasonable employer requires fornicating with him.” Exactly, that was the whole purpose of house slaves. There were no plantations, so where do you think these slaves worked? Why do we now use the word “sex slaves”? (thought I would help you out to give you something to get all righteous about). Yep, the old horndogs of the Book used human bondage to satisfy their sexual needs as well as the chores, kind of a two for one. Your Book was supportive of the practice of human bondage for all the needs of the masters, including you know what. By denying that, you clearly show that you do not understand what the Book’s history lessons are all about. Hey man, if you even read that Book you thump, you would also see that the Book gives detail about abortions and its support of that as well..oh my…
happy and Kurt, if your wife, daughter, granddaughter or niece were kidnapped and sold into modern day sexual slavery, where would you want the statues of the those that enslaved them placed, the town square, city park or in front of the county court house?
We have heard a lot of different comments of support for keeping confederate statues lately, one of the frequent ones is that by removing the confederate statues we are trying to erase and destroy history.
The history of the Civil War didn’t stop when the traitor confederates surrendered and southern states sought readmission to the union. The Civil War history lived on through decades of turmoil when Jim Crow became the new slavery, the Civil Rights Act, and most recently Charlottesville.
You can’t erase or destroy history because history lives on and evolves, history changes, but you may not.
The removal of the traitor statues is now a part of Civil War history and people’s anger is as live as it was in the 1860’s.
It took decades for white and even Native American students to learn the true history of how Europeans committed genocide to claim this country. Even with that piece of paper that founded this country and declares in fanciful words that ALL MEN ARE EQUATED EQUAL Native Americans are still fighting stereotypes, racism, prejudice and discrimination and oppression.
The uneasy relationship between the white thieves and murderers and Native Americans lives on just as it did with the end of the Indian Wars.
No Jerry, that wasn’t Tucker Carlson calling a few people and getting back to me, that “survey of 1,125 adults was conducted August 14th and August 15th, 2017 by The Marist Poll
sponsored in collaboration with NPR and PBS NewsHour.”
In the way Cory describes Civil Nationalism, smaller groups get to retain their heritage. We all have to be universally tied to our most important common beliefs, but then let them do their own thing. So monuments at the federal level are in question, but those at the local level should be decided upon locally, especially seeing the high number of African Americans who disagree with Cory. Who are we up here to say what they should do down there?
I’ve always wanted to say this and it’s fitting: Go home damn Yankee. Go home.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us170814_PBS/NPR_PBS%20NewsHour_Marist%20Poll_National%20Nature%20of%20the%20Sample%20and%20Tables_August%2017,%202017.pdf
That was Tucker Carlson’s rag that published that tripe. According to that little Tucker, he would claim that 44% of Blacks would like to be enslaved again. The poll was conducted not on Black folks, it was on 1,125 adults. Tucker Carlson is just like you and trump, empty with not a solid idea for you to discuss. Still living on what Obama gave to the country with nothing more to offer. Sad
Monuments to slavery are just not a good way to say we are now for equality. If that be the case, then you would be all in for black folks and all folks of color, owning white folks as slaves, no? Putting up monuments of a black man with a whip in hand on the back of a white man while the black man is humming a Negro spiritual, no?
I am a Red Sox fan so I agree completely Go Home damn Yankee. Go home. Go Sox! Red Sox are currently, the division leader.
44% of 1,125 random called were black and wanted statues? Simply does not equate especially when Tucker then says about the numbers of Latino that agree with him as even higher. Me, I think in addition to the statue of a Black man whipping a white man while the white man is looking at a black woman should be considered as well as this statue in Barbados https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/8/16/16156540/confederate-statues-charlottesville-virginia
Maybe the movie producers could get Mel Gibson to portray the white slave and call it “My 12 Years as a White Slave owned by a Black Man, oh and by the way, I still have this hate thing going for Jews” It is a long title, but should get the point across. I see Academy Awards for best actor in a drama coming…
I made an error on the polls and agree with them after checking further.
Thank you for acknowledging that. My point is twofold:
1) There can be relevant What Abouts.
2) We cannot assume to know other people’s perspectives. The south does have its own culture, and how black people feel is more important than us northerners.
Kurt argues:
There are many superficial facts that make the statements “similar.” For example, they both use “words” and are both use the “English language.” But there seems to be a controlling difference that Kurt has apparently decided not to comment about.
The negative judgment of the characteristics of African Americans has nothing to do with their behavior or ideas. In contrast, the judgment levied against the confederates is based only on their behavior and ideas.
I dunno about that though regarding what is going through a Black person’s mind regarding issues in the south. In the first place, I can find no reference that the poll took place only with only the south region. The poll states that it was taken within the contiguous 48 lower states so that covers a lot of ground for the 1,125. I do not think it represents what Black folks of the south believe in particular.
Secondly, the what about is what I was asking you. If 44% of blacks think that what the statues represent is not that much of a thing, then what about what I asked you regarding a black person owning a white person as a slave, how is that different? What about that?
Well, I don’t understand it either, but the shame is white supremacists using them create turmoil. You’d really have to have some conversations with black people to understand why they appreciate them, or see them as important history, or for what reason they want them to remain. Maybe someone will write about this soon. The 11% unsure is also interesting. Are they thinking about it, don’t care? I was wondering the same, if blacks in the south or north have different views, since their responses were not just from the south.
There is something to be said about people deciding their own local issues as appropriate. Like having a concern for the Masonic Temple for example. This meant something to Cory that it wouldn’t mean to someone from out of town, and the same might be true for some of these statues and monuments spread throughout the south in many small towns too probably, that it is part of their fabric. They grew up playing around that thing, their family told them about what it meant, their teachers told them what it meant, so outsiders or big brother telling them what to do may not be appreciated.
Slavery is slavery as far as I am concerned, an abomination in all of human history until recently, although it still exists.
I don’t have any black people to ask how they can be so taken to want these statues. Then I realized that there may be some other black person that I could look to for answers. I wanted someone with high credentials, someone with…well, I went to Ben Carson and found that there are black folks out there that seem to be so out of touch that they say stuff like “poverty is a state of mind” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/ben-carson-hud-secretary.html So just like there are 40% of brainwashed white guys watching fox news, there proves to be an equal amount of black guys doing the same.
Then you might not like Thomas Sowell on the Vulgar Pride of Intellectuals, but I should not assume. What he says rings true to me in many ways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wln6lNTxVpY
And the Difference Between Liberal and Conservative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88
You don’t have to agree with everything he says to find him a fascinating man.
Mr. Sowell is also part of the 40 percenters. Another so called thinker that would certainly match wits with Ben Carson. I also have been thinking about the terrorist attack in Spain and how that came about. The findings are interesting and go with more of how brain washing actually works. These young men that were involved had never lived outside of Spain. Had no problems with school or work. They spoke perfect Catalan, secondary Spanish for the area that is required to hold down government positions in Catalonia where Barcelona is located. They were simply young men who had not been to any Muslim countries to live or to visit. Home boys all.
An Imam (Muslim preacherman) had recently moved to the area where these young men lived and for a little more than a year, indoctrinated them into the terrorists they became. We are seeing that played out here with Fox News and the base of misinformation they pass unto their listeners. Fox News is as dangerous as opioids to the minds of those that are full of fear. Fox news is the perfect preacher to project the teachings of white supremacy on minds willing to become addicted to hate and prejudices.
Walter Williams says the states created the federal government as their agent, so they had every right to succeed, slavery not at all the only reason they wanted to do so.
From link: At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: “A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who’d label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I’m sure Great Britain’s King George III would have agreed.
https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/06/17/were-confederate-generals-traitors
Many proposals were made, hence the name convention. What was actually approved though, outlawed secession. Robert E. Lee was not fighting for independence, he was fighting for slavery to continue through his geographic location in Arlington, in his state of Virginia. Lee owned the ground that is now Arlington National Cemetery. By joining the cause, he was also willful of what that would mean in victory, the expanse of slavery to the West with the new states that were presently territories.
Robert E. Lee and the rest of the confederates were treasonous in the ways that were against The Articles of Confederation that morphed into the United States Constitution. Moreover, they were granted full pardon for their treason so they did end up as full citizens and were not hanged like the 38 Dakota Sioux in 1862 in Mankato, Minnesota. How were the two independence seekers any different? What about that? What about being able to keep your lands, horses and guns after the war and how Natives were delegated to smaller and smaller pieces of lands after their defeats? What about that?
~ All of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. – Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy
~ Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, cited slavery as the reason for going to war in 1861 and rallied in its defense until his death in 1889.
~ The Civil War was begun for ONE reason. To protect the right to own slaves. Any attempt to dilute this fact is a fraudulent attempt to “white-wash” history.
~ The Civil War was defended by Lincoln for ONE reason. To save the USA.
This link shows 5 more reasons for the Civil War besides slavery. Lincoln also believed that blacks should not be given full civil rights, didn’t really care if slavery ended as long as the union stayed together, so the truth is not cut and dry. And, “after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.” Why would that have been submitted unless succeeding were previously legal, or perceived as legal.
I don’t understand the need to oversimplify history. At the time of the Civil War slavery was still widely accepted around the world. And as Sowell points out prior to the ability to transport slaves, races enslaved their own races more so than enslaving other races. There were more slaves in China and India than the western hemisphere. Thirty minutes worth watching.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/5-causes-civil-war-besides-slavery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w0X71d9Z08
Those five reasons are miniscule subsets of the slavery issue. None of them, or even all of them combined would have led to succession without the overwhelming greed of the Southern economic engine’s loss of it’s slaves.
OK fine Porter, let’s say you’re right. My point about history is that it broadens context. If at one point slavery was nearly universally accepted, and now it is nearly universally condemned, this means other global problems can be changed through mutual understanding.
But people won’t see it that way if slavery is hidden away and remembered only as something American, when many believe our country was the turning point and that as awful as imperialism was, these countries led the end of slavery. So this makes a person wonder what other things can be changed and gives encouragement that they can.
What’s the next thing to change? Violence and death in the name of religion. People swipe their hand and say it’s always been that way, but until slavery was condemned, relatively briefly ago, I’m sure people said the same thing.
People kill each other in the name of god, who doesn’t even exist, how much more insane can something be than that? Well, we look back and laugh that humanity believed the world was flat, scorn slavery, but what will they say about religion and what we do, or don’t do about it?
Everyone is the same, all cultures are equal, these things are just not true. Clearly they are not because right now we are condemning earlier cultures. Multiculturalism can go too far, if everyone will agree to non-violence as they have agreed to be against slavery, it’s marginally ok I guess if they keep their superstitions. But what’s wrong with actually telling everybody the way it is, the world isn’t flat, there’s no god up there stop your nonsense. Your life is revolving around something that doesn’t even exist and the whole world is suffering as a consequence of these exaggerated superstitions.
The points presented can also be made about the Dakota Sioux as an example. They rebelled as a sovereign nation as did the southern states against the US and were hung for it and then had their land confiscated. The difference is that the Dakota Sioux did not own slaves. What if the Dakota Sioux had owned slaves, would that have made them immune to their hanging and the loss of their livelihoods and property rights? What about the timeline for the hanging and the loss of property rights being done during the time frame of the Civil War? What about that happy camper?
My Native friend told me you did have slaves, as did a local guy in town about how you treated the Arikara. Killed them, took their land. What about that? Man’s inhumanity to man crosses all races.
From Wikipedia: All-out war hit the weakened and often divided Arikara. In a burned-down village, (later studied as Larson Site), archaeologists found the mutilated skeletons of 71 men, women and children, killed in the early 1780s by unknown Indian attackers.[15] Groups of Sioux were the ones who gained most by the weakening of the Arikara. They attacked the vulnerable Arikara and increased “the pace of Sioux expansion” west of the Missouri.[16]
Due to their reduced numbers, the Arikara started to live closer to the Mandan and Hidatsa in the same area for mutual protection. They migrated gradually from present-day Nebraska and South Dakota into North Dakota in response to pressure from other tribes, especially the Sioux, and European-American settlers. The remainder of the group was encountered in 1804 by the Lewis and Clark Expedition.[4]
This Native friend sent me a text today: White Power! Cause he and I yell that at each other while swinging our arms around. And then we laugh. He went on to say this issue was on his mind, but he and I know it is of no importance to our personal relationship.
The truth about those Civil War statues from a guy who was born and has family in the little town in Florida that tried to lynch Jackie Robinson and that acquitted George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin. ME …
~ Those statues were erected to intimidate black people. The “dog whistle” message is, “We may have lost the war but we’re still white and that means we’re better than you ni***rs!! If you cross us you’ll pay, maybe with your life!!” Enough black people are still so intimidated they’ll not answer truthfully to a poll because who knows? It might be a trick. They believe they’re better off just keeping their mouth shut or answering, I don’t know.”
Slavery is a horribly ugly thing, not fun to google Slavery Native Americans. History is complex in ways we don’t want to accept.
“African slaves were owned by Native Americans from the colonial period until the United States’ Civil War. Although, chattel slavery was a primarily European institution several North American indigenous groups adopted slave ownership for several purposes, the predominant as a tactic to assimilate into European colonial society.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_slave_ownership
“Europeans didn’t just displace Native Americans—they enslaved them, and encouraged tribes to participate in the slave trade, on a scale historians are only beginning to fathom.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/01/native_american_slavery_historians_uncover_a_chilling_chapter_in_u_s_history.html
Slavery is a horribly ugly thing, not fun to google Slavery Native Americans. History is complex in ways we don’t want to accept because it exposes human nature, all of ours.
“African slaves were owned by Native Americans from the colonial period until the United States’ Civil War. Although, chattel slavery was a primarily European institution several North American indigenous groups adopted slave ownership for several purposes, the predominant as a tactic to assimilate into European colonial society.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_slave_ownership
“Europeans didn’t just displace Native Americans—they enslaved them, and encouraged tribes to participate in the slave trade, on a scale historians are only beginning to fathom.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/01/native_american_slavery_historians_uncover_a_chilling_chapter_in_u_s_history.html
happy camper says, “my Native American friend”
that
sounds
an
awful
lot
like
Trump’s, “My negroes”
We’ll call Happy our “White Privileged friend” 👈
” Chief of the Cherokee John Ross was adamant that the Union was not dissolved. However, another leader of the Cherokee, Stand Watie, was eager to join the Confederate cause, and on June 1, 1861, began recruiting for an army to assist the Southern cause. Full-blooded Cherokee tended to support Ross (who was primarily Scottish) while the mixed-blooded Cherokee supported the 3/4 Cherokee Stand Watie.[5] Stand Watie in 1862 was elected Chief of the newly declared Southern Cherokee Nation.
For the duration of the war, a series of small battles and constant guerrilla warfare were waged by Cherokee in the Indian Territory. Stand Watie officially became the last Confederate general to end fighting on June 25, 1865 at Fort Towson, in the southeast portion of the Indian Territory. The terms of the armistice allowed Watie and his command, the First Indian Brigade of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi, to demobilize rather than surrender and go home with their arms”
As noted by me in past posts. Why were the Dakota Sioux singled out and hung for the same as what the Cherokee had done. The Cherokee had taken up arms against the United States as did the Dakota Sioux. Why did the Cherokee receive a full pardon by not surrendering and the Dakota Sioux were hung in what should be considered, a war crime. A crime against humanity was what happened and then their lands were stolen.
Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Trump showed his true colors at his rally in Phoenix the other night with his deranged comments about racism and doing nothing to encourage Americans to come together, he did what he does best, divide.
He not only embarrassed himself, he embarrassed his party and his country by waffling on the issues an telling one lie after another. Prior to his speech I thought I would keep track of his lies, but soon lost track after about the 10th one.
He could not condemn Neo-Nazi’s, the Confederates and other hate groups without qualifying his answer, (i.e. both sides have bad guys and nice guys).
After Trump’s irrational comments in Phoenix he went to Reno to address VA groups, where he talked of love and reconciliation and sounded nothing like he did in Phoenix, this has now been called the tele-prompter speech where his handlers keep control of him.
How a president can go from irrational to semi-rational in less than 24 hours is disturbing, Trump is disturbing.
trump is nuts. Dude cannot walk in a park or the squirrels will get him.
Roger, when the other Russian shoe drops and confirms without a doubt that Don J. Trump colluded with the Russian spy networks to undermine his fellow republicans that were running against him, but also that he undermined the election process as a whole against Clinton, what will the Nazi’s then do? Do you think they will raise that Nazi flag, or the Confederate rag or do you think they may just realize that they are actually Americans?
I’d written:
Cory replies:
I’m not engaging in devil’s advocacy, and the suggestion that I’m ignorant seems like a cheap shot.
The Union ultimately decided not to put Confederate president Jefferson Davis on trial for treason largely because of the risk that secession would have been found constitutional. William Mumford was the only Confederate convicted of treason during the Civil War.
Jerry writes:
I’m pretty sure Carlson was poking fun at his critics.
No, I’ve never said all slaves were male.
There were plantations in the Middle East, and I think many slaves worked on them.
We don’t. It’s two words.
Roger Cornelius asks me:
Probably none of the above.
I’d written to Cory:
“bearcreekbat” replies:
Many white Protestants in the Confederate states had sacrificed as much as their counterparts in the Union states—or more—fighting for the American ideals of liberty and equality under the law. Cory seems to be including them in a blanket condemnation of Confederates based on the mere fact that they didn’t pick up bayonets and start slaughtering their friends and family members when the Civil War broke out.
“happy camper” quotes George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams (who happens to be black):
Wow. That seems to have been prophetic.
“happy camper” continues:
Regardless of whether a person agrees with that point of view, it’s important to understand that it was the point of view of most Confederates. They didn’t see themselves as betraying the Union states. They saw themselves as remaining loyal to their own.
Jerry writes:
President Lincoln, despite having a lot on his plate at the time, reviewed 303 Mankato convictions and determined that a large majority were based on acts of war not punishable by death. The 38 men hanged were executed for crimes of rape and massacre.
“happy camper” writes:
It’s easier to oversimplify and dehumanize than to seriously contemplate the Confederate perspective.
I’m not trying to shoot cheaply, Kurt. I just don’t see how one defend traitors without either not knowing the facts (which I’ll agree is not likely in your case) or playing a word game. The ignorance in your case may be willful, willfully ignoring the fact of dishonorable treason. That the U.S. chose not to try Davis out of concern that secession might actually be constitutional is interesting, but in plain usage, rejecting the Constitution and shooting the soldiers who remain loyal to it is hard to characterize as anything but a betrayal of that Constitution. Those of us who remain loyal to that Constitution and especially the government officials who swear to uphold that Constitution cannot logically or conscientiously honor traitors to the Constitution. Even great sacrifice in a vile cause does not qualify Confederates for honor.
Cory writes:
Speaking of word games, your suggestion that I’m defending traitors begs the question under discussion, specifically the question of whether all Confederates were in fact traitors.
In plain usage, a traitor is a person who betrays his or her country. If secession was constitutional, the Confederate states were no longer under the U.S. Constitution. (They adopted a new one.) A Confederate who picked up a bayonet and started slaughtering his friends and family members when the Civil War broke out would have been regarded as a traitor to his own state and to the Confederacy.
There’s nothing inherently false or immoral about honoring flawed men, and in any case the suggestion that Confederates were traitors to the Constitution begs that question as well.
Obviously not, but many Confederates had made great sacrifices in support of noble causes, including the American ideals of liberty and equality under the law.
Every man we honor is flawed, but Confederate statues have been erected specifically in honor of the fundamental flaws of the cause for which those flawed men fought, racism and rebellion.
Every Confederate’s country was the United States of America prior to 1861. Confederates chose to tear that country apart and shoot at soldiers of the United States of America. They were traitors to America as surely as the signers of the Declaration of Independence were traitors to the British Crown in 1776. Victory matters.
But lest I be accused of further circularity, let me tackle this interesting question of the constitutionality of secession.
Article 3 Section 3 says “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them….” The Confederacy levied War against the United States. The Constitution seems to say here that waging such War is treason, an act against the Constitution that Unites these States.
Article 4 Section 3 clearly envisions the admission of new states. The Founders provide no mechanism for the withdrawal of states. Secession happened, but not by any Constitutional process.
Even if you go Tenth Amendment on that point, consider the motivation of the Secessionists. The United States conducted a Presidential election in 1860, in accordance with the Constitution. The Southern states, dissatisfied with the outcome of that constitutional process, seceded and waged war against the remainder of the United States for following the Constitution. The integrity, the survival of the Constitution depends on every State and every citizen respecting its processes and those processes’ outcomes. If we don’t like the outcome of an election or a vote in Congress or a Supreme Court decision rendered according to the rules, we don’t get to secede and start shooting… or if we do, we should expect the remaining Union to exercise its right to punish us and drag us back into the Union in defense of the Constitution.
Notice that I’m not saying secession is never Constitutional. I think it’s possible the Founders never intended for a state to secede. At the same time, my argument above leads me to be open to an argument that secession agreed to by both sides might not violate the Constitution. If Alaska, for example, said, “Statehood has been fine, and we’re not mad about any specific election, but we’re so far away and have such different interests that we’d like to try being an independent nation,” and if the President and Congress both shrugged and waged no war, the Constitution might remain undamaged and unbetrayed. However, the Confederate secession was no such amicable departure. It was a direct and dangerous threat to the peaceful and Constitutional transfer of Executive power. The United States government and all of its loyal subdivisions cannot honor such a traitorous threat.
Oh bla bla bla. My Native friend was just tellin me how much smarter he is than me cause he’s street smart and I aint. You don’t know everything.
The point of this post was What Abouts. You never let your opponent define the problem, that’s half the battle. If you let them define it they will solve it to their own accord oldest trick in the book. That’s what the “media” is trying to do, limit the narrative.
I gave a link that the majority of black Americans want to keep the Confederate monuments your goose has already been cooked.
@Happy Camper … The majority of black Americans know better than to stick their neck out and answer a poll like this. That’s how you get lynched, for no reward.
Cory writes:
Yes, but that’s not very surely. A traitor is a person who betrays his or her own country. Americans in 1776 had explicitly declared that Great Britain was no longer their country, and Confederates in 1861 had explicitly declared that the United States was no longer theirs. A Confederate who picked up a bayonet and started slaughtering his friends and family members when the Civil War broke out would have been regarded as a traitor to his own state and to the Confederacy.
These are the words of legendary Confederate officer John Mosby after the war:
Confederate Protestants who were opposed to Southern slavery mostly remained loyal to their own states during the Civil War, and my understanding is that Confederates who turned against their own states during the Civil War mostly cited grievances other than slavery as their reasons. Mosby apparently detested Southern slavery but remained loyal to the Confederacy out of a sense of duty and moral obligation. It seems ironic in the extreme that his decision would lead some to condemn him as a traitor.
Cory writes:
Germans levied war against the United States in both World War I and World War II. I’m wondering whether you’d say that makes them all “traitors” too.
At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explicitly rejected a proposal to let the federal government suppress a seceding state. After seven states had already seceded in 1861, Senator James Doolittle proposed a constitutional amendment to forbid secession. The Constitution was never so amended.
If the Tenth Amendment protected a state’s right to secede, I’m not sure those motives are especially relevant.
My understanding is that the Confederacy went to war because the Union retained federal possessions in the Confederate states after they seceded.
Hap, the color of poll respondents does not change the moral and historical facts that Kallis points out any more than the red herrings of which he disabuses us. The South waged war against the United States; the South’s leaders deserve no public statues.
Kurt, I don’t get to escape charges of treason by declaring that I’m my own country. That’s word games that won’t hold up in any court, not to mention in front of the firing squad.
Mosby helps make clear the vile, racist intent of secession and dresses it up in holy mission. Thank you. No statue for that vile traitor.
Secession is a Constitutionally contradictory and dangerous action. It gives states an out when they don’t like how the proper conduct of elections doesn’t break their way. We cannot maintain a stable contract if we make respect for the outcome of elections optional. Individuals can emigrate, but states that exist thanks to the U.S. Constitution cannot.
Cory had written:
I’d replied:
Cory writes:
You seem to be arguing that any court would convict every American of treason against Great Britain. The Union apparently didn’t have the same certitude at the end of the Civil War. As I’ve already said above, it ultimately decided not to put Confederate president Jefferson Davis on trial for treason largely because of the risk that secession would have been found constitutional (2017-08-25 at 23:48).
I’d quoted Confederate officer John Mosby:
Cory replies:
The Mosby statements I’d quoted make no reference to secession, and they don’t dress up racism in holy mission. He compares Southern slaveholders to pirates and cattle thieves and directly asserts that Virginians had departed from the teachings of the Father.
The Confederacy never attempted to prevent President Lincoln from assuming office, and it isn’t clear to me how secession supposedly disrespected the outcome of the election or otherwise contradicted the Constitution.
You’ve suggested I’m playing word games more than once in this discussion, and now you’re saying states can’t “emigrate”… Well, obviously not, but for the record, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia existed before the U.S. Constitution.
Seceding says, “Not my President!” Seceding denies the authority of the duly elected President and Congress over American territory. The 1860–1861 secessions say, “If your guy doesn’t win the election, betray the Constitution and take up arms.” The United States and all who swear to uphold the Constitution have a right and duty to fight those who would so undermine the validity and binding nature of elections, which are far more explicit, clear, and moral than the vague possibility that the Constitution might permit rebels to shred our civil order by secession.
Of course Mosby doesn’t mention the moral failings of the South. He’s avoiding the issue.
Cory writes:
Correct. A typical resident of a Confederate state in February of 1861 would have regarded Jefferson Davis as his or her duly elected president. Seceding meant James Buchanan no longer was.
It still isn’t clear to me how secession supposedly betrayed the Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explicitly rejected a proposal to let the federal government suppress a seceding state.
After seven states had already seceded in 1861, Senator James Doolittle proposed a constitutional amendment to forbid secession. The Constitution was never so amended, and the Union ultimately decided not to put Confederate president Jefferson Davis on trial for treason largely because of the risk that secession would have been found constitutional.
Also, Confederates didn’t take up arms when they seceded. My understanding is that they only went to war after the Union retained federal possessions in the Confederate states.
Since you’d mentioned emigration in your previous comment, I’m wondering whether you’d say mass emigration after the election of 1860 would have betrayed the Constitution. If not, I’m wondering what you’d say the difference is.
There was a large movement for South Carolina to secede because of the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832, and there was a large movement for the New England states to secede because of the War of 1812. If those movements had prevailed with no link to any election, I’m wondering whether you’d say they would have betrayed the Constitution.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. In the statements I’d quoted, Colonel Mosby compares Southern slaveholders to pirates and cattle thieves and directly asserts that Virginians had departed from the teachings of the Father.
What about Antifa? “Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi said in a statement released late Tuesday. “The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”
Finally Nancy chimes in which has been my comment for months.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/30/pelosi-condemns-violent-actions-of-antifa-protesters/?utm_term=.4fcb2b0888c1