Is America a racist nation?

[tech37]

Did you sympathize with ISIS in their attempt to erase history by destroying ancient relics?

Nope. But would you be happy if we dropped a statue of Osama Bin Laden somewhere in a public space? You know: so we don't "erase history?"

Come on. This really isn't anywhere close to as complicated as you're trying to make it.

No, it's not complicated, nor should it be, but you're trying hard to make it complicated with silly hypotheticals.

[tech37]

a fan, why do you continue to edit other people's posts? You're erasing context man... get it?

[a fan]

a fan, why do you continue to edit other people's posts? You're erasing context man... get it?

Two reasons:

1.To make it easier to read....so you don't have to scroll for days on a phone where there are multiple long replies. Once again, trying to be polite.

2. so that you know which EXACT paragraph or sentence that I'm responding to....for clarity.

I take it you haven't notice how many conversations go off the rails because someone posts several paragraphs, and another poster responds-----but it's unclear WHICH paragraph the poster is responding to.....

[a fan]

Did you sympathize with ISIS in their attempt to erase history by destroying ancient relics?

Nope. But would you be happy if we dropped a statue of Osama Bin Laden somewhere in a public space? You know: so we don't "erase history?"

Come on. This really isn't anywhere close to as complicated as you're trying to make it.

No, it's not complicated, nor should it be, but you're trying hard to make it complicated with silly hypotheticals.

I have to use hypotheticals because no one was stupid enough to put up statues that glorify any other vanquished enemies of the United States, Tech. That speaks volumes about these stupid Confederate Statues, imho. Put them in a museum with context? No one will complain.

You disagree with me on these points. We've both had our say, so let's move on.....

[tech37]

a fan, why do you continue to edit other people's posts? You're erasing context man... get it?

Two reasons:

1.To make it easier to read....so you don't have to scroll for days on a phone where there are multiple long replies. Once again, trying to be polite.

2. so that you know which EXACT paragraph or sentence that I'm responding to....for clarity.

I take it you haven't notice how many conversations go off the rails because someone posts several paragraphs, and another poster responds-----but it's unclear WHICH paragraph the poster is responding to.....

I'm talking two or three short lines. Not those scrolls of conversation that can't be managed on a phone.

[tech37]

Did you sympathize with ISIS in their attempt to erase history by destroying ancient relics?

Nope. But would you be happy if we dropped a statue of Osama Bin Laden somewhere in a public space? You know: so we don't "erase history?"

Come on. This really isn't anywhere close to as complicated as you're trying to make it.

No, it's not complicated, nor should it be, but you're trying hard to make it complicated with silly hypotheticals.

I have to use hypotheticals because no one was stupid enough to put up statues that glorify any other vanquished enemies of the United States, Tech. That speaks volumes about these stupid Confederate Statues, imho. Put them in a museum with context? No one will complain.

You disagree with me on these points. We've both had our say, so let's move on.....

I was using factual situations as examples, not hypotheticals. I'll move on.

[a fan]

I'm talking two or three short lines. Not those scrolls of conversation that can't be managed on a phone.

In that case? It's #2. Want me to stop doing it with you in particular?

No problem! I'll add it to the ever-expanding list of tech's "do's and don'ts".

Happy to oblige.

[a fan]

Did you sympathize with ISIS in their attempt to erase history by destroying ancient relics?

Nope. But would you be happy if we dropped a statue of Osama Bin Laden somewhere in a public space? You know: so we don't "erase history?"

Come on. This really isn't anywhere close to as complicated as you're trying to make it.

No, it's not complicated, nor should it be, but you're trying hard to make it complicated with silly hypotheticals.

I have to use hypotheticals because no one was stupid enough to put up statues that glorify any other vanquished enemies of the United States, Tech. That speaks volumes about these stupid Confederate Statues, imho. Put them in a museum with context? No one will complain.

You disagree with me on these points. We've both had our say, so let's move on.....

I was using factual situations as examples, not hypotheticals. I'll move on.

Yes. Because the Confederate statues don't offend you, my man.

The statues that might offend you were never put up. Why? Because despite you and OS's protestations, it's more than just about history.

If it was just about history, you bet your *ss that a dispassionate historian would drop Yamamoto's statue in Pearl Harbor, together with an explanation as to his role in what happened in Pearl Harbor. The fact that this was never done tells you that, I'm sorry mate, it's NOT just about history when you erect a statue.

I'm using hypotheticals simply because I'm trying to help you understand that these statues aren't just soulless, agnostic historical totems. It's clear you don't agree. We're good!

[tech37]

I'm talking two or three short lines. Not those scrolls of conversation that can't be managed on a phone.

In that case? It's #2. Want me to stop doing it with you in particular?

No problem! I'll add it to the ever-expanding list of tech's "do's and don'ts".

Happy to oblige.

Ha, fine a fan. I just want to have a conversation without straw man arguments, misrepresentation, or fishy edits. Honest discourse. Is that too much to ask?

[a fan]

I'm talking two or three short lines. Not those scrolls of conversation that can't be managed on a phone.

In that case? It's #2. Want me to stop doing it with you in particular?

No problem! I'll add it to the ever-expanding list of tech's "do's and don'ts".

Happy to oblige.

Ha, fine a fan. I just want to have a conversation without straw man arguments, misrepresentation, or fishy edits. Honest discourse. Is that too much to ask?

No! It's not! You're being entirely reasonable.

I'm just telling you why I did that---no bad intent. I edit in an attempt to be clear, and to reduce clutter....respecting you and my fellow posters.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Did you sympathize with ISIS in their attempt to erase history by destroying ancient relics?

Nope. But would you be happy if we dropped a statue of Osama Bin Laden somewhere in a public space? You know: so we don't "erase history?"

Come on. This really isn't anywhere close to as complicated as you're trying to make it.

No, it's not complicated, nor should it be, but you're trying hard to make it complicated with silly hypotheticals.

I have to use hypotheticals because no one was stupid enough to put up statues that glorify any other vanquished enemies of the United States, Tech. That speaks volumes about these stupid Confederate Statues, imho. Put them in a museum with context? No one will complain.

You disagree with me on these points. We've both had our say, so let's move on.....

I was using factual situations as examples, not hypotheticals. I'll move on.

Yes. Because the Confederate statues don't offend you, my man.

The statues that might offend you were never put up. Why? Because despite you and OS's protestations, it's more than just about history.

If it was just about history, you bet your *ss that a dispassionate historian would drop Yamamoto's statue in Pearl Harbor, together with an explanation as to his role in what happened in Pearl Harbor. The fact that this was never done tells you that, I'm sorry mate, it's NOT just about history when you erect a statue.

I'm using hypotheticals simply because I'm trying to help you understand that these statues aren't just soulless, agnostic historical totems. It's clear you don't agree. We're good!

The biggest spike in Confederate memorials came during the early 1900s, soon after Southern states enacted a number of sweeping laws to disenfranchise Black Americans and segregate society.

[tech37]

Did you sympathize with ISIS in their attempt to erase history by destroying ancient relics?

Nope. But would you be happy if we dropped a statue of Osama Bin Laden somewhere in a public space? You know: so we don't "erase history?"

Come on. This really isn't anywhere close to as complicated as you're trying to make it.

No, it's not complicated, nor should it be, but you're trying hard to make it complicated with silly hypotheticals.

I have to use hypotheticals because no one was stupid enough to put up statues that glorify any other vanquished enemies of the United States, Tech. That speaks volumes about these stupid Confederate Statues, imho. Put them in a museum with context? No one will complain.

You disagree with me on these points. We've both had our say, so let's move on.....

I was using factual situations as examples, not hypotheticals. I'll move on.

Yes. Because the Confederate statues don't offend you, my man.

The statues that might offend you were never put up. Why? Because despite you and OS's protestations, it's more than just about history.

If it was just about history, you bet your *ss that a dispassionate historian would drop Yamamoto's statue in Pearl Harbor, together with an explanation as to his role in what happened in Pearl Harbor. The fact that this was never done tells you that, I'm sorry mate, it's NOT just about history when you erect a statue.

I'm using hypotheticals simply because I'm trying to help you understand that these statues aren't just soulless, agnostic historical totems. It's clear you don't agree. We're good!

Oh, and thanks for the "I'm trying to help you understand" thoughtfulness

[MDlaxfan76]

I find it fascinating and totally revealing that some of our fellow posters are quite unwilling to engage in the logic examples you offer, a fan.

Sad, really.

[old salt]

You have really gone off the deep end now OS. Equating the Federal Government of 1861 or even today with the monarchy of King George III is, frankly, off the wall.

https://twitter.com/aroberts_andrew/sta ... 9186063374

[Kismet]

You have really gone off the deep end now OS. Equating the Federal Government of 1861 or even today with the monarchy of King George III is, frankly, off the wall.

https://twitter.com/aroberts_andrew/sta ... 9186063374

Irrelevant to the point you were making. George III's government carried out his policies with regard to the colonies and refused to compromise on their requests for redress. That he wasn't as bad a guy as advertised previously does not change the way his government dealt with the colonists which resulted in a revolution. What a concept that a British historian would have to explain how the biggest eff up in British history occurred on his watch. Regardless of his personality, he still manged to lose a good portion of the Empire's colonies in North America. Not to mention, how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution. Recommend Crucible of War by Fred Anderson (an American author BTW)

As an so-called expert on 1776, please enumerate any of the grievances itemized in that document that the Southern States legitimately had in 1861.
I'll help you out - Zippo. Nada. Zero.

Southern states had representation in the Federal Government including a bunch of minority rights that they made sure they inserted into the Constitution including limitations on the Federal Government in favor of States' Rights. They used these rights to fight for the continuation of the practice to preserve their economic system based upon free slave labor. They wanted to expand slavery into the territories unfettered to perpetuate their economic system which included slavery and they didn't think the Feds were going to allow them to do that over time using the election of Republican Lincoln in 1861 as an excuse to secede. They were a minority and they knew it. The only way to make a majority was to secede.

As I have said here many times, there is much history available on the period and even more on the military piece of that history. We should be able to read all of it and understand the history in our own terms. Knowledge is indeed power. That said, there is no need to commemorate in the public square those figures who rebelled against their Federal Government and were traitors to same country. It is noble that we, as a country, paroled them after the war and not a single one of them received the penalty for treason or even served a day in jail except for Jefferson Davis.

I made a distinction earlier in this thread using the recent removal of Jefferson statue from New York's City Council chamber at City Hall by reminding supporters of that action that without Jefferson and other of similar situation there might not be an independent City Council or City Hall in NYC in the first place. The same would go for all the others - Washington, Madison and Monroe who should be celebrated but also should have their other less redeeming features exposed for a total view of their lives and contributions to history. I just read recently that John Jay of New York (also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) owned 17 slaves at one point or another (his family was heavily involved in the slave trade for generations before him) and even took a few to Paris when he was part of the delegation to negotiate and end of the American Revolution. He was later an ardent abolitionist. Does this detract from his accomplishments as part of a successful revolution and formation of an independent government? Certainly not. Is it relevant to our collective understanding of him, his family and his ties to slavery as well as the revolution? Also certainly. Should we take down all of his statues? I say no but that we should also understand his life in its totality. So far, not although an attempt was made to remove the new statue of him at the Kroll Auditorium celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the school named for him - John Jay College of Criminal Justice - talk about conundrums.

https://nyslavery.commons.gc.cuny.edu/s ... -john-jay/

So, any reading of history without an understanding the context of the times is sub-optimal IMHO. Applying modern context to historical events is a true "lost cause". Ditto for applying today's values retroactively 250 years.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You have really gone off the deep end now OS. Equating the Federal Government of 1861 or even today with the monarchy of King George III is, frankly, off the wall.

https://twitter.com/aroberts_andrew/sta ... 9186063374

Irrelevant to the point you were making. George III's government carried out his policies with regard to the colonies and refused to compromise on their requests for redress. That he wasn't as bad a guy as advertised previously does not change the way his government dealt with the colonists which resulted in a revolution. What a concept that a British historian would have to explain how the biggest eff up in British history occurred on his watch. Regardless of his personality, he still manged to lose a good portion of the Empire's colonies in North America. Not to mention, how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution. Recommend Crucible of War by Fred Anderson (an American author BTW)

As an so-called expert on 1776, please enumerate any of the grievances itemized in that document that the Southern States legitimately had in 1861.
I'll help you out - Zippo. Nada. Zero.

Southern states had representation in the Federal Government including a bunch of minority rights that they made sure they inserted into the Constitution including limitations on the Federal Government in favor of States' Rights. They used these rights to fight for the continuation of the practice to preserve their economic system based upon free slave labor. They wanted to expand slavery into the territories unfettered to perpetuate their economic system which included slavery and they didn't think the Feds were going to allow them to do that over time using the election of Republican Lincoln in 1861 as an excuse to secede. They were a minority and they knew it. The only way to make a majority was to secede.

As I have said here many times, there is much history available on the period and even more on the military piece of that history. We should be able to read all of it and understand the history in our own terms. Knowledge is indeed power. That said, there is no need to commemorate in the public square those figures who rebelled against their Federal Government and were traitors to same country. It is noble that we, as a country, paroled them after the war and not a single one of them received the penalty for treason or even served a day in jail except for Jefferson Davis.

I made a distinction earlier in this thread earlier in this thread using the recent removal of Jefferson stature from New York's City Council chamber at City Hall by reminding supporters of that action that without Jefferson and other of similar situation there might not be an independent City Council or City Hall in NYC in the first place. The same would go for all the others - Washington, Madison and Monroe who should be celebrated but also should have their other less redeeming features exposed for a total view of their lives and contributions to history. I just read recently that John Jay of New York (also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) owned 17 slaves at one point or another (his family was heavily involved in the slave trade for generations before him) and even took a few to Paris when he was part of the delegation to negotiate and end of the American Revolution. He was later an ardent abolitionist. Does this detract from his accomplishments as part of a successful revolution and formation of an independent government? Certainly not. Is it relevant to our collective understanding of him, his family and his ties to slavery as well as the revolution? Also certainly. Should we take down all of his statues? I say no but that we should also understand his life in its totality. So far, not although an attempt was made to remove the new statue of him at the Kroll Auditorium celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the school named for him - John Jay College of Criminal Justice - talk about conundrums.

https://nyslavery.commons.gc.cuny.edu/s ... -john-jay/

So, any reading of history without an understanding the context of the times is sub-optimal IMHO. Applying modern context to historical events is a true "lost cause". Ditto for applying today's values retroactively 250 years.

Thanks for posting that. I always tell people, I can give a Mulligan for slavery. Harder to give a Mulligan post emancipation. If we had only done the right thing post emancipation, we would be much further ahead as a country….its been 100+ years of sub optimization in this country. Some folks want to keep their foot on the brake.

[Kismet]

You have really gone off the deep end now OS. Equating the Federal Government of 1861 or even today with the monarchy of King George III is, frankly, off the wall.

https://twitter.com/aroberts_andrew/sta ... 9186063374

Irrelevant to the point you were making. George III's government carried out his policies with regard to the colonies and refused to compromise on their requests for redress. That he wasn't as bad a guy as advertised previously does not change the way his government dealt with the colonists which resulted in a revolution. What a concept that a British historian would have to explain how the biggest eff up in British history occurred on his watch. Regardless of his personality, he still manged to lose a good portion of the Empire's colonies in North America. Not to mention, how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution. Recommend Crucible of War by Fred Anderson (an American author BTW)

As an so-called expert on 1776, please enumerate any of the grievances itemized in that document that the Southern States legitimately had in 1861.
I'll help you out - Zippo. Nada. Zero.

Southern states had representation in the Federal Government including a bunch of minority rights that they made sure they inserted into the Constitution including limitations on the Federal Government in favor of States' Rights. They used these rights to fight for the continuation of the practice to preserve their economic system based upon free slave labor. They wanted to expand slavery into the territories unfettered to perpetuate their economic system which included slavery and they didn't think the Feds were going to allow them to do that over time using the election of Republican Lincoln in 1861 as an excuse to secede. They were a minority and they knew it. The only way to make a majority was to secede.

As I have said here many times, there is much history available on the period and even more on the military piece of that history. We should be able to read all of it and understand the history in our own terms. Knowledge is indeed power. That said, there is no need to commemorate in the public square those figures who rebelled against their Federal Government and were traitors to same country. It is noble that we, as a country, paroled them after the war and not a single one of them received the penalty for treason or even served a day in jail except for Jefferson Davis.

I made a distinction earlier in this thread earlier in this thread using the recent removal of Jefferson stature from New York's City Council chamber at City Hall by reminding supporters of that action that without Jefferson and other of similar situation there might not be an independent City Council or City Hall in NYC in the first place. The same would go for all the others - Washington, Madison and Monroe who should be celebrated but also should have their other less redeeming features exposed for a total view of their lives and contributions to history. I just read recently that John Jay of New York (also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) owned 17 slaves at one point or another (his family was heavily involved in the slave trade for generations before him) and even took a few to Paris when he was part of the delegation to negotiate and end of the American Revolution. He was later an ardent abolitionist. Does this detract from his accomplishments as part of a successful revolution and formation of an independent government? Certainly not. Is it relevant to our collective understanding of him, his family and his ties to slavery as well as the revolution? Also certainly. Should we take down all of his statues? I say no but that we should also understand his life in its totality. So far, not although an attempt was made to remove the new statue of him at the Kroll Auditorium celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the school named for him - John Jay College of Criminal Justice - talk about conundrums.

https://nyslavery.commons.gc.cuny.edu/s ... -john-jay/

So, any reading of history without an understanding the context of the times is sub-optimal IMHO. Applying modern context to historical events is a true "lost cause". Ditto for applying today's values retroactively 250 years.

Thanks for posting that. I always tell people, I can give a Mulligan for slavery. Harder to give a Mulligan post emancipation. If we had only done the right thing post emancipation, we would be much further ahead as a country….its been 100+ years of sub optimization in this country. Some folks want to keep their foot on the brake.

Everyone should also recognize that when these historical people lived that it wasn't history to them. It was just life as they came to know it. They weren't all that prescient and pretty much lived in their moments.

[tech37]

You have really gone off the deep end now OS. Equating the Federal Government of 1861 or even today with the monarchy of King George III is, frankly, off the wall.

https://twitter.com/aroberts_andrew/sta ... 9186063374

Irrelevant to the point you were making. George III's government carried out his policies with regard to the colonies and refused to compromise on their requests for redress. That he wasn't as bad a guy as advertised previously does not change the way his government dealt with the colonists which resulted in a revolution. What a concept that a British historian would have to explain how the biggest eff up in British history occurred on his watch. Regardless of his personality, he still manged to lose a good portion of the Empire's colonies in North America. Not to mention, how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution. Recommend Crucible of War by Fred Anderson (an American author BTW)

As an so-called expert on 1776, please enumerate any of the grievances itemized in that document that the Southern States legitimately had in 1861.
I'll help you out - Zippo. Nada. Zero.

Southern states had representation in the Federal Government including a bunch of minority rights that they made sure they inserted into the Constitution including limitations on the Federal Government in favor of States' Rights. They used these rights to fight for the continuation of the practice to preserve their economic system based upon free slave labor. They wanted to expand slavery into the territories unfettered to perpetuate their economic system which included slavery and they didn't think the Feds were going to allow them to do that over time using the election of Republican Lincoln in 1861 as an excuse to secede. They were a minority and they knew it. The only way to make a majority was to secede.

As I have said here many times, there is much history available on the period and even more on the military piece of that history. We should be able to read all of it and understand the history in our own terms. Knowledge is indeed power. That said, there is no need to commemorate in the public square those figures who rebelled against their Federal Government and were traitors to same country. It is noble that we, as a country, paroled them after the war and not a single one of them received the penalty for treason or even served a day in jail except for Jefferson Davis.

I made a distinction earlier in this thread earlier in this thread using the recent removal of Jefferson stature from New York's City Council chamber at City Hall by reminding supporters of that action that without Jefferson and other of similar situation there might not be an independent City Council or City Hall in NYC in the first place. The same would go for all the others - Washington, Madison and Monroe who should be celebrated but also should have their other less redeeming features exposed for a total view of their lives and contributions to history. I just read recently that John Jay of New York (also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) owned 17 slaves at one point or another (his family was heavily involved in the slave trade for generations before him) and even took a few to Paris when he was part of the delegation to negotiate and end of the American Revolution. He was later an ardent abolitionist. Does this detract from his accomplishments as part of a successful revolution and formation of an independent government? Certainly not. Is it relevant to our collective understanding of him, his family and his ties to slavery as well as the revolution? Also certainly. Should we take down all of his statues? I say no but that we should also understand his life in its totality. So far, not although an attempt was made to remove the new statue of him at the Kroll Auditorium celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the school named for him - John Jay College of Criminal Justice - talk about conundrums.

https://nyslavery.commons.gc.cuny.edu/s ... -john-jay/

So, any reading of history without an understanding the context of the times is sub-optimal IMHO. Applying modern context to historical events is a true "lost cause". Ditto for applying today's values retroactively 250 years.

Thanks for posting that. I always tell people, I can give a Mulligan for slavery. Harder to give a Mulligan post emancipation. If we had only done the right thing post emancipation, we would be much further ahead as a country….its been 100+ years of sub optimization in this country. Some folks want to keep their foot on the brake.

Everyone should also recognize that when these historical people lived that it wasn't history to them. It was just life as they came to know it. They weren't all that prescient and pretty much lived in their moments.

Mostly because survival was job#1?

[Typical Lax Dad]

You have really gone off the deep end now OS. Equating the Federal Government of 1861 or even today with the monarchy of King George III is, frankly, off the wall.

https://twitter.com/aroberts_andrew/sta ... 9186063374

Irrelevant to the point you were making. George III's government carried out his policies with regard to the colonies and refused to compromise on their requests for redress. That he wasn't as bad a guy as advertised previously does not change the way his government dealt with the colonists which resulted in a revolution. What a concept that a British historian would have to explain how the biggest eff up in British history occurred on his watch. Regardless of his personality, he still manged to lose a good portion of the Empire's colonies in North America. Not to mention, how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution. Recommend Crucible of War by Fred Anderson (an American author BTW)

As an so-called expert on 1776, please enumerate any of the grievances itemized in that document that the Southern States legitimately had in 1861.
I'll help you out - Zippo. Nada. Zero.

Southern states had representation in the Federal Government including a bunch of minority rights that they made sure they inserted into the Constitution including limitations on the Federal Government in favor of States' Rights. They used these rights to fight for the continuation of the practice to preserve their economic system based upon free slave labor. They wanted to expand slavery into the territories unfettered to perpetuate their economic system which included slavery and they didn't think the Feds were going to allow them to do that over time using the election of Republican Lincoln in 1861 as an excuse to secede. They were a minority and they knew it. The only way to make a majority was to secede.

As I have said here many times, there is much history available on the period and even more on the military piece of that history. We should be able to read all of it and understand the history in our own terms. Knowledge is indeed power. That said, there is no need to commemorate in the public square those figures who rebelled against their Federal Government and were traitors to same country. It is noble that we, as a country, paroled them after the war and not a single one of them received the penalty for treason or even served a day in jail except for Jefferson Davis.

I made a distinction earlier in this thread earlier in this thread using the recent removal of Jefferson stature from New York's City Council chamber at City Hall by reminding supporters of that action that without Jefferson and other of similar situation there might not be an independent City Council or City Hall in NYC in the first place. The same would go for all the others - Washington, Madison and Monroe who should be celebrated but also should have their other less redeeming features exposed for a total view of their lives and contributions to history. I just read recently that John Jay of New York (also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) owned 17 slaves at one point or another (his family was heavily involved in the slave trade for generations before him) and even took a few to Paris when he was part of the delegation to negotiate and end of the American Revolution. He was later an ardent abolitionist. Does this detract from his accomplishments as part of a successful revolution and formation of an independent government? Certainly not. Is it relevant to our collective understanding of him, his family and his ties to slavery as well as the revolution? Also certainly. Should we take down all of his statues? I say no but that we should also understand his life in its totality. So far, not although an attempt was made to remove the new statue of him at the Kroll Auditorium celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the school named for him - John Jay College of Criminal Justice - talk about conundrums.

https://nyslavery.commons.gc.cuny.edu/s ... -john-jay/

So, any reading of history without an understanding the context of the times is sub-optimal IMHO. Applying modern context to historical events is a true "lost cause". Ditto for applying today's values retroactively 250 years.

Thanks for posting that. I always tell people, I can give a Mulligan for slavery. Harder to give a Mulligan post emancipation. If we had only done the right thing post emancipation, we would be much further ahead as a country….its been 100+ years of sub optimization in this country. Some folks want to keep their foot on the brake.

Everyone should also recognize that when these historical people lived that it wasn't history to them. It was just life as they came to know it. They weren't all that prescient and pretty much lived in their moments.

Also slavery in this country was unique in many ways and many changes were made along the way to drive economics.

[Kismet]

You have really gone off the deep end now OS. Equating the Federal Government of 1861 or even today with the monarchy of King George III is, frankly, off the wall.

https://twitter.com/aroberts_andrew/sta ... 9186063374

Irrelevant to the point you were making. George III's government carried out his policies with regard to the colonies and refused to compromise on their requests for redress. That he wasn't as bad a guy as advertised previously does not change the way his government dealt with the colonists which resulted in a revolution. What a concept that a British historian would have to explain how the biggest eff up in British history occurred on his watch. Regardless of his personality, he still manged to lose a good portion of the Empire's colonies in North America. Not to mention, how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution. Recommend Crucible of War by Fred Anderson (an American author BTW)

As an so-called expert on 1776, please enumerate any of the grievances itemized in that document that the Southern States legitimately had in 1861.
I'll help you out - Zippo. Nada. Zero.

Southern states had representation in the Federal Government including a bunch of minority rights that they made sure they inserted into the Constitution including limitations on the Federal Government in favor of States' Rights. They used these rights to fight for the continuation of the practice to preserve their economic system based upon free slave labor. They wanted to expand slavery into the territories unfettered to perpetuate their economic system which included slavery and they didn't think the Feds were going to allow them to do that over time using the election of Republican Lincoln in 1861 as an excuse to secede. They were a minority and they knew it. The only way to make a majority was to secede.

As I have said here many times, there is much history available on the period and even more on the military piece of that history. We should be able to read all of it and understand the history in our own terms. Knowledge is indeed power. That said, there is no need to commemorate in the public square those figures who rebelled against their Federal Government and were traitors to same country. It is noble that we, as a country, paroled them after the war and not a single one of them received the penalty for treason or even served a day in jail except for Jefferson Davis.

I made a distinction earlier in this thread earlier in this thread using the recent removal of Jefferson stature from New York's City Council chamber at City Hall by reminding supporters of that action that without Jefferson and other of similar situation there might not be an independent City Council or City Hall in NYC in the first place. The same would go for all the others - Washington, Madison and Monroe who should be celebrated but also should have their other less redeeming features exposed for a total view of their lives and contributions to history. I just read recently that John Jay of New York (also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) owned 17 slaves at one point or another (his family was heavily involved in the slave trade for generations before him) and even took a few to Paris when he was part of the delegation to negotiate and end of the American Revolution. He was later an ardent abolitionist. Does this detract from his accomplishments as part of a successful revolution and formation of an independent government? Certainly not. Is it relevant to our collective understanding of him, his family and his ties to slavery as well as the revolution? Also certainly. Should we take down all of his statues? I say no but that we should also understand his life in its totality. So far, not although an attempt was made to remove the new statue of him at the Kroll Auditorium celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the school named for him - John Jay College of Criminal Justice - talk about conundrums.

https://nyslavery.commons.gc.cuny.edu/s ... -john-jay/

So, any reading of history without an understanding the context of the times is sub-optimal IMHO. Applying modern context to historical events is a true "lost cause". Ditto for applying today's values retroactively 250 years.

Thanks for posting that. I always tell people, I can give a Mulligan for slavery. Harder to give a Mulligan post emancipation. If we had only done the right thing post emancipation, we would be much further ahead as a country….its been 100+ years of sub optimization in this country. Some folks want to keep their foot on the brake.

Everyone should also recognize that when these historical people lived that it wasn't history to them. It was just life as they came to know it. They weren't all that prescient and pretty much lived in their moments.

Mostly because survival was job#1?

Certainly a rather large consideration but not the only factor. They also do not have the luxury of knowledge of what came after as we all do.