LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:25 am ...there is no need to commemorate in the public square those figures who rebelled against their Federal Government and were traitors to same country. British citizens could say the same thing when they visit our museums & grandiose monuments & memorials to our founders. They see wealthy slave owners who amassed wealth & privilege under the protection of the King's military who " made the world England " for their benefit. The 7 years war you criticize was resolved in their favor, ensured their wealth & survival & made possible their eventual independence. That war was a global war for empire. The North American colonies were hardly "the jewel in the crown". They were not even the most valuable in the W hemisphere.

...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. Talk is cheap. Their monuments still stand without footnote. If we must cancel & erase slave owners & "traitors" let's be consistent, but the winners write the history.

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.Agree. That's my entire point.

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:42 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:16 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:42 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:12 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:25 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:56 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:45 pm 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.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:11 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:42 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:16 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:42 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:12 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:25 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:56 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:45 pm 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.

True.

Consider how we freak over Covid... try facing what those folks did on a daily basis (no matter what color) pre-penicillin/pre-vaccines/living standards in general. Some had it worse than others, no doubt.

DMac wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:29 pm A Mulligan....I like that one.
Can't wait to use it and see the reaction.

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:25 am ...George III ...how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:54 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:25 am ...there is no need to commemorate in the public square those figures who rebelled against their Federal Government and were traitors to same country. British citizens could say the same thing when they visit our museums & grandiose monuments & memorials to our founders. They see wealthy slave owners who amassed wealth & privilege under the protection of the King's military who " made the world England " for their benefit. The 7 years war you criticize was resolved in their favor, ensured their wealth & survival & made possible their eventual independence. That war was a global war for empire. The North American colonies were hardly "the jewel in the crown". They were not even the most valuable in the W hemisphere.

...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. Talk is cheap. Their monuments still stand without footnote. If we must cancel & erase slave owners & "traitors" let's be consistent, but the winners write the history.

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.Agree. That's my entire point.

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:15 pm I didn't criticize the Seven Years War in North America conflict, per se. In a historical context, it set up the conditions for the American Revolution in more than a few ways regardless of your historically low opinion of the North American colonies of Great Britain.
You criticized George III's conduct of that war, which he did not initiate, but which was favorably concluded during his reign, when you said -- " Not to mention, how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution. " Which was also inaccurate.

Regarding my "historically low opinion of North American colonies...". That reflects the estimate of the colonial powers of the time. The sugar trade was viewed as more critical. That's why the French conceded their NA colonies in return for the restoration of their sugar islands. The NA colonies were a drain on both empires. Consider how relatively cheap the LA purchase was.

I also notice you did not answer my query regarding the Declaration of Independence and the Confederacy. Telling.
Irrelevant diversion. The Confederates saw themselves the same as our founding fathers saw themselves. They saw themselves as states who were members of a voluntary union. It took a bloody war to prevent their secession. The winners write the history.

They were paroled & not hung as traitors because secession was not treason - they chose loyalty to their states, just as our founders did, over loyalty to the Crown., ...& for practical reasons -- they were needed for the Union to survive. It's telling that the Union soldiers who fought them held them in higher regard than do our modern woke keyboard warriors.

I'm happy to channel Nelson, while you offer tutorials on Benedict Arnold.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:58 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:15 pm I didn't criticize the Seven Years War in North America conflict, per se. In a historical context, it set up the conditions for the American Revolution in more than a few ways regardless of your historically low opinion of the North American colonies of Great Britain.
You criticized George III's conduct of that war, which he did not initiate, but which was favorably concluded during his reign, when you said -- " Not to mention, how he and his government set it all up fighting the French for all those years before the American Revolution. "

Regarding my "historically low opinion of North American colonies...". That reflects the estimate of the colonial powers of the time. The sugar trade was viewed as more critical. That's why the French conceded their NA colonies in return for the restoration of their sugar islands. The NA colonies were a drain on both empires. Consider how relatively cheap the LA purchase was.

I also notice you did not answer my query regarding the Declaration of Independence and the Confederacy. Telling.
Irrelevant diversion. The Confederates saw themselves the same as our founding fathers saw themselves. They saw themselves as states who were members of a voluntary union. It took a bloody war to prevent their secession. The winners write the history.

They were paroled & not hung as traitors because secession was not treason - they chose loyalty to their states, just as our founders did, over loyalty to the Crown., ...& for practical reasons -- they were needed for the Union to survive. It's telling that the Union soldiers who fought them held them in higher regard that our modern woke keyboard warriors.

I'm happy to channel Nelson, while you offer tutorials on Benedict Arnold.

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:09 pm They were wrong then and that hasn't changed except we gave them a complete pass in 1876 as way out of a contested national election in a political horse trade of the ages. Sorry it conveniently doesn't comport with your wacky view of American History.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:27 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:09 pm They were wrong then and that hasn't changed except we gave them a complete pass in 1876 as way out of a contested national election in a political horse trade of the ages. Sorry it conveniently doesn't comport with your wacky view of American History.

...did the Confederate states secede again in 1877 when Federal troops ended the occupation ? ...or was Tilden planning war crimes tribunals, more than a decade after Appomattox ?

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:27 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:11 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:42 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:16 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:42 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:12 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:25 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:56 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:45 pm 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.

True.

Consider how we freak over Covid... try facing what those folks did on a daily basis (no matter what color) pre-penicillin/pre-vaccines/living standards in general. Some had it worse than others, no doubt.

Basic human decency was probably learned centuries ago. Treating some with basic human decency and denying it to others can’t all be blamed on “didn’t know any better”…..kind of like a kid…. A 12 year old should know better than a 3 year old.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:58 pm It's telling that the Union soldiers who fought them held them in higher regard than do our modern woke keyboard warriors.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:44 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:27 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:11 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:42 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:16 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:42 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:12 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:25 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:56 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:45 pm 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.

True.

Consider how we freak over Covid... try facing what those folks did on a daily basis (no matter what color) pre-penicillin/pre-vaccines/living standards in general. Some had it worse than others, no doubt.

Basic human decency was probably learned centuries ago. Treating some with basic human decency and denying it to others can’t all be blamed on “didn’t know any better”…..kind of like a kid…. A 12 year old should know better than a 3 year old.

Your argument re "human decency" and rightly so, is with the ruling class and elites of the time. The common man was simply trying to survive.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:58 pm It's telling that the Union soldiers who fought them held them in higher regard than do our modern woke keyboard warriors.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:59 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:44 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:27 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:11 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:42 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:16 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:42 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:12 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:25 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:56 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:45 pm 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.

True.

Consider how we freak over Covid... try facing what those folks did on a daily basis (no matter what color) pre-penicillin/pre-vaccines/living standards in general. Some had it worse than others, no doubt.

Basic human decency was probably learned centuries ago. Treating some with basic human decency and denying it to others can’t all be blamed on “didn’t know any better”…..kind of like a kid…. A 12 year old should know better than a 3 year old.

Your argument re "human decency" and rightly so, is with the ruling class and elites of the time. The common man was simply trying to survive.

Who said anything about the “common man” being at fault? Some of the common man benefited from the exploitation of those considered even less than common. Purposely so.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:59 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:44 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:27 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:11 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:42 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:16 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:42 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:12 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:25 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:56 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:45 pm 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.

True.

Consider how we freak over Covid... try facing what those folks did on a daily basis (no matter what color) pre-penicillin/pre-vaccines/living standards in general. Some had it worse than others, no doubt.

Basic human decency was probably learned centuries ago. Treating some with basic human decency and denying it to others can’t all be blamed on “didn’t know any better”…..kind of like a kid…. A 12 year old should know better than a 3 year old.

Your argument re "human decency" and rightly so, is with the ruling class and elites of the time. The common man was simply trying to survive.

Who said anything about the “common man” being at fault? Some of the common man benefited from the exploitation of those considered even less than common. Purposely so.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:23 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:59 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:44 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:27 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:11 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:42 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:16 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:42 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:12 am

Kismet wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:25 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:56 pm

Kismet wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 2:45 pm 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.

True.

Consider how we freak over Covid... try facing what those folks did on a daily basis (no matter what color) pre-penicillin/pre-vaccines/living standards in general. Some had it worse than others, no doubt.

Basic human decency was probably learned centuries ago. Treating some with basic human decency and denying it to others can’t all be blamed on “didn’t know any better”…..kind of like a kid…. A 12 year old should know better than a 3 year old.

Your argument re "human decency" and rightly so, is with the ruling class and elites of the time. The common man was simply trying to survive.

Who said anything about the “common man” being at fault? Some of the common man benefited from the exploitation of those considered even less than common. Purposely so.

Maybe. So what do we do now? Erase that history or qualify it within the context of it's time?

Contrasting how far our society has come should be qualified. You probably disagree.