The Beginning of Totalitarianism in the U.S: The destruction of the memory of The Confederacy

originally posted by: CB328
Hm, what about Texas taking Thomas Jefferson out of history books and inserting capitalism instead, which was only a theory at the time.

I'm in Texas. Thomas Jefferson is still in our history books, thanks.

originally posted by: Mikemp44
I know this post is going to draw a lot of flak on both sides, but I would be remiss if I didn't present the topic for everyone to think about. While I am not a proponent of the confederacy, what it stood for, or the ideals it championed, it is a piece of American history. The destruction of the historical monuments that have stood in our country since those days, commemorating the great event (Civil War) that defined our country's future and that of social ethics globally, is a sign of something far more dangerous.

Rest assured that the statuary was NOT there since Civil War days. They're far more recent than that (some are less than 100 years old.)

The history we know as true should not be changed to suit the needs
of super powerful controlling interests. The political side of this history
re-writing and erasing lies squarely in their laps. I envision an impossible
utopian world where history is cherished, the good and the bad. The inevitable
progression of revising history as a part of society will evolve the kind of place
some want.

a reply to: Byrd

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Mikemp44

The sanitization of history, and a pervasive political correctness, are properties of totalitarianism.

Who says it is being "sanitized?" Isn't it rather being "de-romaniticized?" People can still visit the plantations with their preserved slave quarters... they just can't see racist traitors portrayed as heroes.

Those darn confederate racist traitors, every one of 'em.

I suppose not wanting to integrate with blacks is racist in a way,
but today that is a moot point.


a reply to: DJW001

originally posted by: buster2010
So should every act of treason against America be celebrated with statues?

Was it treason to break away from a treasonous government?

The OP is correct because whether it's the movies or school Southern Whites are ALWAYS portrayed as slave owners as cruel, mean and traitors and by extension all White Southerners. The differences between Americans in the North and those of the South had grown in to 2 different worlds, politically and culturally but neither area had a monopoly on virtue and kindness. Slave owners were around 5% of the population in the South- one person out of 20. What were the other 95% fighting for?

Southern society valued polite society and many were piously Christian. It was thought unChristian to mistreat slaves plus mistreated slaves were more likely to rebel or run away. Happy, healthy people tend to get more work done and it protect the investment made by the owner. Slaves were not expendable since their prices rose significantly once importing stopped. The constant images of whipped slaves and manacled gangs represent a very small minority of the percentage of black Americans, they were exception - not the rule.

Britain left us an economy in the South dependent upon slave labor. We cannot sit here in moral judgment of people who grew up in a very different world. Slave owners were a small part of the White population however they held the political power. Why are these the only Whites used as examples in text books or movies? Are the sins of modern America our fault because we have no control over the government? Tearing down these statues will make our historical landscape all the poorer for failing to understand and accept White society in the South. They were not evil or treasonous. They left in peace but Lincoln refused to give back a Federal fort that belonged to South Carolina. Lincoln wanted a war the South really did not.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yes.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yes.

Not according to the constitution at that time it wasnt.

a reply to: yuppa

Actually the Constitution didn't exist when the colonies committed treason.

Even if it had, treason is one of those charges where the ruling authority decides what constitutes it. Even if the traitors have the moral high ground they are traitors to the standing authority. That isn't a judgement call, it is just what it is.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: yuppa

Actually the Constitution didn't exist when the colonies committed treason.

Even if it had, treason is one of those charges where the ruling authority decides what constitutes it. Even if the traitors have the moral high ground they are traitors to the standing authority. That isn't a judgement call, it is just what it is.

Since when did we go from civil war an dlincoln to the revolutionary war? we didnt because you didnt specify a change so i though tyou still meant th ecivil war.

a reply to: yuppa

You are correct, for some reason my mind went to the Revolutionary war.

Still, I don't see where the constitution allows secession. The rest still applies.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: yuppa

You are correct, for some reason my mind went to the Revolutionary war.

Still, I don't see where the constitution allows secession. The rest still applies.

the 10th allowwed it until lincoln fixed it after the war.

a reply to: yuppa

That is debatable although pointless since it won't change anything. In any case the fed did not agree.

The charge of treason is solely upon the betrayed.

originally posted by: ThatHappened
The history we know as true should not be changed to suit the needs
of super powerful controlling interests. The political side of this history
re-writing and erasing lies squarely in their laps. I envision an impossible
utopian world where history is cherished, the good and the bad. The inevitable
progression of revising history as a part of society will evolve the kind of place
some want.

a reply to: Byrd

Statuary isn't true history, you know. It's simply a bland commemorative. Removing street names and statues has never affected history, as you can see from countless ancient examples. Nor has the presence of statuary and monuments changed history. Ramesses II wrote about his huge success at the Battle of Kadesh (you can still see the inscriptions writ large on the walls of his famous temples) -- but his revisionism (history is written by the literate) did not change the facts (that it was mostly a loss on both sides and the outcome was a draw.)

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: buster2010
So should every act of treason against America be celebrated with statues?

Was it treason to break away from a treasonous government?

The OP is correct because whether it's the movies or school Southern Whites are ALWAYS portrayed as slave owners as cruel, mean and traitors and by extension all White Southerners. The differences between Americans in the North and those of the South had grown in to 2 different worlds, politically and culturally but neither area had a monopoly on virtue and kindness. Slave owners were around 5% of the population in the South- one person out of 20. What were the other 95% fighting for?

The right to maintain the system. Indeed, they supported the right of their fellow citizens to own people of other races (who were usually characterized as sub-human.)

BTW, not all the southerners supported it (my great-great grandfather, assassinated by the Klan for being a sympathizer, was buried in a coffin with "DDD" scrawled on it - my aunt said it stood for 'dead, damned, and delivered - however, another distant branch of my family were some of the largest slaveholders in their state.)

Remember, too, that removing statues of Stalin from around Russia did not remove Stalin from history books... and the Soviets rewrote the glossy propaganda about their dear leader into a version more consistent with what the rest of the world knew.

a reply to: Byrd

Sorry but I can't abide a Stalin comparison with any American.
Non-slave holders were not monumentally pro or con slavery.
Slavery once started how do you end it? People with no money, no land and few skills?
Let them starve in L'aissez Faire capitalism?
Haiti wasn't far from public minds either.
It was a practical issue as much as a moral issue.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Sorry but I can't abide a Stalin comparison with any American.

I didn't see a comparison.

I saw the observation that removing Stalin statues didn't remove Stalin from history.

The Confederacy wasn't Treasonous, they had every right to do what they did. If anything it was Lincoln who was the treasonous one. And he died a traitor's death.

originally posted by: FuggleHop
a reply to: network dude

Exactly! I agree one hundred percent! The PC police are ruining our fond memories of slavery!

Don't worry slavery is still alive the PC removers of the statues probably carry I phones made by present day slaves that are out of our view so they don't matter. I phone owners are enablers of slavery. Destroy your phone.

You know some of you people do not realize the technical term for slavery is being owned by a government.We all are slaves if your doing duty to your government.

Slavery against African Americans was abuse and hatred just like Nazis or whomever abuses and murders people.
Whole point is every single nation and country on the planet formed from wars and some form of slavery and abuse.