American History

[isadore]

States have the ability like sports teams to choose to recognize who they want to. States recognize those that made a big impact on their states and they get to choose who they recognize and how they are recognized. You do understand that after WWII many German soldiers that fought in the war returned to be soldiers in the new Wehrmacht. They were able to wear their medals on their uniforms (de-Nazified) as evidence of their service and accomplishments in WWII.

so Germany had no problem with their servicemen wearing medals for killing Frenchmen, Russians, Englishmen and Americans. And America should have followed their example and let ex Confederates wear medals for killing Americans.

 

[isadore]

That’s not the only reason it was created.

all the rest of the supposed reasons are bs covering for the only real reason the protection and expansion of chattel slavery.

 

[MyNameIsDoug?]

Not everyone fighting on the German side were Nazis.

Yes, but if they fought on the German side, they were complicit in the bombings and taking over of other countries and in the extermination of millions of Jews. There's no other way to spin it.

 

[Omar]

lol

Look at CHAZ, they were trying to create spaces specifically for difft races.

 

[isadore]

Doesn't change what I said.

just disproves its.

 

[Omar]

all the rest of the supposed reasons are bs covering for the only real reason the protection and expansion of chattel slavery.

It was all based on economics, slavery was a major factor, but not the only factor. And again, I’m not justifying any of it, I just don’t like half formed ideas. We need more critical thinking in everything

 

[SWMCinci]

With the election of Lincoln the slave owners who controlled the South felt their “peculiar institution” was threatened, so they led an illegal and immoral secession movement to destroy our Nation.

There was no right to secede.
........

That was tested. Had the Confederacy won, it would have established the precedent. Just like the American Revolution established the precedent for colonies leaving the British Empire. Just because secession wasn't covered in the Constitution didn't prevent the individual States fro mdeciding otherwise. Read the 10th Amendment.

The Federal is supreme only in matters that the Constitution explicitly declares. That has led to a couple of Amendments to add matters to it because the individual States still reserved supreme power in various matters.

It's cute how you ignored paroles and pardons, the "meaningless" recognition of honorable Confederate service means that the actions that you want to condemn were made by US veterans. Who - committed no crimes. Or is it your position that we are free to acknowledge or ignore pardons as we individually see fit?

 

[isadore]

It was all based on economics, slavery was a major factor, but not the only factor. And again, I’m not justifying any of it, I just don’t like half formed ideas. We need more critical thinking in everything

when the Southern economy was built around chattel slavery. When the major source of Southern wealth was chattel slaves. (When slavery ended the South went from the richest to the poorest section of the nation) When a social system was based on chattel slavery. Creating an elite of plantation owners, and a bottom rung of the society black slaves.
The economically, politically and socially it is all about chattel slavery.

 

[isadore]

That was tested. Had the Confederacy won, it would have established the precedent. Just like the American Revolution established the precedent for colonies leaving the British Empire. Just because secession wasn't covered in the Constitution didn't prevent the individual States fro mdeciding otherwise. Read the 10th Amendment.

The Federal is supreme only in matters that the Constitution explicitly declares. That has led to a couple of Amendments to add matters to it because the individual States still reserved supreme power in various matters.

It's cute how you ignored paroles and pardons, the "meaningless" recognition of honorable Confederate service means that the actions that you want to condemn were made by US veterans. Who - committed no crimes. Or is it your position that we are free to acknowledge or ignore pardons as we individually see fit?

If the Confederacy had won it would have set a precedent. Yeh and if pigs could fly I would always wear a hat. If any evil regime wins it set a precedent. The Russian Revolution won and set a precedent for the creation of other evil regime, so what. Luckily for America the Confederate pseudo state was defeated.

States only have “supreme powers” in those areas they are allowed by the Constitution. Areas markedly prescribed by later amendments, the 14th in particular. Because of this their powers to control for example elections and education have been limited. If the Framers had wished they could have stated the right to secede, but they accepted that this was “perpetual union.” And the Supreme Court has consistently accepted that view that we are “an indestructible” union.

Pardons and paroles, again. They were just part of a reconciliation and let’s face it. All kinds of scumbags get paroles and pardons, rapists, child molesters, murders, politicians and in the case of the Confederates, traitors. The veterans’ action was biggest meaningless gesture of all. How many of the million Confederates that survived the war, heard or saw that. They were food for worms by then. The Union soldiers saw financial benefits for their service, not the traitors.

 

[SWMCinci]

I don’t know if they’re explicitly racist, but I do think that segregation is firmly rooted in southern culture.

To be fair, there’s now a lot of Far Leftists basically pushing for the exact same thing.

I grew up in the South (1960s/1970s) it was less segregated then than I witnessed in my 1st forays into the North in the 1980s. In the 1970s it was less segregated than I witnessed with my own kids in Ohio in the 1990s/2000s. Now, I will admit that the early to mid 1960s was still segregated, but by 1967 on it was extremely desegregated. In the 1970s my HS was almost 50% black.

Segregation was expensive, there were 2 schools, 2 sets of books, 2 sets of teachers. When things were de-segregated it was done fairly quickly at the elementary and jr. high level, there were problems in Sr. High and one of the last race riots at the HS level was when I was in HS. In that one it was black and whites joining forces against the Vietnamese that were being brought in as the war closed down.

 

[chs1971]

just disproves its.

Then you really don't understand what one of us said.

 

[Omar]

Probably that whole "prominent leader of the women's suffrage movement" thing. It's not binary. You can acknowledge accomplishments while still telling the entire story and applying criticisms where they are appropriate.

Is that why we’re now toppling statues of Jefferson and Washington?

 

[Indiandad]

Most of these monuments that people just suddenly found themselves caring about deeply as they learned about their existence in the "fake news" belong in museums.

We've toppled statues of fallen regimes abroad. It makes zero sense to have statues and displays publically honoring a traitorous short-lived loser at home. Go see and learn about them at your local museum, historical society or preserved battlefield.

Or allow the citizens of the community that the statues are in decide if they want them removed.

Mob rule should never be tolerated.

 

[isadore]

I grew up in the South (1960s/1970s) it was less segregated then than I witnessed in my 1st forays into the North in the 1980s. In the 1970s it was less segregated than I witnessed with my own kids in Ohio in the 1990s/2000s. Now, I will admit that the early to mid 1960s was still segregated, but by 1967 on it was extremely desegregated. In the 1970s my HS was almost 50% black.

Segregation was expensive, there were 2 schools, 2 sets of books, 2 sets of teachers. When things were de-segregated it was done fairly quickly at the elementary and jr. high level, there were problems in Sr. High and one of the last race riots at the HS level was when I was in HS. In that one it was black and whites joining forces against the Vietnamese that were being brought in as the war closed down.

Are you saying the South was "extremely desegregated by 1967"?
I am not sure which of these two this interesting account best illustrates.
An outstanding example of someone viewing the world through rose colored glasses or
A limit of the value of anecdotal evidence.

 

[Omar]

I grew up in the South (1960s/1970s) it was less segregated then than I witnessed in my 1st forays into the North in the 1980s. In the 1970s it was less segregated than I witnessed with my own kids in Ohio in the 1990s/2000s. Now, I will admit that the early to mid 1960s was still segregated, but by 1967 on it was extremely desegregated. In the 1970s my HS was almost 50% black.

Segregation was expensive, there were 2 schools, 2 sets of books, 2 sets of teachers. When things were de-segregated it was done fairly quickly at the elementary and jr. high level, there were problems in Sr. High and one of the last race riots at the HS level was when I was in HS. In that one it was black and whites joining forces against the Vietnamese that were being brought in as the war closed down.

Look at the student body make up of most SEC schools and also look where the Historically Black Colleges are located. There’s clearly still some elements of segregation in effect.

 

[chs1971]

Yes, but if they fought on the German side, they were complicit in the bombings and taking over of other countries and in the extermination of millions of Jews. There's no other way to spin it.

On D-Day some of the Wehrmacht troops the US Army fought were from the Chinese army. The had been captured by the Russians in the Far East and forced into Russian service and then captured by the Germans on the Russia and front and put into German uniforms and shipped to the Atlantic Wall. There were actually people from many countries forced to fight on the German side.

That would be another way to spin it.

 

[chs1971]

If the Confederacy had won it would have set a precedent. Yeh and if pigs could fly I would always wear a hat. If any evil regime wins it set a precedent. The Russian Revolution won and set a precedent for the creation of other evil regime, so what. Luckily for America the Confederate pseudo state was defeated.

States only have “supreme powers” in those areas they are allowed by the Constitution. Areas markedly prescribed by later amendments, the 14th in particular. Because of this their powers to control for example elections and education have been limited. If the Framers had wished they could have stated the right to secede, but they accepted that this was “perpetual union.” And the Supreme Court has consistently accepted that view that we are “an indestructible” union.

Pardons and paroles, again. They were just part of a reconciliation and let’s face it. All kinds of scumbags get paroles and pardons, rapists, child molesters, murders, politicians and in the case of the Confederates, traitors. The veterans’ action was biggest meaningless gesture of all. How many of the million Confederates that survived the war, heard or saw that. They were food for worms by then. The Union soldiers saw financial benefits for their service, not the traitors.

If the good guys win does that set a precedent, or just the evil regimes?

With malice toward none. With charity for all.

You must really hate that.

 

[isadore]

Then you really don't understand what one of us said.

Gosh let me analyze this
Did I understand what I said? Yes, I did. Did I really understand? Yep!
Did I understand what you said? Yes, I did. Did I really understand? Yep!
So you are mistaken.

 

[Omar]

I actually disagree with toppling statues of Jefferson and Washington. I think their entire story needs to be told, and they shouldn't be given a pass for their involvements with slavery, but I think their entire "body of work" is much more good than bad, and I view them differently than someone like, say, Robert E. Lee, who is primarily famous for being a traitor.

Then maybe more prominent Democrats should speak out against it?

 

[isadore]

If the good guys win does that set a precedent, or just the evil regimes?

Yep. Of course the Confederacy would not be an example of "good guys" to most of us. Luckily it did not get to set a precedent for the creation for the creation of regimes based on chattel slavery

 

[chs1971]

Gosh let me analyze this
Did I understand what I said? Yes, I did. Did I really understand? Yep!
Did I understand what you said? Yes, I did. Did I really understand? Yep!
So you are mistaken.

Maybe I made the mistake. What did you disprove?

 

[nwwarrior09]

Or allow the citizens of the community that the statues are in decide if they want them removed.

Mob rule should never be tolerated.

I don't like mob rule.

I also don't think there's any valid reason there should be a Robert E. Lee statue in Franklin, Ohio (or anywhere in Ohio for that matter) on public ground and in close vicinity to a cemetery where a couple dozen Union soldiers are buried and memorialized. My disdain for that being vandalized recently is pretty marginal because it shouldn't be there in the first place.

 

[isadore]

Maybe I made the mistake. What did you disprove?

gosh a ruddies
you saying you might have made a mistake, that sets a precedent.

 

[Omar]

Give them a call? I'm not that emotionally invested in it. I personally don't see a strong reason to tear down Washington and Jefferson statues (frankly, if you're looking for a villain, that Andrew Jackson guy was pretty bad), but I don't really care about some dumb statues of them either.

Yeah, “dumb” statues representing the guys who built this country.

 

[MyNameIsDoug?]

On D-Day some of the Wehrmacht troops the US Army fought were from the Chinese army. The had been captured by the Russians in the Far East and forced into Russian service and then captured by the Germans on the Russia and front and put into German uniforms and shipped to the Atlantic Wall. There were actually people from many countries forced to fight on the German side.

That would be another way to spin it.

Okay, yes, but we were talking specifically about Germans that were put into government positions in Germany after the war

 

[SWMCinci]

when the Southern economy was built around chattel slavery. When the major source of Southern wealth was chattel slaves. (When slavery ended the South went from the richest to the poorest section of the nation) When a social system was based on chattel slavery. Creating an elite of plantation owners, and a bottom rung of the society black slaves.
The economically, politically and socially it is all about chattel slavery.

The South was poorer than the North at the time of the Civil War because it was almost exclusively agrarian the North was way ahead i industry and industrialization. The wealthy in the South were the large landowners and even after the war they were still the wealthiest. They shifted from slaveholders to sharecroppers and many of them kept the trappings of their wealth. The vast majority were poor farmers, sharecroppers and laborers. The South didn't become poor after the Civil War, the North simply moved farther along the industrialization and mechanization after the war and the South didn't really catch up until WWII.

You keep stating things you don't know and don't understand.

 

[SWMCinci]

Look at the student body make up of most SEC schools and also look where the Historically Black Colleges are located. There’s clearly still some elements of segregation in effect.

Some elements yes, but by the 1960s that was ending. I remember when Bear Bryant integrated Alabama football - and I think they were the last team to integrate despite the fact that Bryant had tried in the mid 1960s. The HBCUs were created in the late 1890--1920 timeframe while segregation was a part of southern life, but there were quite a few in PA and OH because many Northern schools limited the number of blacks that could attend.

 

[isadore]

The South was poorer than the North at the time of the Civil War because it was almost exclusively agrarian the North was way ahead i industry and industrialization. The wealthy in the South were the large landowners and even after the war they were still the wealthiest. They shifted from slaveholders to sharecroppers and many of them kept the trappings of their wealth. The vast majority were poor farmers, sharecroppers and laborers. The South didn't become poor after the Civil War, the North simply moved farther along the industrialization and mechanization after the war and the South didn't really catch up until WWII.

You keep stating things you don't know and don't understand.

The South was per capita richer than the North on the eve of the Civil War. And that was because of the value of their chattel slaves. With emancipation that wealth was lost and the south went from being the richest section of the United States to being the poorest.

 

[vamp2syd]

So do you or do you not want them taken down? Your first sentence suggests that they should stay up, but your second clearly says otherwise...

To me it would be on an individual status with wanting to know the reason why the statue was erected and I would like to know the history of the person. Just because one was a Confederate Soldier is not enough for me to tare something down.

I have no issues if due process takes place and the statue is removed and placed somewhere such as a museum.

 

[Red14]

Marge Schott's name being on buildings and erecting statues of slave owners and Confederate soldiers are completely different. Those in the Confederacy have no business being celebrated and that's what statues do. Pro athletes retire and, if they've made a big enough impact for their team, organizations put statues up outside of the arenas/stadiums. Your a Reds fan; this is why we've got statues of Frank Robinson, Big Klu, Nuxhall, etc. They're worth honoring in the world of baseball. What did those Confederate generals and soldiers do that was worth celebrating? They're only remembered because they fought in a war started over the right to own slaves.

On the Marge front, yes, she donated money and employed people of all races; it was the 80's and 90's in a post-Civil Rights Movement world, she couldn't just not have people of color on staff or refuse to hire them. I'd argue those practices were to make herself look better than she was. Not exactly an uncommon practice for slimy people. But when you look at the things she said about black people and Hitler/Nazis, you could see her true colors and how she really felt. All of what she said was also not really a secret so if the people accepting her donations knew that she said those kinds of things, shame on them. Some may not have known given the times and that not every single thing a person said was broadcast all over the place.

Believe me, if Big Klu, Joe Nuxhall was somehow implicated with slavery, or gay bashing or any of the other goofy things we have now then their statues will come down. My point is at sometime in history, they were a big deal and a statue was erected. Why does the goal posts change now? I think it's really a stretch for you to assume what Marge was thinking. I put some of the things she said about Hitler to a confused old woman. I'm sure you had a grandparent to older uncle or aunt say things late in life that didn't represent their true life. It's just so sad our society is so vindictive and judgemental.