Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Jul 8, 2020 13:19:17 GMT -8
The Union had right on its side, but only the uninformed think this means that the South and its soldiers necessarily represented evil. .....................Luca An excellent post Luca, but I have a couple questions... 1.) Do you concede that perhaps a black person might not share your views on what the South and its soldiers represented? 2.) Do you think states rights supersede the right of blacks to not be enslaved? 1). I'm not certain what you mean by "represent." But certainly opinions vary. If you are of the opinion - with which I would disagree - that these memorials "represent" slavery then you would be entitled to your opinion but it does not obligate their removal. It's merely your opinion as to what it "represents." I have a very negative opinion of Napoleon but many others hold him in high regard. It does not follow that statues of Napoleon should be removed because of my opinion. 2). Is this a serious question? It was answered pretty decisively over 150 years ago |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Jul 8, 2020 13:23:55 GMT -8
Is it possible for someone to hold "sincere and honorable feelings" that are morally wrong? Not only is it possible, it's common. A famous example. Dropping a nuclear weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be viewed in 2 ways: 1). It was done in a sincere and honorable belief that it was necessary to bring World War II to a conclusion and minimize the extraordinary loss of life that would have been entailed in an invasion of the Japanese home Islands. Hence it was morally justifiable . Versus 2). Dropping a nuclear weapon on civilians cannot be justified under any circumstnces. It is a war crime and morally wrong despite the fact that lives were likely saved by doing so.......................................Luca |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 9, 2020 2:57:19 GMT -8
Is it possible for someone to hold "sincere and honorable feelings" that are morally wrong? Again, I think it depends on whether one accepts the morality of society at the time, or if one insists on imposing today's morality back in time. I think it's a mistake to say that people who want Confederate statues removed are trying to impose today's morality on the people who fought the Civil War. In a great many cases these statues weren't erected until many years after the Civil War and the reasons for their erection are questionable at best. People like to debate the reasons the Civil War was fought and make the claim that it was about States Rights and duty and all sorts of reasons why half the country fought a war...a war that would have kept the institution of slavery intact. I submit that if you were one of those who would have been enslaved your feelings about General Jackson and his profound sense of duty might not be so charitable. I think it's wrong to keep statues that honor these men whose actions would have led to the enslavement of 13% of our citizens regardless of why they fought the war. I don't think we're trying to impose our morality on the Civil War generals, we're trying to illustrate that we no longer agree with their way of thinking...and we shouldn't agree because we now think they were wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 9, 2020 3:11:19 GMT -8
An excellent post Luca, but I have a couple questions... 1.) Do you concede that perhaps a black person might not share your views on what the South and its soldiers represented? 2.) Do you think states rights supersede the right of blacks to not be enslaved? 1). I'm not certain what you mean by "represent." But certainly opinions vary. If you are of the opinion - with which I would disagree - that these memorials "represent" slavery then you would be entitled to your opinion but it does not obligate their removal. It's merely your opinion as to what it "represents." I have a very negative opinion of Napoleon but many others hold him in high regard. It does not follow that statues of Napoleon should be removed because of my opinion. 2). Is this a serious question? It was answered pretty decisively over 150 years ago 1.) Please don't make this more complicated than it needs to be...I meant exactly what you meant by "represent". I'll try again. Do you think that a majority of black people would forgive General Jackson for fighting the war because of your claim that he did so out of a sense of duty, or do you think he would be viewed a little more harshly? I understand we shouldn't remove any statues based on the opinion of one man, but what about the opinions of say...13% of our population? 2.) It was serious question with an obvious answer that you avoided for some reason. Yes we did fight a war that decided that question and the answer was that slavery would no longer exist, and "states rights" only goes so far. 3.) One last question...many of these statues and memorials to the Confederacy were not erected immediately after the war but later during the Jim Crow era. These were as much messages of intimidation to the local black population as they were odes to the Confederacy...do all Confederate monuments deserve preservation...and should we continue to honor monuments put up for less than honorable reasons? |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Jul 9, 2020 7:40:24 GMT -8
Again, I think it depends on whether one accepts the morality of society at the time, or if one insists on imposing today's morality back in time. I submit that if you were one of those who would have been enslaved your feelings about General Jackson and his profound sense of duty might not be so charitable. I can understand the desire to take down statues of Confederate leaders, although I disagree with it, if that is the will of the majority. But I can't understand or abide the decisions to tear down statues of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Douglass, et al. We erect statues to people because of their good or admirable accomplishments, not because of their character flaws. Otherwise, there would be no statues of any European monarchs, Napoleon, Julius or Augustus Caesar, Alexander the Great, Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ (who was "legally" guilty of vandalism and sedition) and a thousand others. And Jackson taught Sunday School for years before the war to the black children of slaves when other whites refused to do so. He felt that as slaves they were the farthest from knowing God and would benefit the most from learning about the faith. So yeah, I imagine some of the enslaved parents of those children might feel more charitable towards him than you might think. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 10, 2020 2:09:23 GMT -8
I submit that if you were one of those who would have been enslaved your feelings about General Jackson and his profound sense of duty might not be so charitable. I can understand the desire to take down statues of Confederate leaders, although I disagree with it, if that is the will of the majority.Well that's fairer than the rationale when they were erected. Out of curiosity what was your opinion of the statue of Teddy Roosevelt that was removed from the front of the Museum of Natural History? |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,901
|
Post by Bick on Jul 10, 2020 5:26:10 GMT -8
I think it should remain unless the majority votes it be removed. Roosevelt was a key figure in NYC, and what it depicts reflects a time in our history of a rugged, emerging, and yes, conquering time. I believe it was the essence of Americana at the time.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 15, 2020 6:03:58 GMT -8
I saw an interesting question the other day and, as I ponder it, I thought maybe I’d draw your bigger brains into it (bigger than mine, anyway).
had the Confederate States taken Lincoln up on his Emancipation Proclamation (text below) and freed the slaves, would they still have seceded and would the Civil War still have been fought?
In my opinion, although slavery was “the” lynchpin that triggered the rebellion, there were certainly other differences between the more agricultural South and the rapidly industrializing North, one of which was States rights. Some of these differences, including slavery, were festering open sores and the Emancipation Proclamation jabbed a finger into more than just slavery.
i believe, had the South gone along with the order to free the slaves, one of those other issues would still have ignited the war.
But I’m willing to be shown where I’m wrong.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Sept 15, 2020 11:33:02 GMT -8
I don't believe there is any way the South would have accepted the Emancipation Proclamation. It's true there were other issues that contributed to the animosity leading to war, but they were minor in comparison to slavery, which was far and away the underlying cause. Nobody goes to war over tariffs or industrial policy. Slavery was the ultimate cause and the last thing the South would accept would be the abolition of slavery in their own territory. Southern leaders often claimed the war was about "states' rights", but the primary right they were talking about was slavery itself.
The primary reason the North went to war initially was to preserve the Union. Preserving slavery was secondary, at least in the early part of the war. It's possible the North would have been willing to walk away from the conflict by1863 (when Lincoln released the Proclamation), given the unanticipated carnage thus far. But I doubt it. I don't think they would have accepted a division of the Union merely for the sake of eliminating slavery from the South. That was not their causus belli......................Luca
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 15, 2020 11:59:46 GMT -8
I don't believe there is any way the South would have accepted the Emancipation Proclamation. It's true there were other issues that contributed to the animosity leading to war, but they were minor in comparison to slavery, which was far and away the underlying cause. Nobody goes to war over tariffs or industrial policy. Slavery was the ultimate cause and the last thing the South would accept would be the abolition of slavery in their own territory. Southern leaders often claimed the war was about "states' rights", but the primary right they were talking about was slavery itself. The primary reason the North went to war initially was to preserve the Union. Preserving slavery was secondary, at least in the early part of the war. It's possible the North would have been willing to walk away from the conflict by1863 (when Lincoln released the Proclamation), given the unanticipated carnage thus far. But I doubt it. I don't think they would have accepted a division of the Union merely for the sake of eliminating slavery from the South. That was not their causus belli......................Luca Well, except, just a dozen decades earlier, we DID go to war with England over tariffs (or homage to the King, as expressed through tariffs)... but I do agree the North would likely not walk away at that point. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Sept 15, 2020 15:41:17 GMT -8
I don't believe there is any way the South would have accepted the Emancipation Proclamation. It's true there were other issues that contributed to the animosity leading to war, but they were minor in comparison to slavery, which was far and away the underlying cause. Nobody goes to war over tariffs or industrial policy. Slavery was the ultimate cause and the last thing the South would accept would be the abolition of slavery in their own territory. Southern leaders often claimed the war was about "states' rights", but the primary right they were talking about was slavery itself. The primary reason the North went to war initially was to preserve the Union. Preserving slavery was secondary, at least in the early part of the war. It's possible the North would have been willing to walk away from the conflict by1863 (when Lincoln released the Proclamation), given the unanticipated carnage thus far. But I doubt it. I don't think they would have accepted a division of the Union merely for the sake of eliminating slavery from the South. That was not their causus belli......................Luca Not to mention that without the horrors of that war and the dissolution of the Union, Lincoln would arguably have lacked the motivation to free the slaves in the south. He is famously remembered to have said that if he could have ended the war and preserved the union by not freeing the slaves in the south, he would have done so. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
|
Post by Luca on Sept 15, 2020 17:53:34 GMT -8
Well, except, just a dozen decades earlier, we DID go to war with England over tariffs (or homage to the King, as expressed through tariffs)... but I do agree the North would likely not walk away at that point. The Revolutionary War was fought over a hell of a lot more than merely tariffs. Tariffs were only one of the many causes listed in the Declaration of Independence. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Sept 15, 2020 19:59:11 GMT -8
Well, except, just a dozen decades earlier, we DID go to war with England over tariffs (or homage to the King, as expressed through tariffs)... but I do agree the North would likely not walk away at that point. The Revolutionary War was fought over a hell of a lot more than merely tariffs. Tariffs were only one of the many causes listed in the Declaration of Independence. No kidding. But your comment was, people don’t go to war for tariffs... and we DID (along with your other reasons). Just clarifying, is all. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Oct 4, 2020 20:33:28 GMT -8
MDDad, you seem to be well-studied on this topic. Can you recommend what you consider to be the best books or series on the Civil War?
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Oct 5, 2020 7:57:19 GMT -8
Credo, Abraham Lincoln died in the Petersen house across the street from Ford's Theater in Washington, DC, and that house has been turned into a museum of the assassination. One of the most impressive things there is a round column built entirely of stacked books written about Lincoln. It is probably eight feet in diameter and extends up for two floors. I suspect the number of books that have been written about the Civil War would be at least twice that high, and probably only Vilepagan has read them all. So it's extremely difficult to pick the best from a population that size.
With that said, it depends on what you're looking for. If it's hardcore history with all the detail you could ever want, I think it's still Shelby Foote's three-volume "The Civil War: A Narrative". It took him over 20 years to write, and it was completed about 45 years ago, but is impeccably researched and avoids so many of the revisionist histories that have followed since. At 2,900+ pages, it's a heavy time investment, but if you're serious, it's the place to start.
If you want something a little more personal (and shorter), I'd recommend Geoffrey Ward's "The Civil War: An Illustrated History". It's the companion book to Ken Burns' excellent 12-hour documentary on the war, and at 425 pages (with lots of pictures), it's a much quicker challenge.
|
|
