The city counsel of New Orleans today voted in favor of removing....

[double g dawg]

Here's the problem with all the politically correct mumbo-jumbo, and revisionist history - 150 years ago, it was morally acceptable to own slaves. Morality then, versus morality today, is different. 150 years ago, blacks were looked upon as a second-class part of humanity, a class that wasn't equal to whites. Like it or not, that's the way it was.

So we want to castigate humanity now, for what, 150 years ago, was acceptable behavior.

75 years ago, homosexuality was looked upon by the military as an illegal act, subject to imprisonment. Do we ridicule Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, and Admiral Chester Nimitz for their views of homosexuality then, versus what is now believed?

In Jesus' time, slaves were an acceptable part of daily life. Do we ostracize those for their actions then, today?

 

[HeulenHund2]

Here's the problem with all the politically correct mumbo-jumbo, and revisionist history - 150 years ago, it was morally acceptable to own slaves. Morality then, versus morality today, is different. 150 years ago, blacks were looked upon as a second-class part of humanity, a class that wasn't equal to whites. Like it or not, that's the way it was.

So we want to castigate humanity now, for what, 150 years ago, was acceptable behavior.

75 years ago, homosexuality was looked upon by the military as an illegal act, subject to imprisonment. Do we ridicule Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, and Admiral Chester Nimitz for their views of homosexuality then, versus what is now believed?

In Jesus' time, slaves were an acceptable part of daily life. Do we ostracize those for their actions then, today?

The tide had long turned on slavery in most of the western world by the 1830s.
There is no excuse for The Confederacy that holds up in my view. They went to war against this country out of fear they'd eventually lose their ''right'' to own other human beings. Not just own them for life either. The only thing their families, children, grandchildren could see for all eternity was to be beast of burden for their ''masters''.
The only reason there was war was because lazy, greedy, animals wanted to preserve their lazy, greedy way of life at the expense of the entire lives of whole families in the millions.
If there is a hell. I'm sure every confederate leader is there.
I don't know how to express My contempt for The confederacy any stronger.

 

[whitepug6]

I could've sworn there were a few other reasons, but some folks like to always boil it down to something they can understand.

With your one liner, I was able to track down the source of your History instructor diploma:

My BA is from UGA, my master's degree is from UNC-Chapel Hill. The confederates were very clear about why they committed treason. You only need to read the secession ordinances of each southern state. Or you could read the "cornerstone speech" by Alexander Stephens. I'm surprised you neo-confederates haven't done that simple research!

 

[whitepug6]

Here's the problem with all the politically correct mumbo-jumbo, and revisionist history - 150 years ago, it was morally acceptable to own slaves. Morality then, versus morality today, is different. 150 years ago, blacks were looked upon as a second-class part of humanity, a class that wasn't equal to whites. Like it or not, that's the way it was.

So we want to castigate humanity now, for what, 150 years ago, was acceptable behavior.

75 years ago, homosexuality was looked upon by the military as an illegal act, subject to imprisonment. Do we ridicule Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, and Admiral Chester Nimitz for their views of homosexuality then, versus what is now believed?

In Jesus' time, slaves were an acceptable part of daily life. Do we ostracize those for their actions then, today?

It wasn't morally acceptable to own slaves in the 19th century. How do we know this? Because in the 1840s, twenty years before secession, treason, and southern humiliation, all of the Christian Protestant denominations split along sectional lines. The churches couldn't have split over states rights or tariffs or the size of government. It had to be a moral issue that split Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians. Gee, I wonder what that moral issue could have been...

 

[whitepug6]

four Confederate monuments. Thoughts?(personally, I don't like it)

I'm against any statue or monument that honors any entity that committed treason against the United States.

 

[double g dawg]

It wasn't morally acceptable to own slaves in the 19th century. How do we know this? Because in the 1840s, twenty years before secession, treason, and southern humiliation, all of the Christian Protestant denominations split along sectional lines. The churches couldn't have split over states rights or tariffs or the size of government. It had to be a moral issue that split Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians. Gee, I wonder what that moral issue could have been...

Okay, so we split hairs on the date at which slavery could have become morally unacceptable. My point, however, is that in earlier times, slavery was indeed morally acceptable. And just as discrimination of homosexuals in earlier times was acceptable, where is the outrage of leaders now who discriminated against them in earlier times?

While slavery was indeed an issue that caused the states to attempt to withdraw from the Union, it wasn't the only reason, as the South was being oppressed by northern interests.

And if you're so all-fired against treason, I'm guessing that the treasonous acts against Great Britain in the 1700s were equally despicable.

 

[pembrokedawg]

The question to ask some of these guilty white Southern leftists is this: if YOU were in Georgia in 1861, and the Yankees had invaded your home state...what would you have done?

 

[HeulenHund2]

The question to ask some of these guilty white Southern leftists is this: if YOU were in Georgia in 1861, and the Yankees had invaded your home state...what would you have done?

I'm not guilty or very liberal, but THIS Me would have moved to a loyalist state. It's interesting You consider anti-slavery ''leftist'' may be left of ISIS, but not 99% of western society.
I've never been critical of those who just followed Confederate leaders, other than to say they were dupes.

 

[HeulenHund2]

I disagree with those who say The South was humiliated, as if this was a sports event. In fact The South fought extremely well and with courage. My problem is with their cause and the fact they went to war against MY Country to maintain and even expand slavery west. I have no problem stating Germany fought well in WWII, but I couldn't be more against their cause and the damage they unleashed.

 

[whitepug6]

Okay, so we split hairs on the date at which slavery could have become morally unacceptable. My point, however, is that in earlier times, slavery was indeed morally acceptable. And just as discrimination of homosexuals in earlier times was acceptable, where is the outrage of leaders now who discriminated against them in earlier times?

While slavery was indeed an issue that caused the states to attempt to withdraw from the Union, it wasn't the only reason, as the South was being oppressed by northern interests.

And if you're so all-fired against treason, I'm guessing that the treasonous acts against Great Britain in the 1700s were equally despicable.

Traitors who are successful are remembered by history as revolutionaries. Traitors who are unsuccessful are remembered as traitors, like Benedict Arnold, Jeff Davis, and Robert E. Lee.

 

[pembrokedawg]

I'm not guilty or very liberal, but THIS Me would have moved to a loyalist state. It's interesting You consider anti-slavery ''leftist'' may be left of ISIS, but not 99% of western society.
I've never been critical of those who just followed Confederate leaders, other than to say they were dupes.

If you would have moved to a loyalist state, that would make you a pretty crappy family member or friend to leave them to the tender mercies of General Sherman. When I reference Leftist, they are the Cultural Marxists who are behind this cultural cleansing we're seeing today, in this case, the banishment of Confederate imagery. The Left/Right dichotomy as we know it today doesn't apply very well in the America Pre World War Two. If anything, you can't really believe in small government and uphold the institution of slavery, but however, if you believe in massive government, slavery fits in hand in glove.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Here's the problem with all the politically correct mumbo-jumbo, and revisionist history - 150 years ago, it was morally acceptable to own slaves. Morality then, versus morality today, is different. 150 years ago, blacks were looked upon as a second-class part of humanity, a class that wasn't equal to whites. Like it or not, that's the way it was.

So we want to castigate humanity now, for what, 150 years ago, was acceptable behavior.

75 years ago, homosexuality was looked upon by the military as an illegal act, subject to imprisonment. Do we ridicule Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, and Admiral Chester Nimitz for their views of homosexuality then, versus what is now believed?

In Jesus' time, slaves were an acceptable part of daily life. Do we ostracize those for their actions then, today?

That post is almost entirely devoid of anything to suggest You have a clue as to the National, World climate and debates leading up to The CW.
''Morally acceptable'', only in the way ISIS feels moral today.
By the 1830s virtually the entire western world had advanced to see the evils of slavery. If You truly don't know that, why bother commenting ? as You clearly don't have enough interest to do even basic study on the subject.

 

[HeulenHund2]

If you would have moved to a loyalist state, that would make you a pretty crappy family member or friend to leave them to the tender mercies of General Sherman. When I reference Leftist, they are the Cultural Marxists who are behind this cultural cleansing we're seeing today, in this case, the banishment of Confederate imagery. The Left/Right dichotomy as we know it today doesn't apply very well in the America Pre World War Two. If anything, you can't really believe in small government and uphold the institution of slavery, but however, if you believe in massive government, slavery fits in hand in glove.

Loyalty to principle and morality trumps almost every other consideration. It's not like other Family members couldn't have joined me though, they were white, no slaver with a whip and dogs would have stood in their way.

 

[double g dawg]

That post is almost entirely devoid of anything to suggest You have a clue as to the National, World climate and debates leading up to The CW.
''Morally acceptable'', only in the way ISIS feels moral today.
By the 1830s virtually the entire western world had advanced to see the evils of slavery. If You truly don't know that, why bother commenting ? as You clearly don't have enough interest to do even basic study on the subject.

Once again we can split hair on dates. The point is, in earlier times, slavery was an acceptable part of commerce and production. In today's world, we understand it to be wrong now.

So let's go back only 70 years. What we saw then was jail, I said JAIL, for homosexuals. Today, that would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, and totally outrageous. Yet our military leaders of the time backed it. Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz - the leaders for which statues honor today, supported jail for homosexuals. Where's the outrage there.

I don't compare the morality of slavery against the treatment of homosexuality. What I'm comparing is the indignation for which Robert E. Lee is castigated, yet not Douglas MacArthur.

Finally, what you fail to recognize/acknowledge, is that mores were different in bygone times. In the past, slavery was accepted. In the past, homosexuality was condemned. But times have changed man's way of thinking.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Once again we can split hair on dates. The point is, in earlier times, slavery was an acceptable part of commerce and production. In today's world, we understand it to be wrong now.

So let's go back only 70 years. What we saw then was jail, I said JAIL, for homosexuals. Today, that would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, and totally outrageous. Yet our military leaders of the time backed it. Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz - the leaders for which statues honor today, supported jail for homosexuals. Where's the outrage there.

I don't compare the morality of slavery against the treatment of homosexuality. What I'm comparing is the indignation for which Robert E. Lee is castigated, yet not Douglas MacArthur.

Finally, what you fail to recognize/acknowledge, is that mores were different in bygone times. In the past, slavery was accepted. In the past, homosexuality was condemned. But times have changed man's way of thinking.

''split hairs on dates'' come on, at least act awake.
It wasn't splitting hairs to point out during the lead-up to The CW most of western civilization had cast aside slavery and was enlightened to it's evil nature.
Your entire argument is very weak in My opinion.
Everything about The south's interest and actions before and during the war was of an evil nature, and all enlightened people knew it.
The south was led into war to protect the slaver class's interest, which was owning human beings, nothing more noble than that.

 

[double g dawg]

''split hairs on dates'' come on, at least act awake.
It wasn't splitting hairs to point out during the lead-up to The CW most of western civilization had cast aside slavery and was enlightened to it's evil nature.
Your entire argument is very weak in My opinion.
Everything about The south's interest and actions before and during the war was of an evil nature, and all enlightened people knew it.
The south was led into war to protect the slaver class's interest, which was owning human beings, nothing more noble than that.

Now we get to the crux of the matter - "in My opinion."

"Everything.....was of an evil nature, and all enlightened people knew it." Everything? First of that's a wrong statement and you know it. Also, the south wasn't led into war to "protect the slaver class's interest". Most southerners didn't own slaves. Most southerners were poor. And you choose to ignore the point of my argument, comparing slavery and the view today of it, versus homosexuality, and the view today of it. It's the SAME THING. The sooner you grow a pair and realize the fact of the argument is that, in the original discussion of removing statues of R. E. Lee, and other southern leaders, there is no more justification for removing them, than there should be in removing statures of Latter-day generals who advocated jail for homosexuals.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Now we get to the crux of the matter - "in My opinion."

"Everything.....was of an evil nature, and all enlightened people knew it." Everything? First of that's a wrong statement and you know it. Also, the south wasn't led into war to "protect the slaver class's interest". Most southerners didn't own slaves. Most southerners were poor. And you choose to ignore the point of my argument, comparing slavery and the view today of it, versus homosexuality, and the view today of it. It's the SAME THING. The sooner you grow a pair and realize the fact of the argument is that, in the original discussion of removing statues of R. E. Lee, and other southern leaders, there is no more justification for removing them, than there should be in removing statures of Latter-day generals who advocated jail for homosexuals.

When you grow an opinion worth debating, get back to Me.