The work, struggle, burden, danger an punishment for advancing Civil Rights and ending American Apartheid in the form of legal segregation were largely born by Black People. LBJ was an ally and an accomplice for sure and he gets credit for that. But the people whose actual lives were on the line day in and day out are the real heroes. LBJ can stand alongside but they for sheer fact of their resilient perseverance will always stand taller. MLK, John Lewis, Carmichael, Abernathy, Young, Chisolm etc ec and Black People made it happen.
3 Likes
Given his recent passing, I think John Lewis would be the perfect person to memorialize. His legacy is impeccable!
Iâm not in favor of tearing them downâŠYou canât just cancel the pastâŠdoing so insures it will repeat!
That makes no sense at all. Tearing down something that honors a man for fighting against the US would ensure it happens again? Why wouldnât the fact that he is being honored for doing it lead to it happening again?
Is there a new Hitler coming out in Germany soon because they have no statues of him??
1 Like
Come on Fort Worth comparing the confederates to Hitler is ridiculous on so many levels.
How about I cut you a deal, you can personally tear down any statue of any confederate convicted of treason. Have at it, you are right to feel offended by statues of people convicted of treason. Be my guest.
No?
Ok I will make it even easier for you to be a puller downer of art work. You can pull down any statue of any American who stood trial for treason. They donât even have to be convicted. That would allow you to pull down all of Aaron Burrâs statues (he actually got away with Treason).
I know a lot of people are trying to use the âtreasonâ argument. It is just not historically correct.
Funny thing is⊠@FortWorthCoog never said âtreasonâ. And heâs not comparing confederates to Hitler. Heâs exposing the absurdity that is the âwe need statues to remember and prevent history from repeatingâ excuse.
2 Likes
You might want to look at his prior posts. Yes he use the traitor argument which is ridiculous and more directly not historically correct. The Civil War was our nations most important event. There were two sides. ALL the underlying reasons for the conflict should be brought out and discussed.
They tried to separate from the union, why honor them? Call it whatever you want but itâs strange to honor losers who fought to break up America and keep slavery. Wrong side then, wrong side now!
7 Likes
So this is exactly why they need to be discussed. They were Americans. Most would have preferred to remain as Americans. They felt that the American political process was no longer fair. Those grievances were varied it wasnât just a simple slavery issue.
Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves in states where they currently existed. He was adamantly against slavery expanding into the western territories and he was very much against the Kansas Nebraska act which allowed the people of the newly formed state to decide if they are a slave state or not. If the confederate states had remained in the union they would have kept their slaves. Lincoln wanted it to die out over time and the south be compensated. What he wanted to do with the freed slaves was to send them to their own colony or back to Africa. Lincoln was against slavery but we was also a racist. It was a complicated time.
Lincoln said on many occasions that if he put himself in the shoes of the southerners he would have reacted the same way. Lincoln did not want to harm the south. He also knew that the value of the slaves monetarily was worth more than all the banks, railroads and factories combined in the United States at the time. He knew that just abolishing slavery wasnât going to happen from an economic standpoint, not without destroying the union.
The Civil War was and still is our single most important event. Much of it is misunderstood today because of all myth making.
1 Like
I have a degree in history, letâs just say I do not agree with your views on the debate. Slavery is why the South fought and they fought a war to secure it. All of Americans politics up to that point is trying to compromise on that one issue. They did not want an America without slavery. No myth to that.
3 Likes
I was replying to history being repeated if we donât have statues and clearly put the Hitler reference in a separate paragraph so it wouldnât be compared to our Civil War. Critical thinking really is needed.
(New paragraph/point) - Why would almost a hundred years after the Civil War during the Civil Rights movement hundreds of statues go up and hundreds of schools be renamed for confederate leaders? You say the war had nothing to do with slavery or race, so what was all that about? I am cool with compromising and leaving up any statue that was put up within 20 years of the Civil War ending, how about that? Itâs funny because if in 10-20 years from now there was a big push to put up WWII statues, which was clearly for a good cause, it would get almost no where because people would be wondering why we are focusing on that war instead of the multiple wars since. We were putting up new statues of a war 50 to up to 130 years after it happened for the losing side, who if they won would have destroyed the US as it exists today. It makes no sense at all.
3 Likes
Not sure how many times we have to rehash moral relativism or lost cause ideology with the Civil War but seems to happen at least a couple times a month.
3 Likes
Lincoln did consider sending the slaves back to Africa or there own colony because he didnât believe slaves would integrate well into America society. It was a legitimate consideration during its time, but he didnât He was absolutely against slavery was identified pubically as a abolitionist 10 years before his election to the presidency, but saving the Union was the number one priority. In relative terms, I find it difficult to call Lincoln a racist in the context of his times. Lincoln was absolutely opposed to slavery based upon its lacking of morality and was fighting against its expansion into the terrorities. Because of his election the southern states started falling like dominos once he was elected.
Lincoln is one of my favorite historical figures. But the man was a racist. He was 50 years old when the Lincoln Douglas debates were held. He was a trial attorney so he knew what words meant, he knew the power of words and he also knew that lights and cameras were on (so to speak) so there is no doubting that the words spoken were what he thought.
Biographers have tried to paint it as he grew in later years. Ok maybe, but come on does anyone really believe that?
He was a walking contradiction. He loved liberty but suspended habeas corpus. He hated slavery but the emancipation proclamation kept slaves in the border states. It is why he is so fascinating.
The statues have been there for yearsâŠno one is honoring anyone and I doubt a statue of Hitler is being erected anytime soon
Heâs my favorite too for those very reasons. It was interesting to dive into the âwhyâ behind many of his actions.
Gives a completely different perspective of the man, history and politics at the time.
1 Like
Did either of you have problems with the portrayal of Lincoln in the Spielberg movie?
My point, in 1860, very few Americans, if any, were not racist by the pure definition of the word. Just some far more extreme than others from justifying slavery through their racism and even religion and others who justified the slavesâ freedom through morality and the countryâs own foundation (but that didnât mean they werenât racist also). We are talking about the president that freed the slaves through proclamation and by winning a very bloody and costly war after almost 150 years of slavery being legal. But weâre labeling him a racist when pretty much everyone was in those slavery days of American history?
I agree. Lincoln was fascinating he had an almost religious belief that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were ordained by God. Which is interesting given that he wasnât very religious. His point with Blacks is that they are entitled to Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness. That is it. The slavery thing got in the way of the Liberty thing. He didnât feel they were entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. He was for all intents and purposes a white supremacist. But that white supremacist was probably our greatest president. Which is a very good thing to remember as we view the confederates, greatness does not equal perfection. Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were great generals and worthy of honor. They fought honorably, they fought well, they were brilliant generals.
The issue I have with this post is that youâre equating an individual that said enough is enough, with individuals that wanted to die behind keeping the status quo. Theyâre not the same. I donât understand how thatâs honorable. It should be embarrassing.
These statues, school names, street signs, and whatever else are glorified racism participation trophies.
4 Likes