He fought to defend his state, just like everyone else. The folks that were enslaved have been dead for a hundred years.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Racism in the Military
- Thread starter Charles Edward
- Start date
And those would be in Pearl Harbor and Philly I presume?
His state, that seceded to defend slavery. Details. Plus, the folks that put that statue up have been dead for a while too so no need to worry about offending their genteel dispositions.
Virginia Ordinance of Secession
April 17, 1861
AN ORDINANCE
To Repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution:
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.
Way to go after a point that wasn’t made. If you lived in Virginia in 1861 you would have fought for the south and been a racist. If you lived in New York you would have fought for the north and been a racist.
Dude...I wasn’t trying to make a point, I was trying to make a joke.
Look, the Civil War ended over 150 years go and the good guys won. The English have a statue of Cromwell and King Charles (opposite sides of their civil war) a stone’s throw from each other. Indeed, not 25 yards from Nelson’s Column is a statue to a very famous British traitor and driver of slaves...George Washington. Somehow they get by. Somehow, a mere 75 years after the world’s greatest holocaust “We the People” are able to buy Mercedes Benz and Toyota automobiles...blissfully forgetting that both were major manufacturers of Nazi and Imperial Japanese military equipment. Somehow, despite the fact that only one political party in the US supported slavery, secession, Jim Crow, and New Jim Crow...Democrats...we are still able to vote for democrats!
If we need to divest ourselves of a long and terrifying element of history maybe we should do away with that political party? After all Davis, Lee, Jackson, Bedford Forest, Bragg, Bennning, and Hood were all...democrats.
I'm blind as a bat, probably couldn't have fought for anyone back then.
Debating what someone would have done 150 years ago is absurd and beside the point, the fact that we continue to honor a person that fought for his state/new country that was expressly preserving slavery is absurd. He won't be forgotten or erased, just his statue put away a dark corner so that we don't glorify his leadership in a war to preserve his state's right to preserve slavery.
Moot argument anyways, it's almost certainly going to come down soon.
Last edited:
And yet again, almost everything you mention has other qualities or actions that to contrast to their history beyond what you listed like the Democratic leadership's passage of the Civil Rights laws (and the reason a lot of those old Dixiecrats became Republicans) while the confederate statues glorifying their subjects are usually only notable for their fighting on the side that fought to preserve slavery in the Civil War.
History ain't getting erased anytime soon, statues go up and they come down and life goes on. Folks will remember Lee and other just like people remember Saddam and Stalin even after their statues came tumbling down.
Eyeroll
You seem to be a bit confused about the actual history.
The Civil Rights Act, assuming you mean the one passed in 1964 (because all the others were proposed and passed by republicans) was made possible by republicans. It was designed as a backstop to the 1954 bill (crafted by republicans). The numbers are simple...in the Senate 31% of the democrats voted against the bill while only 18% of republicans did so. In the House, a whopping 36% of the democrats voted against the act while a mere 20% of the republicans did. The bill was unquestionably passed because of republican support. Equally, you have fallen for the comical lie of the “Southern Strategy,” a myth created by disgruntled anti war democrats in response to their shocking defeat at the hands of Nixon. No political scientist, in any university I have ever attended or worked for an name a single paper or book to support the theory. When faced with the fact that the south voted not for Nixon but for Wallace, they all immediately agree that such a “strategy” never existed.
The south’s gradual shift to the republicans was a matter of national defense in the face of McGovern’s call for an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. Up north, comically, the transition from solidly republican to democrat came when school integration arrived there...you might recall the famous picture of the guy in Boston stabbing someone with an American flag. In short, most northerners thought the end of segregation was only meant for the south. Nixon won every state but Massachusetts and DC.
If you are looking for something to read I recommend “Shocking Conscience” and “Flawed Giant”...both good books and honest about the transition of politics in the US.
I know, I know...odd to reply to myself but I wanted to note that those were the days when each side of the political coin were willing to work with one another. The rise of mass communication from TV to social media has destroyed all of that. Now they all work for nothing more than enough to fit on the typical Twitter post. If I could be “king for a minute” all I would order is term limits for every federal political office. No more than 12 years in any and all offices (say, 4 years as a congress person...8 as a senator) and a single six year term for president. Every president would get to replace the eldest member of the SCOTUS.
It all starts someone and tearing down historical statues is definitely a start.
Didn’t we do this on here a couple of years ago?
Except Farragut, who grew up in TN, lived in VA at the outbreak of the war, and fought for the Union. I am certain others were like him. For what it's worth, my current roommate on cruise is attempting to join the "Sons of the Stars and Bars," and his lineage is tied to ancestors in TN, which required additional documentation compared to people of other states because, in his recap of the initial response from that organization, so many Tennesseans were either forced/conscripted and didn't believe in the cause, anti-Confederate and fell into two camps: wanting to form their own country or were pro-Union, or simply did fight for the union.
Trivia fact: Farragut was a pall-bearer for President Lincoln's funeral.
There are exceptions of course. But the fact remains
Farragut, an unquestionably brave and remarkable naval officer, had a slightly different life to set him toward the idea of a unified “United” States. He was at sea as a midshipman at the age ten. His nation was the ship he was on, his flag the US flag, the only he would ever know. His allegiance was to the navy first and because that navy was part of the union...he was for it. A far better example would be a guy like George Thomas. A southern man and an army officer, he was even a slave owner. When the war started he remained with the Union side because he decided his pledge to the nation superseded any notion of duty to one’s home.
Still, the real story isn’t about loyal or disloyal in the sense we are using it today.It was far more complex than that. Many Americans felt that the Constitution allowed for secession and considered the federal government was in violation of the Constitution in exceed their lawful authority. Massachusetts once tried to leave the union as did South Carolina in 1832. Of course, the war and history proved the south wrong in almost every way especially in the evolution of humankind and its views on slavery. Still, it is interesting listening to some people argue those elements of the 10th Amendment in support of their case that ardent slavers used in debating secession.
Last edited: