Arlington has asked Virginia to rename Jefferson Davis Highway
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You are very black and white. If you can not understand and therefore appreciate the intricacies of a civil war than I guess you would not be able to debate it. |
Anonymous
Yeah I am black and white when it come to people shooting at my countrymen. Guilty as charged. And got the record this secession wasn't even about the right of the south to own slaves or make a living off of slave labor. It was about the extension of slavery into new territories. |
Anonymous
| so who is arguing to keep his name on the stupid highway? what are your reasons? why is his name better than many others out there? |
Anonymous
All I can say is perhaps you need to, with an open mind, reread what lead up to the civil war. Here's a starter read - http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war |
Anonymous
We are talking about the enslavement of millions, forced labor and dying in captivity for no reason other than their ethnicity so is it really so different? |
Anonymous
Apparently you don't understand the difference between ethnic cleansing and slavery. One wants to totally eradicate the entire existence of an ethnic group and the other wants the ethnic group to procreate and be productive. One group is seen as useless and the other useful. |
Anonymous
This is our nation's history. The idea that you are going to give me an internet link and tell me to read up is somewhat laughable. I am an educated adult. I can't even count the number of books that I have read about the civil war. On the causes of the civil war I have read wilson, Rhodes, Beard. I have read them debate on whether the war was an issue of moral, socio-cultural, or economic conflict. I have read the revisionists and their discussion of whether war was inevitable or not. But the bottom line is always this: all interpretations hinge on the issue of slavery. And the trigger was over the extension of slavery into the westward expansion. I do not care whether the North was morally superior on the issue of slavery, or whether they had the luxury of condemning a system upon which they did not depend. I don't care whether the south was conflicted about slavery and economically dependent, or whether they were stridently racist. What I do care about is this: the South chose to secede and to go to war to defend their system. They chose the system over the Union. And that was undeniably wrong. |
Anonymous
Sick and illegitimate to shrug off forced labor as "economics" Slavery was systemic and pursued the entirety of black people in the south and negated them by denying them any rights, and in fact denying them their very humanity. And many were in fact executed when their owners felt they were no longer useful. They didnt care about procreation until the source of slaves via importation dried up, prior to that they didn't care. It was pure racism and exploitation. No amount of semantics or rationalization on your part will ever lessen how heinous it was, or how horrific it would have been for the millions of blacks affected at the time. I don't see it as any better than what Stalin or Pol Pot did. You also forget that many Jews were first put to forced labor by the Nazis. They were put to death when they got too sick or weak to work.http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005180 Just economics, right? |
Anonymous
It's Christmas and you are trying to establish a moral hierarchy between ethnic cleansing and slavery. Both are within a rounding error of pure evil. |
Anonymous
We regularly honor the British and they waged two wars against our country. The war was a long time ago. Perhaps you are unaware, but after reconstruction the north made a consious decision to honor both the north and south' participation in the civil war. This was done to promote healing and national unity. It's why so many confederate memorials were built in the early 20tn century. It's why many US Army bases are named after confederates. As we get further away from the event of the civil war itself, we should be getting LESS sensitized to it, not more. You don't see the British going around looking to tear down statues of Oliver Cromwell, |
Anonymous
|
To those who favor taking the sign down, hindsight is 20/20. At the time, U.S. President Buchanan told the southern states that they would be justified to secede:
Buchanan denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the federal government legally could not prevent them. He placed the blame for the crisis solely on "intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States", and suggested that if they did not "repeal their unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments ... the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union."[56] |
Anonymous
Actually what Hitler and the Nazi regime did went beyond ethnic cleansing, it was genocide. The Holocaust murdered nearly 11 million people in a rather short time period, 1941 to 1945. |
Anonymous
Great, so slavery is only 80% as bad as Hitler. There. |
Anonymous
Buchanan was a Democrat who was pandering to the Democrats in the South because he was in a battle against Stephen Douglas. In any case, he did say that secession is illegal. As for whether we had the right to fight that, Fort Sumter made the issue irrelevant. |
Anonymous
Yeah, actually the statue of Oliver Cromwell was highly controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Oliver_Cromwell,_Westminster |