(06-28-2020 08:25 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  Purple - not only did you selectively edit my post and ignore some pertinent parts...You forgot to log off your second account as Bulldog where your previous post was "I like this Purple guy"

Kinda like sending me to your website for reference material. It really should be humorous, but it's not.

Ironic that somebody so outspoken would barely have 100 posts in over 6 years before this thread and then accuse somebody else of running burner accounts.

(06-28-2020 08:55 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  

(06-28-2020 08:25 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  Purple - not only did you selectively edit my post and ignore some pertinent parts...You forgot to log off your second account as Bulldog where your previous post was "I like this Purple guy"

Kinda like sending me to your website for reference material. It really should be humorous, but it's not.

Ironic that somebody so outspoken would barely have 100 posts in over 6 years before this thread and then accuse somebody else of running burner accounts.

Hammer. Where do you disagree with my outspoken posts? Go on record. Let’s get it all out in the open.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree with your accusation of Purple hiding behind other accounts when he has never been shy to post anything here despite sometimes being the unpopular choice. That you don’t see the irony in your accusation when you’ve barely discussed anything on this forum in over 6 years, until now of course, is hilarious. There certainly are people hiding behind other user IDs on these forums and I would highly doubt its Purple but carry on.

(06-28-2020 09:57 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  I disagree with your accusation of Purple hiding behind other accounts when he has never been shy to post anything here despite sometimes being the unpopular choice. That you don’t see the irony in your accusation when you’ve barely discussed anything on this forum in over 6 years, until now of course, is hilarious. There certainly are people hiding behind other user IDs on these forums and I would highly doubt its Purple but carry on.

But where do you stand on honoring confederate, white supremacists. You’ve read my posts. You know what they said and did. Come on.

We’re not taking about moving to FBS or John Daka signing with the Ravens. This is something really important.

Take a side.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks anyway, I’m here for the JMU sports, I’ll get my politics, history and civics elsewhere. But hope that after being a long time listener and first time caller you’ll stick around and tune in more often.

You interjected yourself into this discussion.

It was very noble of you not to take either side when discussing white supremacists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You interjected yourself into this discussion.

It was very noble of you not to take either side when discussing white supremacists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-28-2020 09:57 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote:  I disagree with your accusation of Purple hiding behind other accounts when he has never been shy to post anything here despite sometimes being the unpopular choice. That you don’t see the irony in your accusation when you’ve barely discussed anything on this forum in over 6 years, until now of course, is hilarious. There certainly are people hiding behind other user IDs on these forums and I would highly doubt its Purple but carry on.

Thanks, Hammer.

Rockhead is one of those guys who has all of the answers and believes he knows everything. He is so arrogant that he tells me that I am hiding behind another handle when the fact is I am stuck with bulldogg until I can figure out why Purple's password no longer works. For grins last night, I decided to see if bulldog's account was still active. I typed in the credentials, and BOOM! I was bulldogg again. Now I can't get back to my Purple account. The site simply won't accept my password, which is exactly the way Purple was born - I wasn't able to sign on as bulldogg a few years ago because my password wouldn't work. hburg tried to help with no luck, and suggested I contact GTS. I did. No reply. So I started Purple's account.

Now, Mr. Knowitall, who knows everything, is absolutely 100% certain that I am some sort of fraud or something because of my joke of a post last night. He is apparently one of the very few here who doesn't know that bulldogg and Purple are the same guy. He had to do a search of bulldogg's posts to figure it out. Such a detective, that Rockhead!

Then he accuses me of "selectively editing!" I didn't selectively edit anything. I simply responded to the parts I wanted to respond to.

But, don't you dare try to explain any of this to Señor Rockhead. He already knows everything. In fact, if you have any questions about your own past or future, just ask him. He has the answers!

So Bulldog/Purple. Where can I count your vote?

Yes you support honoring white supremacists.

Or....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-28-2020 10:27 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  You interjected yourself into this discussion.

It was very noble of you not to take either side

Just sitting on the sidelines and felt the need to point out such hilarious irony. And you can leave me out of your irresponsible and inflammatory BS.

(06-28-2020 10:44 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  So Bulldog/Purple. Where can I count your vote?

Yes you support honoring white supremacists.

Or....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist. Do you support him? He had planned to round up all of the blacks and ship them to Africa and/or the Caribbean. Have you read any of the racist things Lincoln had to say?....

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas."

"It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers."

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man."

A. Lincoln

Piddling in discussion about causes if the Civil War is a distraction that these leftist revolutionaries are happy for us to be engaged in. I said this isn't about that and doesn't have a damn thing to do with slavery.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...edium=feed

I'm finished with this. No one is going to change anyone else's mind. Best to just let it go.

(06-28-2020 10:44 PM)Rockville Duke Wrote:  So Bulldog/Purple. Where can I count your vote?

Yes you support honoring white supremacists.

Or....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You go to all that trouble trying to fill in shades of gray for Purple .... only to conclude with two choices that allow for none of that nuance.

Here's a summary attempt to include the nuance:

The Confederacy was established primarily to keep the establishment of slavery. Any suggestion to the otherwise is compromised by the very founding political statements of none other than Jefferson Davis and indeed most of the individual state actions themselves. As with all political movements though it has fellow causes and travelers such as tariffs, but these are largely pawns put in front of the real power pieces because they lack the odiousness of the real power pieces.

The people within the Confederacy but not part of its political apparatus aren't easily pigeon holed. Robert E. Lee publicly pleaded for peace on the eve of war as a member of top brass of the US Army. Lee was a federalist that viewed himself as being Virginian above and beyond being even an American. After the war he toured the country asking for peace. Stonewall Jackson purchased slaves for the express purpose of freeing them. Once their purchase cost was paid back they were given their freedom. So when it comes to passing judgement on the people involved care should be taken to evaluate the individual.

However the image of both of the aforementioned men was tarnished by racists in the 50's and 60's. Most of the Confederate statues you see today were erected during the black civil rights era in the 60's. That's hardly a war memorial or historical monument or remembrance piece.... that's a symbolic middle finger. Statues that date back to reconstruction cannot be cast aside as easily and must be judged on their content instead. Let's use the most prominent example I can think of: Stone Mountain, GA. When did it open? 1965 on the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's assassination. Sigh /facepalm. And what's on it? Robert E Lee .... Stonewall Jackson .... and .... Jefferson f*cking Davis?? Ughhhhhh. So it's a big middle finger leaning heavily on Lee and Stonewall to legitimize itself. Intent matters. It's hard to find good intent in Stone Mountain.

And then you need to further account for how the Confederacy has been romanticized and turn into lore in some ways. There are all kinds of people who don't know the first thing about Stone Mountain who will staunchly defend it based primarily on that cultural affinity. Does that make those people evil racists? I don't think so. They just need more reasonable people engaging them in dialogue with facts. Calling them a racist is the best way possible to not achieve any of that.





On a related note because I see people parrot the same old lines regarding "The War of Northern Aggression" when it comes to attempting to point out Union misdeeds .... I'd like to offer some actual real biting criticism, because it is warranted:

- Lincoln's motives weren't all pure. It's not hard to find writings by Lincoln himself that you could mistake for being written by Jefferson Davis. Lincoln has some vile stuff penned as well.

- The elimination of all the basic protections of the Constitution from habeas corpus to due process to arresting journalists sets a terrible precedent. I am a believer that how deep your moral convictions are can be most readily found by how firmly you stick by them in the darkest hours. Lincoln threw the Bill of Rights overboard when it was expedient to the Union cause.

- It's not like there weren't other solutions out there to be easily cribbed. Just flipping the abolition switch on of the slaves does two things: it ends slavery as a legal enterprise, and it simultaneously wipes out nearly all labor and capital among the wealthiest and most politically connected in the South. In other words ... you've made it an existential immediate crisis for those who hold the political reigns of power at the time in the South. Which you might feel all cheeky about if you were Lincoln at the time but perhaps that cheeky grin fades a bit after 1,700,000 casualties. At least I hope it would. The British had the right idea: buy out all slaves then make it illegal. I don't care what the short term cost to the Treasury would have been, it's still far cheaper than 1.7m casualties and the scars still with us to this day.

- The Union effort after the war was just as half-hearted as some of our overseas adventures today .... show up, oust the people in charge, twiddle your thumbs while chaos constantly bubbles up beneath you because you're unwilling to engage in total occupation for a generation which is probably what it would have taken to fully divorce the political class in the South from their racist and reconstruction sources of support. So we had 1.7m casualties just to kick the can down the road another 100 years as government quickly got in bed with racists again and erected segregation and Jim Crow. If you ask me, this criticism carries a hell of a lot more bite than crying about tariffs.

Colleges have been full of Leftists since the 60s when people went to college to hide from going to Vietnam. Not surprising that JMU is among the liberal crowd. My point isn't so much dont change the building names as it is dont be a half-ass about it. If it's about taking an eraser to white people and their religion and their slave owning and whatever else they can think of, then change the damn university name. Get it over with, becaise these people aren't going to stop with a few buildings or statues. It's about hunting down cause and effect. And there is no ultimate cause of anything....just turtles all the way down.

(06-29-2020 12:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You go to all that trouble trying to fill in shades of gray for Purple .... only to conclude with two choices that allow for none of that nuance.

Here's a summary attempt to include the nuance:

The Confederacy was established primarily to keep the establishment of slavery. Any suggestion to the otherwise is compromised by the very founding political statements of none other than Jefferson Davis and indeed most of the individual state actions themselves. As with all political movements though it has fellow causes and travelers such as tariffs, but these are largely pawns put in front of the real power pieces because they lack the odiousness of the real power pieces.

The people within the Confederacy but not part of its political apparatus aren't easily pigeon holed. Robert E. Lee publicly pleaded for peace on the eve of war as a member of top brass of the US Army. Lee was a federalist that viewed himself as being Virginian above and beyond being even an American. After the war he toured the country asking for peace. Stonewall Jackson purchased slaves for the express purpose of freeing them. Once their purchase cost was paid back they were given their freedom. So when it comes to passing judgement on the people involved care should be taken to evaluate the individual.

However the image of both of the aforementioned men was tarnished by racists in the 50's and 60's. Most of the Confederate statues you see today were erected during the black civil rights era in the 60's. That's hardly a war memorial or historical monument or remembrance piece.... that's a symbolic middle finger. Statues that date back to reconstruction cannot be cast aside as easily and must be judged on their content instead. Let's use the most prominent example I can think of: Stone Mountain, GA. When did it open? 1965 on the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's assassination. Sigh /facepalm. And what's on it? Robert E Lee .... Stonewall Jackson .... and .... Jefferson f*cking Davis?? Ughhhhhh. So it's a big middle finger leaning heavily on Lee and Stonewall to legitimize itself. Intent matters. It's hard to find good intent in Stone Mountain.

And then you need to further account for how the Confederacy has been romanticized and turn into lore in some ways. There are all kinds of people who don't know the first thing about Stone Mountain who will staunchly defend it based primarily on that cultural affinity. Does that make those people evil racists? I don't think so. They just need more reasonable people engaging them in dialogue with facts. Calling them a racist is the best way possible to not achieve any of that.





On a related note because I see people parrot the same old lines regarding "The War of Northern Aggression" when it comes to attempting to point out Union misdeeds .... I'd like to offer some actual real biting criticism, because it is warranted:

- Lincoln's motives weren't all pure. It's not hard to find writings by Lincoln himself that you could mistake for being written by Jefferson Davis. Lincoln has some vile stuff penned as well.

- The elimination of all the basic protections of the Constitution from habeas corpus to due process to arresting journalists sets a terrible precedent. I am a believer that how deep your moral convictions are can be most readily found by how firmly you stick by them in the darkest hours. Lincoln threw the Bill of Rights overboard when it was expedient to the Union cause.

- It's not like there weren't other solutions out there to be easily cribbed. Just flipping the abolition switch on of the slaves does two things: it ends slavery as a legal enterprise, and it simultaneously wipes out nearly all labor and capital among the wealthiest and most politically connected in the South. In other words ... you've made it an existential immediate crisis for those who hold the political reigns of power at the time in the South. Which you might feel all cheeky about if you were Lincoln at the time but perhaps that cheeky grin fades a bit after 1,700,000 casualties. At least I hope it would. The British had the right idea: buy out all slaves then make it illegal. I don't care what the short term cost to the Treasury would have been, it's still far cheaper than 1.7m casualties and the scars still with us to this day.

- The Union effort after the war was just as half-hearted as some of our overseas adventures today .... show up, oust the people in charge, twiddle your thumbs while chaos constantly bubbles up beneath you because you're unwilling to engage in total occupation for a generation which is probably what it would have taken to fully divorce the political class in the South from their racist and reconstruction sources of support. So we had 1.7m casualties just to kick the can down the road another 100 years as government quickly got in bed with racists again and erected segregation and Jim Crow. If you ask me, this criticism carries a hell of a lot more bite than crying about tariffs.

Swagger - thanks for posting this and easing some of my obvious frustration. Your whole post is well done and I appreciate your criticism. The last paragraph strikes so much truth. And it is really at the heart of what gets to me.

My initial interest in this thread was to primarily educate, but to also challenge people for their views on humanity and who we should honor. I think there were varying degrees of success here. I'm sure I could have been more patient.

While I tried to keep my posts above name-calling, I am sure my frustration more than found it's way through. It is disheartening when debate slips into name-calling like leftist, communist, McCarthyist. I did like being called too young, researcher, detective and the classic term of endearment "Rockhead".

I can only hope that this debate will resonate at some point with all here in the future and we can all read actual history and differentiate between analysis, opinion and truly partisan misinformation. Then we can all make our decisions based on facts not opinions.

To tie this in a bow before I leave for vacation:
purple bulldog - President Lincoln led this country through its most difficult period in history. At the time, he was a man, not yet a legend and therefor didn't always have the best answer all the time. One of his legacies was that he put the preservation of the United States above all else. In doing so, he made several offers to and explored different plans to appease the confederates. The confederates weren't interested and had already started secession before he was inaugurated and started the war about a month after he took the job. An extremely difficult set of circumstances for any leader. So, while he may have explored appeasement options, in the end his actions were correct.

So YES, I do support honoring President Lincoln with statues, buildings, streets, place names, etc…

And to be perfectly clear in case you haven't inferred:
I am THOROUGHLY, WHOLE-HEARTEDLY, FULLY... OPPOSED to honoring anyone who supported or waged war against the United States to protect and spread the enslavement of human beings. No buildings, statues, streets, parks, etc… should ever be named for a confederate.

While I wish we could snap our fingers and undo the damage Swagger identified in his last post, I would be happy if we can make any lasting progressive gains. Some progress is better than no/negative progress. We have a long way to go.

To lump all residents and soldiers of confederate states into slave holders or to say they all fought to preserve slavery is as ignorant as saying all Germans during WWII hated the Jewish.

(06-29-2020 03:40 PM)JacksonHall Wrote:  Colleges have been full of Leftists since the 60s when people went to college to hide from going to Vietnam. Not surprising that JMU is among the liberal crowd. My point isn't so much dont change the building names as it is dont be a half-ass about it. If it's about taking an eraser to white people and their religion and their slave owning and whatever else they can think of, then change the damn university name. Get it over with, becaise these people aren't going to stop with a few buildings or statues. It's about hunting down cause and effect. And there is no ultimate cause of anything....just turtles all the way down.

All of a sudden, names on buildings are offensive, "look at me, the almighty Oz" leadership forcing employee's to make "woke" statements they would otherwise choose to keep more private or deal with at the team level. I don't support any person, business, organization the purposely attempts to alienate and divide people so my family has decided to cease financial support of JMU until hopefully the powers to be come to realize their jobs, at a public university are to educate young people.

(06-29-2020 10:30 PM)JacksonHall Wrote:  To lump all residents and soldiers of confederate states into slave holders or to say they all fought to preserve slavery is as ignorant as saying all Germans during WWII hated the Jewish.

Correct. And if you want to peer down that deep, dark, long roadway .... this book should make you stare at the ceiling and give you trouble sleeping if you're even moderately well adjusted.

(06-28-2020 11:13 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(06-27-2020 05:22 PM)Purple Wrote:  I have read your "source documents," but they do not change my mind nor do they change what actually happened.
Remember, the South did not start the Civil War. It started when the North fired on Fort Sumter.

WTF?

OMG

Seriously P, put down the sauce. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Ummm I'm certainly not a "history Guy" but Honest Abe was pissed because the south left the union and stopped paying taxes and would hurt the commodities supply. A.L. says the south can't leave the union and launched some cannon balls over Fort Sumter. Abe really didn't want a war but the south called his bluff.

A few years ago I believe it was the History Channel did a series on the civil war, (maybe called Grant??) I think based on a book Making a Nation (or something like that)

If I recall correctly, Grant actually owned slaves, gifted from his father. R.E. Lee did not own slaves and actually freed slaves that we're owned by his family when he became an adult.