(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.