USAians: What are you doing on this loooong MLK weekend?

[Ramo]

You don't think George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, owners of Virginia slave run estates, did not have the incentive to see slavery continue?

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson helped to create the oldest democratic state in the world.

Yeah, exactly like Lee...

Alright, this time I'm out...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo

I don't know what compensation has to do with the argument, and again 1861-1838=23, 1865-1838=27. Closer to three decades than "less than a decade."

Even if it had been the day before the decision to secede it wouldn't matter so long as the secessionists gripes were relating to that difference in acceptance of slavery.

I don't see how it matters how recently the other had ditched slavery when:

A) The others did in fact ditch slavery before the secession

B) The secessionists still cited perceived threats to slavery as a motivation in seceding.

The secessionists still become the bad guys.

[Ramo]

I agree, I was just pointing out how completely ridiculous Pat's apologism has been.

[Patroklos]

States' Rights.... to protect slavery. Like I said, look at what they said and what they meant. Sometimes they match and sometimes you read between the lines and see what they mean by states' rights is the right to protect slavery.

I never said the two were not intertwined, or that slaver was not a motivation, or that Southerners were not racist.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos


You will be happy to know that all states independantly abolsihed internationl slave trading during the revolution, with the exception of Georgia who did soon thereafter.

You don't think George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, owners of Virginia slave run estates, did not have the incentive to see slavery continue?

Face it they bawked* word on the issue, and deliberately did not push the issue out of personal interest. At the very least even if they were antislavery they shelfed the issue in favore of a percieved loftier political goal. Sounds similar to what Lee did, and by similar I mean exactly the same.

Even though I'm still interested in learning about specific actions Jefferson or Washington took to protect slavery, It won't change my opinion of either washington or Jefferson much as I don't think either deserves a holiday. However, both had accomplishments unrelated to slavery while all of Lee's accomplishments related to assisting a failed war that would have protected the institution of slavery. That makes it inappropriate to honor him. You can't plausibly pretend you're honoring the guy for anything other than his civil war participation. Whereas it would be laughable to claim people are honoring jefferson and washington for owning slaves.

[Patroklos]

Oooooooo, apoligism, SCARY!!!

I agree, I was just pointing out how completely ridiculous Pat's apologism has been.

Feel fee to bring up any isntance of me not holding the Souther citizenry in the wrong for supporting slavery. No? Nothing? Nada?

I wish I could say it wasn't typical for you Ramo, but...

[Ramo]

You were explicitly defending the Confederacy's fight on behalf of slavery as not being, as you say, "teh eval."

[Patroklos]

You can't plausibly pretend you're honoring the guy for anything other than his civil war participation. Whereas it would be laughable to claim people are honoring jefferson and washington for owning slaves.

Just because you can's seperate one issue from another is not my problem (though you seem to have no problem doing it for W&J )

I am a fiscal conserviative, that has absolutely nothing to do wich what breakfast cerial I picked this moring for breakfast.

Better yet, as a sworn member of the military (and my oath is very different from Lee's) I could very well be called to defend all hosts of things my government does that are legal but I don't agree with personally.

All I am saying, something that all the primary evidence points to, is that slavery while an important issue of the time, was just one of many.

Please feel free to tell me the one single issue of today that you predicate EVERY decision you make on. Not possible? So why think it was for a Civil War era citizen?

[Patroklos]

You were explicitly defending the Confederacy's fight on behalf of slavery as not being, as you say, "teh eval."

I don't think Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was evil, does that mean I support it?

I don't thing Argentina's invasion of the Falklands was evil, does that mean I support it?

I don't think the French British takeover of the Suez was evil, does that mean I support it.

I don't think the British attack on Copenhagen was evil, does that mean I support it?

Areyou getting the ridiculousness of your off the cuff judgement call yet?

[Ramo]

I never claimed that you supported slavery. But you were clearly implying that the fight on behalf of the institution was not reprehensible.

[Patroklos]

I never claimed that you supported slavery. But you were clearly implying that the fight on behalf of the institution was not reprehensible.

No, I said it wasn't evil. In fact, that is exactly what I said.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Just because you can's seperate one issue from another is not my problem (though you seem to have no problem doing it for W&J )

You separate the issue then. I'm all ears. What is Lee honored for if not his civil war participation? Why is he paired with Jackson? What did the civil war accomplish? I'm not defending any sort of honoring of Jefferson or Washington even while you defend honoring Lee but at least I was willing to point to some plausible accomplishments.

Originally posted by Patroklos
I am a fiscal conserviative, that has absolutely nothing to do wich what breakfast cerial I picked this moring for breakfast.

Better yet, but as a sworn member of the military (and my oath is very different from Lee's) I could very well be called to defend all hosts of things my government does that are legal but I don't agree with personally.

And if you were honored for participation in an action that you didn't agree with personally how would that sit with you? What if that was all you were remembered for and the only publicaly notable thing you did?

Originally posted by Patroklos
All I am saying, something that all the primary evidence points to, is that slavery while an important issue of the time, was just one of many.

Please feel free to tell me the one single issue of today that you predicate EVERY decision you make on. Not possible? So why think it was for a Civil War era citizen?

If I were, for instance, to lead a germ warfare project for the government that led to millions of deaths but then also said I wish my participation in the project hadn't been necessary and that I hoped we wouldn't have another such project and went on to teach in a university then died do you think a holiday honoring me could plausibly claim it wasn't related to my leading the germ warfare project? Maybe I didn't want it to be used, maybe I only wanted it to serve as a deterrent. Maybe I led it because my best friend asked me to and I didn't want to let my friends down. WHO cares! If there's a holiday honoring me then the people honoring me are obviously placing their stamp of approval on the germ warfare project.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos


It hasn't been done becasue it can't be done. What you end up with is people just writing their own books saying whatever they want to, which inevitable boils down to conspiracy theories and putting words in people's mouths.

Professional historians like Foner do not make up things to write whatever they want to. They do substantial research using primary sources to explain the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Apparently, while you professed that historiography should be highly valued, you fail to see how historiography has revealed the gross biases of the "Lost Cause" view of Civil War and Reconstruction during early twentieth century.

[Ramo]

No, I said it wasn't evil. In fact, that is exactly what I said.

1. Who called it evil? Whose criticism were you trying to address?
2. How would you define evil, if not extremely immoral/reprehensible/etc.?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/inter-aspects/psych-motiv.htm

Mr. Fun, why don't you tell us what this person was actually thinking since obviously he was writing in code lest you find his leter 150 years later.

Soldiers often willingly enaged in patriotic war effort for different reasons from the reasons espoused by their own government.

The government of Confederacy wanted to win the Civil War to preserve slavery. They used propaganda of states' rights and so forth to mobilize the majority of white Southern men who were not slave owners.

History is full of wars where soldiers engage dthemselves for entirely different reasons that their governments did and yet, those efforts by those soldiers still helped further the real cause of their government. Hence, Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves could believe they were fighting in defense of their homes and families while helping their government's cause to preserve slavery and the status quo of wealthy plantation owners.