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

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos


As I pointed out Mr. Fun, slavery was not the only issue that the North could have assualted to generate the same response, it was simple they one they did choose. The North proved this.

In that case if Lee had any moral integrity at all worthy of our respect he should have fought for the north choosing slavery as the issue to assault. He instead decided to help oppose it removing any justification for modern Americans honoring the man.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If a state had legal marijuana (such as for medicinal use), do you think that crossing into another state which had banned marijuana would NOT confiscate it?

... recognized as such by the federal government..

If the federal government decriminalized the use of medicinal MJ as is the case in what we were talking about, by what right would they be able to confiscate it?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
We are talking specific people's the pretext for war, which has nothing to do with which one of you or I think is more important ourselves.

Are you sure you weren't also defending the decision to honor Lee with a holiday? Defending states rights by also defending slavery is no more praiseworthy than helping to make the trains run on time by also defending genocide.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
There are people who vehemently disagree with government wiretaps on principle, but as heated as they are they are not going to go to war over it. What if the government baned interstate travel for the same reasons? Would an armed uprising over that be because of the ban on government travel (a devestating real world action) or the government overstepping its bounds at the expense of their liberties (a principle). Or both?

Interesting hypothetical dilemma. What if the ban on travel were intended to halt an ongoing genocide? What if everybody knew that opposing the government would ensure the continuation of the genocide? What if they could also reign in the government by simply halting the genocide through other means?

[Patroklos]

Are you sure you weren't also defending the decision to honor Lee with a holiday?

That is not the same as wanting the Confederacy to win. As far as honoring people. I don't see anyone worried to any degree about Washington or Jefferson owning slaves despite having a perfect opportunity to abolish the institution (it did come up). In fact the prurposely didn't abolish it to keep the states together. No integrity or reason to warrant respect there.

This selective critisism is also interesting. Pretending the Confederacy was "teh eval" for having slavery when most of their contemporaries had it less than a decade before is ridiculous.

Another reason to consult the corresponsedences is to find out just how similar the Union view of blacks was to their enemies, and how the intitution of slavery was an anecdote to their true motivation to fight.

It is a shame on the South to have kept it longer, and to have fought for it, but relative to their time they were not evil.

[Patroklos]

Interesting hypothetical dilemma. What if the ban on travel were intended to halt an ongoing genocide? What if everybody knew that opposing the government would ensure the continuation of the genocide? What if they could also reign in the government by simply halting the genocide through other means?

Its not the same question.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Take that up with historiography. Most of it is not this "Lost Cause" BS you think, far from. That is another myth in the making.

Again, you're wrong; in our Civil War graduate course, we discussed how the white supremacist "Lost Cause" storybook version of Civil War was accepted as standard among white Southerners and white Northerners in early twentieth century.

During the Civil Rights movement of 1960s, historians began undoing this terrible, fallacious substitute for scholary history work.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos


That is not the same as wanting the Confederacy to win. As far as honoring people. I don't see anyone worried to any degree about Washington or Jefferson owning slaves despite having a perfect opportunity to abolish the institution (it did come up). In fact the prurposely didn't abolish it to keep the states together. No integrity or reason to warrant respect there.

This selective critisism is also interesting. Pretending the Confederacy was "teh eval" for having slavery when most of their contemporaries had it less than a decade before is ridiculous.

Another reason to consult the corresponsedences is to find out just how similar the Union view of blacks was to their enemies, and how the intitution of slavery was an anecdote to their true motivation to fight.

It is a shame on the South to have kept it longer, and to have fought for it, but relative to their time they were not evil.

There were important differences between the reasons for the American Revolution, and the reasons why patriots wanted to split from Great Britain from the reasons why Southern leaders seceded in 1861.

I do agree however, that some of the founding fathers had their own shortcomings in dealing with the issue of slavery.

[Patroklos]

Again, you're wrong; in our Civil War graduate course, we discussed how the white supremacist "Lost Cause" storybook version of Civil War was accepted as standard among white Southerners and white Northerners in early twentieth century.

I see, so you didn't specialize in the Civil War, it was a course within it. I didn't get that before.

In that case you have no more education in this regard than me, and we learned the exact opposite, that the current trend of revison and the "Lost Cause" proponents are different sides of the same coin, both fallacious.

No doubt it 50 years the Confederates will be devil worshipers two, about the same time Hessians will be found to actually have horns!

But please feel free to invalidate the sholarship of these thousands of tainted historians.

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.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos


That is not the same as wanting the Confederacy to win. As far as honoring people. I don't see anyone worried to any degree about Washington or Jefferson owning slaves despite having a perfect opportunity to abolish the institution (it did come up).

This selective critisism is also interesting. Pretending the Confederacy was "teh eval" for having slavery when most of their contemporaries had it less than a decade before is less so.

Another reason to consult the corresponsedences is to find out just how similar the Union view of blacks was to their enemies, and how the intitution of slavery was an anecdote to their true motivation to fight.

It is a shame on them to have kept it longer, and to have fought for it, but relative to their time they were not evil.

First of all the fact that Jefferson and Washington owned slaves is already enough to bias me against any Washington-Jefferson day as a state holiday. Secondly Jefferson and Washington did not take any action that served to protect slavery that I'm aware of. But should I discover they did take actions that they knew would protect slavery not only will I oppose holidays for those two men I'd also want them off of our currency and their statues and monuments auctioned off to private collectors. This despite the fact that both men had many other notable and laudable accomplishments.

Compared to Jefferson and Washington, Lee's accomplishments are laughably pitiful. And yet there is no Washington or Jefferson day in Virginia while there is a Lee-Jackson day. Furthermore Lee basically volunteered to lead an army in a war that he knew would protect slavery from any foreseeable threat. What evil could Jefferson or Washington have done to compare with that?

I don't pretend the others were less evil. I don't care. I'm not honoring those others and nobody is trying to defend them. In the 1930's and 40's Many european countries had historically demonstrated anti-Semitism as bad as Germany and yet I see no problem singling out Nazi Germany and those who chose to serve it for condemnation.

Relative to their time they were not recognized as evil but Lee-Jackson day 2008 is our time now.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Its not the same question.

No. but the problem with your question is that it didn't matter what their reason for opposing the government was because both reasons were acceptable. If opposing the government becomes the obviously greater evil the situation is quite different and in fact that difference is exactly what I wanted to introduce.

[Patroklos]

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

I am sick of war," wrote a Confederate officer to his wife in 1863, and of "the separation from the dearest objects of life"--his family. But "were the contest again just commenced I would willingly undergo it again for the sake of ... our country's independence and [our children's] liberty."

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.

[Geronimo]

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.

He sure as hell weren't shedding no blood for no niggars. Aint no niggar loving yankees going to be telling him what to do.

Anyway it doesn't matter. Do you think letters from SS officers during ww2 to their spouses were about the importance of the final solution or do you think they focused on the importance of defending the fatherland?

That doesn't mean the nazis went to war to defend the fatherland.

[Patroklos]

First of all the fact that Jefferson and Washington owned slaves is already enough to bias me against any Washington-Jefferson day as a state holiday. Secondly Jefferson and Washington did not take any action that served to protect slavery that I'm aware of. But should I discover they did take actions that they knew would protect slavery not only will I oppose holidays for those two men I'd also want them off of our currency and their statues and monuments auctioned off to private collectors. This despite the fact that both men had many other notable and laudable accomplishments.

Then you better start writing your congressmen, bcause the movers and shakers of our government discussed all of this at nauseum during the founding of our nation and they all agreed slavery should exist.

But out of curiosity, what personage survives the march of time?

Compared to Jefferson and Washington, Lee's accomplishments are laughably pitiful. And yet there is no Washington or Jefferson day in Virginia while there is a Lee-Jackson day.

Actually Lee's military accomplishments are far more numerous and spectacular. And since you consider Lee a traitor, Washington's courage in do that is also equaled. What exactly did Washington do besides that?

Virginia has a whole lot of presidents, and they do celebrate Presidents Day as a state holiday.

Furthermore Lee basically volunteered to lead an army in a war that he knew would protect slavery from any foreseeable threat.

As did Washington.

What evil could Jefferson or Washington have done to compare with that?

Actually own slaves?

I don't pretend the others were less evil.

Your consistant then, I admire that. You are an extreme minority.

Relative to their time they were not recognized as evil but Lee-Jackson day 2008 is our time now.

Again, given your standards, who isn't evil after a hundred years of time? Ten bucks we will all be evil for owning pets in 100 years.

No. but the problem with your question is that it didn't matter what their reason for opposing the government was because both reasons were acceptable. If opposing the government becomes the obviously greater evil the situation is quite different and in fact that difference is exactly what I wanted to introduce.

Your opinion about slavery was the minority back then, on all sides. You also chose genocide to load your question.

[Patroklos]

He sure as hell weren't shedding no blood for no niggars. Aint no niggar loving yankees going to be telling me what to do.

You are better than petty emotion mongering.

That is a letter form a Southern officer to his wife. They should both be equally racist and would have no problem discussing the nobal institution institution of slavery openly between them, so why is there no mention of slavery if it was his true motivation?