Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, Joe said:

I understand that, but he said he was a Free Soiler, not a free soiler. Big difference.

 

I honestly didn't remember if there was ever a formally organized Free Soil party when I use capital letters initially. So I used capital letters in the same way that people use Libertarian and libertarian interchangeably--I wasn't even thinking about there being a difference as I typed it. I mostly just remembered that it was fairly fleeting.

 

For the purposes of what we're talking about I don't think there's a huge difference between Free Soil and free soil though.

[thewhyteboar]

How can we function as a society with people like this?

[Joe]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I honestly didn't remember if there was ever a formally organized Free Soil party when I use capital letters initially. So I used capital letters in the same way that people use Libertarian and libertarian interchangeably--I wasn't even thinking about there being a difference as I typed it. I mostly just remembered that it was fairly fleeting.

 

For the purposes of what we're talking about I don't think there's a huge difference between Free Soil and free soil though.

 

I think the difference is important and I would never call someone a Libertarian unless they were part of the party.

 

Lincoln has a lot of contradictory quotes on his feelings on slavery. I think in the end he was a pragmatist and would have allowed slavery to continue if it prevented war, but was personally opposed to it.

[SimpleG]

29 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Personally, I'd be fine with detonating the Lincoln Memorial as well.

[Jason]

20 minutes ago, Joe said:

I think the difference is important and I would never call someone a Libertarian unless they were part of the party.

 

Lincoln has a lot of contradictory quotes on his feelings on slavery. I think in the end he was a pragmatist and would have allowed slavery to continue if it prevented war, but was personally opposed to it.

 

It ultimately seems to me like the "not racist or Nazi but okay with racists and Nazis" excuses that people try to make for Trump voters. Lincoln may have not personally been a fan of slavery but he almost certainly wasn't going to try to proactively move to end slavery if the Confederacy hadn't own-goaled and forced his hand. And even after they did, he still clung to hoping that preserving slavery to some extent could maybe end things sooner rather than later, like how the Emancipation Proclamation only applied in Confederate territory.

 

I'm not saying the South comes out looking better than the popular perception, just that Lincoln isn't the saint that the public elementary school version of the Civil War paints him as.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

7 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

It ultimately seems to me like the "not racist or Nazi but okay with racists and Nazis" excuses that people try to make for Trump voters. Lincoln may have not personally been a fan of slavery but he almost certainly wasn't going to try to proactively move to end slavery if the Confederacy hadn't own-goaled and forced his hand. And even after they did, he still clung to hoping that preserving slavery to some extent could maybe end things sooner rather than later, like how the Emancipation Proclamation only applied in Confederate territory.

 

I'm not saying the South comes out looking better than the popular perception, just that Lincoln isn't the saint that the public elementary school version of the Civil War paints him as.

Well he’s the closest to “not being a monster” that Republicans got when it came to presidents. I guess we had to give them one. 

[Joe]

14 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

It ultimately seems to me like the "not racist or Nazi but okay with racists and Nazis" excuses that people try to make for Trump voters. Lincoln may have not personally been a fan of slavery but he almost certainly wasn't going to try to proactively move to end slavery if the Confederacy hadn't own-goaled and forced his hand. And even after they did, he still clung to hoping that preserving slavery to some extent could maybe end things sooner rather than later, like how the Emancipation Proclamation only applied in Confederate territory.

 

I'm not saying the South comes out looking better than the popular perception, just that Lincoln isn't the saint that the public elementary school version of the Civil War paints him as.

He is the reason the 13th amendment passed. I don’t think it’s fair to criticize him for being pragmatic.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

The emancipation proclamation is as far as lincoln believed he could go during a war time, not for political reasons, but believing that legal property, as black persons in the south were considered at the time, could be seized during war time just like any other property. Because there was no war on Kentucky, for example, their "property" could not be seized under the proclamation. It wasn't pragmatism, it was the contemporary understanding of his legal authority during wartime. 

 

He didn't go to war to free the slaves but realized the union was unable to survive in it's half measures to maintain the status quo. We would be a slave country or not; there was no middle ground. This is what the "house divided" speech was truly about.

 

As an aside, the free soil party and the free soil movement have a lot of overlap but you needed not be a member of the free soil party to be a free soiler. And besides, the free soil party was an anti slavery party which eventually became part of the republican party with the dissolution of the whig party with members such as salmon p chase and charles sumner at forefront

[Jason]

8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The emancipation proclamation is as far as lincoln believed he could go during a war time

 

Okay, but he never would have gone even that far if the South hadn't decided to declare war.

 

They declared war because they convinced themselves that Lincoln was going to take away their slaves, but he probably would have just let them be if they'd just left it alone.

[Joe]

13 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The emancipation proclamation is as far as lincoln believed he could go during a war time, not for political reasons, but believing that legal property, as black persons in the south were considered at the time, could be seized during war time just like any other property. Because there was no war on Kentucky, for example, their "property" could not be seized under the proclamation. It wasn't pragmatism, it was the contemporary understanding of his legal authority during wartime. 

 

He didn't go to war to free the slaves but realized the union was unable to survive in it's half measures to maintain the status quo. We would be a slave country or not; there was no middle ground. This is what the "house divided" speech was truly about.

 

As an aside, the free soil party and the free soil movement have a lot of overlap but you needed not be a member of the free soil party to be a free soiler. And besides, the free soil party was an anti slavery party which eventually became part of the republican party with the dissolution of the whig party with members such as salmon p chase and charles sumner at forefront

I was referring to pragmatism in being ok with slavery if it upheld the Union.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

9 minutes ago, Joe said:

I was referring to pragmatism in being ok with slavery if it upheld the Union.

I agree with this, but only because I don't think he wanted to be the one to fight for abolition. He was after all a republican, who were anti slavery as a matter of existence for the party. This is why the south seceded after all, he was a republican, a member of the anti slavery party, albeit a moderate one.

 

But your point leads to him being a free soiler, despite the lack of formal party affiliation. He wasn't going to allow the expansion of slavery into Western territories. It had been through compromises in the years prior that one slave state would join with one free state, a practice that would not continue with lincoln and Republicans in power. This was the moderate position in the republican party! This, long term, would have led to an imbalance of power in the Senate and would have curtailed laws such as the fugitive slave acts and others. Perhaps special taxes on slaves, who knows!

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I love how my little funny post about my family visit resulted in an in depth discussion on the Civil War. 

 

Excellent job, guys!

 

Edit: that's not sarcasm, just to be clear. I enjoyed reading the posts that followed while waiting for the deer to show up.  

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I love how my little funny post about my family visit resulted in an in depth discussion on the Civil War. 

 

Excellent job, guys!

 

Edit: that's not sarcasm, just to be clear. I enjoyed reading the posts that followed while waiting for the deer to show up.  

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

16 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

That's me, too. But my signal is crap out in the woods, plus I didn't have time to get involved. 

[Jason]

49 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

That's me, too. But my signal is crap out in the woods, plus I didn't have time to get involved. 

[Fizzzzle]

5 hours ago, SilentWorld said:

I don't really get your point? "Germany tore down their monuments immediately after WW2 and that was a good thing. And therefore, we should leave our statues standing." 

No, I'm saying we should turn the statues into the slavery version of holocaust memorials. if you just tear them down, all that does is give more ammunition to the beliefs of the people who want them there that they're being oppressed and their beliefs are justified.

 

I don't see why that's so hard to understand. These people see themselves as victims of a perceived oppressive deep state or whatever. You have to build movements from the ground up, you can't just call everyone who opposes you racist idiots and expect them to go along with your point of view. Nothing will change.

[Joe]

2 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

No, I'm saying we should turn the statues into the slavery version of holocaust memorials. if you just tear them down, all that does is give more ammunition to the beliefs of the people who want them there that they're being oppressed and their beliefs are justified.

 

I don't see why that's so hard to understand. These people see themselves as victims of a perceived oppressive deep state or whatever. You have to build movements from the ground up, you can't just call everyone who opposes you racist idiots and expect them to go along with your point of view. Nothing will change.

Your comparison to Germany makes no sense because Germany tore down all their Nazi statues after the war.

[Keyser_Soze]

7 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

No, I'm saying we should turn the statues into the slavery version of holocaust memorials. if you just tear them down, all that does is give more ammunition to the beliefs of the people who want them there that they're being oppressed and their beliefs are justified.

 

I don't see why that's so hard to understand. These people see themselves as victims of a perceived oppressive deep state or whatever. You have to build movements from the ground up, you can't just call everyone who opposes you racist idiots and expect them to go along with your point of view. Nothing will change.

 

So we should memorialize plantations and have statues of murdered slaves instead, is closer to the idea you're trying to float.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

7 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

No, I'm saying we should turn the statues into the slavery version of holocaust memorials. if you just tear them down, all that does is give more ammunition to the beliefs of the people who want them there that they're being oppressed and their beliefs are justified.

 

I don't see why that's so hard to understand. These people see themselves as victims of a perceived oppressive deep state or whatever. You have to build movements from the ground up, you can't just call everyone who opposes you racist idiots and expect them to go along with your point of view. Nothing will change.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org//static/favicon/wikipedia.ico Robert E. Lee Monument (Richmond, Virginia) - Wikipedia

EN.M.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

how the fuck do you turn a 14 ft robert e lee statue, sitting on a literal 60 ft pedestal as the sole focus in the center of a massive traffic circle in the middle of downtown richmond, into "the slavery version of holocaust memorials"?

 

You can't! It's an object to venerate and revere the leading general of a rebellion whose principle aim was to keep blacks in bondage!

 

There's plenty of memorials and rememberances and historical markers to slavery in Richmond, you can't avoid them, but also far too many phallic objects of veneration for a bunch of dead traitors.

 

[skillzdadirecta]

3 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

How can we function as a society with people like this?

Guys like that exist and feel free to speak up like this because they've been coddled and humored and given cover by other "well meaning white folks" who "don't agree with them and find their views reprehensible... BUT kinda understand where they're coming from." 

 

There was also THIS at the rally yesterday.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com//static/media/favicon.b30a79ed.ico Fox Anchor Pauses Mid-Segment Over ‘Very Disturbing’ Sign at MAGA Rally

WWW.THEDAILYBEAST.COM

---

“We’ve just seen a very disturbing sign. It said, ‘Coming for Blacks and Indians first welcome to the New World Order.’”

 

[Fizzzzle]

6 minutes ago, Joe said:

Your comparison to Germany makes no sense because Germany tore down all their Nazi statues after the war.

They also started teaching children that nazis = bad after the war. We have 160 years of romantic southern revivalism to undo, so it's not as simple.

 

I feel like I'm talking in circles at this point. Taking down the statues might make you feel good, but it doesn't do anything to help the problem, and if anything (I think) makes it worse. Education is key. Teach the children that the south absolutely fought to protect the institution of slavery, that the generals of those statues were traitors, and their great grandparents were probably horrifically racist. If you just say "ha, fuck you, imma take your statues," all you're doing is reinforcing the beliefs they already have.

 

Remember, Eugene Debs was popular in the south and the midwest. You can reach these people.

[johnny]

Maybe spray paint RACIST and TRAITOR on the statue 

[Fizzzzle]

9 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

So we should memorialize plantations and have statues of murdered slaves instead, is closer to the idea you're trying to float.

Sure.

[Fizzzzle]

Just now, johnny said:

Maybe spray paint RACIST and TRAITOR on the statue 

I mean, that would be the general point.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, johnny said:

Maybe spray paint RACIST and TRAITOR on the statue 

Google Image Result for https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/richmond.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/00/e007d587-484a-55ff-9eb8-6f2a4402966a/5f457c868491b.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C905

IMAGES.APP.GOO.GL

Won't embed, but uh....it's done

[johnny]

6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Google Image Result for https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/richmond.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/00/e007d587-484a-55ff-9eb8-6f2a4402966a/5f457c868491b.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C905

IMAGES.APP.GOO.GL

Won't embed, but uh....it's done

The only thing that would look better than that is if the statue wasn’t there 

[Fizzzzle]

There is a large portion of the American voting block that have been gaslit into voting against their own interests since the country was founded by playing off of their fears, racism, and insecurities. Every time a progressive movement starts in this country, you can see it break through to these people. We saw it in the progressive movement of the early 20th century. We saw it with Bernie in the Midwest. The problem is that the "progressive" party at the time keeps shunning it as being too radical, which leads to religious radicals winning their vote based on "yeah we know we burned your house down, but imagine how gay and mexican it would be if the other party was in charge."

 

Until we correct that behavior from the ground up, we're still going to keep getting nixons, Reagans, and Trumps. You're not going to convince anyone by coming at them with "hey you fucking racist backwards idiot piece of shit, let me tell you about my economic policy."

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

55 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

They also started teaching children that nazis = bad after the war. We have 160 years of romantic southern revivalism to undo, so it's not as simple.

 

I feel like I'm talking in circles at this point. Taking down the statues might make you feel good, but it doesn't do anything to help the problem, and if anything (I think) makes it worse. Education is key. Teach the children that the south absolutely fought to protect the institution of slavery, that the generals of those statues were traitors, and their great grandparents were probably horrifically racist. If you just say "ha, fuck you, imma take your statues," all you're doing is reinforcing the beliefs they already have.

 

Remember, Eugene Debs was popular in the south and the midwest. You can reach these people.

 

I see where you're coming from, but I also think the problems you are worried that taking down the statues will cause are short-run problems.

 

It could definitely gin up a backlash of resentment in poor, white, Southern communities, particularly any where you have people with confederate soldiers as ancestors; however, I think this backlash would naturally dissipate over two or three generations.

 

Keeping the statues around serves to preserve highly visual historical markers and traces that can be used to perpetuate the 'Lost Cause' mythos over many more generations; getting rid of them helps deprive that mythos of oxygen. 

 

However, it is not nearly as important as the educational reforms you mentioned. And it's probably a case-by-case thing, where in some instances the short-run issues demolition of the monuments would cause are too great to be worth accepting in service to the long-run goal (for the long-run benefit) in a given historical moment, while in other cases they are reasonable.  As Keynes said, in the long run we're all dead, so I don't think it's a 'one policy suits all, who cares about the short-run consequences' situation, as much as I'd like to see the Confederacy treated like the Germans treat Nazi Germany everywhere starting tomorrow morning.

[cusideabelincoln]

 

1 hour ago, Fizzzzle said:

They also started teaching children that nazis = bad after the war. We have 160 years of romantic southern revivalism to undo, so it's not as simple.

 

I feel like I'm talking in circles at this point. Taking down the statues might make you feel good, but it doesn't do anything to help the problem, and if anything (I think) makes it worse. Education is key. Teach the children that the south absolutely fought to protect the institution of slavery, that the generals of those statues were traitors, and their great grandparents were probably horrifically racist. If you just say "ha, fuck you, imma take your statues," all you're doing is reinforcing the beliefs they already have.

 

Remember, Eugene Debs was popular in the south and the midwest. You can reach these people.

 

42 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

There is a large portion of the American voting block that have been gaslit into voting against their own interests since the country was founded by playing off of their fears, racism, and insecurities. Every time a progressive movement starts in this country, you can see it break through to these people. We saw it in the progressive movement of the early 20th century. We saw it with Bernie in the Midwest. The problem is that the "progressive" party at the time keeps shunning it as being too radical, which leads to religious radicals winning their vote based on "yeah we know we burned your house down, but imagine how gay and mexican it would be if the other party was in charge."

 

Until we correct that behavior from the ground up, we're still going to keep getting nixons, Reagans, and Trumps. You're not going to convince anyone by coming at them with "hey you fucking racist backwards idiot piece of shit, let me tell you about my economic policy."

 

 

You are close to the conclusion that everyone else is saying.  "We have 160 years of" romanticism for the South.  That is the huge problem here, which has spread the Lost Cause myth beyond just southern states, pervading every rural community in this country.  These statues, movies like Gone with the Wind, and shows like The Dukes of Hazard romanticize the Confederacy and increases its outreach.  While I agree that education is key to healing this problem, we need to first cut out the cancerous material.  The blowback will be short term, but the long-lasting effect of not having these perverted ideas of the Civil War persist in our culture will give us the opportunity to re-teach these people.

 

Now let's work through the logic of the blowback you're worried about.  If certain people consider the removal of these statues a serious insult as if we're calling them idiots and racists, then I think we can agree that these people have zero chance to ever be reached in the first place.  So it doesn't matter what we do; then we might as well do the right thing.  Now there will be people who are temporarily bewildered or mildly insulted (those who aren't seriously hurt), people who don't have a strong allegiance to the Confederacy, never questioned themselves, and just enjoyed the seemingly benign romanticism of the culture as depicted in mass media, these are people who we should be able to reach so long as we, upon the removal of statues and other idolizations, immediately follow up with the re-education campaign.

[Fizzzzle]

7 hours ago, Jason said:

 

The distinction is that it wasn't "the righteous north vs the wicked south" the way it's often taught.

There's some nuance to that. Lincoln personally was always an abolitionist, even if he didn't say it publicly. He was a politician, he lied a lot. That's what they do.

 

In the beginning of the war, most American soldiers (I use the term 'american' or 'federal' to describe them, because the confederacy were traitors, saying 'union' implies that there are two equal sides) didn't give two shits about slaves. Especially once conscription became a problem. However, as the war progressed, it changed. I think it had to do with Sherman's march on the south. Wherever the army went, these men, most of whom might have never met a black person in their life, were confronted first hand with the reality of slavery. The army was followed by a column of escaped slaves. Eventually, slavery did become an important issue in the north.

 

Basically, think of American soldiers liberating concentration camps in WWII. There's the Band of Brothers episode titled "why we fight." A similar thing happened in the civil war, though not to the same degree.

[Fizzzzle]

4 minutes ago, cusideabelincoln said:

 

 

 

You are close to the conclusion that everyone else is saying.  "We have 160 years of" romanticism for the South.  That is the huge problem here, which has spread the Lost Cause myth beyond just southern states, pervading every rural community in this country.  These statues, movies like Gone with the Wind, and shows like The Dukes of Hazard romanticize the Confederacy and increases its outreach.  While I agree that education is key to healing this problem, we need to first cut out the cancerous material.  The blowback will be short term, but the long-lasting effect of not having these perverted ideas of the Civil War persist in our culture will give us the opportunity to re-teach these people.

 

Now let's work through the logic of the blowback you're worried about.  If certain people consider the removal of these statues a serious insult as if we're calling them idiots and racists, then I think we can agree that these people have zero chance to ever be reached in the first place.  So it doesn't matter what we do; then we might as well do the right thing.  Now there will be people who are temporarily bewildered or mildly insulted (those who aren't seriously hurt), people who don't have a strong allegiance to the Confederacy, never questioned themselves, and just enjoyed the seemingly benign romanticism of the culture as depicted in mass media, these are people who we should be able to reach so long as we, upon the removal of statues and other idolizations, immediately follow up with the re-education campaign.

I don't think anyone is beyond reaching.

 

Also, I grew up in Portland and I was taught the Lost Cause myth. It perpetuates all of the country.

[Keyser_Soze]

6 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

I don't think anyone is beyond reaching.

 

Also, I grew up in Portland and I was taught the Lost Cause myth. It perpetuates all of the country.

 

Since you're on the pulse of racism and have friends and family that enjoy confederate monuments why don't you ask them what we should propose to do? Report back with your findings.

[cusideabelincoln]

1 minute ago, Fizzzzle said:

I don't think anyone is beyond reaching.

 

Also, I grew up in Portland and I was taught the Lost Cause myth. It perpetuates all of the country.

 

I would like to think no one is beyond reaching either.  But if these people become even more entrenched into their beliefs because we appropriately removed and explained the true context of these statues and what they represent, I am unsure of what more we could do.  We can't help if they think, they assume, we are demonizing them by this act alone.  In a game of balancing acts, it's much better if we do remove them and cut off the romanticization.  More good will eventually come from it than if we were to leave them be.

[Ominous]

Can someone take his phone? 

 

 

[thewhyteboar]

"Diaper baby makes a stinker" is what twitter should change that too.