WATCH:

What?

Cultural Marxism blooming into the ugly, stinking flower it is.

Cultural Marxism Blooming Into The Ugly, Stinking Flower It Is.

Doncha just love the KultruKampf rhetoric the extreme right uses?  So detesting the slave-owning, slavery-expansionist heritage of much of this country and brutalized these women's ancestors is a "Marxist" thing.   You are some piece of work.

Why thank you Atheist.  I'm sure your a fine fellow too.

If the Confederacy had won the Civil War, we might just be removing statues of Washington and Jefferson, and statues of Confederate individuals would be in their place instead. But they didn't so we're not. 

To me, this is the beginning of something that is evil.  NO!!!!  You will not remove anything to do with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or anyone else you deem to be unsuitable.  Does that mean our D of I and Constitution will be destroyed because so many of our FFs were reported to be slave owners? 

This needs to stop now. 

I would advise you to not get hysterical about one tv commentator.

One woman gives her personal and perfectly justifiable opinion about the slaveowners who also happened to be founders and rightwing hysterics try to make a mountain out of a molehill.  But over-the-top histrionics is their thing, after all.  And what do you expect from people who never have a rational thought? 

Ditto: I would advise you to not get hysterical about one tv commentator.

Who gives a shit about unsolicited advice from either of you?

And it continues down the road of stupidity to want to take down everything everyone finds offensive......bland (1984) world.

Who gives a shit about unsolicited advice from either of you?

Oh, so you want to get hysterical about one tv commentator. Ok.

No one is getting hysterical but you, John.  When did the universe decree you as the arbiter of what someone should or should not say or be offended by?

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

This needs to stop now. 

What should really stop is you people from taking this bait from some random comment and trying to make a federal case.  Please try, against all your impulses, to be adults. 

We need to resist the snowflake desire to destroy history. 

What history? These statues erected to the Lost Cause are not legitimate history.

We need to resist the snowflake desire to destroy history. 

In the long and deep tradition of rightwing projection, here's one of the most thin-skinned and whiny of them calling other people "snowflakes." 

It has not been about statues …

It's about monuments to treason and the inhuman treatment of a race …

WHO THE FUCK ACTUALLY REVERES "PEOPLE" WHO HAD NO PROBLEM "OWNING" OTHER PEOPLE, WHO HAD NO PROBLEM SELLING A MOTHER OF THOSE OTHER PEOPLE TO ONE SLAVE OWNER AND HER CHILDREN TO OTHER SALVE OWNERS?

Grow a fucking soul idol worshippers!

So where does it stop, A Mac?  Once every monument is torn down because someone is offended?  Leaders do bad stuff.  It is part of who we are.  Where is the line?

So where does it stop, A Mac?  Once every monument is torn down because someone is offended?  Leaders do bad stuff.  It is part of who we are.  Where is the line?

The line is where common sense ends; no one argues against the reality that some leaders do bad stuff. 

To answer your question more thoroughly, it is the nature and degree of "BAD STUFF" that should put up the stop signs … and in my previous comment, I gave a very specific example of the kind of bad stuff that in no way should be memorialized.

It is specious to compare slave owners (i.e) Washington and Jefferson to those who were committing treason in order to continue to do so. Robert E. Lee tried to continue to own slaves even after the South lost the war … and he went to court to challenge his father-in-law's will that directed his slaves be released from slavery.

But here's where I capitulate; there are some monuments that memorialize certain ambiguities inherent to those they literally and figuratively put on pedestals in public places. As Gandhi put it … "A man's life cannot be accounted in one telling."

Impractical of course … some statues might be more honest if the had ASTERISKS  … 

George Washington … First President of the United States of America, Nation Builder and Father of Our Country*

… * And Slave Owner.

Very few important decisions and distinctions in life are Black or White …

… unlike HUMAN BEINGS.

I hope I have given you a thoughtful, intelligent response, Spikegary -- your question is fair and deserves the effort and respect of an answer.

No one-liners from me.

No one-liners from me.

Mac, I have made probably a dozen comments about this topic, maybe more. I seeded articles about it. I wrote an article about it "The Lost Cause".  I understand this as well or better than anyone here.  And I will damn well make a one liner if that is what it comes down to. People keep making unsupported comments, maybe it will be a one liner.

Also, Mac... 

Let's avoid anachronistic criteria. In 1789, slavery was the rule in the Western world. The abolitionist movement was only about 70 years from its very first publications. 

By 1860, both Great Britain (1833) and France (1848) had abolished slavery. 

So it's an error to apply the same standards to 1789 and 1860

Let's avoid anachronistic criteria. In 1789, slavery was the rule in the Western world. The abolitionist movement was only about 70 years from its very first publications. 

By 1860, both Great Britain (1833) and France (1848) had abolished slavery. 

So it's an error to apply the same standards to 1789 and 1860

I made that distinction in another comment, Bob … but what is LEGAL is not always what is MORAL or HUMANE.

Who of reasonable intelligence and judgement would defend the so-called "LAWS" of the Third Reich simply because they were law?

An inherently unjust, discriminatory, inhumane "law" is nevertheless unjust … etc. .

Bad facts make bad law

The case that made such a law is Cuellar v. State, 957 S.W.2d 134 (Tex.App. - Corpus Christi 1997, pet. ref'd), and it certainly has some pretty bad facts. 

Frank Cuellar became extremely intoxicated and decided to drive a motor vehicle. In a horrifying twist, the vehicle crashed into another car being driven by Jeannie Coronado who (and this is the really bad part) was seven and one-half months pregnant. 

At the hospital, an emergency caesarian section was performed and the baby was delivered alive. Nevertheless, 43 hours later the child died of internal bleeding of the brain.

Cuellar was charged with causing the death of the child by reason of DWI. 

From a legal standpoint, however, there was a critical issue that had to be resolved. The Penal Code states that the offense of intoxication manslaughter requires the death of "another". 

After going through some scholastic gymnastics, the Code tells us that "another" is defined as a "person", a "person" is defined and an "individual", and an "individual" is defined as "a human being who has been born and is alive". 

Consequently, did the law require that the Coronado child be "born and . . . alive" at the time of the accident in order for Cuellar to be guilty of the offense of intoxication manslaughter?

Cuellar's lawyer said "yes, there is no offense if the child had not yet been born", the prosecutor said "no, the child can be born after the fact", and, more importantly, the trial court agreed with the latter. After a trial, Cuellar was convicted and sentenced to 16 years in prison.

… 

Thank you, A Mac.  In the spirit of discussion and it is appreciated. 

I was mentioning to someone somewhere else, I visited Dachau while vacationing in Germany.  I hated every minute of it.  It made my blood curdle.  But I stayed and went through it.  I saw where countless thousands of persons died.  Human beings, simply for being the faith they were born into. 

Should that be torn down and be relegated to books, to keep those who are offended form being offended?  When the books offend, what do we do then?

History is history.  It isn't pretty.  No one is going around worshipping these statues.  Outside of a literal handful of idiots that would find something else equally as silly to bed a knee to.

I see the point of what you are saying, I just think we are letting reactions of some facilitate knee-jerk responses.

We visited there, as well.  Eerie and rattled the soul. 

Why didn't I think of that?  The examples of Dachlau, Bergen-Belsen, Auxchvitz being preserved and displayed as reminders of how men could become worse than beasts. a remiinder of a part of history that the expression "Never forget" clearly personifies, to make it clear to all others NEVER TO GO THAT ROUTE AGAIN, justifies the existence of memorials that must NEVER be removed from sight. 

Because I had read Robert E Lee's own words and reasoning why such statues and memorials, even flags, should not be displayed did affect my attitude, and so their removal from a busy public site IMO should be carried out, but then they must never be destroyed, but displayed somewhere such as a museum of the Confederacy as a reminder that it WAS part of the country's history and should never be repeated.

I think one may legitimately see Lee as a heroic/tragic figure. I can imagine a Shakespearean play about misplaced duty and misplaced pride and destruction and death...

Emphasis on "misplaced" which transforms high qualities into disaster.

Coriolanus, perhaps?

Coriolanus was kinda egomaniac. I don't think Lee's ego was in play at all... except in his imagining that his skill could compensate Northern numbers. 

Lee's tragedy was his brilliance in service of an unworthy cause. 

I agree Buzz, the statues should be put into museums with plaques explaining why their actions should be condemned. We shouldn't try to hide history.

Well, that's a slippery slope if I ever saw one.

Name me a "revered" person, and I'll show you a defect. I think there needs to be a little bit more contextual integrity here. We all agree that slavery is a bad thing. I think we also need to keep in mind that slave ownership was commonplace at the time of our founding fathers. If we put a blanket order out to expunge the memory of everyone who had a slave, we'd have no memory of our founding fathers.

Before we start tearing down Mt. Rushmore, let us consider the beliefs and actions of Washington and Jefferson. These are people that forged a nation out of a belief that government should work for the people, and not the other way around. To call that novel in the 18th century would be a gross understatement. They risked their lives so that life's potential could be fully realized for our citizens. Contrast that with the people who fought for the perpetuation of slavery and the destruction of our wonderful union.

PROUD to have my comment flagged …

thenewstalkers

… particularly by the individual who flagged it … I take it as a compliment and validation that I hit the nail on the head.

The same flagger will probably flag this one as well.

My cup runneth over!

Curious though … just what about that comment motivated the flagger to flag it?

"It's about monuments to treason and the inhuman treatment of a race …"

There was no treason. Read a book.

Article 3, Secrion 3 of the constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. 

The Confederate states literally levied war against the United States and, in doing so, engaged in treason. All who provided aid and comfort to that effort are traitors. 

Nope. They elected to secede from a voluntary union. As was their right.

Nope. They elected to secede from a voluntary union. As was their right.

So, the unprovoked attack by the traitors on United States at Ft. Sumter was really meant to be a goodbye kiss?  Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

Nope. They elected to secede from a voluntary union. As was their right.

Second time you posted that and it's still wrong!

Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens and the rest of that seditious brood aren’t monsters in our historical consciousness because they were slaveholders, but rather because they waged a treasonous war against their own people in order to keep slavery going. Their efforts to protect that most “peculiar institution,” was ultimately not conducted at the ballot box but through armed conflict. After peacefully losing the 19th century version of the culture wars with Abraham Lincoln’s election, they chose violence over the graceful acceptance of progress.

Still wrong. Still not treason.

Still not treason.

Is there anything you believe that isn't a lie? 

Just to add further refinement to my point, the union did not cease to exist upon secession of the southern states. Northern states remained in the union so the United States was not dissolved. The union could only be desolved in a convention, the same way it was created. Since the United States continued to exist and the south took up arms against it, every man who fought against the United States committed treason within the definition set forth in the constitution. 

Nope. They elected to secede from a voluntary union. As was their right.

Nothing in the constitution expressly gave any state the right to secede. Arguably, the union could only be lawfully abolished the same way it was established . . . in a convention. Although the constitution doesn't expressly address succession, it does expressly define treason and shooting your way out of the union is treason. 

Under the legal, constitutional and political system that currently exists in the United States, secession is impossible. There is no right of secession. It is not a power that exists for the states. The Civil War literally resolved this question. If you don’t believe me, listen to the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“…the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."

Many people are missing the point. Confederates such as Geenrtal Robert E. Lee  actually participated in (and actually led) violent attacks on U.S. government forces. They committed treason against The United States of America...plain and simple. 

(I often wonder why the United States is the only country in the world that allows monuments to those who committed treason against it to still stand?)

Jefferson and Washington were quite the opposite-- seems pretty obvious to me...

It's not about who did or didn't own a slave but about honoring traitors who engaged in a rebellion to fight FOR slavery and against freedom. We don't remember the revolutionary war with a monument to King George and Benedict Arnold. World War II is not remembered with statutes of the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor. We don't remember 911 with a statue of Osama bin laden.  If we want to remember the Civil War, it should be with monuments of slaves breaking chains not the bastards who fought to keep them shacked. Statutes honoring the enemies of freedom are a national disgrace.

Drag the statues back to the cemeteries or toss them in the junk yard. 

Statutes honoring the enemies of freedom are a national disgrace.

I concur with A-Mac: well said.

It may have already been noted, but it's worth noting again if that is so.

THESE STATUES WERE ERECTED AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT WAS BEGINNING!

• They were erected AS A FORM OF PROTEST TO THAT MOVEMENT

• They were erected to CONTINUE TO PROMOTE FEAR AMONG BLACKS IN THE SOUTH AND REINFORCE THE REALITY OF WHITE SUPREMACY!

• They were not monuments to honor a history as much as they were symbols of declaration by southern whites, that, for Blacks in the south, slavery aside, NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

I've noted the purpose of these statutes but it bears repeating. I'd like to ram the statutes up the racists' asses and get rid of both problems at the same time. 

Rules for Radicals

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood.
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
8. "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

The bigger picture is the statues are just the weapon of choice being used today.  Tomorrow there will be another weapon.  Robert E. Lee today and it is a good one, Thomas Jefferson tomorrow.  George Washington next.  We can't have Mount Rushmore statues of a bunch of racist slave owners.

Take down any statues of Ulysses S. Grant. What???  He was a Union General!!!!  But he owned a slave and he managed his father-laws farm which had many slaves.  Too bad, take all of them down, all 18 Presidents who owned slaves and he was one of them!!!

I hope you don't have any statues of Sherman up there in Chasteville.  They'll have to come down if you do.

At Governor Moore’s dinner party, in fact, Sherman had if anything actually understated his views. For one thing, Sherman was a white supremacist. “All the congresses on earth can’t make the negro anything else than what he is; he must be subject to the white man,” Sherman wrote his wife in 1860. “Two such races cannot live in harmony save as master and slave.” In a letter to his antislavery brother-in-law about plans to bring his family to Louisiana, Sherman crassly joked about becoming a slave master himself. Making light of the problems he anticipated in keeping white servants, he wrote that his wife Ellen “will have to wait on herself or buy a nigger. What will you think of that — our buying niggers?

opinionator.blogs.nytimes

And I haven't even started on the atrocities committed by his army during the Civil War!!!

Take em all down!!!  Throw the Constitution away too while you're at it.  Madison/slave owner and Jefferson/slave owner gave you your "Bill of Rights", but screw them.   Screw the "Bill of Rights" too.  Hell, the President has a phone and a pen and that's all we need, isn't it?

8. "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

And while we're at it, we have to kick Nancy Pelosi to the sidewalk.  We can't have the daughter of a WHITE SUPREMACIST in the Capital!

Her father praised the lives of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Johnson at a monument dedication while he was Mayor of Baltimore. 

Geezzzz, the more I look the more I see have to go!!!

And while we're at it, we have to kick Nancy Pelosi to the sidewalk.  We can't have the daughter of a WHITE SUPREMACIST in the Capital!

As a die-hard suppporter of our (cue hysterics here) WHITE SUPREMACIST president, Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]

Thanks Atheist.

You're welcome....any time.

And thanks for the offer but I prefer to just keep kicking it. 

I'll check on that … but you can't put it on Pelosi …

Pelosi herself called for the removal of all confederate statues in the nation’s capitol.

“The Confederate statues in the halls of Congress have always been reprehensible,” Pelosi said in a statement. “If Republicans are serious about rejecting white supremacy, I call upon Speaker Ryan to join Democrats to remove the Confederate statues from the Capitol immediately.”

_________________________________________________

If your father was a bank robber … but you personally, as an adult, denounced bank robbery … should we kick you to the sidewalk?

Get back to us on that, will you.

That's a pretty good talking point for democrats. If republicans don't vote to remove these white supremacist symbols, then they're cast as racists. But if they vote to remove them, then they lose racist votes. 

If republicans don't vote to remove these white supremacist symbols, then they're cast as racists. But if they vote to remove them, then they lose racist votes. 

That's what republicans asked for and got by courting the racists who couldn't stand the democratic party's civil rights agenda in the 1960s.  They made a devil's bargain and it has led them down the road to hell. 

I took a quick look for the facts.  Why did more Dems vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Kind of knocks the legs out from under your talking points.

Possibly you took too quick of a look.

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? 

" … sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively.

It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

Looking at the ideology of congressmen and senators, the more liberal a congressman or senator, the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message. The Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, was one of the few non-Confederate state senators to vote against the bill. He carried his home state of Arizona and swept the deep southern states – a first for a Republican ever.

Same thing applies to being racist.   If I was born in the South, raised in the South and my ancestors fought for the South does that make me a racist?  No, it doesn't, but unfortunately to hear many tell it.....I am a racist!  And, it gets any worse for most Southerners. 

Same thing applies to being racist.   If I was born in the South, raised in the South and my ancestors fought for the South does that make me a racist?  No, it doesn't, but unfortunately to hear many tell it.....I am a racist!  And, it gets any worse for most Southerners. 

If you want to see a monument to white supremacy, then you have defined yourself.  

Cute!

If I was born in the South, raised in the South and my ancestors fought for the South does that make me a racist?  No, it doesn't, but unfortunately to hear many tell it.....I am a racist!  And, it gets any worse for most Southerners. 

I haven't seen anyone from my side of the conversation suggest that every white southerner is racist. I certainly don't hold that opinion.  If anything, from the protests to these monuments to slavery there are a good number of white southerners among those protesting against them.  But I strongly suspect they certainly don't represent the majority of southern whites...yet.  I think you protest too much.  

Pelosi herself called for the removal of all confederate statues in the nation’s capitol.

Yea, after 30 years of being in the Capitol, suddenly she jumps on the Anarchist Band Wagon about the Statues. 

Now you're giving credit to anarchists for being against symbols of slavery and murder.  Why are you so eager to cede the high ground to people you despise?

Pelosi herself called for the removal of all confederate statues in the nation’s capitol.

Yea, after 30 years of being in the Capitol, suddenly she jumps on the Anarchist Band Wagon about the Statues. 

What bandwagon? This recently became a hot issue because a throng of NAZIs couldn't bear the thought of a white-supremacist, Jim Crow, anti-civil rights symbol would leave the public space and  go to a history museum!

Be it ignorance of the reality of these statues' placement and intended message, or simply a desire to keep that white supremacist, in-your-black-face message alive in perpetuity, there is no redeeming quality in either.

What bandwagon?

It's actually a fair question about Pelosi's stance now compared to ten years ago.  She has walked past those statues since 1987.

I see her as the typical pol.  Jumping on whatever has traction at the moment.

It's actually a fair question about Pelosi's stance now compared to ten years ago.  She has walked past those statues since 1987.

And, of course, you have proof that she's never had any objections to them (pause for guffaw here).   Even if she's late to the party as you allege, how do you feel about all of the people on your side who'll never come? 

Of course, you have proof that she voiced her objections over the many, many years she's been in office?  Based on her quote, seems they have been offending her for decades.

If your father was a bank robber … but you personally, as an adult, denounced bank robbery … should we kick you to the sidewalk?

I thought that was the whole thing, if your father was a slave owner, you're a racist.

Robert Byrd...... Born a Democrat, lived a Democrat and died a Democrat.

Robert Byrd...... Born a Democrat, lived a Democrat and died a Democrat.

Wow, you lot are still chewing on that old bone.  Byrd renounced his past racism and moved on.  Why can't you? 

The same reason why you won't let it be about the South and racism.  We have moved on, but you won't let it be!

I thought that was the whole thing, if your father was a slave owner, you're a racist.

Robert Byrd...... Born a Democrat, lived a Democrat and died a Democrat.

A total misrepresentation of the argument; it's not about the sins of the father being visited on their sons … quite the opposite … if the son denounces the sins of his father (ancestors), then he has chosen his own righteous path. 

Robert Byrd denounced his KKK connection and its ideology … and while he cannot erase that past, THE DETERMINATION OF THE SINCERITY OF AN APOLOGY OR DENOUNCEMENT OF ONE'S PAST, MUST BE CONSIDERED BASED UPON WHAT HE DOES OR DOES NOT DO AFTER MAKING THE APOLOGY.

WHEN TRUMP DENOUNCES HIS EQUATING NAZIS WITH THEIR RESISTORS … HE'LL HAVE ATTAINED THE MORAL EQUIVALENCY OF ROBERT BYRD.

Until such time if any, Trump, David Duke and like-minded a-holes are kindred spirits.

Robert Byrd denounced his KKK connection and its ideology 

I wonder if a statue of Robert Byrd would pass the standard that some are espousing today?  

I keep looking for some sanity on the issue but it is sure hard to find.

Byrd publicly renounced his lifelong membership and leadership positions in the KKK when it became a matter of political survival for him.  Did he actually leave or did he renounce them because he would not be able to remain a senator with that public knowledge out there.

I don't trust politicians-and I don't trust their disclosed reasons for a 'life changing event' as continued re-election seems to be the only goal of the vast majority of them.

Pelosi herself called for the removal of all confederate statues in the nation’s capitol.

Nancy is just going where the wind is blowing right now. Typical Politician. Thinks this will make the Democrat Party great again. Pffffft !

Typical dismissive pronouncement.

Your the one making EXCUSES for Nancy's inability to come forward on this Decades ago.

Your the one making EXCUSES for Nancy's inability to come forward on this Decades ago.

 What about looking to your own house and tell us why nearly everyone you approve of has and and probably always will have no problem at all honoring those traitors, slavers and murderers? 

I always luv it when someone comments as if they know me.

Who are my hero's again ?

Once again this rant rage you're on tells us just how much of the rightwing mental state is hysteria-based.  

Whether you like it or not those are the facts.

If one is white does this equate to being a white supremacist in your mind?

Whether you like it or not those are the facts.

They are not facts except to people who have their own definition of what a fact is.  Those are rantings. 

If one is white does this equate to being a white supremacist in your mind?

That you'd try to make that idiotic reach tells us just how little regard for honest and facts you have.

Whether you like it or not those are the facts.

If one is white does this equate to being a white supremacist in your mind?

That's where you're missing the point 1ofmany.  History didn't start with the Civil War.  Those in the North had slaves before the Civil War and had Slaves after the Civil War.

Only after 1900 did all states in the North accept the Emancipation Proclamation.

Dig a little deeper.  Just because the North fought the South during the Civil War doesn't erase their guilt.  Who and where do you think the money came to build those ships?  It wasn't from the South, I assure you. 

The second largest population of Slaves in the United States was New York City.  Just because they had the right idea first to rid the country of Slaves and not all of them did, why do you insist to start history at the start of the Civil War?

And understand this isn't about the statues anyway.  Pelosi has been in Washington for 30 years and suddenly anything dealing with the Confederacy has to come down.  Give me a break.  Statues and other news of the day are just tools to divide this country and erase its history, nothing more.

Looks like the Republican party's playbook.  

I grew up being taught both sides of History.

WTF is the problem these days. Bad PUBLIC Education ?

With the attitude these terrorist snowflakes have these days, I wouldn't be surprised to wake up one day and find that some DF leftwing idjit dynamited Mount Rushmore.

I grew up being taught both sides of History.

Were you taught that "both sides" always have equal merit?  That's what we call "bothsiderism" today and it was the tactic Trump used to try to blur the difference between the nazis and the protesters against them in Charlottesville.  Is that the kind of "history" you learned?  Because if it is, it's not really history.  It's just pablum.  By the way, if you'd really learned any history beyond the thinnest veneer of the surface, you'd have learned that history is seldom two-dimensional and it's usually still possible even then to come down on which dimension holds the bulk of facts. 

Were you taught that "both sides" always have equal merit?

I was taught there was good and bad in everything. I was also taught that even in the bad there is some good.

You ?

Martin Luther King Fucked other women, which was a bad thing, but good came out of him anyway. Should I erase the good part of his history ?

Martin Luther King Fucked other women, which was a bad thing, but good came out of him anyway. Should I erase the good part of his history ?

That's what bothsiderism is all about.  Is that what you're doing? 

Just the Facts !

Now, Since I did have a question in my original comment YOU commented on, how about answering it ?

Should I erase the good part of his history by removing all monuments and/or busts of him, because he did bad ?

I guess Dr. King was just too mucho for his own good.  Sort of like Pres. Clinton and so many others whose egos get in the way of their brains.

Think of this.....all of these people surrounding you telling you how great you are!  Pretty soon, you really start believing it.  Then, they start telling you what to say  and you think.... they just told me how great I am and now they are telling me what to say!  What the hell is up with that?

I grew up being taught both sides of History.

History has "sides"?? 

It's a team sport? 

It's a team sport? 

In case you haven't gotten the memo yet, It takes 2 to truly tango ! Everything else is just self masturbation.

It's a team sport? 

In case you haven't gotten the memo yet, It takes 2 to truly tango ! Everything else is just self masturbation.

So.... History is a team sport, and also an Argentine dance. 

Gosh........ 

Gosh........ 

And Golly Gee-whiz too ?

And Golly Gee-whiz too ?

And even more than that! 

"Both sides" of history is downright mind-bending. On one side, the Brits defeated the American rebels, on the other side the Americans won. On one side Xerxes won, on the other side the Greeks won. 

"Alternate history" is a fun genre... but it is fiction, not "history". 

Then again... some people think they can decide what is real in science according to their politics, so why not do the same with history? 

I grew up being taught both sides of History.

History has "sides"?? 

It's a team sport? 

What does French people think about the atrocities committed by their government in Africa currently and in past ?

It is horrible to say but they do not care, I recently discover on TV historical channel, the reality of the history in Algeria as example. I am around 50 years old You need to understand that at school I really liked history but I was never teached anything after the year 1900. Even first and second world war I was confused until I saw these explanations. French people really miss education on colonial past. and the new generation ( my kids) are not better.  It was a kind of Taboo, and I only recently discover the history of the years just before my birth.  As it is absolutely the same for other french, ( really !) I think nobody cares because nobody knows.  We hear about stories and commitments with previous colonies, we hear about french doing something in Mali ( I guess for minerals, uranium), but we do not know the link between France and Mali. I have no idea what is also the link with some other countries like Senegal or Ivory Coast. I just discovered recently the story with Algeria. So if one asks what I think or what we think about french atrocities in previous french colonies, sincerely we do not even know they were colonies. We feel that these french speaking areas must have been colonies because they do not speak english or italian. But that s all. We now nothing. It is a shame. So without memory we have no feeling.

We need to get rid of some of the statues in France too. 

I do not understand this incoherent rant. 

Articles like this only support the notion that we are going to have to repeat the Civil War....

People have seemed to have lost the concept of freedom. (or perverted it into justifying their own selfish interests)

The Civil War started cause one side felt that their ideals were going to be squashed under someone else's. Wether those ideals were good or bad on either side is irrelevant to that position. Freedom gave them the right to those thoughts and the thoughts of resistance to change.

There is no exit from the agreement to submit to the rules contained in the constitution, once in your in for good.

Just the fact that the south formed a confederacy very similar to the original confederation of states shows that better than any other argument. The originally fought against a strong union. The social issue extant at the time was the economic system in place in the southern states that could only function with slavery intact and the constitutional compromise that allowed it to exist in a stated "Free" nation.

"All men are created equal"

Robert E Lee never owned a slave in his life. He married into slavery. The slaves at arlington were the inherited property of his wife prior to his marriage. He was a career Army officer.

He was almost the Commander in Chief of the Union Army. (same rank George Washington held during the revolution)

He turned it down as his loyalty was to his state as his belief was the state was the supreme governmental authority and one should be loyal to his homeland (the State of Virginia)

He resigned his commission and was appointed the commander of the Virginia Militia. once Jefferson Davis was elected the president of the Confederacy, he accepted the position of Davis's military advisor.

Stonewall Jackson was commander of the Confederate Army...

Only after Jackson's death and the northern invasion of Virginia took place did Robert E Lee take command of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Lee always viewed his actions as defending his state. his "Homeland"

He abhorred slavery.

But I agree with him there should be no statutes in the public square for him or any other confederate.

But if we are going to go down the path that this commentator believes we should go, then we should bulldoze Arlington National Cemetery first.

Not only was it Robert E Lee's home, it was his wife's plantation that at one time employed over 500 slaves.

WE should move the tomb of the unknowns to somewhere not so historically sickening, and how about Kennedy's grave? Should that be revered on a site that was home to some the worst atrocities of American History?

Think about what is being claimed for once people...

The Civil War started cause one side felt that their ideals were going to be squashed under someone else's. Whether those ideals were good or bad on either side is irrelevant to that position. Freedom gave them the right to those thoughts and the thoughts of resistance to change.

One can only wish you were joking.

This is how much Lee abhorred slavery.

"The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a race... How long their subjugation may be necessary is known and ordered by a wise Merciful Providence," Lee wrote.

Ok John, Game on.

Lets see the entire letter, (at least the passage containing the quote above in context) His letter to his wife dated  December 27th 1856, five years before the start of the war while he was still serving in the army....

   The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis [sic] have only arrived. The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure.

   The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?

Lee in his heart was a christian abolitionist, also as most military men who have experienced war and it's consequences, a pacifist.

He believed in the rights of the slaves to be free. He thought a war was the wrong way to go about it.

So you keep right misquoting him by taking his words out of context to twist what he actually and truly was, one of the most consciously conflicted persons in history.....

Tragic, a military hero of this nations Army, A forbearing christian that believed in the rights of all men to live free. forced to fight against a union that he risked his life to defend, in support of a cause that he absolutely rejected...

A very historically tragic story.....

theatlantic

That full passage (what you posted NM) , long and florid as it is, encapsulates Lee's view of slavery, "a greater evil to the white man than to the black race." He dislikes the institution, finds it harmful and would prefer that it did not exist, but also sees it as a circumstance entirely beyond his or any other mortal's control. "We must leave the progress as well as the result in [God's] hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day." By contrast, the abolitionist who "means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master." And until the predetermined and unknowable day of day of eventual and inevitable emancipation, "the painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things."

Shorter Lee: slavery sucks, sure, but it's God's will. It's good for you, too. You're welcome .

Freeman was an unabashed admirer of Lee—driving to his daytime job as a newspaper editor in Richmond, he routinely snapped a salute as he passed Lee's statue —and his 1935 biography is famous today as both a milestone of exhaustive research and for its hagiography of its subject. Freeman is virtually a Confederate hero in his own right , whose work added a solid, successful, Pulitzer Prize-winning endorsement of many of the central themes of the Lost Cause. In addressing Lee's view of slavery, Freeman argues that Lee had little familiarity with the institution as it was practiced outside of Virginia, on cotton and cane plantations in the Deep South. Apart from a posting to the Texas frontier in 1856-57, "all his reflective years had been passed in the North or in the border states. . . . Lee, in short, was only acquainted with slavery at its best and he judged it accordingly."

This is weak sauce indeed.

Fortunately, Elizabeth Brown Pryor helps round out the question of Lee and slaveholding in her tremendous biography, Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters . (A C-SPAN presentation and Q-and-A with Pryor was highlighted by TNC back in April.) Pryor gives a far more detailed picture of Lee, his philosophical beliefs on slavery, and how he put those beliefs into practice; what emerges is a far more rounded, complex picture, but one that is far, far darker, as well.

Lee first came to slave ownership in 1829 when, newly out of West Point, he inherited several slaves from his mother's estate. Lee quickly discovered, Pryor writes, that for him slaveholding represented "an uncomfortable stewardship." He  found supervision of the their work to be distracting from his own career, and disliked the daily details of managing and providing for them. He found slaves to be, in Pryor's words, "more trouble than they were worth." To relieve himself of the day-to-day responsibility for them, and to provide additional cash for his household, Lee soon took to hiring out his bondsmen and -women. This practice, common among slaveholders in Lee's circle, makes it difficult to track his ownership of slaves in detail over the next three decades. Freeman believed that Lee had divested himself of slaves by 1847, based on Freeman's failure to find any relevant tax records, and Lee's own son, Robert Jr., claimed that his father had manumitted all his slaves "a long time before the war." Pryor counters that Lee definitely owned slaves as late as 1852, considered buying more shortly before the war began, and throughout the war itself used slaves as personal servants. Whether Lee directly and personally owned slaves at a given point before or during the war, Pryor would argue, is almost immaterial, for presence of slaves and the benefit of their labor was an intimate and familiar part of Lee's daily life until the end of the Civil War.

Indeed, a much more instructive look at Lee's attitudes toward slavery and African Americans can be found in his stewardship of Arlington House between later 1857 and early 1861.

Lee was himself the son of a Revolutionary War hero, but he managed to make an even better marriage, in 1831, to Mary Anna Custis (1808-73). Mary was the great-granddaughter of Martha Custis Washington by her first husband, and so the step-great-granddaughter of the first president. Mary was the only one of four siblings to live to adulthood, and when her father, George Washington Parke Custis , died in October 1857, Mary Lee inherited the bulk of the Custis estate. Robert E. Lee was named executor, and as his father-in-law had foolishly drawn up his will without benefit of legal advice, Lee was forced to take an extended leave of absence from the army to return to Arlington to sort it all out. (It was a result of this situation that Lee happened to be the army's senior line officer available on short notice when John Brown and his band seized the national armory at Harpers Ferry in the fall of 1859.)

The Arlington that Lee inherited was unique in many ways. It was the centerpiece of a small network of farms, where cultivation of a variety of crops was done on a small scale. The estate included sixty-five or seventy slaves, and a number of freed bondsmen lived on the property as well. George W. P. Custis (left) and his wife, Mary , were far more lenient with their slaves than most large property owners, and took a high degree of paternalistic interest in them. Although it was not recognized by Virginia law, they encouraged slaves to marry and live in family units. Slaves who married partners from other estates were allowed regular visitation, and the Custises rarely broke up family groups on the auction block—in fact, they rarely sold slaves at all. Mrs. Custis organized a school for slave children that taught the rudiments of reading and writing, explicitly defying Virginia law even as her husband—fully cognizant of Mary's activities in this area—was serving as justice of the peace. There were small gifts for the children at Christmas and treats on other holidays. The Custises were keen on preserving their bondsmens' souls, as well, organizing and attending services on the estate. (There is some evidence that the required church services and schooling were not as appreciated as they might have been, given that they occurred on Sunday, the slaves' only day without field work.) George W. P. and Mary Custis viewed themselves as compassionate and caring slaveholders, acting in the best interest of their charges; their neighbors viewed them as lax, indulgent masters who'd ruined their slaves for getting a solid day's work out of them.

Running beneath this bright Potomac idyll was the dark and ugly undertow of miscegenation. Whether occurring by violent assault, threat or coercive persuasion, these encounters all amount to abuse, including forcable rape, by white men with virtually unlimited power over women of color. "The Custis family has a reputation for interracial dalliance," Pryor writes, "and many of the mulatto servants had clearly descended from illicit ties." People of mixed race represented roughly ten percent of the South's population in the decade before the war; they accounted for over half the slaves and all the free persons of color living at Arlington listed in estate records and the census of 1860. Rumor—more than mere rumor—had swirled around Custis men for decades, and there is ample circumstantial evidence that the practice reached down to George W. P. Custis himself. Over his lifetime he freed a handful of female slaves and their mulatto children; even the Congressional Record acknowledged this and suggested that Custis was showing something like a " paternal instinct" in the process (emphasis original). Pryor notes that "there is no evidence that Lee himself indulged in sexual activity with the slaves, but certainly he was aware of it." The latter could undoubtedly be said for all of Alexandria County and the District of Columbia, across the river.

It was to this complex world, then, that Colonel Lee returned from Texas in late 1857. The Arlington estate was in disarray; there was a mountain of debts, and the farms were losing money due to mismanagement. Lee set to work on making the estate profitable again. Ironically, for a man now widely hailed for his compassion and gentle demeanor, he had no compunction at all about overturning the Custis family's indulgent ways. It was a shock to the black men and women of Arlington, many of whom had lived nowhere else. As Pryor says in her C-SPAN interview ( beginning about the 56:30 mark ), Lee fundamentally believed the master-slave relationship was "the only relationship that could exist between the races; he had no grander vision, no ability to see beyond that. Master and slave was the only relationship and, unlike Mrs. Custis, he saw it very much as an economic relationship, that those slaves were there to work , and I think one of the reasons they thought he was mean is because he was very tough on them. He saw that he owned their labor. And I think it was a contrast to the situation they'd had a few years earlier."

Lee's admirers have often attributed to him in this area the cliched he-was-strict-but-fair trope. Perhaps, but one incident in particular at Arlington reveals a darker, vindictive side to Lee. Even under the relatively light hand of the Custis family, runaways had been a serious problem. The Arlington bondsmen had believed that George W. P. Custis had ordered them manumitted in his will; he had, but left the timing to the discretion of his executor. Lee told them they could be freed only after five years. Escapes increased and Lee, mindful of the value of the escapees both as property and as an example to others, determined to curtail it. In June 1859, two letters were published in the New York Tribune describing a case where three Arlington slaves, two men and a woman, escaped north into Maryland and had got nearly to the Pennsylvania line and freedom before being captured by the constable and hauled back to Virginia. When they arrived at Arlington, Lee angrily demanded they be whipped. The estate's overseer refused, and the constable took over. But after whipping the men, he declined to beat the woman. Lee, according to the letters, did that job himself.

Lee's biographer Freeman dismisses these accounts as "exaggerated" and "libel," an "extravagance of irresponsible antislavery agitators." There is, Freeman asserts, " no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged . The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing."

Wesley Norris disagrees. Wesley Norris was one of the men flogged at Arlington that day.

I remained with Gen. Lee about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable was called in, who gave us the number ofl ashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to "lay it on well," an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.

Norris makes no claim that Lee whipped his sister personally, but otherwise his account follows closely those letters submitted anonymously to the Tribune . In all, Pryor found seven accounts of the event, all of which corroborate the basic elements of the original claim. It's important to remember as well that Norris' story was published in an antislavery newspaper in 1866, the year after the war ended; Lee was in good health and serving as president of Washington College in Lexington at the time. He did not respond publicly, though privately he denied it. But Pryor makes the critical point abut Norris' story: "its veracity has been questioned by generations of Lee aficionados, and we might be tempted to dismiss it as the exaggerated ranting of a bitter ex-slave. Except for one thing: all of its facts are verifiable." Among the verifiable fact Pryor found was the receipt book showing payment to the constable.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter much whether Lee personally whipped Mary Norris, or even if he merely stood by, extolling the constable to "lay it on well." It doesn't matter because every day of his life, from birth to the end of the Civil War, he lived in a world where he failed to grasp the most fundamental notions that should transcend culture, custom, and even law. He failed to see the basic human nature of the people of color around him. As Pryor herself summarizes:

Individuality and human connections are not abstract, and the most painful contradictions in slavery rose out of its personal relationships. How could one enslave these people with whom one had grown up; and indeed, how could anyone determine who had taken care of whom? How, in the complex interrelated plantation families, could a dear distinction be made between white and  black, let alone slave and free? When one had personally witnessed the terrible injustices of the system, how could one continue to uphold it? Lee tried to sidestep it by making the burden greater for the oppressor than for the oppressed and by defining his responsibility strictly by law. The tragedy for Lee is that he never made the transformational leap that would recognize the fundamental human nature of the slaves. George Washington wrestled with it; Abraham Lincoln did as well. Neither of these men ever considered African-Americans their equal. Ultimately, however, they both grasped the fact that what was wrong with slavery was not an absence of sufficient laws, or a need for more humane treatment within an exploitative system. What was wrong with slavery was that it failed to recognize the brotherhood of the human condition. The entangled lives of the slaves and their masters, the emotional, historical, sexual, and communal connections, could mean only one thing: that these beings were equal as part of mankind; equal in their human instincts, passions, desires, and inclinations, including the desire for self-determination. Equal, as Lincoln said, in the "right to eat the bread without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns. . . ." Capable, as George Washington finally realized, "of a destiny different from that in  which they were born." Robert E. Lee would never cross this threshold . He could embrace the need for justice, but it was a justice defined by unjust principles. His racism and his limited imagination meant that he never admitted the humanity of the slaves with whom he lived. In avoiding that truth, he bound himself to slavery's inhumanity.

In the opinion of the writer.

Would be nice to be able to go back there and see for ourselves. But unfortunately we cannot.

All of this "Evidence" was revealed and sought out at a time in out nations history in which all the surviving southern leaders were openly being vilified and rancid evil men. To treat and cite it as absolute fact today is doing the same thing you did with your first quote.

Pryor has the exact same problem you have, failing to take the contextual times into account in rationalizing her opinions.

An amazing opinion work yes, but not in any way qualified to be cited as fact as you are doing.

Robert E Lee never owned a slave in his life. He married into slavery. The slaves at arlington were the inherited property of his wife prior to his marriage.  

Going to disagree, my friend.

White supremacy does not “violate” Lee’s “most fundamental convictions.” White supremacy was one of Lee’s most fundamental convictions.

Lee was a slaveowner—his own views on slavery were explicated in an 1856 letter that it often misquoted to give the impression that Lee was some kind of an abolitionist. In the letter, he describes slavery as “a moral & political evil,”  but goes on to explain that :

I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.

 

The argument here is that slavery is bad for white people, good for black people, and most importantly, it is better than abolitionism; emancipation must wait for divine intervention. That black people might not want to be slaves does not enter into the equation; their opinion on the subject of their own bondage is not even an afterthought to Lee.

 

theatlantic

Brother, you are misquoting the letter the same way John did above.

The real problem is you appear to be interpreting it according to your modern moral beliefs to justify your moral convictions about such a limited statement.

That's a huge problem in historical circles. the moral beliefs of the times must be considered when interpreting a historical document. (as well as taking the document as a whole)

If that letter was written today, I would absolutely agree with you, but it wasn't. It was written in 1856. we have to judge it by the times and position Lee was in when he wrote it.

Anything else is taking it out of context and defeats the argument your making absolutely.....

WE are going to have to differ my friend......

I do believe your wrong historically.

Brother, you are misquoting the letter the same way John did above.

I didn't misquote the letter.

NM, if the "times" required a good christian like Lee to have his conveniently paternal views toward slavery, how do you explain other good Christians becoming abolitionists?

One might say Lee was rationalizing, but maybe that's just me.

His family operation was profiting from slavery, and he found a way to make it work for an "honorable" man like himself.

WE are going to have to differ my friend......

I do believe your wrong historically.

I understand the distinction you make but nevertheless, what Lee believed and did in his era, whether acceptable in his era to those of like mind, does not match your assertion empirically.

But, let us continue as always, to disagree with civility and as friends.

"Robert E. Lee never owned a slave in his life."

Lee first came to slave ownership in 1829 when, newly out of West Point, he inherited several slaves from his mother's estate. Lee quickly discovered, Pryor writes, that for him slaveholding represented "an uncomfortable stewardship." He  found supervision of the their work to be distracting from his own career, and disliked the daily details of managing and providing for them. He found slaves to be, in Pryor's words, "more trouble than they were worth." To relieve himself of the day-to-day responsibility for them, and to provide additional cash for his household, Lee soon took to hiring out his bondsmen and -women. This practice, common among slaveholders in Lee's circle, makes it difficult to track his ownership of slaves in detail over the next three decades.

theatlantic

To me, the words of a Union veteran states the issue as it should be...Simple words that strike at the heart of the Lee argument.

As one Union veteran angrily put it in 1903 when Pennsylvania was  considering placing a statute  to Lee at Gettysburg,  As one Union veteran angrily put it in 1903 when Pennsylvania was  considering placing a statute  to Lee at Gettysburg, “If you want historical accuracy as your excuse, then place upon this field a statue of Lee holding in his hand the banner under which he fought, bearing the legend: ‘We wage this war against a government conceived in liberty and dedicated to humanity.’”

If one is white does this equate to being a white supremacist in your mind?

Yes Maggy, you hit the nail right on the head. This is about fixing blame, spreading guilt and looking for reparations. Just take a minute to think of all the people the left has branded as "racists"! For politicians it is supposed to delegitimize them as well as smear them.

I recall when Juan Williams (lifelong democrat & author of "Eyes on the Prize") was asked in an interview "why are you working at Fox?" "You cant be a good black person and work at Fox.

in his book "Muzzled" ("The assault on honest debate") he writes at length of the ideological and rigid left

If one is white does this equate to being a white supremacist in your mind?

This is a straw man created by paranoid whites who want to turn that paranoia into a false, broad-brush … insidious attempt to somehow make THE JUSTIFIABLE ALLEGATIONS OF WHITE SUPREMACY … WHERE THEY ACTUALLY APPLY … seem contrived and not based on realities!

Only paranoia could convince individuals that such single-mindedness exists as stated.

If the shoe fits wear it … if it doesn't, but one puts it in his mouth because the reality that NOT EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE has too many loose ends …

… that's life!

This is a straw man created by paranoid whites who want to turn that paranoia into a false, broad-brush … insidious attempt to somehow make THE JUSTIFIABLE ALLEGATIONS OF WHITE SUPREMACY … WHERE THEY ACTUALLY APPLY … seem contrived and not based on realities! 

I am a paranoid white.....is that what you are saying?  What if I am a white who is sick and fed up with the holier than thou, self righteous, judgmental, race card driven individuals who think they have a handle on what I believe and who I am?

Just a peek of who I am.  A Southern lady who appreciates good looking men and doesn't mind telling them so!

Just a peek of who I am.  A Southern lady who appreciates good looking men and doesn't mind telling them so!

We can disagree and still be friends, magnoliaave … and I still owe you some fishing photos.

I am a paranoid white.....is that what you are saying?  What if I am a white who is sick and fed up with the holier than thou, self righteous, judgmental, race card driven individuals who think they have a handle on what I believe and who I am?

I don't know what you are --  I was describing a phenomenon … 

About which your comment sounds a bit …

… you know what.

 This is about fixing blame, spreading guilt and looking for reparations.

In the opinion of the far rightwing who never wants to admit anything bad ever happens or happened.  It's LA-LA Land 24/7/365 with them/you. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

This is a straw man created by paranoid whites 

Juan Williams is not white

PS

Your'e proving my point

Juan Williams is not white

PS

Your'e proving my point

He doesn't speak for everyone and he clearly has a conflict-of-interests that must be considered. 

You're not proving your point … and I certainly am not. Declaring victory doesn't give you one.

You're not proving your point … and I certainly am not

Ok lets find out. You called my argument about the intolerant left a straw man - Then let me ask you about the lefts actions. I dont know how old you are, but do you remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan?

The two wrongs make a right implication holds no water.

Not every black person grew up in a broken family … if that's where you're going.

Blame-the-victim is what the scapegoating apologists and the tyrannical "leaders" do to pander to those who victimize.

Maybe your'e having dinner - I need to go to dinner now.

Here is my example:

In 1965 Moynihan produced a report on the problems of the black family - in the inner city. ("The Negro Family: the case for national action"). It turns out the lifelong sociologist was proven right, but at the time the left turned on him:

"As administration officials were pondering how to proceed that summer, snippets from the report began leaking into newspaper stories and columns, whereupon it became known as the “Moynihan Report.” Criticisms of it—most based on sketchy or inaccurate news accounts—aroused increasingly angry controversy. By the end of the year, militant civil rights activists—misunderstanding and in some cases deliberately misrepresenting it—were accusing Moynihan of being a racist and of having “blamed the victim.”

friendsofjustice.wordpress

So my question to you (the first of many) : Was the left correct, when they turned on one of their own - In your opinion was he a "racist"?

There is no logical comparison between placing monuments to slavery … and doing so to taunt blacks and thwart their hopes for the success of the Civil Rights movement.

If you or anyone else is going to base Moynihan's life on one position … that implies the subjectivity of an agenda.

Among other things …

Moynihan and his staff believed that government must go beyond simply ensuring that members of minority groups have the same rights as the majority and must also "act affirmatively" in order to counter the problem of historic discrimination.

Is that the position of a racist?

Don't take this in a false equivalent direction, please.

Not every black person grew up in a broken family … if that's where you're going.

The report didn't say that Its focus was on the urban slums in the 60's. If you want to say the report was wrong that is fine - that wasn't the response from the left.

Blame-the-victim is what the scapegoating apologists and the tyrannical "leaders" do to pander to those who victimize.

So you are calling Moynihan a racist ?

A simple yes or no

So you are calling Moynihan a racist ?

A simple yes or no

There is no "simple" way to assess a man's life … and I'm not calling Moynihan anything … please don't try and trap me into an over simplification of a complex subject.

Then don't defend the actions of the left. They don't hesitate to call anyone & everyone "racists" - even their own.

Good Morning......well, the same old, same old.  Woke up to a new reason for the liberals to rant.....the black man behind Pres. Trump at last night's rally.  That should be a good topic for the next few days. 

Woke up to a new reason for the liberals to rant.....the black man behind Pres. Trump at last night's rally.

FACTS …

And so it was Tuesday night before a crowd of Trump supporters in Phoenix who had come to watch another show. There was the president,  whipping up the wildly cheering crowd , and then there was Michael the Black Man, chanting just beyond Trump’s right shoulder in that trademark T-shirt.

The presence of Michael — variously known as Michael Symonette, Maurice Woodside and Mikael Israel — has inspired not only trending Twitter hashtags but a great deal of curiosity and Google searches. Internet sleuths find the man’s bizarre URL, an easily accessible gateway to his strange and checkered past.

The radical fringe activist from Miami once belonged to a violent black supremacist religious cult, and he runs a handful of amateur, unintelligible conspiracy websites. He has called Barack Obama “The Beast” and Hillary Clinton a Ku Klux Klan member. Oprah Winfrey, he says, is the devil.

Most curiously, in the 1990s, he was charged, then acquitted, with conspiracy to commit two murders.

But Michael the Black Man loves President Trump.

It’s unclear whether the White House or Trump’s campaign officials are aware of Michael the Black Man’s turbulent history or extreme political views.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded to a Washington Post query about Michael the Black Man by saying, in a Wednesday-morning email: “You would have to contact the campaign.”

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

You can't tell the players without a scorecard~

1. His Site Gods2.com Leads Visitors to HonestFacts.com, a Site Listing Conspiracy Theories About the Cherokee Indians

2. Symonette Was a Member of the Violent Yahweh ben Yahweh Cult Led by Hulon Mitchell Jr.

3. Symonette Also Organized Blacks Behind Obama & Claimed Obama Wanted to Kill Him

4. Symonette Said He ‘Completely’ Despises Hillary Clinton

5. Symonette Once Opened a Rick Santorum Rally & Was Praised by Glenn Beck

That's MY RANT!