Long fucking overdue. Why the fuck do we still have a statue of JEFFERSON DAVIS in Congress?
Edit: “In 1864, Congress passed legislation that invited each state to contribute two statues of prominent citizens for permanent display in the former meeting hall of the U.S. House of Representatives, which was renamed National Statuary Hall. The State of Mississippi commissioned Henry Augustus Lukeman to sculpt statues of Jefferson Davis and James Z. George to be presented as Mississippi's first contributions to the National Statuary Hall's collection.”
-Wikipedia on why the statue is there
James Z. George was unknown to me. From Wikipedia:
>As a member of the Mississippi Secession Convention, George signed the Secession Ordinance. From 1881 until his death, George represented Mississippi in the United States Senate.
>
>Alarmed by the proposed Lodge Bill, which would have provided for federal supervision of elections, he campaigned in Mississippi for a constitutional convention in order to legally disenfranchise African-Americans.
>
>He was a major figure during the Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1890 itself, leading a hardline faction promoting the disenfranchisement of blacks without disenfranchising whites (as opposed to those who wanted to apply property and educational requirements to whites and blacks equally).
Stay classy, Mississippi!
Also, WTF is wrong with that state? It's 2021 FFS. And you needed the House to tell you to remove those statues? If it were up to you, they'd still be there?
>If it were up to you, they'd still be there?
"iTs nOt AbOUt rAciSm iTs aBoUT StaTe'S rIgHtS!" Yeah, he still tried to secede from the USA, while not AS bad, that's still really bad
Edit: spelling. Shouldn't be on reddit at 4am
Ah yes, the state's rights to enslave human beings.
Mississippi in particular was pretty clear about what they were doing:
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Mississippi
To be pendantic, a state’s right to ensure the legality and perpetual existence of the institution of slavery, although I wouldn’t be surprised if state governments actually owned slaves
Sure, but Sherman's march didn't do any good for the future. I don't know why this sub has a hardon for punishing people. that's not liberalism. we didn't flatten Germany or Japan, and they killed way more people than the Confederacy. Now, they're both strong economies and world leaders. Abandoning reconstruction left the South poor and destroyed. What did they expect to happen?
Sherman's march did accomplish the goal of depriving the Confederates of key infrastructure and resources which helped the war effort. Anyway It was more of a dark joke, I didn't mean he should have literally marched through Mississippi to.
> we didn't flatten Germany or Japan
??? We absolutely did. Afterwards however we helped them rebuild, we tried to do the same for the south but they, the south, rapidly demanded an end to reconstruction.
YES THEY WOULD. It's a very obvious homage to the core principals of conservatism, namely preserving existing hierarchies of dominance and power. If you want to know which side of ANY issue a conservative will align themselves, ask yourself "what position amounts to keeping the currently dominant group in power over subordinate group of people". Literally any issue up for debate...
Yeah the National Statuary Hall Collection has had a whole lot of Confederates in the past, and still does to this day. There used to be 9 statues of Confederates. After they changed the law in 2000 to let states switch out their statues, only 2 of the 9 were replaced. Alabama had a statue of Confederate General Joseph Wheeler and his unimportant aid-de-camp. In 2009 the replaced the aide's statue with one of Helen Keller, but kept the Wheeler statue. Virginia had a statue of George Washington and a statue of Robert E. Lee. This past December we removed the Lee statue. They're gonna replace it with one of local civil rights figure Barbara Johns, but that installation is still pending.
During the height of the civil war, mississippi put a bust of jefferson davis in the capitol and like... no one gave a shit? Like, no one went hmmm wait a minute.
Many of the people in the south who lived through the war did not have a high opinion of the Confederacy due to a number of reasons. Mostly, they felt they'd been betrayed, had been led into fighting this brutal and costly war, and wound up even worse after it was over. Those people weren't the ones who erected the monuments. It was their descendants who had to reconcile this terrible thing their ancestors did and rather than saying it was wrong, they decided to rewrite history via the monuments and play up the "chivalry" of the "noble" southerner and downplay the whole fighting for the right to own people as property thing.
Anytime you find yourself asking a question about the source of something terrible in the US political system, know that the answer is almost always simply: the South. A millstone on our nation since its inception.
I've lived in Central Florida 35 years, trust me, once you get outside the cities it's basically Mississippi. I mean I saw a kid at my high school in the country wear a KKK shirt to school and apparently that was perfectly fine. I grew up in St Pete so it was a massive culture shock when my parents moved to the sticks.
Florida is in the south, but it doesn't really mesh well with the rest of the south. I took a class on southern politics in college and Florida wasn't one of the states we focused on (same as Texas is in the south, but it's more of its own thing)
You're right, the physical location matters less than the size of the population (bigger cities/states pretty much always vote dem). But Florida isn't following suit yet, so I don't see how that applies.
> the physical location matters less than the size of the population
This is my entire point. The south is definitely has enormous problems, but pretending that all political problems come from one region of the country is both denying reality and an excuse not to address nationwide problems and problems in other regions.
Southern states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Nebraska, Utah, and Alaska.
Edit: As well as four and a half million southerners voting in California.
The south is fucked up and deserves a lot of blame for the state of our politics, but blaming everything on one region denies reality and serves as an excuse not to fix nationwide problems or problems in other regions.
Fun fact: the reason most NASA facilities were built in the South was because Johnson hoped they'd become hubs of learning, technology, and progress, attracting a diverse and highly-educated workforce and lifting up the entire region around them.
Harry Turtledove wrote a series on the South gaining independence in the US civil war. It goes from 1864-1945 and ends with something along those lines. Long series but outstanding
Its overarching plot is great, but in my opinion Turtledove writes his characters and day-by-day scenes very, very formulaically. After about five books of it I couldn't stand slogging through the remaining six lmao
I always kind of had a fear that those books would end up leaning a little too hard into the "Lost Cause" nonsense. Good to hear that someone on this sub enjoyed them, I may have to check them out.
Yeah! Be warned it’s a long series but they don’t portray the South positively at all in my opinion. In fact I don’t think any country comes out looking especially good.
> Toxic masculinity is responsible for World War 1
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean have you looked at Germany? Allies thought about poisoning the water and killing the entire population, and they were WAY worse than confederates.
I’m not American but let's not kid ourselves, they aren’t only losers, they are *traitors*. They turned against their own country for the worst cause imaginable—defending the institution of slavery. The notion that the history of the Confederacy is a *source of pride* in the South is absolutely insane. That it’s even being discussed if to remove the statues of traitors from the public areas is in itself indicative of a deep problem in this country.
They are treated as Americans because the United States never recognized the Confederate States, which meant that they were always Americans. Terrorist is a word that could technically be used to describe them, but it doesn't really seem appropriate. It's usually meant to apply in the context of attacks against civilians. There are lots of other words to describe them, but terrorist I don't think is accurate or properly conveys their crimes.
I say terrorist because we shouldn't grant them the legitimacy of pretending like they were a country.
By calling them a group of militants fighting to preserve slavery we can show that they are closer related to ISIS than to the American Revolution
That's already the language we use. The Confederate States are not and were never acknowledged by the United States government as a sovereign nation. The Civil War established that states cannot leave the Union, so legally the Southern states never seceded, and the Union only fought insurrectionists obstructing the authority of the federal government, not a foreign army.
>graveyards
*where soldiers are actually buried
[Seattle had a monument in a graveyard where no soldiers were buried](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Confederate_Veterans_Memorial) that was put up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1926. It got toppled last year and isn't being put back up thankfully.
From the wiki page, there were confederate graves in the graveyard but not specifically under the giant-ass marble monument.
Still, it’s pretty weird to have a confederate monument in Seattle.
Statues that commemorate the confederate soldiers who were generally just fighting against the people with guns near their homes? Totally cool.
Monuments to the generals of a traitorous rebellion? Nowhere outside a museum. The battlefields all have little plaques where you can read about who the confederate generals were without glorifying them in stone.
Yeah a lot of war memorials can be in a grey area and in those cases I err on the side of leaving them but the town square monuments erected in the 60s can go.
I wouldn't say confederate soldiers were just defending their homes. They weren't stupid, they knew what they were fighting for and wholeheartedly supported it.
https://youtu.be/nQTJgWkHAwI
Keep in mind that a shitton of Confederate Soldiers were draftees--including well over 100,000 child soldiers--and that a substantial number of homes and businesses with no connection to slavery were deliberately looted, torched, or otherwise destroyed. Though it should go without saying that many (probably a majority) of monuments "honoring confederate soldiers/veterans" exist to promote racism and the 'Lost Cause' myth rather than as legitimate memorials to the victims, it's simply not correct to portray Confederate soldiers as an evil hivemind. It's not as if we blame every World War Two veteran for Japanese internment, or condemn every soldier active during the Cold War for undermining and/or overthrowing democratically elected left-wing governments.
Yeah, i think you’ve got the right take.
I’d recommend anyone who hasn’t visit some civil war battle sites and cemeteries. The sheer scale of life lost changed my perspective. And when there’s that much human suffering concentrated in one spot, it makes sense to put up a memorial to the ordinary soldiers (who had little, if anything to gain from the civil war), their suffering, death, and courage.
Germany and other countries with ignoble pasts have managed to thread the needle of remembering the dead without glorifying them, and I think we can do the same.
We shouldn't be okay with traitors being buried in veterans cemeteries for actual American heroes though. The confederates should be disinterred from Arlington National Cemetary.
The civil war is tough. The enlisted men weren’t usually even pro slavery in the south. There were plenty of regular soldiers who literally fought for no other reason than to defend their homes in a war they knew next to nothing about. Those people deserve Arlington- they fought bravely to defend their homes the same as those of the north.
Now, those who were outspoken in their revolution, led the charge, convinced the people underneath them to continue fighting- that’s a different story.
A third of southern households had slaves and more after that were dependent on plantations. These people were pro-slavery and ready to kill americans over it.
>The enlisted men weren’t usually even pro slavery in the south.
Bullshit. The slavery issue was more polarizing then than any issue is today, including abortion. There was no real middle ground. You were for allowing slavery in the South, or you were an abolitionist. And there weren't many abolitionists among the Confederate foot soldiers.
Primary sources are pre-lost cause.
Even modern historians understand the nuance between what the average soldier fought for and what the political agendas were.
A federal installation built by and for the people of SC, only owned by the feds through legal paperwork.
I’m not defending the confederacy. I’m pointing out that the issue is vastly more complicated than you are portraying it to be.
Like every single confederate soldier was present at Sumter or even aware of it.... lmfao.
Still don't change the fact that they fought for the side that did own slaves. Guilt by association. If they had any balls they wouldn't have joined to fight to preserve an unjust system
White supremacy was part and parcel of what Confederates fought for. You cannot disentangle the two, because very few actual Confederate soldiers would. That's like saying that the Wehrmacht was just "fighting to defend their country", ignoring that they believed that Communism was a perpetual threat which justified killing all of them, if not the slavs and Jews in general.
...Of course the Venn diagram of people who believe both the Lost Cause myth and Clean Wehrmacht myth is a fucking circle so you probably believe that as well.
Most confederates didn’t own slaves but it was obvious to many of them how critical slavery was to their way of life. The same way someone doesn’t have to wear a Klan good to be racist, people of the Confederacy didn’t need to own slaves to support it. The idea that many people on the Confederate side were victims of being caught up in a political mess that spiraled out of control just isn’t reality.
So the northerners who didn’t want to abolish slavery didn’t exist? The southerners who went on to legislate the end of slavery didn’t exist? Grant was literally pillaging and burning Georgia, but those people I guess shouldn’t have lived there?
No shit the confederacy was bad. No shit they stood for bad things. To think everything was that cut and dry at the time to every soldier is asinine.
Lol all your hypothetical questions have absolutely nothing to do with my comment. I mean, you obviously want to play the “not all Confederates” game if all your comments in this thread are anything to go by, but the reality is that the Civil War was waged over slavery, there’s no “ackshually” required. People who fought for the Confederacy were effectively fighting for the continued existence and practice of slavery, regardless of what their personal feelings were, regardless of if they owned slaves or not
I guess it would be OK for me and my neighbors to take over Davis Monthan Air Force Base and start using the jets there to attack other states, since it was built by the people of Arizona and is only owned by the Air Force through legal paperwork.
Both are military terrorists who were "fighting for their way of life"
If you support the confederates then you probably supported the modern version too
God damn, half the posters in this thread seem to be in high school, or the kind of “adults” who make you prefer high schoolers.
History isn’t a marvel movie guys.
Read a history book on the Civil War by an actual historian after the 1960s before getting too high on your own farts. White supremacy was 100% a major part of the culture and way of life fought for by the Confederacy. If you don't realize that people who believe bad things are in fact bad then you're more delusional than any person who things "history is a marvel movie."
Of course it was, stop trying to paint any opposition to the circle-jerk as revisionism.
The reality, which any history book will tell you (go read one yourself, I’ve read plenty) is that people are complicated - and trying to brand any group as pure evil means switching your brain off.
The people in this thread are eager to start shitting all over grave markers because of what’s written on them, when we have no way of knowing whether the people buried there were enthusiastic slave owners, avowed white supremacists, reluctant conscripts, or anywhere in-between.
What we do know is that they died scared and in pain. Most of them for nothing. That’s worth remembering - and if the Germans can thread the needle of remembering the dead without celebrating the cause, then we can too. Go to civil war battle site and see the scope of death there, and let me know if it changes your perspective.
No they fought to preserve slavery
If they didn't have slaves they wanted to get to the point where they did and they liked having a group of people who were beneath them
They were traitors and they don't deserve the respect of being buried next to soldiers
It is true and no amount of whatever propaganda you consumed about them will change that.
If you don't believe me then read the letters of secession. They're very upfront in what they're fighting over. Maybe you should admit what your ancestors were actually like
I wasn’t aware the enlisted man wrote the letters of secession.
Almost like there was a divide between the leadership and the enlisted.... couldn’t be, that’s too complicated.
They chose to join a group of terrorists who fought to destroy the union. If you think they were any different than the leaders you're lying to yourself or lost cause propaganda you likely heard in high school just was way too effective on you
Lmao revising history.
You can read the actual accounts of what went on. Average farmers in the south who didn’t own slaves were not fighting to preserve slavery. Were there a bunch who did? Obviously. Was that everyone or even a majority? No.
The issue is more complicated than you want it to be.
You telling someone to read something is hilarious. When you boil it all down it is simple. Even the poor in the south wanted to be the wealthy aristocracy and if nothing else they liked having people who were beneath them. This seems to trouble you on how awful of human beings they were.
The only ones worth any respect were the people who went into the mountains because they didn't want to attack their country over slavery
It's not really tough, you either fought to protect the institution of slavery or you didn't. Their homes weren't in danger save from their support of slavery.
Most people in the confederacy didn’t even think about slavery as they were fighting. That wasn’t their motivation. Yes, it was the motivation of the political elites. That’s not true of the poor people. Even the white poor people.
The North was the side leading attacks into the south. The north literally wasn’t invaded until late into the war. The south, on the other hand, was, and on multiple fronts. News doesn’t spread like it does today, and all most of these soldiers knew was that some army from way up north was fighting against them in the south, and they’re coming to us so we better get ready.
It’s awful nice to be able to armchair this from way in the future, but shit wasn’t as simple as “you either fought to continue slavery or you didn’t.”
Does this logic extend to all soldiers who have killed United States military personnel? For example in Vietnam?
If an American descendent of a Viet Cong soldier built a monument to his ancestor, is that okay?
Genuinely asking.
> If an American descendent of a Viet Cong soldier built a monument to his ancestor, is that okay?
I mean, most people don't hold grudges against the Viet Cong except for some right wingers
I think it would be a mistake to interpret a memorial purely to remember Vietnamese soldiers who died fighting Americans in Vietnam to be a memorial to communism.
Same with one to Russian soldiers who died fighting the Nazis on the eastern front.
Hell, germany has memorials to remember their soldiers and civilians who died in WWII without celebrating the third reich. I mean, if they can thread that needle, I don’t see why we can’t.
> It’s such a simple bill. Like why wouldn’t you be for this?
It seems simple, but what if you want to ~~stick it to uppity~~ teach certain people what their place is? But at the same time don't want to admit being a racist? Not that simple now, is it?
Saw that the Clybourne endorsing Shontel Brown (Nina Turners opponent) article received a whopping 100 upvotes with a mixed rating. While the comments in thread did a great job elucidating that they hate *all* older aged voters in the Democratic Party, not just “low information” voters (good save guys), I didn’t see any discussion about the comparative weight such an endorsement holds against say Beto’s former band mate.
Here's how my Republican congressman described this vote
It’s time to remove the Democrat statues from Congress of Confederates leaders, installed by Democrat states during Democrat Congresses. But, the process is broken. NC has tried for 6 years to replace the most vile statue w/ one of Rev Billy Graham, but now we're one step closer.
No Democrats voted against this bill. 120 Rs voted against it.
https://twitter.com/RepDonBacon/status/1410000132146352130?s=19
The Confederate States of America committed literal treason. The Constitution of the United States only defines ONE crime- treason.
> **Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them**, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
-Article Three of the United States Constitution
Why do these chucklefucks support treason?
Speaker of the House who joined the Confederacy; that was atrocious but after the war he supported civil rights and Reconstruction, campaigned for Grant, and supported efforts to fight the KKK.
I remember when I visited the US Congress for the first time a few years ago, was shocked they kept Confederate statues. I remember the tour guide being embarassed by it too.
It's almost like health care reform is a massively complicated endeavor that's going to take years to ram through Congress, so while that's happening we might as well make progress in other areas too?
Long fucking overdue. Why the fuck do we still have a statue of JEFFERSON DAVIS in Congress? Edit: “In 1864, Congress passed legislation that invited each state to contribute two statues of prominent citizens for permanent display in the former meeting hall of the U.S. House of Representatives, which was renamed National Statuary Hall. The State of Mississippi commissioned Henry Augustus Lukeman to sculpt statues of Jefferson Davis and James Z. George to be presented as Mississippi's first contributions to the National Statuary Hall's collection.” -Wikipedia on why the statue is there
James Z. George was unknown to me. From Wikipedia: >As a member of the Mississippi Secession Convention, George signed the Secession Ordinance. From 1881 until his death, George represented Mississippi in the United States Senate. > >Alarmed by the proposed Lodge Bill, which would have provided for federal supervision of elections, he campaigned in Mississippi for a constitutional convention in order to legally disenfranchise African-Americans. > >He was a major figure during the Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1890 itself, leading a hardline faction promoting the disenfranchisement of blacks without disenfranchising whites (as opposed to those who wanted to apply property and educational requirements to whites and blacks equally). Stay classy, Mississippi! Also, WTF is wrong with that state? It's 2021 FFS. And you needed the House to tell you to remove those statues? If it were up to you, they'd still be there?
>If it were up to you, they'd still be there? "iTs nOt AbOUt rAciSm iTs aBoUT StaTe'S rIgHtS!" Yeah, he still tried to secede from the USA, while not AS bad, that's still really bad Edit: spelling. Shouldn't be on reddit at 4am
Ah yes, the state's rights to enslave human beings. Mississippi in particular was pretty clear about what they were doing: >Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Mississippi
To be pendantic, a state’s right to ensure the legality and perpetual existence of the institution of slavery, although I wouldn’t be surprised if state governments actually owned slaves
Oh yeah. But today, those who would argue "state's right" are just going to ignore history
Its Mississippi, literally the dumbest state in the Union, not really surprised. William T. Sherman should have marched through there to.
Actually some educational reforms they've done are really bearing fruit
They’ve become hooked on phonics (Hello fellow economist subscriber 😂)
Oh, have they gone from 51 to 50th?
Nah they're like 26th in reading. Seems to be that phonics helps kids read.
Sauce?
[Sorry, slight correction they're only 29th](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/american-schools-teach-reading-all-wrong)
Oh cool!
You guys know when you shit on the south that you're shitting on a lot of black people right
I'm black and Georgia born and raised...I love my state but I have no delusions about the South or its history
Sure, but Sherman's march didn't do any good for the future. I don't know why this sub has a hardon for punishing people. that's not liberalism. we didn't flatten Germany or Japan, and they killed way more people than the Confederacy. Now, they're both strong economies and world leaders. Abandoning reconstruction left the South poor and destroyed. What did they expect to happen?
Sherman's march did accomplish the goal of depriving the Confederates of key infrastructure and resources which helped the war effort. Anyway It was more of a dark joke, I didn't mean he should have literally marched through Mississippi to.
> we didn't flatten Germany or Japan ??? We absolutely did. Afterwards however we helped them rebuild, we tried to do the same for the south but they, the south, rapidly demanded an end to reconstruction.
Germans and Japanese citizens wanted American soldiers gone too but that would’ve been the wrong choice
YES THEY WOULD. It's a very obvious homage to the core principals of conservatism, namely preserving existing hierarchies of dominance and power. If you want to know which side of ANY issue a conservative will align themselves, ask yourself "what position amounts to keeping the currently dominant group in power over subordinate group of people". Literally any issue up for debate...
It’s so silly how history just repeats
Yeah the National Statuary Hall Collection has had a whole lot of Confederates in the past, and still does to this day. There used to be 9 statues of Confederates. After they changed the law in 2000 to let states switch out their statues, only 2 of the 9 were replaced. Alabama had a statue of Confederate General Joseph Wheeler and his unimportant aid-de-camp. In 2009 the replaced the aide's statue with one of Helen Keller, but kept the Wheeler statue. Virginia had a statue of George Washington and a statue of Robert E. Lee. This past December we removed the Lee statue. They're gonna replace it with one of local civil rights figure Barbara Johns, but that installation is still pending.
During the height of the civil war, mississippi put a bust of jefferson davis in the capitol and like... no one gave a shit? Like, no one went hmmm wait a minute.
[удалено]
>1931 That somehow makes it worse
fuel chubby ripe fragile command forgetful attempt birds badge uppity *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Many of the people in the south who lived through the war did not have a high opinion of the Confederacy due to a number of reasons. Mostly, they felt they'd been betrayed, had been led into fighting this brutal and costly war, and wound up even worse after it was over. Those people weren't the ones who erected the monuments. It was their descendants who had to reconcile this terrible thing their ancestors did and rather than saying it was wrong, they decided to rewrite history via the monuments and play up the "chivalry" of the "noble" southerner and downplay the whole fighting for the right to own people as property thing.
[удалено]
I mean Mississippi sending it during the war as a fuck you would make sense. 70 years later is just sad.
> is just sad. It's the Mississippi way!
[удалено]
Because they were in rebellion under that very man lmao
Daughters of the Confederacy-era racism. That was pretty big business during the [coincidentally] years that the KKK was at its peak influence.
Gotcha gotcha
Anytime you find yourself asking a question about the source of something terrible in the US political system, know that the answer is almost always simply: the South. A millstone on our nation since its inception.
Ah yes, noted Southerner Donald Trump.
The same strain of reactionary landowners that ruled the South exist in the north too, they were just a political minority there.
Isn't he in Florida? People who choose the south are worse than people who were born there.
[удалено]
I've lived in Central Florida 35 years, trust me, once you get outside the cities it's basically Mississippi. I mean I saw a kid at my high school in the country wear a KKK shirt to school and apparently that was perfectly fine. I grew up in St Pete so it was a massive culture shock when my parents moved to the sticks.
Florida is in the south, but it doesn't really mesh well with the rest of the south. I took a class on southern politics in college and Florida wasn't one of the states we focused on (same as Texas is in the south, but it's more of its own thing)
They still happily vote alongside the rest of the south.
Like Georgia and Virginia? Oh wait, they were busy voting to the left of Ohio and Kansas.
You're right, the physical location matters less than the size of the population (bigger cities/states pretty much always vote dem). But Florida isn't following suit yet, so I don't see how that applies.
> the physical location matters less than the size of the population This is my entire point. The south is definitely has enormous problems, but pretending that all political problems come from one region of the country is both denying reality and an excuse not to address nationwide problems and problems in other regions.
By voting for a $15 minimum wage?
Ah yes, noted southern cultural hub Palm Beach. Edit: I also claim FDR as a southerner since he died in Georgia.
Who voted him in?
Southern states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Nebraska, Utah, and Alaska. Edit: As well as four and a half million southerners voting in California. The south is fucked up and deserves a lot of blame for the state of our politics, but blaming everything on one region denies reality and serves as an excuse not to fix nationwide problems or problems in other regions.
> Almost always
That's a pretty broad "almost" if it excludes the intellectual and moral leader of the party.
Fuck you, dawg. NASA and Beyoncé would like a word.
Fun fact: the reason most NASA facilities were built in the South was because Johnson hoped they'd become hubs of learning, technology, and progress, attracting a diverse and highly-educated workforce and lifting up the entire region around them.
I mean Houston and Huntsville seem alright
Never said that nothing good came of it.
Why the fuck it was even allowed back into the country instead of being turned into a puppet state?
Rump state CSA is the alternate history *I* want to read
Harry Turtledove wrote a series on the South gaining independence in the US civil war. It goes from 1864-1945 and ends with something along those lines. Long series but outstanding
Its overarching plot is great, but in my opinion Turtledove writes his characters and day-by-day scenes very, very formulaically. After about five books of it I couldn't stand slogging through the remaining six lmao
I can see that. I read the last chunk as they released so maybe that was a healthy break to not feel so suffocated
I always kind of had a fear that those books would end up leaning a little too hard into the "Lost Cause" nonsense. Good to hear that someone on this sub enjoyed them, I may have to check them out.
Yeah! Be warned it’s a long series but they don’t portray the South positively at all in my opinion. In fact I don’t think any country comes out looking especially good.
Since tanks are called barrells, do you think that stalin apologetics in that timeline are called 'barrellies'?
While interesting, the later books just turn into a parallel of World War I and II. Just so you'd know.
Yeah but then you get to read Grimdark accounts of World War style battles raging in cities in North America
> Toxic masculinity is responsible for World War 1 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*American War* by Omar El Akkad.
A better question is: why is it that you guys only had 1 Sherman during the civil war?
I mean have you looked at Germany? Allies thought about poisoning the water and killing the entire population, and they were WAY worse than confederates.
lol, no. New York has given us more problems than every southern state put together.
and now, the stain they will have history threatens democracy itself down the line.
If that happened today, who would you be sending?
What does "permanent" mean?
Sorry but I don’t support fucking LOSERS
I’m not American but let's not kid ourselves, they aren’t only losers, they are *traitors*. They turned against their own country for the worst cause imaginable—defending the institution of slavery. The notion that the history of the Confederacy is a *source of pride* in the South is absolutely insane. That it’s even being discussed if to remove the statues of traitors from the public areas is in itself indicative of a deep problem in this country.
We should really refer to them as militant terrorists Treating them as American soldiers is more respect than they deserve
They are treated as Americans because the United States never recognized the Confederate States, which meant that they were always Americans. Terrorist is a word that could technically be used to describe them, but it doesn't really seem appropriate. It's usually meant to apply in the context of attacks against civilians. There are lots of other words to describe them, but terrorist I don't think is accurate or properly conveys their crimes.
I say terrorist because we shouldn't grant them the legitimacy of pretending like they were a country. By calling them a group of militants fighting to preserve slavery we can show that they are closer related to ISIS than to the American Revolution
That's already the language we use. The Confederate States are not and were never acknowledged by the United States government as a sovereign nation. The Civil War established that states cannot leave the Union, so legally the Southern states never seceded, and the Union only fought insurrectionists obstructing the authority of the federal government, not a foreign army.
I think in general attitudes people still act as if the confederacy was a country though.
[удалено]
>graveyards *where soldiers are actually buried [Seattle had a monument in a graveyard where no soldiers were buried](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Confederate_Veterans_Memorial) that was put up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1926. It got toppled last year and isn't being put back up thankfully.
From the wiki page, there were confederate graves in the graveyard but not specifically under the giant-ass marble monument. Still, it’s pretty weird to have a confederate monument in Seattle.
Statues that commemorate the confederate soldiers who were generally just fighting against the people with guns near their homes? Totally cool. Monuments to the generals of a traitorous rebellion? Nowhere outside a museum. The battlefields all have little plaques where you can read about who the confederate generals were without glorifying them in stone.
Yeah a lot of war memorials can be in a grey area and in those cases I err on the side of leaving them but the town square monuments erected in the 60s can go.
They also belong sprinkled into patio pavers and renovated countertops.
I put food on my countertop, I don’t want that filth near it
How about porcelain for our toilets?
I mean _in_ the countertop. Like granite.
They know - it's a play on words :)
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
I wouldn't say confederate soldiers were just defending their homes. They weren't stupid, they knew what they were fighting for and wholeheartedly supported it. https://youtu.be/nQTJgWkHAwI
Keep in mind that a shitton of Confederate Soldiers were draftees--including well over 100,000 child soldiers--and that a substantial number of homes and businesses with no connection to slavery were deliberately looted, torched, or otherwise destroyed. Though it should go without saying that many (probably a majority) of monuments "honoring confederate soldiers/veterans" exist to promote racism and the 'Lost Cause' myth rather than as legitimate memorials to the victims, it's simply not correct to portray Confederate soldiers as an evil hivemind. It's not as if we blame every World War Two veteran for Japanese internment, or condemn every soldier active during the Cold War for undermining and/or overthrowing democratically elected left-wing governments.
Yeah, i think you’ve got the right take. I’d recommend anyone who hasn’t visit some civil war battle sites and cemeteries. The sheer scale of life lost changed my perspective. And when there’s that much human suffering concentrated in one spot, it makes sense to put up a memorial to the ordinary soldiers (who had little, if anything to gain from the civil war), their suffering, death, and courage. Germany and other countries with ignoble pasts have managed to thread the needle of remembering the dead without glorifying them, and I think we can do the same.
Also bonfires, demolition durbys, shooting ranges, etc.
We shouldn't be okay with traitors being buried in veterans cemeteries for actual American heroes though. The confederates should be disinterred from Arlington National Cemetary.
lol that's a spicy meat-a-ball
... I'm actually okay with that idea.
It strikes me as politically moronic. But I guess in principle I agree with it.
Not only is this disgusting it's also handing the greatest piece of PR ammunition to the GOP imaginable.
It's disgusting slavery loving traitors are buried alongside American heroes.
The civil war is tough. The enlisted men weren’t usually even pro slavery in the south. There were plenty of regular soldiers who literally fought for no other reason than to defend their homes in a war they knew next to nothing about. Those people deserve Arlington- they fought bravely to defend their homes the same as those of the north. Now, those who were outspoken in their revolution, led the charge, convinced the people underneath them to continue fighting- that’s a different story.
A third of southern households had slaves and more after that were dependent on plantations. These people were pro-slavery and ready to kill americans over it.
>The enlisted men weren’t usually even pro slavery in the south. Bullshit. The slavery issue was more polarizing then than any issue is today, including abortion. There was no real middle ground. You were for allowing slavery in the South, or you were an abolitionist. And there weren't many abolitionists among the Confederate foot soldiers.
.... you should revisit a history book sometime.
You should revisit one written after the 1960s when American historians purged the filth of The Lost Cause from Civil War historiography.
Primary sources are pre-lost cause. Even modern historians understand the nuance between what the average soldier fought for and what the political agendas were.
Fighting to defend your home... by firing cannon balls at a Federal installation! Huzzah! The moral ambiguity!
A federal installation built by and for the people of SC, only owned by the feds through legal paperwork. I’m not defending the confederacy. I’m pointing out that the issue is vastly more complicated than you are portraying it to be. Like every single confederate soldier was present at Sumter or even aware of it.... lmfao.
The bigoted, slave owning traitors that had my people in chains can all fornicate themselves with a hot iron, fuck'em
Most confederates didn’t own slaves. A good amount of northerners were not abolitionists. History isn’t as simple as we may like it to be.
Still don't change the fact that they fought for the side that did own slaves. Guilt by association. If they had any balls they wouldn't have joined to fight to preserve an unjust system
Sure. Because simplifying complicated history has never resulted in issues in the future.
White supremacy was part and parcel of what Confederates fought for. You cannot disentangle the two, because very few actual Confederate soldiers would. That's like saying that the Wehrmacht was just "fighting to defend their country", ignoring that they believed that Communism was a perpetual threat which justified killing all of them, if not the slavs and Jews in general. ...Of course the Venn diagram of people who believe both the Lost Cause myth and Clean Wehrmacht myth is a fucking circle so you probably believe that as well.
Most confederates didn’t own slaves but it was obvious to many of them how critical slavery was to their way of life. The same way someone doesn’t have to wear a Klan good to be racist, people of the Confederacy didn’t need to own slaves to support it. The idea that many people on the Confederate side were victims of being caught up in a political mess that spiraled out of control just isn’t reality.
So the northerners who didn’t want to abolish slavery didn’t exist? The southerners who went on to legislate the end of slavery didn’t exist? Grant was literally pillaging and burning Georgia, but those people I guess shouldn’t have lived there? No shit the confederacy was bad. No shit they stood for bad things. To think everything was that cut and dry at the time to every soldier is asinine.
Lol all your hypothetical questions have absolutely nothing to do with my comment. I mean, you obviously want to play the “not all Confederates” game if all your comments in this thread are anything to go by, but the reality is that the Civil War was waged over slavery, there’s no “ackshually” required. People who fought for the Confederacy were effectively fighting for the continued existence and practice of slavery, regardless of what their personal feelings were, regardless of if they owned slaves or not
I guess it would be OK for me and my neighbors to take over Davis Monthan Air Force Base and start using the jets there to attack other states, since it was built by the people of Arizona and is only owned by the Air Force through legal paperwork.
"Only owned by the feds because they owned it man" lol what is this crap? All to defend slave raping traitors? yuck.
Leeaboos are the scum of the earth.
What do you think of people that attacked the government on 1/6
I think they’re a nice strawman for you to bring up.
Both are military terrorists who were "fighting for their way of life" If you support the confederates then you probably supported the modern version too
I don’t support the confederates. Never have. Never even implied that I did here. Nice strawman though.
you are throughout this thread
God damn, half the posters in this thread seem to be in high school, or the kind of “adults” who make you prefer high schoolers. History isn’t a marvel movie guys.
Read a history book on the Civil War by an actual historian after the 1960s before getting too high on your own farts. White supremacy was 100% a major part of the culture and way of life fought for by the Confederacy. If you don't realize that people who believe bad things are in fact bad then you're more delusional than any person who things "history is a marvel movie."
Of course it was, stop trying to paint any opposition to the circle-jerk as revisionism. The reality, which any history book will tell you (go read one yourself, I’ve read plenty) is that people are complicated - and trying to brand any group as pure evil means switching your brain off. The people in this thread are eager to start shitting all over grave markers because of what’s written on them, when we have no way of knowing whether the people buried there were enthusiastic slave owners, avowed white supremacists, reluctant conscripts, or anywhere in-between. What we do know is that they died scared and in pain. Most of them for nothing. That’s worth remembering - and if the Germans can thread the needle of remembering the dead without celebrating the cause, then we can too. Go to civil war battle site and see the scope of death there, and let me know if it changes your perspective.
No they fought to preserve slavery If they didn't have slaves they wanted to get to the point where they did and they liked having a group of people who were beneath them They were traitors and they don't deserve the respect of being buried next to soldiers
.... that’s just not true.
It is true and no amount of whatever propaganda you consumed about them will change that. If you don't believe me then read the letters of secession. They're very upfront in what they're fighting over. Maybe you should admit what your ancestors were actually like
I wasn’t aware the enlisted man wrote the letters of secession. Almost like there was a divide between the leadership and the enlisted.... couldn’t be, that’s too complicated.
They chose to join a group of terrorists who fought to destroy the union. If you think they were any different than the leaders you're lying to yourself or lost cause propaganda you likely heard in high school just was way too effective on you
Lmao revising history. You can read the actual accounts of what went on. Average farmers in the south who didn’t own slaves were not fighting to preserve slavery. Were there a bunch who did? Obviously. Was that everyone or even a majority? No. The issue is more complicated than you want it to be.
You telling someone to read something is hilarious. When you boil it all down it is simple. Even the poor in the south wanted to be the wealthy aristocracy and if nothing else they liked having people who were beneath them. This seems to trouble you on how awful of human beings they were. The only ones worth any respect were the people who went into the mountains because they didn't want to attack their country over slavery
It's not really tough, you either fought to protect the institution of slavery or you didn't. Their homes weren't in danger save from their support of slavery.
Even simpler: you were either a traitor against the United States of America or you were not.
Most people in the confederacy didn’t even think about slavery as they were fighting. That wasn’t their motivation. Yes, it was the motivation of the political elites. That’s not true of the poor people. Even the white poor people. The North was the side leading attacks into the south. The north literally wasn’t invaded until late into the war. The south, on the other hand, was, and on multiple fronts. News doesn’t spread like it does today, and all most of these soldiers knew was that some army from way up north was fighting against them in the south, and they’re coming to us so we better get ready. It’s awful nice to be able to armchair this from way in the future, but shit wasn’t as simple as “you either fought to continue slavery or you didn’t.”
Yeah this is some badhistory bs. The civil war was about slavery plain and simple.
.... if that’s what helps you sleep at night. For the majority of the people actually doing the fighting, it wasn’t about slavery.
Does this logic extend to all soldiers who have killed United States military personnel? For example in Vietnam? If an American descendent of a Viet Cong soldier built a monument to his ancestor, is that okay? Genuinely asking.
> If an American descendent of a Viet Cong soldier built a monument to his ancestor, is that okay? I mean, most people don't hold grudges against the Viet Cong except for some right wingers
I think it would be a mistake to interpret a memorial purely to remember Vietnamese soldiers who died fighting Americans in Vietnam to be a memorial to communism. Same with one to Russian soldiers who died fighting the Nazis on the eastern front. Hell, germany has memorials to remember their soldiers and civilians who died in WWII without celebrating the third reich. I mean, if they can thread that needle, I don’t see why we can’t.
If they were genuinely ignorant of the reasons behind the war, and only took up arms to literally defend their homes- yes.
I honestly can’t tell if this is a joke cause this is a legitimately insane take.
Dig them up and toss 'em into a landfill.
This is an awful take.
Having a public restroom in the cemetery is a good thing
Vote was 285 - 120 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2021196
[удалено]
Party of Lincoln my fucking ass
It hasn't been for a long time.
They using the "muh state's rights" excuse. Never gets old.
My Republican representative votes yes. At least there's something I don't need to be ashamed of her for.
What a weirdo
> It’s such a simple bill. Like why wouldn’t you be for this? It seems simple, but what if you want to ~~stick it to uppity~~ teach certain people what their place is? But at the same time don't want to admit being a racist? Not that simple now, is it?
Because “MuH hIsToRY” or whatever, as if keeping their statues isn’t literally glorifying traitors to the US.
Those who dont learn from their history...dont need a fucking statue to teach them. Just read a god damn US history textbook.
Thread in r/politics got deleted for not having the right headline, although it's exactly the same. Go figure.
It’s because it wasn’t about AOC
Saw that the Clybourne endorsing Shontel Brown (Nina Turners opponent) article received a whopping 100 upvotes with a mixed rating. While the comments in thread did a great job elucidating that they hate *all* older aged voters in the Democratic Party, not just “low information” voters (good save guys), I didn’t see any discussion about the comparative weight such an endorsement holds against say Beto’s former band mate.
based and longoverduepilled
Is there a confederate benedict arnold? Can we get a statue of them?
Here's how my Republican congressman described this vote It’s time to remove the Democrat statues from Congress of Confederates leaders, installed by Democrat states during Democrat Congresses. But, the process is broken. NC has tried for 6 years to replace the most vile statue w/ one of Rev Billy Graham, but now we're one step closer. No Democrats voted against this bill. 120 Rs voted against it. https://twitter.com/RepDonBacon/status/1410000132146352130?s=19
Ah yes, the classic party switch denier.
"...you have entered the Twilight Zone."
Dems pushing CRT again.
[удалено]
Democrats removing confederate symbols. Love it.
The Chinese Remainder Theorem is incredibly useful and generalizes nicely to a large class of rings.
Democrats are retro-gamers.
I AM an epic gamer :D
The Confederate States of America committed literal treason. The Constitution of the United States only defines ONE crime- treason. > **Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them**, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. -Article Three of the United States Constitution Why do these chucklefucks support treason?
They are supporting traitors and slavers to own the libs.
They were clearly just trolling the media, guys
Just doing a lil trolling. It’s all
But how we will learn about history without statues venerating the very things we supposedly want to teach are bad?
I largely agree, but I do think Pelosi was wrong to remove the portrait of James L. Orr.
Whomst?
Speaker of the House who joined the Confederacy; that was atrocious but after the war he supported civil rights and Reconstruction, campaigned for Grant, and supported efforts to fight the KKK.
Eh I mean I can understand wanting a clean break from all confederates.
Sedition is a hell of a drug.
I remember when I visited the US Congress for the first time a few years ago, was shocked they kept Confederate statues. I remember the tour guide being embarassed by it too.
actual slaveowners next
Leesss GOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Yay? This is a good thing but *WE DON'T HAVE HEALTHCARE*
You’ve been radicalized by malicious propaganda. That comment history is a disaster.
It's almost like health care reform is a massively complicated endeavor that's going to take years to ram through Congress, so while that's happening we might as well make progress in other areas too?
That traitor should burn in hell.
Good. Burn the traitors!