Alt right protests
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2017, 11:44 AM
RE: Alt right protests
(16-08-2017 11:05 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  They are equal trators as Washington was... but that's the country founded as creator of the history. There were English loyalists still... but their grandsons didn't suddenly decide to respect the failed efforts in some honor of the English loyalists by marching parades and erecting statues of their failed heroes in King George, Arnold, etc. Yet in the 1910s and 20s confederate would of been children began to praise their failed icons who fought.

It's really not different between them because they were both conservative revolution attempts in the sense of wanting to maintain how things are/were before recent growing efforts to shift it. But the difference lies in the reasons for the values.. and yeah the element of success. But maybe England would of helped the South they were friendly too if they had a moral leg to stand on like France helped the colonists

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

England would not I believe ever seriously have entertained aiding the confederacy in the war, as far as I'm aware there are only three observers from the UK to the south during the civil war and only two were officially sanctioned. We got rid of slavery well before you guys why would we align ourselves to the institution of slavery in America thirty odd years after its abolition in Britain ? No our interest were the cotton mills in north west England where my family comes from, we were seriously concerned about our fabric and cotton manufacturing at that time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like adey67's post
16-08-2017, 11:47 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2017 11:52 AM by Shai Hulud.)
RE: Alt right protests
Bloomberg Breaking: After mass resignations of CEOs from his business advisory councils following his response to Charlottesville, POTUS has disbanded the council.

Edit: Landon Thomas Jr. of NYT now reporting that on a panel call of CEOs earlier, 9 out of 12 CEOs said they would be resigning if the council was not disbanded. https://twitter.com/Landonthomasjr/statu...4495213568

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Shai Hulud's post
16-08-2017, 11:52 AM
RE: Alt right protests
(16-08-2017 11:44 AM)adey67 Wrote:  England would not I believe ever seriously have entertained aiding the confederacy in the war, as far as I'm aware there are only three observers from the UK to the south during the civil war and only two were officially sanctioned. We got rid of slavery well before you guys why would we align ourselves to the institution of slavery in America thirty odd years after its abolition in Britain ? No our interest were the cotton mills in north west England where my family comes from, we were seriously concerned about our fabric and cotton manufacturing at that time.

I think the general historical consensus is that an alliance of some sort was only off the table after the Emancipation Proc at the end of 1862. Up til then it was argued that the northern effort was purely an effort to restore the Union, so you didn't have that moral high ground. But for a good year there before that you had a lot of southern victories and from the English point of view it's better to have the US carved into two (or more) nations than remain as one that might one day be a real force to be reckoned with. Totally agree with the importance of the cotton concerns as well. I think I read somewhere that halfway through the war England started getting cotton from Egypt or India or somewhere, totally blowing the "King Cotton" theory that the south was assuming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
16-08-2017, 12:05 PM
RE: Alt right protests
(16-08-2017 11:52 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  I think I read somewhere that halfway through the war England started getting cotton from Egypt or India or somewhere, totally blowing the "King Cotton" theory that the south was assuming.

Which I think is the main reason for not getting involved. Morals and ethics were probably as important as they are today - not at all. If interests had spoken for getting involved, they would have supported the south.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like abaris's post
16-08-2017, 12:25 PM
RE: Alt right protests
(16-08-2017 11:52 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  Totally agree with the importance of the cotton concerns as well. I think I read somewhere that halfway through the war England started getting cotton from Egypt or India or somewhere, totally blowing the "King Cotton" theory that the south was assuming.

The Confederates believed they could demand support from England and France because - cotton. In hindsight, hemp would've been a better strategy.

"Davis left foreign policy to others in government and, rather than developing an aggressive diplomatic effort, tended to expect events to accomplish diplomatic objectives. The new president was committed to the notion that cotton would secure recognition and legitimacy from the powers of Europe. The men Davis selected as secretary of state and emissaries to Europe were chosen for political and personal reasons – not for their diplomatic potential. This was due, in part, to the belief that cotton could accomplish the Confederate objectives with little help from Confederate diplomats."

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-08-2017, 12:27 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2017 12:50 PM by adey67.)
RE: Alt right protests
(16-08-2017 11:52 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(16-08-2017 11:44 AM)adey67 Wrote:  England would not I believe ever seriously have entertained aiding the confederacy in the war, as far as I'm aware there are only three observers from the UK to the south during the civil war and only two were officially sanctioned. We got rid of slavery well before you guys why would we align ourselves to the institution of slavery in America thirty odd years after its abolition in Britain ? No our interest were the cotton mills in north west England where my family comes from, we were seriously concerned about our fabric and cotton manufacturing at that time.

I think the general historical consensus is that an alliance of some sort was only off the table after the Emancipation Proc at the end of 1862. Up til then it was argued that the northern effort was purely an effort to restore the Union, so you didn't have that moral high ground. But for a good year there before that you had a lot of southern victories and from the English point of view it's better to have the US carved into two (or more) nations than remain as one that might one day be a real force to be reckoned with. Totally agree with the importance of the cotton concerns as well. I think I read somewhere that halfway through the war England started getting cotton from Egypt or India or somewhere, totally blowing the "King Cotton" theory that the south was assuming.
By the time of the civil war you had beaten us twice and in 1812 your navy had more advanced ship bourne guns and gunnery than us and it showed. Even divided we could never have beaten the north or probably the south even given the military arrogance of the UK at the time. We were well aware of that even before the emancipation proclamation certainly from a political and logistical point of view. No way we would have risked war with America again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
16-08-2017, 12:30 PM
RE: Alt right protests
(16-08-2017 11:44 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(16-08-2017 11:05 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  They are equal trators as Washington was... but that's the country founded as creator of the history. There were English loyalists still... but their grandsons didn't suddenly decide to respect the failed efforts in some honor of the English loyalists by marching parades and erecting statues of their failed heroes in King George, Arnold, etc. Yet in the 1910s and 20s confederate would of been children began to praise their failed icons who fought.

It's really not different between them because they were both conservative revolution attempts in the sense of wanting to maintain how things are/were before recent growing efforts to shift it. But the difference lies in the reasons for the values.. and yeah the element of success. But maybe England would of helped the South they were friendly too if they had a moral leg to stand on like France helped the colonists

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

England would not I believe ever seriously have entertained aiding the confederacy in the war, as far as I'm aware there are only three observers from the UK to the south during the civil war and only two were officially sanctioned. We got rid of slavery well before you guys why would we align ourselves to the institution of slavery in America thirty odd years after its abolition in Britain ? No our interest were the cotton mills in north west England where my family comes from, we were seriously concerned about our fabric and cotton manufacturing at that time.

Unfortunately, throughout the US Northern states, slave labor was an investment opportunity for the Northern banks. The north manufactured and sold a lot of the tools, carriages and other paraphernalia the slaves used to work in the fields. The White House was built by slaves. There's almost nothing that wasn't touched by the buying and selling of human beings. Much of the economy buzzed along because there was a large group of people who were working for nothingand being treated like chattel.

I don't believe anyone in my family owned slaves but my third great uncle was William Tecumseh Sherman, one of the top generals from the Civil War, but he, like so many from that time, thought the slaves were inferior people and treated the American Indians like total shit. So I can't really be too proud of my ancesters.

We're still fighting the Civil War today. Down the street from where I live is a truck parked with a Confederate flag sticker on the back window and I live in the Northwest part of the US, far from where the Civil War was fought.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
16-08-2017, 12:37 PM
RE: Alt right protests
(16-08-2017 11:43 AM)outtathereligioncloset Wrote:  The thing about being doomed to repeat history if we ignore it....our next civil war isn't going to be between north and south or black and white or police and citizens. It's already begun at too many of our family reunion tables. Between Democrats and Republicans. And at our family tables specifically, there are already such heated opinions about how health insurance should be funded that it's come to pit brother against brother.

Statues that remind us of a time when brothers killed one another? Not at all comparable to leaving up nooses to remind us of lynchings that took place. Any statue that says anything like "the south shall rise again" oh hell no, that's not appropriate and should definitely come down. Legally. But statues to honor fallen soldiers?

And by the way, I too am a lifetime southerner. With ancestors who died in the Civil War. On.Both.Sides.

I grew up in the South and spent my high school years in Richmond, VA, in the late 1970s. I have relatives on my father's side of the family who fought in the Civil War on the wrong side, although none of them owned slaves, as far as I know. So some of my relatives also gave their lives in the service of that horrible institution of slavery.

I never really took to life in the South--was happy to leave permanently once I was done with high school--but my feelings about the Civil War stuff darkened immensely when I took American History in summer school. We had a field trip to various Civil War sites every Friday. Richmond, of course, is infested with Civil War iconography. Besides battlefields and statues galore, there were "The South Shall Rise Again" bumper stickers and signs all over. Gum machines offered mini Confederate battle flags and play Confederate dollars. The air was thick with nostalgia for the gracious antebellum lifestyle. Each field trip was a little harder to bear than the last.

I talked about the history class with my high school friends. Those who were black told me they found the monuments, battlefields, etc., disturbing and repulsive. My high school friends who were white (mostly) felt differently--wasn't it cool to learn about our history! Because it was just history in their minds, not reflective of living attitudes. Something to be interested in, proud of. They loved to learn about their relatives who'd fought bravely, even if for the losing side. (Never the wrong side, just the losing side--a sign, to my mind, that this wasn't "just history.")

So personally, I'm glad that many of these statues of Confederate generals are coming down, although I want it all done by the book. I don't support people vandalizing the statues. Don't mind the statues being put in museums along with other war artifacts, and I have no big objections to memorials for war dead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
16-08-2017, 12:44 PM
RE: Alt right protests
(16-08-2017 04:44 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(15-08-2017 08:02 PM)Dom Wrote:  Personally I think the original ones should stay and the ones from the 60s should go.

What if the Germans had put up Hitler statues in the 60s. How would all the German Jews feel? The actual Hitler wasn't able to drive them out of the country, but I bet those new statues would have.

Preserving old things for posterity is a good thing, whether the memories are good or bad. But one doesn't have to add insult to injury by erecting them after it's all over already.

I think thats a point worth mentioning!

There is a difference puttin gup a statue of Lee on a public square and putting up a statue of Lee in a Museum.

Putting it up in a public square is a statement. Thats what public squares are for. Putting it up in a museum is acknowledging american history and its course over the years. In other words: If you want to accept the confederates as part of the american heritage, but not (because their cause was bad) representing the current US of A, then put him in a museum where he belongs.

Thats why we still have statues of Bismarck in public squares but pics of Adolf can be seen in museums.

(16-08-2017 10:27 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  
(16-08-2017 10:11 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Ahem... I think Girlyman already made this point, but all 4 of them were traitors against their legal governments. We must remember that the winners write the history books. If the British had won the Revolutionary War, Washington and Jefferson would be traitors and Benedict Arnold would be a hero. It's all a matter of perspective.

I cannot defend the fact that Lee and Jackson were defending slavery, but I think we should ease up on the "traitor" accusations. They were no more traitors than Washington and Jefferson were. And Washington and Jefferson were slaveowners, which was olb's point.

They were in open rebellion to the Union, and the Union won; so what sense does it make to have memorials and monuments that openly praise the Confederacy on public property in Union states? I've already said I have no problem with monuments that simply honor the dead of the Confederacy, but any that praise it has no place.

And yeah I got olb's point; but like Trump's statement, it was way too simplistic of a take on the entire situation.

You do not get the point.


Here's the difference between Washington and Jefferson vs Lee and Jackson -----

Washington and Jefferson won their war. Jefferson and Lee didn't.

Thus born are heroes and villains - all cut from the same cloth.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
16-08-2017, 12:45 PM
RE: Alt right protests
(16-08-2017 12:27 PM)adey67 Wrote:  By the time of the civil war you had beaten us twice and in 1812 your navy had more advanced ship bourne guns and gunnery than us and it showed. Even divided we could never have beaten the north or probably the south even given the military arrogance of the UK at the time. We were well aware of that even before the emancipation proclamation certainly from a political and logistical point of view.

My position would be that for a full year and handful of months, it was very touch and go about whether the British would jump in. From the Brit perspective, there were reasons for and against, mostly against, I just believe it wasn't a slam-dunk that England was going to stay out. I think events on the battlefields were another major factor.

Look at the Amer Rev, for example- France didn't jump in and help right away, they waited in the wings and asked: "Is this really going to happen, are these crazy Americans really serious about this, or are they going to cave in?" Because if the Americans weren't in earnest, it would be foolish to jump in. After 1777 it was a worthwhile gamble, it looked like the Americans were going to pull it off. Same thing here, for the first year, the British are watching and frankly the South looks pretty well off. The map hadn't changed much, the south had won some battles, and at Antietam Lee has an army marched up into northern territory! There was reason to believe the North wasn't willing to pay the price to force people come back to a nation they just didn't want to be part of.

The British didn't have to "beat" the north, or invade Washington DC or something. Just well placed and well timed assistance here and history could have been different. Secretary of State Seward was very worried about foreign intervention. I think at one point he said "If England and France join the Confederacy, we're fucked." (maybe it wasn't those exact words)

Regarding the War of 1812, I would hardly call that an American victory! Both sides punched each other around for awhile (we got the worst of it) and then said, "wait, what the fuck are we fighting for?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: