• Confederate Memorial Vandalized in Charleston
    507 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045020] And the opening of the Confederate constitution set the stage to wind down slavery - at a pace that wouldn't wreck the economy.[/QUOTE] No, the Confederacy wanted to keep slavery for good. It was the North who had the idea of gradualism which is the slow, eventual death of slavery (which would never happen with the slave system of the south).
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;48044515]Defacing public property and causing people tax dollars=good[/QUOTE] It seems to me that this sort of thing is a kind of extreme voting with tax dollars. It costs to buy removing solution, and labor, and perhaps a pressure washer. This often seems to be a political act designed to do the very thing you mention - to cause people tax dollars. Tax dollars in of themselves are a symbol of political clout, thus when they are used upon something such as this it forces the whatever issue is brought up. Whether it is good or not remains to be seen.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045035]No, the Confederacy wanted to keep slavery for good. It was the North who had the idea of gradualism which is the slow, eventual death of slavery (which would never happen with the slave system of the south).[/QUOTE] Practically the first thing the Confederacy did was eliminate importation of new slaves.
Calzone you still have yet to answer my question regarding the memorial. [QUOTE]Where does it say on the memorial it honors the beliefs they fought for?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045040]Practically the first thing the Confederacy did was eliminate importation of new slaves.[/QUOTE] They still wanted to keep slavery. They weren't slowly getting rid of it. Slavery was the major functioning part of the Confederate State's economy.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48044992]I'm saying that the memorial shouldn't be there in the first place because of what it symbolizes, and as I said before, American history is FULL of people tearing down symbols of their oppression. One of the most famous moments in American history, the Boston Tea Party, is exactly that. The colonists viewed the taxes that England imposed on the colonies were oppressing them, so they destroyed a load of tea, which at the time was worth its weight in gold. The tea was symbolic of their oppression, so they destroyed it. Confederate soldiers fought for racist beliefs. The memorial honors the soldiers and by extension what the soldiers fought for. The memorial is symbolic of racism. The memorial got vandalized (with washable spray paint) by people that believe that racism is bad. People online get offended because they disagree with the motives of the vandals.[/QUOTE] I completely disagree with your idea that all confederate soldiers fought for racist beliefs. The memorial does not necessarily extend to the beliefs the soldiers were fighting for. Its simply a monument to the dead and a past history. Soldiers are not always fighting for an ideology. I also disagree about you thinking the memorial shouldn't even exist in the first place. As I said, its for the dead more than for the beliefs of their side.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045040]Practically the first thing the Confederacy did was eliminate importation of new slaves.[/QUOTE] The Confederacy wasn't importing slaves. Their slave population was making slaves for them.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045019]The Nazi's motives was the exterminate Jews and "inferior races" from the face of the Earth. The Confederacy's motives was to protect the system of slavery because of the South's dependence on it for its economy. There really is no similarity there.[/QUOTE] Do you really need to have it explained to you that slavery is based in the belief that the slave owners are inherently superior to the slaves based on one reason or another? And in the case of the confederacy, that reason was race? The Nazis wanted to kill the Jews because they believed that they were superior to the Jews. The Confederacy wanted to rule over the Black slaves because they believed that the White race was superior to the Black race. The only difference is what the "superior" group wanted to do with the "inferior" group. [QUOTE=joshuadim;48045049]Calzone you still have yet to answer my question regarding the memorial.[/QUOTE] I've answered that several times, it's not my fault you don't know how to read.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;48044792]What are you trying to get at? They attacked because South Carolina was one of the states that seceded from the union. Forces wanted the US Army to withdraw from Ft. Sumter, so Lincoln ordered for the fort to be attacked, leading to the Battle of Fort Sumter.[/QUOTE] Wait that isn't right. Or at least it's worded really weird. The Confederacy had already besieged and taken Ft. Sumter (The first shots fired in the Civil War). Lincoln ordered it retaken, leading to the Second Battle of Fort Sumter. [QUOTE=Rocko's;]The war was fought because the North was not having the southern states seceding, and what started the war is what the memorial that was defaced is based on, the defense of Ft. Sumter. Once that base was attacked, the Confederate States weren't having it and started to fight back against the North. The South wanted to peacefully secede.[/QUOTE] That's definitely wrong. Fort Sumter was a[I]Union[/I] fort at the start of the war. One that was inconveniently located in the middle of Charleston harbor. The Confederates fired on a Union supply ship starting the war, and leading to a 2 day siege.
I want to say I'm not trying to downplay the rampant racism in the South but I'd prefer to lock it down and pin it to who was really responsible for it, and it wasn't the everyman. The slaveowners were interested in profit margins first and foremost, and as mechanization became cheaper than maintaining slaves, slavery would have fallen out of favor with them. But at that time slavery was the cheapest option and so they structured their political maneuvers around it. Social change was coming, Confederate leaders frequently remarked in confidentiality upon feelings that it was a moral evil.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;48044847]The memorial was built because it's honoring the lives who defended Ft. Sumter, and Charleston's residents, from the Union attacking.[/QUOTE] People seem to forget that the Union started looting and burning the south, specifically targeting civilians to bring the war to an end.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045070]Do you really need to have it explained to you that slavery is based in the belief that the slave owners are inherently superior to the slaves based on one reason or another? And in the case of the confederacy, that reason was race? The Nazis wanted to kill the Jews because they believed that they were superior to the Jews. The Confederacy wanted to rule over the Black slaves because they believed that the White race was superior to the Black race. The only difference is what the "superior" group wanted to do with the "inferior" group.[/QUOTE] You're not getting my point. Nazi's wanted to commit genocide on an industrial scale because of their belief of superiority. Confederacy wanted to protect their slave system because it was a way of life their economy was hugely dependent on. Nazis wanted to kill "inferior races". Confederacy wanted to use slaves for profit. That's your difference. And the difference is astronomical. [editline]24th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE]I've answered that several times, it's not my fault you don't know how to read.[/QUOTE] Yes Calzone, insult me. That's a mature way to handle a debate. :)
[QUOTE=Doctor Death921;48045052]I completely disagree with your idea that all confederate soldiers fought for racist beliefs. The memorial does not necessarily extend to the beliefs the soldiers were fighting for. Its simply a monument to the dead and a past history. Soldiers are not always fighting for an ideology. I also disagree about you thinking the memorial shouldn't even exist in the first place. As I said, its for the dead more than for the beliefs of their side.[/QUOTE] They may not have intentionally been fighting for the ideals of the Confederacy, but by associating themselves with the Confederacy and defending it, they are indirectly associating themselves with it.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48044507]Good.[/QUOTE] Glad to see vandalizing is ok to you because it's convenient [QUOTE=The Calzone;48044664]I know that Facepunch is full of racists that like to dance around the fact that they're racists so I'm essentially wasting my time here trying to explain it, but I feel the need to at least attempt to do it. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Calzone;48044714]"Ok for starters, can you prove that facepunch is full of racists? " you can start by looking at the person above telling me I should kill myself for suggesting that black people are negatively affected by racism We both used the exact words on the sign in different ways. Cute.[/QUOTE] Also congrats on throwing your credibility right out the window first thing. Last time I checked 1 doesn't equal an entire population. I hope they catch the guy that did it and make him/her clean it, to be honest I think it's just someone doing it to jump on the recent bandwagon to have an excuse to spray paint stuff.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48045093]They may not have intentionally been fighting for the ideals of the Confederacy, but by associating themselves with the Confederacy and defending it, they are indirectly associating themselves with it.[/QUOTE] And the alternative being lay down and die to let marauders burn their cities and livelihoods, can you blame them for picking the side that gave them a shot at defending themselves?
[QUOTE=joshuadim;48045080]You're not getting my point. Nazi's wanted to commit genocide on an industrial scale because of their belief of superiority. Confederacy wanted to protect their slave system because it was a way of life their economy was hugely dependent on. Nazis wanted to kill "inferior races". Confederacy wanted to use slaves for profit. That's your difference. And the difference is astronomical.[/QUOTE] God, are you even reading what you're typing right now? You're talking about the lesser of two evils, but you're forgetting that the lesser of two evils is still evil. You act like Black American slaves were lucky to be bred like cattle and born in to slavery, where they would be forced to work until they died. You're acting like that is a perfectly justifiable belief to fight for. [QUOTE=joshuadim;48045080]Yes Calzone, insult me. That's a mature way to handle a debate. :)[/QUOTE] Sincerest apologies. You'll have to forgive me for reacting with incredulity at the things you're saying while proclaiming that you aren't racist.
[QUOTE=laserpanda;48045076]Wait that isn't right. Or at least it's worded really weird. The Confederacy had already besieged and taken Ft. Sumter (The first shots fired in the Civil War). Lincoln ordered it retaken, leading to the Second Battle of Fort Sumter.[/QUOTE] What I tried to say, if my post was worded wrong, was that Confederate forces in South Carolina wanted American forces to abandon Ft. Sumter which was near Charleston, South Carolina. The last part was worded a bit weirdly, but meant to incorporate that the fort was later bombarded. [QUOTE=laserpanda;]That's definitely wrong. Fort Sumter was aUnion fort at the start of the war. One that was inconveniently located in the middle of Charleston harbor. The Confederates fired on a Union supply ship starting the war, and leading to a 2 day siege.[/quote] I might have messed up on my history, I apologize, I didn't make sure to check my statements before posting. You're right, the Confederates first fired upon the supply ship which caused the war.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045100]God, are you even reading what you're typing right now? You're talking about the lesser of two evils, but you're forgetting that the lesser of two evils is still evil. You act like Black American slaves were lucky to be bred like cattle and born in to slavery, where they would be forced to work until they died. You're acting like that is a perfectly justifiable belief to fight for.[/QUOTE] I know both had terrible beliefs, but that's history for you. Also I'm not making it justifiable to fight for it, I'm just saying Confederate soldiers aren't nowhere near close to being as insane or brutal as Nazi's are, which is the comparison you're trying to make.
You guys - "260,000 dead need no proper memorial." Fucking unbelievable
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045070]Do you really need to have it explained to you that slavery is based in the belief that the slave owners are inherently superior to the slaves based on one reason or another? And in the case of the confederacy, that reason was race? The Nazis wanted to kill the Jews because they believed that they were superior to the Jews. The Confederacy wanted to rule over the Black slaves because they believed that the White race was superior to the Black race. The only difference is what the "superior" group wanted to do with the "inferior" group.[/QUOTE] Wrong. If that were the case: 1) There would never have been any white slaves or black slave owners. White slaves were actually pretty common in the south because the poor were being taken advantage of for cheap labor. 2) The Confederate Constitution would never have had the lines in them outlawing importation of blacks from outside of confederate slave owning states. [QUOTE]1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. 2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48045099]And the alternative being lay down and die to let marauders burn your city and livelihoods, can you blame them for picking the side that gave them a shot at defending themselves?[/QUOTE] Who says their city would have been burned down if they surrendered? Maybe if they had met peacefully with the Union soldiers they could have lobbied for their city to not be attacked ruthlessly in return for the surrender of their city. Also, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Sherman was the one attacking Charleston...
In the case of the slaveowners, racism was an easy excuse to maximize profit margins. The best way to justify subverting a group for free labor is to classify them as farm animals. [QUOTE=TornadoAP;48045119]Who says their city would have been burned down if they surrendered? Maybe if they had met peacefully with the Union soldiers they could have lobbied for their city to not be attacked ruthlessly in return for the surrender of their city. Also, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Sherman was the one attacking Charleston...[/QUOTE] Surrendered towns and cities were razed with alarming regularity.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48045113]Wrong. If that were the case: 1) There would never have been any white slaves or black slave owners. White slaves were actually pretty common in the south because the poor were being taken advantage of for cheap labor. 2) The Confederate Constitution would never have had the lines in them outlawing importation of blacks from outside of confederate slave owning states.[/QUOTE] 1) What you're talking about weren't slaves, they were indentured servants. Indentured servants were working to pay off a debt. Technically they weren't slaves because they were being paid for their work. 2) The Confederate Constitution outlawed the importing of slaves, but at that point in American history the slave population was self-sustaining. They didn't need to import any more because they were breeding them themselves.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48045119]Who says their city would have been burned down if they surrendered? Maybe if they had met peacefully with the Union soldiers they could have lobbied for their city to not be attacked ruthlessly in return for the surrender of their city. Also, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Sherman was the one attacking Charleston...[/QUOTE] Sherman caused the Confederates to evacuate Ft. Sumter and Charleston because he conducted the "Carolinas Campaign" in 1865.
[QUOTE=The Calzone;48045127]1) What you're talking about weren't slaves, they were indentured servants. Indentured servants were working to pay off a debt. Technically they weren't slaves because they were being paid for their work. 2) The Confederate Constitution outlawed the importing of slaves, but at that point in American history the slave population was self-sustaining. They didn't need to import any more because they were breeding them themselves.[/QUOTE] They were being paid for their work, then charged for an amount equal to that pay in order to live on the land they were working, and not allowed to work if they didn't live there. That's uh, that's slavery. Actually the only real difference is that they didn't have to buy the whites, they came to them.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;48045113]Wrong. If that were the case: 1) There would never have been any white slaves or black slave owners. White slaves were actually pretty common in the south because the poor were being taken advantage of for cheap labor. 2) The Confederate Constitution would never have had the lines in them outlawing importation of blacks from outside of confederate slave owning states.[/QUOTE] 1) That's not slavery for the poor white people. Like I've said before, freedom is the ability to choose. Slaves don't have a choice, and those poor white people in the 1800s could have easily walked away from that labour and done something else. The Black Slaves during that period didn't have that choice. As a result, there weren't any Black Slave Owners, and there weren't any White Slaves. 2) The whole not partaking in the Slave Trade was established long before the idea of succession was.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48045093]They may not have intentionally been fighting for the ideals of the Confederacy, but by associating themselves with the Confederacy and defending it, they are indirectly associating themselves with it.[/QUOTE] I can agree with this, but I still disagree with Calzone's take on the matter, especially the way he's handling it. The bottom line is that I think that vandalizing a memorial, any memorial, is a bad thing, and oversimplifying a complex war in a dark time is wrong.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48045143]1) That's not slavery for the poor white people. Like I've said before, freedom is the ability to choose. Slaves don't have a choice, and those poor white people in the 1800s could have easily walked away from that labour and done something else. The Black Slaves during that period didn't have that choice. As a result, there weren't any Black Slave Owners, and there weren't any White Slaves. 2) The whole not partaking in the Slave Trade was established long before the idea of succession was.[/QUOTE] There [I]were[/I] black slave owners and there [I]were[/I] white slaves. Claiming otherwise is revisionism and trying to change the definition of slavery where whites are bound to it is fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;48045110]You guys - "260,000 dead need no proper memorial." Fucking unbelievable[/QUOTE] Honoring the soldiers does not mean honoring the oppressive government they fought for.
[QUOTE=Rofl_copter;48045110]You guys - "260,000 dead need no proper memorial." Fucking unbelievable[/QUOTE] The number of deaths is completely irrelevant to whether it warrants a memorial or not.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.