A carved sculpture made by a Ku Klux Klan member, on indigenous land that was brutally taken away despite a treaty, featuring the faces of two Presidents who owned other people, including one that raped his wife's half sister because she was chattel, is being viewed as a symbol of white supremacy? FUCKING SHOCKING.
Blow that shit up. If Borglum wasn't a Klansmen I'd say keep Lincoln, but it's time to blow it up and re-do it.
If we’re gonna blow up Mt Rushmore then what’s the fucking point of even having a United States of America?
I didn't realize the point of a nation state was to maintain a shitty sculpture in the middle of nowhere.
I thought they existed in order to create and enforce laws that reflect the current views of society, maintain a currency for the trade of goods, combine resources for defense, to provide education. You get the point, I thought the United States existed for the people instead of statues.
In spite of being a shitty slave owning piece of shit, Washington was also once of the greatest leaders in the history of human kind. George III upon learning that Washington planned to resign his commission as Commander in Chief and retire to his farm, remarked "if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Since you're one the few people who has restrained himself from calling me a fascist, communist (see below picture), or saying that beliefs I've held for decades are a phase, I wanted to reply.
Washington, of course, did great things despite owning slaves. Defeated an oppressive colonial force, set a precedent for peaceful transition of power, etc. I don't know if I'd use the praise of an 18th century monarch in his defense, but that is beside the point. This becomes a philosophical issue: should history judge people by the societal norms of their time? There is no right answer. It should be a mix of the two, acknowledging both the positive and negative of historical figures. In Western history Caesar is generally viewed positively, despite his slaughtering the Gauls and others. Ghengis Khan is viewed negatively, despite his tolerance for religion and improving trade. Just examples, showing how problematic history is.
I wouldn't support the de-naming of anything Washington. My views on Mt. Rushmore might be different if it had been made by a person less shitty than Gutzon Borglum, but the artist can't be separated from the art. When everything about Mt. Rushmore is combined then a reasonable person can see how another reasonable person might view it as a symbol of white supremacy.
Both Washington and Jefferson were extraordinary men and leaders. This is beyond question. I don't give them a pass per se on slavery based on the societal norms of their times, but I do put it in context. When push came to shove, too much of their finances were tied up in human property and although both considered it an immoral institution, they punted to future generations.
At the end of the day, Washington and Jefferson founded a nation - in spite of many tragic flaws - ultimately was far more of force for good than any other similar great power in human history. I don't care if a racist sculpted the rock; it doesn't change the greatness of all for 4 presidents honored at Mt Rushmore.
A better idea would be to use federal funds to finish the Crazy Horse monument in the Black Hills.
A carved sculpture made by a Ku Klux Klan member, on indigenous land that was brutally taken away despite a treaty, featuring the faces of two Presidents who owned other people, including one that raped his wife's half sister because she was chattel, is being viewed as a symbol of white supremacy? FUCKING SHOCKING.
Blow that shit up. If Borglum wasn't a Klansmen I'd say keep Lincoln, but it's time to blow it up and re-do it.
If we’re gonna blow up Mt Rushmore then what’s the fucking point of even having a United States of America?
I didn't realize the point of a nation state was to maintain a shitty sculpture in the middle of nowhere.
I thought they existed in order to create and enforce laws that reflect the current views of society, maintain a currency for the trade of goods, combine resources for defense, to provide education. You get the point, I thought the United States existed for the people instead of statues.
In spite of being a shitty slave owning piece of shit, Washington was also once of the greatest leaders in the history of human kind. George III upon learning that Washington planned to resign his commission as Commander in Chief and retire to his farm, remarked "if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Since you're one the few people who has restrained himself from calling me a fascist, communist (see below picture), or saying that beliefs I've held for decades are a phase, I wanted to reply.
Washington, of course, did great things despite owning slaves. Defeated an oppressive colonial force, set a precedent for peaceful transition of power, etc. I don't know if I'd use the praise of an 18th century monarch in his defense, but that is beside the point. This becomes a philosophical issue: should history judge people by the societal norms of their time? There is no right answer. It should be a mix of the two, acknowledging both the positive and negative of historical figures. In Western history Caesar is generally viewed positively, despite his slaughtering the Gauls and others. Ghengis Khan is viewed negatively, despite his tolerance for religion and improving trade. Just examples, showing how problematic history is.
I wouldn't support the de-naming of anything Washington. My views on Mt. Rushmore might be different if it had been made by a person less shitty than Gutzon Borglum, but the artist can't be separated from the art. When everything about Mt. Rushmore is combined then a reasonable person can see how another reasonable person might view it as a symbol of white supremacy.
A better idea would be to use federal funds to finish the Crazy Horse monument in the Black Hills.
A carved sculpture made by a Ku Klux Klan member, on indigenous land that was brutally taken away despite a treaty, featuring the faces of two Presidents who owned other people, including one that raped his wife's half sister because she was chattel, is being viewed as a symbol of white supremacy? FUCKING SHOCKING.
Blow that shit up. If Borglum wasn't a Klansmen I'd say keep Lincoln, but it's time to blow it up and re-do it.
If we’re gonna blow up Mt Rushmore then what’s the fucking point of even having a United States of America?
I didn't realize the point of a nation state was to maintain a shitty sculpture in the middle of nowhere.
I thought they existed in order to create and enforce laws that reflect the current views of society, maintain a currency for the trade of goods, combine resources for defense, to provide education. You get the point, I thought the United States existed for the people instead of statues.
In spite of being a shitty slave owning piece of shit, Washington was also once of the greatest leaders in the history of human kind. George III upon learning that Washington planned to resign his commission as Commander in Chief and retire to his farm, remarked "if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Since you're one the few people who has restrained himself from calling me a fascist, communist (see below picture), or saying that beliefs I've held for decades are a phase, I wanted to reply.
Washington, of course, did great things despite owning slaves. Defeated an oppressive colonial force, set a precedent for peaceful transition of power, etc. I don't know if I'd use the praise of an 18th century monarch in his defense, but that is beside the point. This becomes a philosophical issue: should history judge people by the societal norms of their time? There is no right answer. It should be a mix of the two, acknowledging both the positive and negative of historical figures. In Western history Caesar is generally viewed positively, despite his slaughtering the Gauls and others. Ghengis Khan is viewed negatively, despite his tolerance for religion and improving trade. Just examples, showing how problematic history is.
I wouldn't support the de-naming of anything Washington. My views on Mt. Rushmore might be different if it had been made by a person less shitty than Gutzon Borglum, but the artist can't be separated from the art. When everything about Mt. Rushmore is combined then a reasonable person can see how another reasonable person might view it as a symbol of white supremacy.
Both Washington and Jefferson were extraordinary men and leaders. This is beyond question. I don't give them a pass per se on slavery based on the societal norms of their times, but I do put it in context. When push came to shove, too much of their finances were tied up in human property and although both considered it an immoral institution, they punted to future generations.
At the end of the day, Washington and Jefferson founded a nation - in spite of many tragic flaws - ultimately was far more of force for good than any other similar great power in human history. I don't care if a racist sculpted the rock; it doesn't change the greatness of all for 4 presidents honored at Mt Rushmore.
A better idea would be to use federal funds to finish the Crazy Horse monument in the Black Hills.
People forget that Jefferson put forth a vote in the Continental Congress to abolish slavery by 1800 - but it failed by 1 vote
A carved sculpture made by a Ku Klux Klan member, on indigenous land that was brutally taken away despite a treaty, featuring the faces of two Presidents who owned other people, including one that raped his wife's half sister because she was chattel, is being viewed as a symbol of white supremacy? FUCKING SHOCKING.
Blow that shit up. If Borglum wasn't a Klansmen I'd say keep Lincoln, but it's time to blow it up and re-do it.
If we’re gonna blow up Mt Rushmore then what’s the fucking point of even having a United States of America?
I didn't realize the point of a nation state was to maintain a shitty sculpture in the middle of nowhere.
I thought they existed in order to create and enforce laws that reflect the current views of society, maintain a currency for the trade of goods, combine resources for defense, to provide education. You get the point, I thought the United States existed for the people instead of statues.
In spite of being a shitty slave owning piece of shit, Washington was also once of the greatest leaders in the history of human kind. George III upon learning that Washington planned to resign his commission as Commander in Chief and retire to his farm, remarked "if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Since you're one the few people who has restrained himself from calling me a fascist, communist (see below picture), or saying that beliefs I've held for decades are a phase, I wanted to reply.
Washington, of course, did great things despite owning slaves. Defeated an oppressive colonial force, set a precedent for peaceful transition of power, etc. I don't know if I'd use the praise of an 18th century monarch in his defense, but that is beside the point. This becomes a philosophical issue: should history judge people by the societal norms of their time? There is no right answer. It should be a mix of the two, acknowledging both the positive and negative of historical figures. In Western history Caesar is generally viewed positively, despite his slaughtering the Gauls and others. Ghengis Khan is viewed negatively, despite his tolerance for religion and improving trade. Just examples, showing how problematic history is.
I wouldn't support the de-naming of anything Washington. My views on Mt. Rushmore might be different if it had been made by a person less shitty than Gutzon Borglum, but the artist can't be separated from the art. When everything about Mt. Rushmore is combined then a reasonable person can see how another reasonable person might view it as a symbol of white supremacy.
Both Washington and Jefferson were extraordinary men and leaders. This is beyond question. I don't give them a pass per se on slavery based on the societal norms of their times, but I do put it in context. When push came to shove, too much of their finances were tied up in human property and although both considered it an immoral institution, they punted to future generations.
At the end of the day, Washington and Jefferson founded a nation - in spite of many tragic flaws - ultimately was far more of force for good than any other similar great power in human history. I don't care if a racist sculpted the rock; it doesn't change the greatness of all for 4 presidents honored at Mt Rushmore.
A better idea would be to use federal funds to finish the Crazy Horse monument in the Black Hills.
People forget that Jefferson put forth a vote in the Continental Congress to abolish slavery by 1800 - but it failed by 1 vote
People forget that.
People also forget that TJ went off on slavery ("a cruel war against human nature itself") in the original Declaration of Independence but South Carolina and Georgia edited it out.
The constitution was written by slave owners yet was the vehicle to end slavery.
The founders did punt but the chickens did come home
Somewhere in all this it gets missed that the chickens did come home to the tune of about 400,000 boys in blue who had to die to fix the problem. If that's not blood atonement I don't know what is.
A carved sculpture made by a Ku Klux Klan member, on indigenous land that was brutally taken away despite a treaty, featuring the faces of two Presidents who owned other people, including one that raped his wife's half sister because she was chattel, is being viewed as a symbol of white supremacy? FUCKING SHOCKING.
Blow that shit up. If Borglum wasn't a Klansmen I'd say keep Lincoln, but it's time to blow it up and re-do it.
If we’re gonna blow up Mt Rushmore then what’s the fucking point of even having a United States of America?
I didn't realize the point of a nation state was to maintain a shitty sculpture in the middle of nowhere.
I thought they existed in order to create and enforce laws that reflect the current views of society, maintain a currency for the trade of goods, combine resources for defense, to provide education. You get the point, I thought the United States existed for the people instead of statues.
In spite of being a shitty slave owning piece of shit, Washington was also once of the greatest leaders in the history of human kind. George III upon learning that Washington planned to resign his commission as Commander in Chief and retire to his farm, remarked "if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Since you're one the few people who has restrained himself from calling me a fascist, communist (see below picture), or saying that beliefs I've held for decades are a phase, I wanted to reply.
Washington, of course, did great things despite owning slaves. Defeated an oppressive colonial force, set a precedent for peaceful transition of power, etc. I don't know if I'd use the praise of an 18th century monarch in his defense, but that is beside the point. This becomes a philosophical issue: should history judge people by the societal norms of their time? There is no right answer. It should be a mix of the two, acknowledging both the positive and negative of historical figures. In Western history Caesar is generally viewed positively, despite his slaughtering the Gauls and others. Ghengis Khan is viewed negatively, despite his tolerance for religion and improving trade. Just examples, showing how problematic history is.
I wouldn't support the de-naming of anything Washington. My views on Mt. Rushmore might be different if it had been made by a person less shitty than Gutzon Borglum, but the artist can't be separated from the art. When everything about Mt. Rushmore is combined then a reasonable person can see how another reasonable person might view it as a symbol of white supremacy.
So now you know why it's easy for reasonable people to tag you a fascist or commie. Same, same anyway.
But we're using today's standards otherwise you might not be breathing free air if we applied the standard from times past.
You can not judge history with today's standards. It's like bitching about people not inventing electricity and antibiotics in the stone age. Why are lefties so fucking dense? That is the question of our time!
A carved sculpture made by a Ku Klux Klan member, on indigenous land that was brutally taken away despite a treaty, featuring the faces of two Presidents who owned other people, including one that raped his wife's half sister because she was chattel, is being viewed as a symbol of white supremacy? FUCKING SHOCKING.
Blow that shit up. If Borglum wasn't a Klansmen I'd say keep Lincoln, but it's time to blow it up and re-do it.
If we’re gonna blow up Mt Rushmore then what’s the fucking point of even having a United States of America?
I didn't realize the point of a nation state was to maintain a shitty sculpture in the middle of nowhere.
I thought they existed in order to create and enforce laws that reflect the current views of society, maintain a currency for the trade of goods, combine resources for defense, to provide education. You get the point, I thought the United States existed for the people instead of statues.
In spite of being a shitty slave owning piece of shit, Washington was also once of the greatest leaders in the history of human kind. George III upon learning that Washington planned to resign his commission as Commander in Chief and retire to his farm, remarked "if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Since you're one the few people who has restrained himself from calling me a fascist, communist (see below picture), or saying that beliefs I've held for decades are a phase, I wanted to reply.
Washington, of course, did great things despite owning slaves. Defeated an oppressive colonial force, set a precedent for peaceful transition of power, etc. I don't know if I'd use the praise of an 18th century monarch in his defense, but that is beside the point. This becomes a philosophical issue: should history judge people by the societal norms of their time? There is no right answer. It should be a mix of the two, acknowledging both the positive and negative of historical figures. In Western history Caesar is generally viewed positively, despite his slaughtering the Gauls and others. Ghengis Khan is viewed negatively, despite his tolerance for religion and improving trade. Just examples, showing how problematic history is.
I wouldn't support the de-naming of anything Washington. My views on Mt. Rushmore might be different if it had been made by a person less shitty than Gutzon Borglum, but the artist can't be separated from the art. When everything about Mt. Rushmore is combined then a reasonable person can see how another reasonable person might view it as a symbol of white supremacy.
So now you know why it's easy for reasonable people to tag you a fascist or commie. Same, same anyway.
But we're using today's standards otherwise you might not be breathing free air if we applied the standard from times past.
You can not judge history with today's standards. It's like bitching about people not inventing electricity and antibiotics in the stone age. Why are lefties so fucking dense? That is the question of our time!
The Founders were all horrible people. They didn't support gay marriage nor trannie rights. They all supported child labor and didn't believe women had the right to vote, most of them believed it was okay to drink on the job and didn't believe you even had the right to vote unless you were a property owner. And don't even get me started about what they thought on the death penalty and the crimes that were eligible for a death sentence.
Oh yeah, they didn't recycle and thought that nature was to be exploited by humans in order to better themselves.
The constitution was written by slave owners yet was the vehicle to end slavery.
The founders did punt but the chickens did come home
Somewhere in all this it gets missed that the chickens did come home to the tune of about 400,000 boys in blue who had to die to fix the problem. If that's not blood atonement I don't know what is.
The problem is the boys in blue didn't have the conviction to follow through with reconstruction. The Civil War was absolutely a fantastic moment of atonement. The ensuing years through Grant's administration were mostly great as well (fuck Andrew Johnson). But the north/GOP gave much of that goodwill back with the Compromise of 1877 and the crooked election of Rutherford B Hayes.
1860-1876 was a golden age of American equality.
It was sadly short lived.
Most of what we are experiencing now isn't so much the repercussions of slavery as it is is the repercussions of Jim Crow, even if the protestors don't understand that themselves.
A carved sculpture made by a Ku Klux Klan member, on indigenous land that was brutally taken away despite a treaty, featuring the faces of two Presidents who owned other people, including one that raped his wife's half sister because she was chattel, is being viewed as a symbol of white supremacy? FUCKING SHOCKING.
Blow that shit up. If Borglum wasn't a Klansmen I'd say keep Lincoln, but it's time to blow it up and re-do it.
If we’re gonna blow up Mt Rushmore then what’s the fucking point of even having a United States of America?
I didn't realize the point of a nation state was to maintain a shitty sculpture in the middle of nowhere.
I thought they existed in order to create and enforce laws that reflect the current views of society, maintain a currency for the trade of goods, combine resources for defense, to provide education. You get the point, I thought the United States existed for the people instead of statues.
In spite of being a shitty slave owning piece of shit, Washington was also once of the greatest leaders in the history of human kind. George III upon learning that Washington planned to resign his commission as Commander in Chief and retire to his farm, remarked "if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."
Since you're one the few people who has restrained himself from calling me a fascist, communist (see below picture), or saying that beliefs I've held for decades are a phase, I wanted to reply.
Washington, of course, did great things despite owning slaves. Defeated an oppressive colonial force, set a precedent for peaceful transition of power, etc. I don't know if I'd use the praise of an 18th century monarch in his defense, but that is beside the point. This becomes a philosophical issue: should history judge people by the societal norms of their time? There is no right answer. It should be a mix of the two, acknowledging both the positive and negative of historical figures. In Western history Caesar is generally viewed positively, despite his slaughtering the Gauls and others. Ghengis Khan is viewed negatively, despite his tolerance for religion and improving trade. Just examples, showing how problematic history is.
I wouldn't support the de-naming of anything Washington. My views on Mt. Rushmore might be different if it had been made by a person less shitty than Gutzon Borglum, but the artist can't be separated from the art. When everything about Mt. Rushmore is combined then a reasonable person can see how another reasonable person might view it as a symbol of white supremacy.
So now you know why it's easy for reasonable people to tag you a fascist or commie. Same, same anyway.
But we're using today's standards otherwise you might not be breathing free air if we applied the standard from times past.
You can not judge history with today's standards. It's like bitching about people not inventing electricity and antibiotics in the stone age. Why are lefties so fucking dense? That is the question of our time!
The Founders were all horrible people. They didn't support gay marriage nor trannie rights. They all supported child labor and didn't believe women had the right to vote, most of them believed it was okay to drink on the job and didn't believe you even had the right to vote unless you were a property owner. And don't even get me started about what they thought on the death penalty and the crimes that were eligible for a death sentence.
Oh yeah, they didn't recycle and thought that nature was to be exploited by humans in order to better themselves.
Everyone keeps a bottle on their desk next to their quill. Not a big deal.
The constitution was written by slave owners yet was the vehicle to end slavery.
The founders did punt but the chickens did come home
Somewhere in all this it gets missed that the chickens did come home to the tune of about 400,000 boys in blue who had to die to fix the problem. If that's not blood atonement I don't know what is.
The problem is the boys in blue didn't have the conviction to follow through with reconstruction. The Civil War was absolutely a fantastic moment of atonement. The ensuing years through Grant's administration were mostly great as well (fuck Andrew Johnson). But the north/GOP gave much of that goodwill back with the Compromise of 1877 and the crooked election of Rutherford B Hayes.
1860-1876 was a golden age of American equality.
It was sadly short lived.
Most of what we are experiencing now isn't so much the repercussions of slavery as it is is the repercussions of Jim Crow, even if the protestors don't understand that themselves.
Agreed, but it would have been very difficult to sustain the political will to enforce Reconstruction. If would have taken a lot more killing of Southern Rat party members. People just got tired of it and no longer had the will to continue it. Many felt that the price in lives and treasure were already enough and when Democrats started winning offices in the North again the pressure to end it grew.
The constitution was written by slave owners yet was the vehicle to end slavery.
The founders did punt but the chickens did come home
Somewhere in all this it gets missed that the chickens did come home to the tune of about 400,000 boys in blue who had to die to fix the problem. If that's not blood atonement I don't know what is.
The problem is the boys in blue didn't have the conviction to follow through with reconstruction. The Civil War was absolutely a fantastic moment of atonement. The ensuing years through Grant's administration were mostly great as well (fuck Andrew Johnson). But the north/GOP gave much of that goodwill back with the Compromise of 1877 and the crooked election of Rutherford B Hayes.
1860-1876 was a golden age of American equality.
It was sadly short lived.
Most of what we are experiencing now isn't so much the repercussions of slavery as it is is the repercussions of Jim Crow, even if the protestors don't understand that themselves.
Agreed, but it would have been very difficult to sustain the political will to enforce Reconstruction. If would have taken a lot more killing of Southern Rat party members. People just got tired of it and no longer had the will to continue it. Many felt that the price in lives and treasure were already enough and when Democrats started winning offices in the North again the pressure to end it grew.
Agree with all of this.
Letting the "Redeemer" Demokkkrats retake southern politics and disenfranchise blacks again was quite possibly the worst political decision in American history.
They undid so much of what those 400,000 yanks died for.
The constitution was written by slave owners yet was the vehicle to end slavery.
The founders did punt but the chickens did come home
Somewhere in all this it gets missed that the chickens did come home to the tune of about 400,000 boys in blue who had to die to fix the problem. If that's not blood atonement I don't know what is.
The problem is the boys in blue didn't have the conviction to follow through with reconstruction. The Civil War was absolutely a fantastic moment of atonement. The ensuing years through Grant's administration were mostly great as well (fuck Andrew Johnson). But the north/GOP gave much of that goodwill back with the Compromise of 1877 and the crooked election of Rutherford B Hayes.
1860-1876 was a golden age of American equality.
It was sadly short lived.
Most of what we are experiencing now isn't so much the repercussions of slavery as it is is the repercussions of Jim Crow, even if the protestors don't understand that themselves.
Agreed, but it would have been very difficult to sustain the political will to enforce Reconstruction. If would have taken a lot more killing of Southern Rat party members. People just got tired of it and no longer had the will to continue it. Many felt that the price in lives and treasure were already enough and when Democrats started winning offices in the North again the pressure to end it grew.
Agree with all of this.
Letting the "Redeemer" Demokkkrats retake southern politics and disenfranchise blacks again was quite possibly the worst political decision in American history.
They undid so much of what those 400,000 yanks died for.
Absolutely tragic.
The moral and just aftermath of the Civil War would have been 40 acres, a mule and full and enforceable civil rights. But before any of this could happen, Lincoln, first had to win the war and that meant reelection in 1864 with a Pro Union (Southern) Democrat on the ticket for Veep. John Wilkes Booth probably did as much as anyone to set back the plight of blacks in America. Andrew Johnson was the worst post Civil War POTUS.
The constitution was written by slave owners yet was the vehicle to end slavery.
The founders did punt but the chickens did come home
Somewhere in all this it gets missed that the chickens did come home to the tune of about 400,000 boys in blue who had to die to fix the problem. If that's not blood atonement I don't know what is.
The problem is the boys in blue didn't have the conviction to follow through with reconstruction. The Civil War was absolutely a fantastic moment of atonement. The ensuing years through Grant's administration were mostly great as well (fuck Andrew Johnson). But the north/GOP gave much of that goodwill back with the Compromise of 1877 and the crooked election of Rutherford B Hayes.
1860-1876 was a golden age of American equality.
It was sadly short lived.
Most of what we are experiencing now isn't so much the repercussions of slavery as it is is the repercussions of Jim Crow, even if the protestors don't understand that themselves.
Agreed, but it would have been very difficult to sustain the political will to enforce Reconstruction. If would have taken a lot more killing of Southern Rat party members. People just got tired of it and no longer had the will to continue it. Many felt that the price in lives and treasure were already enough and when Democrats started winning offices in the North again the pressure to end it grew.
Agree with all of this.
Letting the "Redeemer" Demokkkrats retake southern politics and disenfranchise blacks again was quite possibly the worst political decision in American history.
They undid so much of what those 400,000 yanks died for.
Absolutely tragic.
The moral and just aftermath of the Civil War would have been 40 acres, a mule and full and enforceable civil rights. But before any of this could happen, Lincoln, first had to win the war and that meant reelection in 1864 with a Pro Union (Southern) Democrat on the ticket for Veep. John Wilkes Booth probably did as much as anyone to set back the plight of blacks in America. Andrew Johnson was the worst post Civil War POTUS.
The constitution was written by slave owners yet was the vehicle to end slavery.
The founders did punt but the chickens did come home
Somewhere in all this it gets missed that the chickens did come home to the tune of about 400,000 boys in blue who had to die to fix the problem. If that's not blood atonement I don't know what is.
The problem is the boys in blue didn't have the conviction to follow through with reconstruction. The Civil War was absolutely a fantastic moment of atonement. The ensuing years through Grant's administration were mostly great as well (fuck Andrew Johnson). But the north/GOP gave much of that goodwill back with the Compromise of 1877 and the crooked election of Rutherford B Hayes.
1860-1876 was a golden age of American equality.
It was sadly short lived.
Most of what we are experiencing now isn't so much the repercussions of slavery as it is is the repercussions of Jim Crow, even if the protestors don't understand that themselves.
Agreed, but it would have been very difficult to sustain the political will to enforce Reconstruction. If would have taken a lot more killing of Southern Rat party members. People just got tired of it and no longer had the will to continue it. Many felt that the price in lives and treasure were already enough and when Democrats started winning offices in the North again the pressure to end it grew.
Agree with all of this.
Letting the "Redeemer" Demokkkrats retake southern politics and disenfranchise blacks again was quite possibly the worst political decision in American history.
They undid so much of what those 400,000 yanks died for.
Absolutely tragic.
The moral and just aftermath of the Civil War would have been 40 acres, a mule and full and enforceable civil rights. But before any of this could happen, Lincoln, first had to win the war and that meant reelection in 1864 with a Pro Union (Southern) Democrat on the ticket for Veep. John Wilkes Booth probably did as much as anyone to set back the plight of blacks in America. Andrew Johnson was the worst post Civil War POTUS.
I'm hearing Abraham Lincoln was a bigoted piece of shit. Just what I'm hearing, don't twist.
The constitution was written by slave owners yet was the vehicle to end slavery.
The founders did punt but the chickens did come home
Somewhere in all this it gets missed that the chickens did come home to the tune of about 400,000 boys in blue who had to die to fix the problem. If that's not blood atonement I don't know what is.
The problem is the boys in blue didn't have the conviction to follow through with reconstruction. The Civil War was absolutely a fantastic moment of atonement. The ensuing years through Grant's administration were mostly great as well (fuck Andrew Johnson). But the north/GOP gave much of that goodwill back with the Compromise of 1877 and the crooked election of Rutherford B Hayes.
1860-1876 was a golden age of American equality.
It was sadly short lived.
Most of what we are experiencing now isn't so much the repercussions of slavery as it is is the repercussions of Jim Crow, even if the protestors don't understand that themselves.
Agreed, but it would have been very difficult to sustain the political will to enforce Reconstruction. If would have taken a lot more killing of Southern Rat party members. People just got tired of it and no longer had the will to continue it. Many felt that the price in lives and treasure were already enough and when Democrats started winning offices in the North again the pressure to end it grew.
Agree with all of this.
Letting the "Redeemer" Demokkkrats retake southern politics and disenfranchise blacks again was quite possibly the worst political decision in American history.
They undid so much of what those 400,000 yanks died for.
Absolutely tragic.
The moral and just aftermath of the Civil War would have been 40 acres, a mule and full and enforceable civil rights. But before any of this could happen, Lincoln, first had to win the war and that meant reelection in 1864 with a Pro Union (Southern) Democrat on the ticket for Veep. John Wilkes Booth probably did as much as anyone to set back the plight of blacks in America. Andrew Johnson was the worst post Civil War POTUS.
I'm hearing Abraham Lincoln was a bigoted piece of shit. Just what I'm hearing, don't twist.
Never mind that New York is named after a slave trader who monopolized the British slave trade, and the NYT building sits on land that was basically stolen from the Lenape.
Never mind that New York is named after a slave trader who monopolized the British slave trade, and the NYT building sits on land that was basically stolen from the Lenape.
The constitution was written by slave owners yet was the vehicle to end slavery.
The founders did punt but the chickens did come home
Somewhere in all this it gets missed that the chickens did come home to the tune of about 400,000 boys in blue who had to die to fix the problem. If that's not blood atonement I don't know what is.
The problem is the boys in blue didn't have the conviction to follow through with reconstruction. The Civil War was absolutely a fantastic moment of atonement. The ensuing years through Grant's administration were mostly great as well (fuck Andrew Johnson). But the north/GOP gave much of that goodwill back with the Compromise of 1877 and the crooked election of Rutherford B Hayes.
1860-1876 was a golden age of American equality.
It was sadly short lived.
Most of what we are experiencing now isn't so much the repercussions of slavery as it is is the repercussions of Jim Crow, even if the protestors don't understand that themselves.
Agreed, but it would have been very difficult to sustain the political will to enforce Reconstruction. If would have taken a lot more killing of Southern Rat party members. People just got tired of it and no longer had the will to continue it. Many felt that the price in lives and treasure were already enough and when Democrats started winning offices in the North again the pressure to end it grew.
Agree with all of this.
Letting the "Redeemer" Demokkkrats retake southern politics and disenfranchise blacks again was quite possibly the worst political decision in American history.
They undid so much of what those 400,000 yanks died for.
Absolutely tragic.
The moral and just aftermath of the Civil War would have been 40 acres, a mule and full and enforceable civil rights. But before any of this could happen, Lincoln, first had to win the war and that meant reelection in 1864 with a Pro Union (Southern) Democrat on the ticket for Veep. John Wilkes Booth probably did as much as anyone to set back the plight of blacks in America. Andrew Johnson was the worst post Civil War POTUS.
I'm hearing Abraham Lincoln was a bigoted piece of shit. Just what I'm hearing, don't twist.
Comments
At the end of the day, Washington and Jefferson founded a nation - in spite of many tragic flaws - ultimately was far more of force for good than any other similar great power in human history. I don't care if a racist sculpted the rock; it doesn't change the greatness of all for 4 presidents honored at Mt Rushmore.
A better idea would be to use federal funds to finish the Crazy Horse monument in the Black Hills.
People forget that.
The founders did punt but the chickens did come home
But we're using today's standards otherwise you might not be breathing free air if we applied the standard from times past.
You can not judge history with today's standards. It's like bitching about people not inventing electricity and antibiotics in the stone age. Why are lefties so fucking dense? That is the question of our time!
Oh yeah, they didn't recycle and thought that nature was to be exploited by humans in order to better themselves.
1860-1876 was a golden age of American equality.
It was sadly short lived.
Most of what we are experiencing now isn't so much the repercussions of slavery as it is is the repercussions of Jim Crow, even if the protestors don't understand that themselves.
Letting the "Redeemer" Demokkkrats retake southern politics and disenfranchise blacks again was quite possibly the worst political decision in American history.
They undid so much of what those 400,000 yanks died for.
Absolutely tragic.