Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Where is the evidence that he was the "staunch abolitionist" history has unaccountably made him out to be?36358488a3235f740d2da1181261f6da.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

"They"?

You’ve made the point before that there is no single group or motivation behind the statue/monument/song/flag removal and that each incident should be looked at individually.  I don’t completely disagree with that perspective, but at the same time I think you can see how one might view this as a somewhat cohesive crusade as it is all happening at once and many folks who are advocates for one statue removal often are advocates or in strong agreement on the removal of others.  Most of the recent statue removals for me fall somewhere between agreement (on some of the confederates who were setup for no reason other than they were confederates) and indifference.  


However, some of it I don’t agree with (Grant, for example) and some if it I don’t really understand the base motivations.  For example, is there some significant percentage of the anti-statue folks who want no statues of any actual people at all?  If so, this seems almost bordering on religious or at minimum some more fundamental philosophical motivation that seems to have come out of nowhere.   Or is this only targeted at individuals based solely on their views on race?  If that is the case, will there be a push to pull down monuments and statues of FDR, who was against an anti-lynching bill?  I’m not aware of any Marx monuments in the US, but he has some in Europe and elsewhere.  Would you care at all if we pulled all Karl Marx statues and monuments down due to his racist views?  Maybe you do not care about Marx or any individuals and only the ideals themselves; I’m not arguing that you would or should care, just trying to get your perspective on it.     
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

It is pretty compelling to me. I mean, he married into a plantation family. Do you think he and his wife at the very least did not borrow a slave or two?

What was redacted from his papers by his widow and son? Where is the evidence that he was the "staunch abolitionist" history has unaccountably made him out to be?

Still a big maybe. But probably not.

And the evidence that he was an abolitionist is in the very links that you have cited. One of them even concluded, "Whether or not Hamilton owned slaves, it is certain that he was active as an abolitionist. If for no other reason, he saw abolition as militarily or politically advantageous over the years."

Edited by David Dennison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

For example, is there some significant percentage of the anti-statue folks who want no statues of any actual people at all?  If so, this seems almost bordering on religious or at minimum some more fundamental philosophical motivation that seems to have come out of nowhere.

I don't think so.

Quote

 Or is this only targeted at individuals based solely on their views on race?

Depends on who you're talking to.

Regional issues factor in greatly (as in, for instance, the pulling down of the Catholic priest statue by indigenous people).

Quote

If that is the case, will there be a push to pull down monuments and statues of FDR, who was against an anti-lynching bill?

No idea. Let's find out!

I guess you want there to be a settled process and that's just not how basically anything works.

Quote

Would you care at all if we pulled all Karl Marx statues and monuments down due to his racist views? 

I wouldn't care about probably any statue anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good thing that Trump exists for the Democrats - it's about the only thing uniting them.  When Trump is gone...watch out for the in-fighting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

It is pretty compelling to me. I mean, he married into a plantation family. Do you think he and his wife at the very least did not borrow a slave or two?

What was redacted from his papers by his widow and son? Where is the evidence that he was the "staunch abolitionist" history has unaccountably made him out to be?

 

 

 

Well, he was a co-founder of the New York Manumission Society.  Every one of his writings indicate his support not only for abolition, but also for equality.  And when it came down to it, he supported the Haitian Revolution and promoted close ties between Haiti and the United States.

I think that's pretty compelling evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since these public-area statues were erected by councils of white people, I'd like to see some adjudication from councils of all-non-white scholars. Non-binding, of course, but getting a non-white recasting of American history would be very useful to put alongside the profoundly whitewashed one we are taught in schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

It's a good thing that Trump exists for the Democrats - it's about the only thing uniting them.  When Trump is gone...watch out for the in-fighting.

Democrats, like the actual democrats that vote, don’t have a lot of ideological disagreements.  There isn’t a debate on whether or not to have open borders or repeal the second amendment.  Even the healthcare debate isn’t heated.  Most every democrat is pro-public option and at least open to the idea of single payer.  Democrats don’t fight over dumb shit like statues and bathroom bills.

The fight on the left is between the voters and the party leaders who are dead set on doing jack shit. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You’ve made the point before that there is no single group or motivation behind the statue/monument/song/flag removal and that each incident should be looked at individually.  I don’t completely disagree with that perspective, but at the same time I think you can see how one might view this as a somewhat cohesive crusade as it is all happening at once and many folks who are advocates for one statue removal often are advocates or in strong agreement on the removal of others.  Most of the recent statue removals for me fall somewhere between agreement (on some of the confederates who were setup for no reason other than they were confederates) and indifference.  


However, some of it I don’t agree with (Grant, for example) and some if it I don’t really understand the base motivations.  For example, is there some significant percentage of the anti-statue folks who want no statues of any actual people at all?  If so, this seems almost bordering on religious or at minimum some more fundamental philosophical motivation that seems to have come out of nowhere.   Or is this only targeted at individuals based solely on their views on race?  If that is the case, will there be a push to pull down monuments and statues of FDR, who was against an anti-lynching bill?  I’m not aware of any Marx monuments in the US, but he has some in Europe and elsewhere.  Would you care at all if we pulled all Karl Marx statues and monuments down due to his racist views?  Maybe you do not care about Marx or any individuals and only the ideals themselves; I’m not arguing that you would or should care, just trying to get your perspective on it.     
 

The only acceptable memorialization of people are Che T shirts. Get with the program man...... errrrr comrade....

Edited by Onboard 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, he was a co-founder of the New York Manumission Society.  Every one of his writings indicate his support not only for abolition, but also for equality.  And when it came down to it, he supported the Haitian Revolution and promoted close ties between Haiti and the United States.

I think that's pretty compelling evidence.

Manumission is not abolition. Manumission is the drunk at the bar telling you he might quit drinking tomorrow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mdmost said:

Everybody speculates that Hamilton alone among people who grew up in slave colonies pitied and empathized with slaves without a single shred of evidence to support that supposition. This guy is no exception. The fact is Hamilton worked in the slave trade on St. Croix though historians like to say he clerked in an import / export business. What the fuck do you think Hamilton's business was importing? 

I just don't understand why historians from deep in the past right up until today bend over backwards to give Hamilton a break. They just have made up the idea that Hamilton was a "staunch abolitionist all his life" with no evidence whatsoever to support that he was ever an abolitionist at all (much less a staunch one), and in fact a few little smoking guns in his business papers indicating that he in fact actually owned slaves. 

I mean, would a staunch abolitionist marry into one of New York's largest slaveowning families?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I mean, would a staunch abolitionist marry into one of New York's largest slaveowning families?

Dude wanted a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Still a big maybe. But probably not.

And the evidence that he was an abolitionist is in the very links that you have cited. One of them even concluded, "Whether or not Hamilton owned slaves, it is certain that he was active as an abolitionist. If for no other reason, he saw abolition as militarily or politically advantageous over the years."

That is not abolitionism -- that is conditional manumission. Lots of writers make that mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Dude wanted a challenge.

I’ve done dumb shit for a piece of ass before, and she wasn’t even rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I’ve done dumb shit for a piece of ass before, and she wasn’t even rich.

Or hot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

That is not abolitionism -- that is conditional manumission. Lots of writers make that mistake. 

If that's the case, you should probably stop citing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

If that's the case, you should probably stop citing them.

And maybe you should quit believing what you clearly want to believe. That same site presented pretty clear evidence Hamilton was a slaveowner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Tear down Hamilton for starting the First Bank of the US.

I don't like Old Hickory at all, but I am glad that he took it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

And maybe you should quit believing what you clearly want to believe. That same site presented pretty clear evidence Hamilton was a slaveowner. 

This is a real red letter day. The first time in Dennisons posting history where he didn't call a white guy racist.....  Mark it down folks.  Stay tuned for the melt down if he keeps getting called racist or ......{gaaaaaaasp} a dyed in the wool slave trader.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Everybody speculates that Hamilton alone among people who grew up in slave colonies pitied and empathized with slaves without a single shred of evidence to support that supposition. This guy is no exception. The fact is Hamilton worked in the slave trade on St. Croix though historians like to say he clerked in an import / export business. What the fuck do you think Hamilton's business was importing? 

I just don't understand why historians from deep in the past right up until today bend over backwards to give Hamilton a break. They just have made up the idea that Hamilton was a "staunch abolitionist all his life" with no evidence whatsoever to support that he was ever an abolitionist at all (much less a staunch one), and in fact a few little smoking guns in his business papers indicating that he in fact actually owned slaves. 

I mean, would a staunch abolitionist marry into one of New York's largest slaveowning families?

See--and here is the difference between Hamilton and Jefferson.

There is no question that Hamilton at least dabbled in the slave trade while in the Caribbean.  The economy of the islands was based on a slave economy.  And whether he himself trafficked in human cargo, he definitely traded the goods that were cultivated and manufactured by slaves.

But at the same time, what would you expect of a young man who was born in the islands and who had never been exposed to anything other than the economy and social mores of that time and place?  It's inconceivable that he would've become opposed to slavery in St. Croix or anywhere else in the Caribbean.

When he moved to New York, he was exposed to new ideas.  And it's also clear that he met these new ideas with an open mind.  It's apparent from his writing and actions that he developed a deep and personal opposition to slavery.

Contrast that with Jefferson.  Jefferson traveled all over Europe.  He was exposed to the ideals of the Enlightenment.  He adopted all of the ideals of the French Revolution . . . except the abolition of slavery.  For all his travels and for all the ideas to which he was exposed, Jefferson retained his narrow outlook.  He was never open to new opinions or ideas.  For all he is celebrated, he was never anything more than a fancy, provincial plantation slaver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

See--and here is the difference between Hamilton and Jefferson.

There is no question that Hamilton at least dabbled in the slave trade while in the Caribbean.  The economy of the islands was based on a slave economy.  And whether he himself trafficked in human cargo, he definitely traded the goods that were cultivated and manufactured by slaves.

But at the same time, what would you expect of a young man who was born in the islands and who had never been exposed to anything other than the economy and social mores of that time and place?  It's inconceivable that he would've become opposed to slavery in St. Croix or anywhere else in the Caribbean.

When he moved to New York, he was exposed to new ideas.  And it's also clear that he met these new ideas with an open mind.  It's apparent from his writing and actions that he developed a deep and personal opposition to slavery.

Contrast that with Jefferson.  Jefferson traveled all over Europe.  He was exposed to the ideals of the Enlightenment.  He adopted all of the ideals of the French Revolution . . . except the abolition of slavery.  For all his travels and for all the ideas to which he was exposed, Jefferson retained his narrow outlook.  He was never open to new opinions or ideas.  For all he is celebrated, he was never anything more than a fancy, provincial plantation slaver.

Jefferson was Calvin Candie, basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

See--and here is the difference between Hamilton and Jefferson.

There is no question that Hamilton at least dabbled in the slave trade while in the Caribbean.  The economy of the islands was based on a slave economy.  And whether he himself trafficked in human cargo, he definitely traded the goods that were cultivated and manufactured by slaves.

But at the same time, what would you expect of a young man who was born in the islands and who had never been exposed to anything other than the economy and social mores of that time and place?  It's inconceivable that he would've become opposed to slavery in St. Croix or anywhere else in the Caribbean.

When he moved to New York, he was exposed to new ideas.  And it's also clear that he met these new ideas with an open mind.  It's apparent from his writing and actions that he developed a deep and personal opposition to slavery.

Contrast that with Jefferson.  Jefferson traveled all over Europe.  He was exposed to the ideals of the Enlightenment.  He adopted all of the ideals of the French Revolution . . . except the abolition of slavery.  For all his travels and for all the ideas to which he was exposed, Jefferson retained his narrow outlook.  He was never open to new opinions or ideas.  For all he is celebrated, he was never anything more than a fancy, provincial plantation slaver.

We have Jefferson on the record writing at length about the evils of slavery and how it should end.

We have none of that from Hamilton. So either he didn't write anything along those lines, or he held no such views and wrote privately about favoring slavery (and had it edited by his literary executors.)

Both Jefferson and Hamilton were hypocrites -- Jefferson agonized about it for the record, Hamilton did not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

We have Jefferson on the record writing at length about the evils of slavery and how it should end.

We have none of that from Hamilton. So either he didn't write anything along those lines, or he held no such views and wrote privately about favoring slavery (and had it edited by his literary executors.)

Both Jefferson and Hamilton were hypocrites -- Jefferson agonized about it for the record, Hamilton did not. 

That's just wrong.  Even a cursory review of Hamilton's papers--and they are extensive--reveals an opposition to slavery throughout Hamilton's adult life.

Jefferson didn't agonize about shit.  He paid lip service (while demanding rather more service from his slaves--particularly the female ones).  There's no record of Hamilton ever owning slaves as an adult (though it appears that he bought slaves on behalf of his brother-in-law).  And there's actually evidence to show affirmatively that he did not (i.e., correspondence between the Schuyler sisters lamenting Elizabeth's lack of domestic help).

I'll tell you--there's so much to criticize Hamilton for.  I don't know why one would want to die on this particular hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

 The fact is Hamilton worked in the slave trade on St. Croix though historians like to say he clerked in an import / export business. What the fuck do you think Hamilton's business was importing? 

 

Cruzian Hook bracelets and rum?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the DHS being deployed to protect statues over the holiday weekend feels like the deployment of the Army to the border to stop the caravans.  I guess the DHS may not get fucked as hard since they can probably draw overtime, but its still more about posturing than anything substantive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

For the local sheriff. 
 

We’re not wanting the liberals and the press telling us we have to change it. People here do not feel it’s racism,” he said.

“It’s so ridiculous; 99 percent of the people don’t have any idea [that the Confederate flag is on the insignia]. It’s just something that’s there. I’ve had more local people in favor of it than against it,” Wuttke added.

The local city council has also reportedly opposed changing the logo’s design, which has been around for more than a decade, in the past and defended it as a means to “represent our heritage.”

 

 

58768A93-D896-45D4-9214-2A75184A14BE.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

That's just wrong.  Even a cursory review of Hamilton's papers--and they are extensive--reveals an opposition to slavery throughout Hamilton's adult life.

Jefferson didn't agonize about shit.  He paid lip service (while demanding rather more service from his slaves--particularly the female ones).  There's no record of Hamilton ever owning slaves as an adult (though it appears that he bought slaves on behalf of his brother-in-law).  And there's actually evidence to show affirmatively that he did not (i.e., correspondence between the Schuyler sisters lamenting Elizabeth's lack of domestic help).

I'll tell you--there's so much to criticize Hamilton for.  I don't know why one would want to die on this particular hill.

Jefferson tried to put an anti-slavery plank in the freaking Declaration of Independence...Hamilton has been the beneficiary of 200-plus years of concerted positive propaganda while Jefferson has been on the defense for about 50 years now. 

Where are Hamilton's private writings lamenting the existence of slavery? Where are his declarations that it needed to be abolished? There are none. Given absence of these, and little jottings here and there indicating that he did owned slaves buried deep in his business records, we can assume that he either didn't feel very strongly about abolitionism or his views were pro-slavery and thus redacted from the record by his widow and / or his son. One of the articles I posted affirmatively stated that Hamilton's record was spit-polished by his widow and son to suit the times they were living in (and one suggested much was removed indicating that Hamilton and Laurens were much more than friends and army buddies NTTIAWT) and there is ample reason to suppose some of that redacted content concerned unpalatable views of slavery.

Never has so little evidence been spun into so much effort to make an abolitionist out of a founder who was, simply put, not an abolitionist.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Jefferson tried to put an anti-slavery plank in the freaking Declaration of Independence...Hamilton has been the beneficiary of 200-plus years of concerted positive propaganda while Jefferson has been on the defense for about 50 years now. 

Where are Hamilton's private writings lamenting the existence of slavery? Where are his declarations that it needed to be abolished? There are none. Given absence of these, and little jottings here and there indicating that he did owned slaves buried deep in his business records, we can assume that he either didn't feel very strongly about abolitionism or his views were pro-slavery and thus redacted from the record by his widow and / or his son. One of the articles I posted affirmatively stated that Hamilton's record was spit-polished by his widow and son to suit the times they were living in (and one suggested much was removed indicating that Hamilton and Laurens were much more than friends and army buddies NTTIAWT) and there is ample reason to suppose some of that redacted content concerned unpalatable views of slavery.

Never has so little evidence been spun into so much effort to make an abolitionist out of a founder who was, simply put, not an abolitionist.  

You don't need his private writings.  His very first published essay expresses opposition to slavery and expresses his views on the equality of all men.  And if you want to look a the private correspondence, there are letters from Hamilton to any number of other people (including John Jay and William Livingston), expressing the same opinions.  Such correspondence, by definition, goes to a third party, which means that Elizabeth Hamilton would've have been able to "spit-polish" or censor those writings.

I'm not going to go through them chapter-and-verse.  There are plenty of excellent biographies on Hamilton.  And if you read them, there are plenty of unimpeachable contemporary documents reflecting Hamilton's genuine opposition to slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You don't need his private writings.  His very first published essay expresses opposition to slavery and expresses his views on the equality of all men.  And if you want to look a the private correspondence, there are letters from Hamilton to any number of other people (including John Jay and William Livingston), expressing the same opinions.  Such correspondence, by definition, goes to a third party, which means that Elizabeth Hamilton would've have been able to "spit-polish" or censor those writings.

I'm not going to go through them chapter-and-verse.  There are plenty of excellent biographies on Hamilton.  And if you read them, there are plenty of unimpeachable contemporary documents reflecting Hamilton's genuine opposition to slavery.

All in contradiction to this:

 

http://schuylermansion.blogspot.com/2016/12/mansion-mythbusters-hamilton-and.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:


 

For the local sheriff. 
 

We’re not wanting the liberals and the press telling us we have to change it. People here do not feel it’s racism,” he said.

“It’s so ridiculous; 99 percent of the people don’t have any idea [that the Confederate flag is on the insignia]. It’s just something that’s there. I’ve had more local people in favor of it than against it,” Wuttke added.

The local city council has also reportedly opposed changing the logo’s design, which has been around for more than a decade, in the past and defended it as a means to “represent our heritage.”

 

 

58768A93-D896-45D4-9214-2A75184A14BE.jpeg

South Dakota's "heritage" as a Confederate state?  South Dakota, which became a state in [checks notes] 1889, 24 years after the Civil War ended....

So, what I get out of this is that these folks are both 1) racist pieces of shit and 2) failed fucking high school history.  Fucking dumbass pieces of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My South Dakota grandparents were much more racist than my Texas ones. This does not surprise me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

South Dakota's "heritage" as a Confederate state?  South Dakota, which became a state in [checks notes] 1889, 24 years after the Civil War ended....

So, what I get out of this is that these folks are both 1) racist pieces of shit and 2) failed fucking high school history.  Fucking dumbass pieces of shit.

Fuck that shit, we Southerners do not want the Dakotas on our team.,..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t give a fuck about Thomas Jefferson’s writings or letters or speeches he was a pedophile rapist and kept his own children he had with Sally Hemings as slaves.

Sally was 14 years old when Jefferson first raped her and she was the half sister of Jefferson’s wife too. Jefferson’s father in law had six children with Sally’s mother and she was his slave.

[

By all accounts, Jefferson’s sexual relationship with Hemings spanned several decades, beginning when Hemings was a teenager and Jefferson was in his 40s. It was not, in any sense of the word, consensual: Hemings was a child, and Jefferson literally owned her; she was not in any position to give or withhold consent. What Jefferson did to Hemings was rape.


Fuck Thomas Jefferson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Fuck Thomas Jefferson.

I’m not excusing any behavior but many of the great thought leaders over the past few hundred years were huge pieces of shit in their private lives.  

They lived a life of ultimate privilege and comfort which is why they had so much time to think and write.  While we can condemn their horrific behaviors it doesn’t have to nor should it erase their contributions.

Karl Marx, also a huge scumbag in the home. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m not excusing any behavior but many of the great thought leaders over the past few hundred years were huge pieces of shit in their private lives.  

They lived a life of ultimate privilege and comfort which is why they had so much time to think and write.  While we can condemn their horrific behaviors it doesn’t have to nor should it erase their contributions.

Karl Marx, also a huge scumbag in the home. 

I'm sure Karl felt he was too good to do proletariat work like washing the dishes or straightening the house.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Only in contradiction about his writings.  They say what they say.  His letters to Jay express clear opposition to slavery.  His very first public essay expresses opposition to slavery.

The writer of the fine piece you post dismisses these writings, saying that you have to "read between the lines."  That's not much of a disputation.

As to whether Hamilton owned slaves, the author is in the minority among historians on this issue--a point she acknowledges.

27 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m not excusing any behavior but many of the great thought leaders over the past few hundred years were huge pieces of shit in their private lives.  

They lived a life of ultimate privilege and comfort which is why they had so much time to think and write.  While we can condemn their horrific behaviors it doesn’t have to nor should it erase their contributions.

Karl Marx, also a huge scumbag in the home. 

Yea, no.  Sorry.  "Grab 'em by the pussy" isn't a matter of one's private life.  Jefferson was a rapist.  And he was understood to be a rapist by the mores of the day.  That's why his relationship with Sally Hemmings was used by the Federalist as a political attack against him, and why the Republicans sued the authors for defamation.  The allegation was considered to be scandalous, even among the slaveholding class.

One can recognize Jefferson's contributions.  But at some point, he's not a good man who did some bad things; he's a bad man who did some good things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

South Dakota's "heritage" as a Confederate state?  South Dakota, which became a state in [checks notes] 1889, 24 years after the Civil War ended....

So, what I get out of this is that these folks are both 1) racist pieces of shit and 2) failed fucking high school history.  Fucking dumbass pieces of shit.

They also mentioned that it's been there for more than a decade. So someone in the late 2000's thought it was a good idea to add that.

If they're so down with the losing secessionist movement lump them back in with North Dakota and give their Senate and House seats to Puerto Rico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

One can recognize Jefferson's contributions.  But at some point, he's not a good man who did some bad things; he's a bad man who did some good things.

That is what I was trying to say but obviously failed at articulating it.  So when we taking Jefferson off the two dollar bill? 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That is what I was trying to say but obviously failed at articulating it.  So when we taking Jefferson off the two dollar bill? 

Nah.  Fuck it.  We have to draw the line somewhere.  And I'm good with the line being "treason."  So confederates have to go.  But Jefferson can stay.

Now Jackson, on the other hand, presents a tougher one.  He's a legitimately bad guy who did a lot of bad things (genocide being chief among them).  Hard not to take him off the $20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

South Dakota's "heritage" as a Confederate state?  South Dakota, which became a state in [checks notes] 1889, 24 years after the Civil War ended....

So, what I get out of this is that these folks are both 1) racist pieces of shit and 2) failed fucking high school history.  Fucking dumbass pieces of shit.

The name of the South Dakota town is Gettysburg. Not that that justifies it, but does make it less out-of-nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The name of the South Dakota town is Gettysburg. Not that that justifies it, but does make it less out-of-nowhere.

So....a location. Some famous for a UNION victory...and a speech from the AMERICAN president. Sure. That South Dakota had nothing to do with (no “heritage” at all). Fuck em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/07/01/dhs-announces-new-task-force-protect-american-monuments-memorials-and-statues

DHS Announces New Task Force to Protect American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues

 
Release Date: 
July 1, 2020

WASHINGTON— Today, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, announced the establishment of the DHS Protecting American Communities Task Force (PACT), a special task force to coordinate Departmental law enforcement agency assets in protecting our nation’s historic monuments, memorials, statues, and federal facilities.

“DHS is answering the President’s call to use our law enforcement personnel across the country to protect our historic landmarks,” said Acting Secretary Wolf. “We won’t stand idly by while violent anarchists and rioters seek not only to vandalize and destroy the symbols of our nation, but to disrupt law and order and sow chaos in our communities.”

On June 26th, President Trump issued an Executive Order to ensure that our historic monuments and statues will be protected. The Order, “Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Activity,” directs DHS, within its statutory authority, to provide personnel to assist with the protection of federal monuments, memorials, statues, or property.

As a result, DHS created the PACT, which will conduct ongoing assessments of potential civil unrest or destruction and allocate resources to protect people and property. This may involve potential surge activity to ensure the continuing protection of critical locations. DHS’s Office of Operations Coordination will also partner closely with the Departments of Justice and Interior to establish information and intelligence sharing.

“As we approach the July 4th holiday, I have directed the deployment and pre-positioning of Rapid Deployment Teams (RDT) across the country to respond to potential threats to facilities and property,” said Acting Secretary Wolf. “While the Department respects every American’s right to protest peacefully, violence and civil unrest will not be tolerated.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...