Will it ever be appropriate to remove Thomas Jefferson statues or any other Founding Father who owned slaves from the Capital or National Parks?

 

Despite these people contributing significantly to our "heritage," they did own slaves and can be considered offensive and divisive to many.

 

Where is the balance?

 

They didn't take up arms against the Federal Government. Jefferson wasn't a traitor. Now, saying that, I realize that I am saying take down any Robert E. Lee portraits. I believe that there is a difference between a statue that a symbol of an actual historical figure that died long ago and symbol that is waved today to keep a spirit (much of it of hate in my opinion) alive. The Confederate Flag belongs in a museum as it is part of our nation's past, not waving in the wind as part of our present.

Echoing you here, I don't believe that it would have been abolished under Lincoln. It would have been a slow dying out process where Lincoln's Congress prevented the spread of slavery to future territories and, ultimately, admission to the Union. From there, the South would have been underrepresented and ultimately forced to abolish slavery in order to receive certain Federal funding.

 

I have to disagree with you on Lincoln. Not only did he push for the Thirteenth Amendment, his views on slavery and abolition were pretty transparent, going all the way back to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. He was savvy enough of a politician to pick his battles. For instance, Kentucky was a slave state that remained part of the Union and Lincoln needed Kentucky, so he wasn't going to give it reason to jump ship. (A quote from Frederick Douglass about Lincoln's handling of the war: "The increasing opposition to the war, in the North, and the mad cry against it, because it was being made an abolition war, alarmed Mr. Lincoln, and made him apprehensive that a peace might be forced upon him which would leave still in slavery all who had not come within our lines.") But once the war ended, slavery was done.

 

Now, Lincoln might have had better luck in persuading the Republicans to go easier on the South after the war and certainly wouldn't have antagonized them the way Andrew Johnson did. That might have changed the course of Reconstruction in the South.

We can breathe a sigh of relief. Harry Reid wants UNLV to consider changing their nickname.

 

LINK

I have to disagree with you on Lincoln. Not only did he push for the Thirteenth Amendment, his views on slavery and abolition were pretty transparent, going all the way back to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. He was savvy enough of a politician to pick his battles. For instance, Kentucky was a slave state that remained part of the Union and Lincoln needed Kentucky, so he wasn't going to give it reason to jump ship. (A quote from Frederick Douglass about Lincoln's handling of the war: "The increasing opposition to the war, in the North, and the mad cry against it, because it was being made an abolition war, alarmed Mr. Lincoln, and made him apprehensive that a peace might be forced upon him which would leave still in slavery all who had not come within our lines.") But once the war ended, slavery was done.

 

Now, Lincoln might have had better luck in persuading the Republicans to go easier on the South after the war and certainly wouldn't have antagonized them the way Andrew Johnson did. That might have changed the course of Reconstruction in the South.

 

Douglas' comments came shortly after Lincoln ' s death. Everyone remembers the dead with rose colored glasses. He was going to go the political route prior to the war. Had he not been assasinated, he would have had no choice but to ask Congress to pass the 13th Amendment. Can't temporarily free the slaves of the rebels and then let slavery exist once peace was established.

And yes, Bubba has made his share of mistakes.

 

And when there's proof that he authorized these; I'll be right there in line saying he made another mistake.:thumb:

 

Depends on what the definition of "authorized" is.:sarcastic:

Interesting. Alabama, home of the original capitol of the CSA just took their Confederate Flag down.

 

Alabama gov orders Confederate flag removed from state Capitol grounds

Why didn't General Grant free his slaves upon becoming General or even after the North won?

 

Saying one side fought for slavery and the other fought to end it is disingenuous IMO.*

 

*not saying slavery wasn't a factor for war, specifically in the deep south.

 

Where did I say anyone fought to end it?

 

Habib and mexi gave the answers to the question I posed.

The Pastor that was murdered didn't think bad of the flag.. In fact, he voted for it to be in it's present place at the capital..

The Pastor that was murdered didn't think bad of the flag.. In fact, he voted for it to be in it's present place at the capital..

 

Wasn't he a politician?

Wasn't he a politician?

Yep..

The Pastor that was murdered didn't think bad of the flag.. In fact, he voted for it to be in it's present place at the capital..

 

I don't think I can stress this anymore than I have.

 

He voted to move it because that was all the State was going to give at that time. Now the time has come to take the next step and remove it.

 

It's not about the killings. It's about a flag that should have been removed years ago, or better yet never been put in that place or on the capitol in the first place.

 

The flag, ever more so than the monuments, is the problem. If it was about heritage, why was it only set up on the capitol since 1962 One purpose and one statement was being made.

Yep..

 

So I guess he knew his base to get those votes by any means necessary.

 

The defense rests, your honor.

I don't think I can stress this anymore than I have.

 

He voted to move it because that was all the State was going to give at that time. Now the time has come to take the next step and remove it.

 

It's not about the killings. It's about a flag that should have been removed years ago, or better yet never been put in that place or on the capitol in the first place.

 

The flag, ever more so than the monuments, is the problem. If it was about heritage, why was it only set up on the capitol since 1962 One purpose and one statement was being made.

Again, I have not heard anyone make a valid argument for the 1962 decision to have the flag used at the Capitol. I wonder why?

I don't think I can stress this anymore than I have.

 

He voted to move it because that was all the State was going to give at that time. Now the time has come to take the next step and remove it.

 

It's not about the killings. It's about a flag that should have been removed years ago, or better yet never been put in that place or on the capitol in the first place.

 

The flag, ever more so than the monuments, is the problem. If it was about heritage, why was it only set up on the capitol since 1962 One purpose and one statement was being made.

 

While I do not agree with the flag, it is not our choice. We are not residents of South Carolina. We all indeed have our opinions but it is not our choice to make.

After seeing some of the opinions of this flag on FB, I feel a friend purge coming on.

 

 

Your post made me think of this old Cyndi Lauper tune.