Mobile Alabama Removes Statue of Confederate Without Notice

[Faun]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

 

[Correll]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Yet, LIncoln's stated justification for the War, was not slavery, but to preserve the Union.


Was he lying?

 

[NotYourBody]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the fuck would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

THe Confederate Government stated policies were by today's standards WP.


You are assigning motive when you assume that the people commemorated by the various statues all were of a like mind.


You are assigning motive, when you assume that the motive of the children of the Veterans who put up the statues.


You are assigning motives, when you assume the motive of those who support celebrating those me and their service.


You are assigning motive when you assume my motive.


You are a race baiting asshole. I am passionate about you deserving to be treated like the race baiting asshole you are.


Men fighting against overwhelming odds to protect their homelands from invasion, deserve respect and commemoration.


YOu are a piece of shit.

They were fighting for the right to own other people. Period. They deserve nothing but disdain and recognition of how vile and evil they were.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

No one's asking you to impose anything.
I referred you to the abolitionists for clarity on the moral standards of the day.

The confederates were always white supremacists and it was always wrong.
Nothing's changed in that regard.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed.

And again so were many of the people fighting to free them.

Hell, many abolitionists objected to enslaving blacks, but did not see them as equal to whites. Just look at the abolitionist/return groups that existed

Of course that means absolutely nothing when talking about memorializing the self avowed white supremacist confederates.

Simple whadaboutism.

Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.

Dude. YOu are stone cold busted, and you are too dim to know it.

Sure, buddy.
I think most readers would agree that your motives are far more suspect than mine.

 

[Correll]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

 

[NotYourBody]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the fuck would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well

Great. They weren't the slavers who went to war with their own nation over it.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made.

Slavery is wrong, but I won't call it evil because i reserve far worse things for the term. Genocide, murder, rape, etc.

Rape was a common evil endured by slaves.

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

 

[martybegan]

The left removes another statue of an American war hero, and they wonder why people don't like them.

By defintion, the confederacy was not American.

So, you support the secession?

So, you support the secession?

Not in any way.
The confederate states believed they were no longer Americans. Their articles of seccession explained why. They claimed their white supremacy gave them the natural right to subjugate blacks and that their economic survival depended on the continued and future expansion of that subjugation.

Straight up racist and deplorable.

But the American view is that the secession was not legal, and thus did not actually happen, and thus the Confederacy was NOT an independent nation and thus the Southerns were not citizens of a foreign power fighting to defend their nation, but rebels and outlaws.


If you agree that their actions were legal and binding, then the Civil War, really was the War of Northern Aggression as defined by the Lost Causers.


Your position is siding with the slavery and against Lincoln and the Union in this historical context.

Great. So we should commemorate rebels and outlaws with memorials and statues?

A distinction without a difference.

A big difference. THey thought their actions were legal and justified.


You seem to believe their actions were legal also, with your claim that they were not Americans.


If they were, as you seem to believe, citizens of a sovereign nation, the Confederacy, fighting to defend that nation from invasion, is a pretty normal reason for people to be, " commemorated ... with memorials and statues".


And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

And the only question then is, what kind of people would come along 5 generations later, and want to tear down those statues.

The type of people who have a moral objection to commemorating self avowed white supremacists.

Why in the fuck would you support doing so?

Dude. I'm not the one arguing that the secession was legal, that is you making that claim.


Do you think Lincoln's stated rational, ie "the more perfect union" was a sincere but mistaken belief, or do you think he "lied us into a war"?

I think you're defending the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists. Why would you do such a thing?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

No doubt you do.

i'm defending the right of Southerns to celebrate men that fought to defend their homeland from foreign invasion.


Which is the way that they, and you see it. As you have stated.


Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

Wait. I do know this. It is because you know that you are in the wrong, but you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

Not sure why you can't address what I actually say, and instead have to make up shit.

I've made up nothing. You're unwillingness to accept my premise is your issue. Not mine.
You haven't addressed what I've posted either. I understand why.

The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. There really is nothing left to say after acknowledging that. There is no reason you can cite that nullifies that fact.

You either support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists or you don't.
Again...
Why do you?
Do you sympathize with their thinking?

Your attempt to make this a black and white issue, no pun intended, is denied.


THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion.


I sympathize with the desire of their descendants to celebrate and remember the service of their ancestors, who fought hard and lost badly.


That is my position. It would be one thing if you disagreed with me, and then explained why.


Instead, you have to lie about my position, because you know you can't defend your position and you are too much of an asshole to admit it.

THe statues celebrate the military service of men defending their homelands from foreign invasion

LOL...
You'd like it to be that simple but of course it's not. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. Your efforts to reframe them as something else in no way changes that fact.
Why would you even try?
Beause you sympathize with their lost cause?
They told you in their own words exactly what their thoughts and beliefs were in their articles of seccession. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

It is not MY attempt to "reframe it" but the people that put up the statues that choose to focus on the self defense aspect of that War rather than the more questionable cause(s) of the war.


Indeed for over 5 generations, it has been the AMERICAN way of dealing with this past conflict, to focus and celebrate the military service and valor of both sides veterans while glossing over the more questionable aspects of it.


Like the way you agreed with the Confederates on the legal question of the Secession. That was a just glossed over when I was a kid. and for generations before.


I never really questioned Lincoln's justifications. But your point is valid. His claims were very weak ass shit.


Please shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit.

shove your race baiting, up your ass, you piece of shit

I'm not "race baiting" at all, dope.
I'm stating facts. Facts that you seemed to have never learned or cared about. You favor instead the narratives put in place by later supremacists to soften the public face of their cause.

I ask you again, sir.

How can you support the commemoration of self avowed white supremacists?

You seem to defend their cause with passion. Do you sympathize with their cause?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.


I support the commemoration of people, who fought to protect their homelands from foreign invasion.

My passion is for America. Dividing US up by region and race, and inflaming old wounds and division.


I've explained that several times. Yet you keep asking the question as though you have not heard the answer several times.


Are you stupid, or just pretending to be stupid to justify being a race baiting asshole?

Your assigning motives to long dead people, and to me, is not stating facts but stating some self serving opinions of yours.

I'm assigning nothing. I'm stating fact. The confederates were self avowed white supremacists. That has always been the case.
Like I said at least twice already. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well.

They thought Chinamen, Indians, Indians, and the Irish were as well.

And hell, The Chinese thought we were all barbarians (and many still do) through their whole Middle Kingdom concept.

Guess what? Most of those fighting for the North believed blacks were inferior to whites as well

Great. They weren't the slavers who went to war with their own nation over it.

But you are making their "WP" views the crux of all this, and this "evil" attachment that is trying to be made.

Slavery is wrong, but I won't call it evil because i reserve far worse things for the term. Genocide, murder, rape, etc.

Rape was a common evil endured by slaves.

Rape is a far to common evil endured by humanity in general.

At least in the US we don't have to deal with it being used for political and cultural control, as in some other areas of the world.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Not really...

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

 

[NotYourBody]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Good thing we know better now. We understand the true evil that white people perpetrated on black people during our ugly slave history. Nobody is beholden to their evil ancestors.

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

Not really...

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Might as well link the whole thing.

Secession Documents: Mississippi — Civil Discourse

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Good thing we know better now. We understand the true evil that white people perpetrated on black people during our ugly slave history. Nobody is beholden to their evil ancestors.

Wrong, not evil.

And blacks were just as involved in the slave trade as whites, they just didn't document it.

You really think white slaving parties could function in the African interior?

 

[NotYourBody]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

 

[NotYourBody]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Good thing we know better now. We understand the true evil that white people perpetrated on black people during our ugly slave history. Nobody is beholden to their evil ancestors.

Wrong, not evil.

And blacks were just as involved in the slave trade as whites, they just didn't document it.

You really think white slaving parties could function in the African interior?

You think those black slave traders were not just as evil as the white slavers?

 

[NotYourBody]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Good thing we know better now. We understand the true evil that white people perpetrated on black people during our ugly slave history. Nobody is beholden to their evil ancestors.

Wrong, not evil.

And blacks were just as involved in the slave trade as whites, they just didn't document it.

You really think white slaving parties could function in the African interior?

You think those black slave traders were not just as evil as the white slavers?

they were just as wrong, evilness would depend on methods and who they were enslaving.

Selling your own tribe? Evil. Selling off losers in a war you won? Dick move, but not evil.

 

[martybegan]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

 

[NotYourBody]

I applaud the mayor of Mobile for removing this statue.

He is right, removing it doesn't change history.

Personally I don't see how anyone can think people who waged war against the United States of America causing the deaths of over 600 thousand Americans are good people.

I don't think that any statues of those people should be erected anywhere in our nation.

Alabama city removes Confederate statue without notice

MOBILE, Ala. (AP) — Alabama's port city removed a statue of a Confederate naval officer early Friday after days of protests over the police killing of George Floyd, with the

www.omaha.com

Of course things like this are done in the dark, and applauded by gutless hacks such as yourself.

Yeah, much better to do it during the day so you can piss off a bunch of inbred, toothless mouth breathers.

Better yet, let the people do it...

A bunch of immature assholes, nothing more.

i agree. The people that want to keep these statues in place are immature assholes. Well said.

Yeah, go with that you dried up old twat.

I will, thank you...not that I needed your permission to agree with you that people who want to keep these monuments to slave owners in place are immature assholes.

The "i know you are but what am I" tactic, the primordial ooze of debate tactics.

Says the guy with nothing but lame ad hominems

Why do you have a problem with removing statues of traitors and slave owners?

Because it won't stop there. Because it focuses on only one part of a person's impact on history, and the placement of many of the statues was part of the compact between North and South as part of the healing process to be able to honor those who fought for their side.

There was no compact. Grant lost popular support in the North to continue Reconstruction. And the South began it's propaganda war on the just and heroic "lost cause," which Semmes championed until his death in 1877.

But Mobiles mayor basically said the statute was a distraction from the future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-06-05/mobile-alabama-removes-confederate-statue-without-warning

There was an unwritten rule, to allow each side to honor their dead and their leaders.

And they did. Now, 100+ years later we are moving on.

Why do we get to decide that?

I think most of us see that honoring people who fought for slavery is fucked up. And we don't need to honor agreements that are fucked up.

That's my take on the whole thing.

Brave talk by a keyboard commando a hundred plus years after both sides that actually bled in the conflict agreed to the parameters of how each side could honor their dead and failed/successful leaders.

100+ years ago. That's the key part right there.

We are no longer a nation who honors people who fought to own other people. We recognize the pure evil of that position. We are finally moving on from the horror of the Confederacy.

Some will be left behind, as always. Change is hard. Harder for some than others.

Pure Evil? Plenty of slavery was still going on back then, including in Africa.

Owning another person and forcing them to work for you, for no pay under threat of violence or death, is PURE EVIL no matter where it occurs. It's stealing another person's life. Stealing their LIFE.

Do you not agree with/understand that?

When you keep defining down "pure evil" you make actual evil meaningless.

Once again you apply modern morality to previous eras in history.

How about we apply past morality to current actions?

Oh hell no. I'll take a pass on past morality where it was okay to own other people. We know better now. We understand it is not okay to own people and force them to work for you. To whip them, to rip their families apart, to rape them AND their children.

It was Pure Evil. It was cruel. It was barbaric. IT WAS NEVER OKAY. Normal people understand this. We are better than our ancestors.

We don't need to pretend these were honorable people. They were not.

It was not pure evil, it was done by very moral people at the time, and opposed by very moral people at the time. Human history has far more time periods where people owned other people than not.

Even today when the practice is universally condemned it still goes on.

Very moral people do not whip, rape, beat, sell, shackle, burn, mutilate, brand, hang, and force other people to work for them. Chattel slaves were property with no legal protections. It was/is evil in every way. There is no moral justification for slavery. None. It's vile. It's horrific. It's PURE EVIL.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil.

Not all Slave owners abused their slaves. Again, some practices were evil, but the institution was not AT THE TIME.

Someone trying it now would be evil

That is purely ignorant nonsense.
See the abolitionist movement for clarity.

Sorry but I refuse to impose my moral standards on past actions for current political gain.

That's all this bullshit is really.

So slavery was moral?

At the time, plenty of people thought it was moral. They even justified it as such, once they kept getting called out by the abolitionists as being immoral. Their logic was shit, and their reasoning flawed, but they did in their own minds justify it.

I consider it to be wrong, but I reserve the term evil for actual evil.

The people who thought it was moral were the ones who supported slavery. Slavery was morally reprehensible to the rest of the nation who tried to end the evil practice to the point the south seceded to preserve slavery.

Actually all they were promising in 1860 was preventing it's spread into the territories. That was the Republican Platform, not emancipation, not an amendment to ban it, just limiting the spread.

So while many of the harder line abolitionists wanted to ban it (and some then wanted to ship the inferior blacks back to Africa) most people really just wanted to limit the South's power, and to prevent them from increasing their power via new slave states.

Kind of half assing it if they truly thought it was the darkest evil, right?

Jeez, it's almost like the issue is far more nuanced and complex then certain assholes want to pretend it is....

It also shows that the left requires ideological purity on this issue or you are some WP zealot.

What are the nuances and complexities that justify owning other people and forcing them to work for you without pay?

Or are there other complexities and nuances that should be considered when debating the ownership and forced labor of another person?

Ask the Romans, ask the serfs, and ask the indentured servants.

Also ask prisoners.

I'm asking you. Do you not wish to answer?

History is full of exploitation of one group by another, as the examples I have given. Calling it all "evil" just removes the meaning from the term, and equates it with things like the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation.

Yes. Slavery is just as evil. I fully equate slavery with the holocaust, serial killings, and cultural practices like female genital mutilation. A stolen life is a stolen life. Torture is torture.

Embezzlement is wrong. Burglary is wrong. Identity theft is wrong. Armed robbery is wrong. You diminish the horror of slavery when you equate them with things that are 'wrong'.

Slavery and all the things that came along with it (rape, branding, mutilation, whipping, burning, lynching) was, and is PURE EVIL. Straight up from Hell unless you were the slave owner.

Did you have relatives who owned slaves?