Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trekkin]

Wikipedia doesn't really say what his views on slavery were, going to try and find that.

Well, the standard Lost Cause line is that Maury, much like Lee, is just another of those good Southern boys who were really anti-slavery but just loved (a very specific version of) "their homeland" so much that they fought a war to preserve slavery on its behalf.

[smjjames]

Wikipedia doesn't really say what his views on slavery were, going to try and find that.

Well, the standard Lost Cause line is that Maury, much like Lee, is just another of those good Southern boys who were really anti-slavery but just loved (a very specific version of) "their homeland" so much that they fought a war to preserve slavery on its behalf.

Wasn't Lee supposed to be a brutal slavemaster? And Maury was apparently antislavery, but not antislavery enough to not consider sending African Americans down to Brazil, which was still a slave state at the time.

There's a good deal of facts and counterfacts and counter-counterfacts and counter-counter-counterfacts surrounding various figures of the Civil War and even that has been clouded a bit by time. So, it's going to take a dedicated professional historian to get the facts out of there.

[Lord Shonus]

Wikipedia doesn't really say what his views on slavery were, going to try and find that.

Well, the standard Lost Cause line is that Maury, much like Lee, is just another of those good Southern boys who were really anti-slavery but just loved (a very specific version of) "their homeland" so much that they fought a war to preserve slavery on its behalf.

Wasn't Lee supposed to be a brutal slavemaster?

That claim has been made, but does not appear to be supported by history. The only slaves Lee ever owned were those inherited from his father-in-law* which he was legally obliged to set free after five years. He did insist on keeping them for the entire five years, and was noted as being a more attentive master than his late father in law, but the claim that he was particularly brutal has little support.


*There is a persistent and loud claim that he inherited slaves from his mother. This is unlikely, as the Lees were extremely poor until his marriage into the Custis family, to the point where his father spent time locked in a debtor's prison. Had the family possessed any slaves, they could have easily attained a fairly comfortable position by selling them.

[smjjames]

I don't think it was his ownership of slaves that was brutal, but rather the means that he recaptured those taken in battle. Something about pouring brine down their freshly-lashed backs or something.

Yeah, I was referring to that quote someone gave about that. Could have been Northerner propoganda for all we know. Just shows how the facts are muddled in both directions and both sides.

Still, the point I was kind of trying to make is that should we remove ALL confederate statues or just the ones explictly considered to be Civil War statues.

To get past the political polarization, there should be some sort of non-partisan reconcillation comitee which can discuss it. Of course though, it'll end up being that nobody can agree who sits on it.

There just isn't an easy clear cut answer to all this, is there. There never is one.

[Lord Shonus]

The oft-repeated claim that Lee was brutal to slaves comes from the lashings given to three slaves (Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and an unknown male cousin) that ran away from Arlington between Custis's death and the freeing of all Arlington's slaves in 1862. Allegedly, fifty lashes were given to each slave, with Lee personally administering them after an overseer flatly refused. After the lashings were given, the slaves were then washed with brine and sold.


The penalty of fifty lashes for the men and twenty for the woman, along with the washing in brine, are substantiated by Norris. The balking overseer is also thus substantiated, but Lee personally performing the punishment is not - Norris states that Lee ordered a constable to do it. The slaves in question were not sold - the men were hired out to build railroads, and all three were specifically included by name in the 1862 bill of manumission.

There are three important caveats.
1. Brine was commonly used after lashings (not just to slaves, but to anybody whipped as a punishment) because salt water was believed to help the wounds to heal - modern science has found that salt can serve as an effective cleaning agent, and greatly reduces the painful swelling from the wound.

2. This is the only substantiated case of lashes being given at Arlington between 1853 and 1862. It is possible that there were others, but the mere fact that this incident was considered worth recording strongly suggests that they were quite rare. It was not unheard of for lashings to be delivered daily on other plantations of the era.

3. When Lee took over the slaves in question, he advertised for "an energetic honest farmer, who while he will be considerate & kind to the negroes, will be firm & make them do their duty" with no results. He could easily have selected any number of men with a reputation for harshness (such men being a common detrius of the plantation system), but administered the plantation himself instead.


As objectionable as the entire institution was, the claim that Lee was harsh by any standards other than our own is weak.

[smjjames]

How much of that is whitewashed by the whole Lost Cause thing? Just using a dose of skepticism here. The brine thing I didn't know about and wasn't in the historical context mentioned earlier.

The problem is that the Lost Cause thing (the fake news of the time) muddles the whole thing and makes you wonder which part is real and which part is from the Lost Cause thing. Or do changes made by the Lost Cause thing make it rather obvious?

[Trekkin]

As objectionable as the entire institution was, the claim that Lee was harsh by any standards other than our own is weak.

Sure, but that's why we need to remember it. I don't bring up Lee's cruelty because he was exceptionally cruel, but rather because fifty lashes and brine was considered a normal thing to do to punish the humans he owned for trying not to be property anymore. That was part of the institution he was willing to fight a war against his country to defend. Stonewall Jackson was similarly just a socially awkward tactics nerd throughout his 20s who didn't know what to do at fancy tea parties but was sure that blood should be shed to defend slavery. These men were not unique monsters. They simply and understandably lacked a willingness to be actively, uncomfortably better than the monstrous times in which they lived -- and that's all it takes to end up doing terrible things for unconscionable reasons.

That is a lesson of the Civil War worth remembering, I think.

[Frumple]

Still, the point I was kind of trying to make is that should we remove ALL confederate statues or just the ones explictly considered to be Civil War statues.

I'd... probably say all or most, really. If for no other reason than I'm not entirely sure what the difference would be, given that there more or less wasn't a confederacy before the war and there wasn't particularly one after it, either.

'Course, by "remove", I'm talking just... out of the way. Edge of town away from major motorway kinda' stuff, if not in a museum or dedicated memorial park type thing. Probable exceptions for simple memorials, ala the major 'nam one... maybe stuff that's particularly well done and/or tasteful, gives proper weight to the kinda' ruddy vile choice the folks down here made, if some way to do that could be hashed out. We can do remembrance without glorification and whatnot.

Idle thought, honestly, would be to just... ask. Town/city in general, specific neighborhood(s) if there's no notable roadways nearby, maybe whoever can be identified as using said road if it is. Stuff like that. Maybe mandate that they're going to be moved, and away from official use buildings, but negotiations open after that. If you really want to have "fun", give the town a vote and have the white population count for 3/5ths :V _{don't actually do that, seriously goddamn} More seriously, could just give disproportionate weight to minorities in the area with it being quite so on the nose. I could see something like... minority populations in the area gets to decide if a particular statue will be moved, but actually removing it from (a certain radius around the) town would take a full population vote.

Could see something like a... bidding system, I guess, too. Something like it. Allow for their destruction with a certain degree of community support, but also allow for outside towns (and/or individuals) a chance to claim the monument should it be slated for getting wrecked. They pay transportation and instillation fees and someone that really doesn't want the things gone can just... get 'em instead.

Plenty of stuff in those sorts of directions to utilize, really. There kinda' are fairly easy and clear-cut ways to figure out how to go about this stuff, if the political and practical will can be brought to bear. Fundamentally you're just moving a hunk of material with some input from the community, with a few limits to make sure some batch of jackasses or another don't try to put it somewhere stupid. If folks actually want to get it done, they probably wouldn't need to butt heads much beyond that.

[RedKing]

Group A does something to group B, group A is slapped down for it.

Group A tries to stand up again after being slapped, Group A is slapped down for it.

Group A complains that they are being slapped, Group A is slapped down for it.

Group A tries to do something else, Group A is slapped down for it.

Group A tries to remember a time they weren't being slapped... It was before they were slapped down for it.

---

Hence why they should just teach that the North killed every southerner after the Civil War. Just rewrite history. There are no actual factual Nazis anymore, so there shouldn't be any southerners.

Neo....just shut the fuck up. Seriously.

You've proven time and again lately that you have nothing useful to contribute to a conversation. You're like Loud Whispers, except without the skill for shitposting.

EDIT: and with that, I'm out of this thread for a while, to avoid a lock and/or a ban. Carry on quibbling about whether Lee was a monster, or only sort of a monster, or "a product of his time", or whatever.

[Neonivek]

Group A does something to group B, group A is slapped down for it.

Group A tries to stand up again after being slapped, Group A is slapped down for it.

Group A complains that they are being slapped, Group A is slapped down for it.

Group A tries to do something else, Group A is slapped down for it.

Group A tries to remember a time they weren't being slapped... It was before they were slapped down for it.

---

Hence why they should just teach that the North killed every southerner after the Civil War. Just rewrite history. There are no actual factual Nazis anymore, so there shouldn't be any southerners.

Neo....just shut the fuck up. Seriously.

You've proven time and again lately that you have nothing useful to contribute to a conversation. You're like Loud Whispers, except without the skill for shitposting.

EDIT: and with that, I'm out of this thread for a while, to avoid a lock and/or a ban. Carry on quibbling about whether Lee was a monster, or only sort of a monster, or "a product of his time", or whatever.

It wasn't ANYTHING CLOSE to a shitpost. I don't make shitposts.

You've proven time and again lately that you have nothing useful to contribute to a conversation

No, I've proven I don't have YOUR opinion. I don't think the way YOU do.

You don't even know what that post is about do you?
-a) It is a response to an earlier post that surmises the entire civil war as "The South did something to the North"
-b) There is a summation of this post earlier

The South was never really allowed to recover from the Civil War.

Which was the problem, part of the problem at least. There was never really any reconcillation either, instead, it's been a messy, jerky, spastic, rollercoaster of a reconcillation that happened bit by bit.

Maaaaaybe my point has something to do with the fact that even though the south was "Whipped back in line" they are still treated as if they are an enemy and still treated as though they were completely conquered and consistently kept down in terms of trying to redevelop their culture... AND considered the equivalent of Nazis.

That maybe through absurdum I am saying: "Hey, maybe you should just finish the job." in a sarcastic tone.

[sluissa]

Exactly the sort of dialogue we need to convince people to give up their evil beliefs.

/sarcasm

EDIT: To specify, not directed at Neonivek.

[Max™]

It's funny because I was just about to point out how civil everyone has been in a discussion involving actual modern day nazis and confederate monuments.

My basic check for if it should be removed is simple: did it get built during the KKK/segregationist era[s] as a big marble "fuck you" to the descendants of slaves and anyone on their side? If so, kick it over, call it a monument to not letting the fucking KKK get into a position of power again.

Yes, that will end up removing most of them, since, well...

Spoiler: the timing is, shall we say, suggestive? (click to show/hide)

[Neonivek]

It's funny because I was just about to point out how civil everyone has been in a discussion involving actual modern day nazis and confederate monuments.

If it makes you feel any better. It was likely someone was going to rage against me regardless of what the discussion was about. It could have been Trump's favorite flavor of icecream and I went "Yes, perhaps we should judge presidents based on their particular icecream preferences" as a joke made to highlight how they politicized icecream... And someone would have yelled at me for being obtuse.

[Max™]

I adore a part of you for having the audacity to note that people were probably missing something you left out of your post, which is amazing.

[Starver]

(@Neo: Not wanting to press the point, but I've been looking for "April Fool is racist" references, given it clashed with what I already thought I knew. Closest I've come is loose association between blackface (not necessarily racist) Morris Dancing being a springtime (only proximate to 1st/4th) tradition. Even going into Poisson d'Avril and other non-anglocentric varieties, I can't see obvious way you were heading. But I probably misread, hence why no reply before.)