SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The President of the University of Texas at Austin released a letter regarding the removal of statues on the campus.
[...] The University of Texas at Austin is a public educational and research institution, first and foremost. The historical and cultural significance of the Confederate statues on our campus — and the connections that individuals have with them — are severely compromised by what they symbolize. Erected during the period of Jim Crow laws and segregation, the statues represent the subjugation of African Americans. That remains true today for white supremacists who use them to symbolize hatred and bigotry.
The University of Texas at Austin has a duty to preserve and study history. But our duty also compels us to acknowledge that those parts of our history that run counter to the university's core values, the values of our state and the enduring values of our nation do not belong on pedestals in the heart of the Forty Acres.
The issue isn't a new one, they first looked into the issue in 2015, and had a wide range of options including effectively turning the mall into an open air museum, which they eventually decided against. Should the statues be relocated from their historical context just because of the attitudes and behaviour of noisy minorities? (Your humble editor cannot forget the local riots when a historical but hostile-themed statue was relocated.)
(Score: 5, Informative) by https on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:20PM (6 children)
You're as wrong as it's possible to be.
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states [civilwar.org]
Georgia: First paragraph, immediately following the statement of secession: slavery.
Mississippi: Second paragraph, immediately following the statement of secession: slavery.
South Carolina: This one seems to have been written by someone paid per word. After extensive explanation as to why they believe they have the authroity to secede, complain about slaves trying to escape "justice" by crossing borders and how the northern states should stick to the original deal of returning them. And so on. And on. And on.
Texas: "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
Virginia: Open paragraph compliant leading up to declaration of secession: "...not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States." [ emphasis added by ~https]
So, kindly shut up until you're ready to act like you have the reading comprehension of a teenager. The civil war was all about slavery.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:21PM (2 children)
Yes, you are. Saying the Civil War was about slavery is roughly the same as saying the American Revolution was about tea. It was the straw that broke the camel's back in regards to the illegal power grabbing of the federal government but that's all it was. Unless... Are you really foolish enough to believe that slavery was ended with the Emancipation Proclamation legally or that the Thirteenth Amendment was passed in a legal manner?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:36PM (1 child)
I don't remember reading anything about tea in the Declaration of Independence. It's been a while since I read it in full, however.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday August 24 2017, @09:35AM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Libertea and the pursuit of Happiness."
Check and Mate.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Tuesday August 22 2017, @11:46PM (2 children)
And of course, back then, like now, the affluent had the time to become the politicians because, well, ofc, the working man had to work for a living.
So the people writing these statements were the wealthy plantation owners that loved slavery because it was hugely profitable.
As with most wars, the enlisted men during the civil war were not the wealthy... yet they fought anyway. Do you think the average soldier did so to protect slavery? I doubt it, they weren't making any money off of it. Many of them did so to protect their state's sovereign rights. (or because they had little choice; i.e. go and fight for us or die now)
I am not saying that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, but to act as it was the only thing is ignorant as hell.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:02PM (1 child)
So Johnny Reb didn't have the free time to philosophize about the moral implications of slavery, but did have time to contemplate the nature of states' rights vs. fed government. I think I understand why your user name is stretch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:39PM
fair point, but i think you can imagine what the common thought process was like. it's just like now. the newspaper told them stories about northern aggression (substitute iraq, north korea, whatever other BS) and control and they wanted to fight for their independence/defend their homeland. It would have been pretty easy to sell the protection of slavery to someone who might have job/social competition otherwise. that's what happened once they were freed and what fueled the social unrest like jim crow and the kkk. fighting amoungst the poor over the scraps from the fat cats who had pitted them against each other. now we're supposed to demonize one side and chant together like assimilated drones or fight over it like hyenas? false choice, man!