I'm sure most people in England in the 1700's wouldn't have considered the U.S. citizens patriots either. Doesn't mean they weren't. To most in England the U.S. citizens rising up against England and the monarchy were traitors. It's all perspective.
It is ironic how some of the same people that claim that morality is not relative then come here with the mother of all moral relativism on this topic alone. He can't be judged because of "the times" (i.e., other people believed those things too). It is infantilising. He was an educated adult. He was exposed to the morality of abolitionists, who were not some tiny minority at the time. It appears that he chose to kill to prevent that morality from taking hold. He maintained his control over slaves for his economic benefit. He did so while being of sound mind and with full knowledge of what he was doing.
I laugh t these people that think they have the right to tell us what we can and can't do about people in history. And if you don't do what they say you are not an American Patriot? LMFAO! Where do the communist open border people come from? I'm sure they like the George Floyd statue... This drug dealing crack head is more hero than Robert E. Lee was to them and our country.
Actually, he was. Floyd didn't lead an armed rebellion against the United States. Lee was a traitor. But then again, armed insurrections against the US don't seem to concern you.
People may not realize that much of the idea of states rights came from the fact the colonies were essentially their own independent entities. There was much fighting between the founding fathers regarding the role of a central government s state rule, some didn’t want to sign the Declaration of independence because of this. In 1860 the US was barely 70 years old so it’s not crazy to see why some felt more allegiance to their home state over the US. Now almost 200 years later that idea for me is absurd, but I can understand why the felt that way from studying history.
It seems to me you’re suggesting the Robert E Lee only took up arms vs the US because of his own financial self interests, from what I’ve read and seen that was hardly the case. From your post should I assume you feel the same about all of the founding fathers who owned slaves? And anyone how owned slaves since that time?
No, he kept slaves for his financial self interests. He fought for that system. And he did so against people who had a more moral position. He was not a child. He was not incapable of thought or morality. Largely, yes, they were immoral. But here is the difference: we don't celebrate the Founding Fathers because they owned slaves and defended slavery. We celebrate them in spite of that. Lee's major accomplishment was killing a bunch of people to preserve slavery.
The American revolution was fought for independence from a monarchy. The south rebelled in Civil War against a democracy so as to preserve the institution of slavery. Apples vs. dogshit.
While I generally agree with this, the Civil War definitely did include the element of whether states had certain rights..... ....such as to legally enslave other people and consider them property.
Whether or not they are lamenting the loss of the war by the CSA they do favor honoring the leaders of an insurrection against the lawful government of the United States.
And they're too ignorant to realize the symbolism. Not surprising considering their Dear Leader loves the uneducated.
yes Floyd is preferable to a racist human trafficking leader who helped lead 10s of thousands of his followers to their death for a losing cause and he himself, a loser.
The whole "how it used to be" canard is absurd after about 30 seconds of consideration. Trying to rationalize your actual current beliefs by sanitizing abhorrent past behavior, essentially. The Lost Causers are pretty bad at it. I mean most of them can thoroughly explain how Moses was doing the right thing, and, oh, Yul Brenner couldn't support himself with that "but this is just how we do it, guys, mmm-kay?" thing.
I'm not a history major by any stretch of the imagination but wasn't that one reason why the Articles of Confederation didn't work out, the power of a central government?
