How Long til Silent Sam is Removed (one way or the other)?

[TarHeelNation11]

Not long now. Gov. Cooper gave permission for it to be removed.

The reasoning he gave is absolutely pathetic. Kowtowing to the threat of violent/destructive protests.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Essentially he said "Well, since people elsewhere have broken the law and ripped down other statues, I'm going to give in to that lawlessness."

 

[ticket2ride04]

I'm the same guy. Maybe my delivery has gotten more refined.

I attribute it to the return of a certain poaster whose namesake is a Beatles tune.

I don't have time to give a full crash course on the civil war and the confederacy and the fact they were fighting for states rights, and that due to the age-old process of the victors writing the history books the general impression by the uninformed is that it was over slavery. Maybe I'll just tag @TarHeelNation11 as I know he likes taking people to task on that issue. But I will ask if some random southerner getting drafted into the CSA army meant that he was drafted into being a racist? History fail.

The civil war was about states rights. The right for southern states to keep slavery. To argue otherwise demonstrates ignorance at best, and cognitive dullness at worst.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I attribute it to the return of a certain poaster whose namesake is a Beatles tune.


The civil war was about states rights. The right for southern states to keep slavery. To argue otherwise demonstrates ignorance at best, and cognitive dullness at worst.

LULZ.

 

[ticket2ride04]

That would be a great discussion for a civil group. What else offends you? You have to work together to improve. Our overall problem seems to be that we are stuck in the white or black lanes. Not in all areas of life, but are we truly okay with full integration.

I will open up a can of worms. Do you openly have true friends of the opposite race? How do you feel about interracial dating/marriage? Do you worship with different races? None of these questions being answered either way will identify you as a racist. However, it may definitely define if you are stuck in a white or black lane.

Until we can grow enough to be okay with integrated "lanes". We will continue down the same path. Is proving a point that we won't fold for you really worth it? This isn't a "snowflake" situation in my opinion. It's about true feelings that white people may not be mentally able to understand.

Great poast. I've had friends who make questionable jokes/remarks prefaced by the words, I'm not racist...

I simply ask them would they be ok with their daughter marrying a black man. The facial contortion usually tells me all I need to know.

 

[ticket2ride04]

LULZ.

I'd expect nothing less from you

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I'd expect nothing less from you

Your statement I quoted was wrong, but continue to supplement your lack of knowledge with condescension.

 

[ticket2ride04]

Your statement I quoted was wrong, but continue to supplement your lack of knowledge with condescension.

I'm assuming you mean that the South's succession was not about slavery?

 

[heelmanwilm]

Wasnt there a story about how at sam's dedication the speech included a reference to him whipping a female slave or something?

 

[strummingram]

Wasnt there a story about how at sam's dedication the speech included a reference to him whipping a female slave or something?

Carr did that, yes. Allegedly, he did. I wasn't there, of course.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Wasnt there a story about how at sam's dedication the speech included a reference to him whipping a female slave or something?

"Him" would be Alexander Carr, namesake of Carrboro. There is no specific person represented by the statue. And yeah that's correct about Carr's statement, whipping a black female.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I'm assuming you mean that the South's succession was not about slavery?

It's not that cut and dry, no. Don't take my word for it though. Google is your friend.

 

[ticket2ride04]

It's not that cut and dry, no. Don't take my word for it though. Google is your friend.

Have you ever considered you aren't as smart/educated as you think you are? Google is not my friend. Nor is an AP HS history class. Books, education, and debate are my friend. The states rights argument can quickly be nullified by looking over South Carolina's declaration of succession where they want their cake and to eat it too.

The civil war was about maintains the economic engine of the South. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[tarheel0910]

Not long now. Gov. Cooper gave permission for it to be removed.

The reasoning he gave is absolutely pathetic. Kowtowing to the threat of violent/destructive protests.

Can he do it unilaterally or does he have to get approval from the legislature?

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Can he do it unilaterally or does he have to get approval from the legislature?

I don't know if he legally can or not, but he did it unilaterally.

This is a very dangerous precedent being set that violence and lawlessness will allow you to get your way.

 

[tarheel0910]

I don't know if he legally can or not, but he did it unilaterally.

This is a very dangerous precedent being set that violence and lawlessness will allow you to get your way.

What makes it worse is this is one of the statues that doesn't really have anything to do with glorifying the south. It barely qualifies as a confederate statue.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

What makes it worse is this is one of the statues that doesn't really have anything to do with glorifying the south. It barely qualifies as a confederate statue.

Unfortunately, protesters are unwilling to learn anything before jumping to rash actions.

I emailed Folt today after she sent out that email I poasted and politely expressed my views that now is the time for measured, calm debate and discussion, not knee-jerk reactions to appease the flavor of the month protests.

 

[strummingram]

It's not that cut and dry, no. Don't take my word for it though. Google is your friend.

So, let's remove the variable of the institution of slavery. It never existed. What possible reason would the Southern states have to secede? There is none.

As much as I'm surprised to use this source as a device to prove this. I'm not too proud to say "Prager U came through on this." :



I realize it's not flattering. I realize it's a painful, unpleasant truth. But, the Southern states seceded so that the institution of slavery, and everything it entailed, could continue unfettered and without any threat of legislative restraint and/or abolition.

I've already stated that I wish Silent Sam would stay. That statue was intentionally made to exhibit a benign, even vanquished sentiment. As a memorial to those students that were killed, I think it's perfectly appropriate for a UNC campus display. It's historic to the university and the details of its benevolence makes it much less of a glorification of slavery, if at all.

ETA:

I need to clarify my statements about slavery. The institution of Slavery is not precisely the reason. The PROFIT FROM the institution of Slavery is the reason! The wealth that comes from not having to pay your labor force, and being able to BUY AND SELL the very same labor force, makes the wealthy planters of the South obscenely wealthy.

Every one of us, I hope, is glad that the South lost the war.

 

[Grayhead]

Wonder if they will go after some of the historic plantations next?

Also, the question was posed earlier about interracial marriage.

I was raised in an era still adjusting from the civil rights movement and Vietnam war. I was also raised in a strict Christian home, as was many people in my area. Times was much simpler then. We were very poor as well.
One of the principles my family taught was not to marry out of our race. And I promise, it was not a race hate issue. It was founded from a biblical principle that God told Israel to not intermingle with other nations.
In saying that, it was understood by both whites and blacks. Does that define racist? Absolutely not. It's called culture.
Here's an example of racist.
I have 2 cousins who at the same time liked black guys. They went thru pure hell in school because of their choices. Both had children that were mixed. Those kids grew up with this as well. The older daughter was infatuated with my step son. My wife and I had no issues with this.
Also, my dad married a full blooded Hispanic after he and my mom separated. I always thought it was a bit of an irony he would marry her after telling me I couldn't marry outside of my race.

But let me say this, even though my parents taught me this, it was not painted with a brush of hate. We had lots of dealing with blacks growing up. One of my best friends is black. In getting close to him, I discovered many things about their culture. We could openly discuss these issues without either side taking offence. He made a comma t one time that troubled me deeply.
When the travon martin incident happened, and the blacks where burning buildings, we talked about how foolish that was. He made a comment that they deserved to burn those cities down. To me, that's the mentality that keeps this going. And many blacks harbor that same mindset.

 

[Grayhead]

The only thing that will settle some of this is open discussion. Our democracy is set to fail because the same freedom we are granted is turned into a agenda driven war between principles.
BLM KKK NeoNazies, are not how most live their lives. Our government doesn't help because of officials being concerned with his they look in public. It then becomes party verses party. During o am as terms, it became popular to throw the race card, of calling people homophobes because people didn't conform to what one side thought.
Instead of open talks, we get mob mentality. Lots of name calling on both sides. You see it everyday on this board. And there is no one on this board pushing the side of extreme lib or con in my book. Lots of name calling though.

We need unity. Healing can only come this way.

 

[ticket2ride04]

Wonder if they will go after some of the historic plantations next?

Also, the question was posed earlier about interracial marriage.

I was raised in an era still adjusting from the civil rights movement and Vietnam war. I was also raised in a strict Christian home, as was many people in my area. Times was much simpler then. We were very poor as well.
One of the principles my family taught was not to marry out of our race. And I promise, it was not a race hate issue. It was founded from a biblical principle that God told Israel to not intermingle with other nations.
In saying that, it was understood by both whites and blacks. Does that define racist? Absolutely not. It's called culture.
Here's an example of racist.
I have 2 cousins who at the same time liked black guys. They went thru pure hell in school because of their choices. Both had children that were mixed. Those kids grew up with this as well. The older daughter was infatuated with my step son. My wife and I had no issues with this.
Also, my dad married a full blooded Hispanic after he and my mom separated. I always thought it was a bit of an irony he would marry her after telling me I couldn't marry outside of my race.

But let me say this, even though my parents taught me this, it was not painted with a brush of hate. We had lots of dealing with blacks growing up. One of my best friends is black. In getting close to him, I discovered many things about their culture. We could openly discuss these issues without either side taking offence. He made a comma t one time that troubled me deeply.
When the travon martin incident happened, and the blacks where burning buildings, we talked about how foolish that was. He made a comment that they deserved to burn those cities down. To me, that's the mentality that keeps this going. And many blacks harbor that same mindset.

I can respect your honest but there isn't a logical reason why anyone should not marry outside of their race. Couple of questions for you friend:

- do you still believe people should marry within their race?

- isn't this from the Old Testament?

 

[gunslingerdick]

 

[gunslingerdick]

Wonder if they will go after some of the historic plantations next?

Also, the question was posed earlier about interracial marriage.

I was raised in an era still adjusting from the civil rights movement and Vietnam war. I was also raised in a strict Christian home, as was many people in my area. Times was much simpler then. We were very poor as well.
One of the principles my family taught was not to marry out of our race. And I promise, it was not a race hate issue. It was founded from a biblical principle that God told Israel to not intermingle with other nations.
In saying that, it was understood by both whites and blacks. Does that define racist? Absolutely not. It's called culture.
Here's an example of racist.
I have 2 cousins who at the same time liked black guys. They went thru pure hell in school because of their choices. Both had children that were mixed. Those kids grew up with this as well. The older daughter was infatuated with my step son. My wife and I had no issues with this.
Also, my dad married a full blooded Hispanic after he and my mom separated. I always thought it was a bit of an irony he would marry her after telling me I couldn't marry outside of my race.

But let me say this, even though my parents taught me this, it was not painted with a brush of hate. We had lots of dealing with blacks growing up. One of my best friends is black. In getting close to him, I discovered many things about their culture. We could openly discuss these issues without either side taking offence. He made a comma t one time that troubled me deeply.
When the travon martin incident happened, and the blacks where burning buildings, we talked about how foolish that was. He made a comment that they deserved to burn those cities down. To me, that's the mentality that keeps this going. And many blacks harbor that same mindset.

I wish you poasted more.

 

[Grayhead]

- do you still believe people should marry within their race?

- isn't this from the Old Testament?

I no longer have an issue with it. Never really did, just had to get past what I was told as a child. Yes, it is an old testament custom. But I also seen a loophole in that idea. God commanded Israel to abstain from mixing races, but it was due to bringing in other religions and beliefs into the nation. Did they listen, no.
I also learned that people of other nationalities could convert to Judaism. What my parents taught was learned tradition. I think people typically stay with their own race by natural tendency. But todays society has changed the statistical numbers towards acceptance. And I'm fine with it. As I said before, I would have been fine with my step son dating my mixed race cousin.

Here's another opinion of mine.
Black people have fought a long hard battle to get a fair shake in life. I commend them for what they have accomplished in the last 100 years. But I detest the attitude of some that feel they are entitled to anything they want. That alone stifles a diverse culture. To me, politics has swayed that idea.
I'll pose this, if the north was so concerned with the slaves being free, why where they not made equal citizens back then? From the arguments I have read on this board, the north thinks they were righteous in their quest to free slaves. If this was the case, they would have marched on the border states as well. They reaped the benefits of staying in the union, while selling their slaves to deep South plantation owners.
My point is this, society was graduating towards removing slavery. As the industrial industry was taking off, the need for labor was reduced. The north cashed in earlier than the south in that area. The cotton gin revolutionized the ability to harvest cotton. Imagine if that had developed before all the bloodshed. Much easier to maintain a machine than feed and house an army of servants.
I honestly feel there was more to that war than history tells. I really feel it had to do with the north fleecing the south as well as representation within the government. Slavery just happened to be the hot topic of the day. Kinda reminds you of modern day issues when you think about it

 

[Grayhead]

I wish you poasted more.

I love you too dick.

I'll poast more if you start liking poast again

 

[tarheel0910]

Unfortunately, protesters are unwilling to learn anything before jumping to rash actions.

I emailed Folt today after she sent out that email I poasted and politely expressed my views that now is the time for measured, calm debate and discussion, not knee-jerk reactions to appease the flavor of the month protests.

Let us know if she responds.

 

[tarheel0910]

I've already stated that I wish Silent Sam would stay. That statue was intentionally made to exhibit a benign, even vanquished sentiment. As a memorial to those students that were killed, I think it's perfectly appropriate for a UNC campus display. It's historic to the university and the details of its benevolence makes it much less of a glorification of slavery, if at all.

I wish those in charge would mention this instead of just giving into pressure. As @TarHeelNation11 said, this is a time for debate and discussion. I think that the majority of the people who want to remove the statue don't know the history behind it. If they did I don't think they would want it taken down.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I no longer have an issue with it. Never really did, just had to get past what I was told as a child. Yes, it is an old testament custom. But I also seen a loophole in that idea. God commanded Israel to abstain from mixing races, but it was due to bringing in other religions and beliefs into the nation. Did they listen, no.
I also learned that people of other nationalities could convert to Judaism. What my parents taught was learned tradition. I think people typically stay with their own race by natural tendency. But todays society has changed the statistical numbers towards acceptance. And I'm fine with it. As I said before, I would have been fine with my step son dating my mixed race niece.

Here's another opinion of mine.
Black people have fought a long hard battle to get a fair shake in life. I commend them for what they have accomplished in the last 100 years. But I detest the attitude of some that feel they are entitled to anything they want. That alone stifles a diverse culture. To me, politics has swayed that idea.
I'll pose this, if the north was so concerned with the slaves being free, why where they not made equal citizens back then? From the arguments I have read on this board, the north thinks they were righteous in their quest to free slaves. If this was the case, they would have marched on the border states as well. They reaped the benefits of staying in the union, while selling their slaves to deep South plantation owners.
My point is this, society was graduating towards removing slavery. As the industrial industry was taking off, the need for labor was reduced. The north cashed in earlier than the south in that area. The cotton gin revolutionized the ability to harvest cotton. Imagine if that had developed before all the bloodshed. Much easier to maintain a machine than feed and house an army of servants.
I honestly feel there was more to that war than history tells. I really feel it had to do with the north fleecing the south as well as representation within the government. Slavery just happened to be the hot topic of the day. Kinda reminds you of modern day issues when you think about it

Another gem from @Grayhead. This poast is money.

Slavery had runs its course, as you stated. Its time was over regardless of who had won the war. The sanctimonious bullshit from people propping up the North like they were the "good guys" is laughable. It's the idiot way to debate the Civil War. It's the low hanging fruit. It's inaccurate. As has been pointed out, Lincoln only grabbed hold of the moral side of abolishing slavery when it looked grim for the North. He didn't give a shit about slaves' freedom any more than anyone in the South. To view him as righteous is revisionist history.

As far as interracial marriages, I'm not against them at all. One of my groomsman married a black girl. She's awesome. She fit in with our group the same as everyone else. Would I want my kids to marry outside their race? Probably not. But not because I'm against it. But like Grayhead states, it's a harder life. I don't necessarily want that stress on my children (and grandchildren) for the rest of their lives. I'm also a realist and I understand that racism will live forever. It will never go away. Never, ever. All the talking about it, all the history we erase, all the kowtowing, etc will never stop people from being who they are. And I'm ok with that. I will adjust and live my life accordingly. And I warn again that the more focus you put on race relations and the more things we put in place to end racism will only help it grow. But it's my opinion that liberals actually want more racism so they can point more fingers and blame a certain group. But again, only in public where they can get credit for it. Not behind closed doors where their grandstanding can't be seen.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I love you too dick.

I'll poast more if you start liking poast again

 

[nctransplant]

I no longer have an issue with it. Never really did, just had to get past what I was told as a child. Yes, it is an old testament custom. But I also seen a loophole in that idea. God commanded Israel to abstain from mixing races, but it was due to bringing in other religions and beliefs into the nation. Did they listen, no.
I also learned that people of other nationalities could convert to Judaism. What my parents taught was learned tradition. I think people typically stay with their own race by natural tendency. But todays society has changed the statistical numbers towards acceptance. And I'm fine with it. As I said before, I would have been fine with my step son dating my mixed race niece.

Here's another opinion of mine.
Black people have fought a long hard battle to get a fair shake in life. I commend them for what they have accomplished in the last 100 years. But I detest the attitude of some that feel they are entitled to anything they want. That alone stifles a diverse culture. To me, politics has swayed that idea.
I'll pose this, if the north was so concerned with the slaves being free, why where they not made equal citizens back then? From the arguments I have read on this board, the north thinks they were righteous in their quest to free slaves. If this was the case, they would have marched on the border states as well. They reaped the benefits of staying in the union, while selling their slaves to deep South plantation owners.
My point is this, society was graduating towards removing slavery. As the industrial industry was taking off, the need for labor was reduced. The north cashed in earlier than the south in that area. The cotton gin revolutionized the ability to harvest cotton. Imagine if that had developed before all the bloodshed. Much easier to maintain a machine than feed and house an army of servants.
I honestly feel there was more to that war than history tells. I really feel it had to do with the north fleecing the south as well as representation within the government. Slavery just happened to be the hot topic of the day. Kinda reminds you of modern day issues when you think about it

One of the other reasons that the North made the war about slavery is that they believed that England was going to help the South.

 

[Grayhead]

One of the other reasons that the North made the war about slavery is that they believed that England was going to help the South.

Again, it was economical. Had the south stood as a sovergn nation, the north was concerned about all that precious cotton heading overseas. What would have happened if England landed troops to support the south? I guess we all would own slaves today

 

[ticket2ride04]

One of the other reasons that the North made the war about slavery is that they believed that England was going to help the South.

@Grayhead

The north didn't even have time to push the issue. SC seceded before Lincoln took office despite saying he wasn't going to abolish slavery in southern states (he didn't think the constitution allowed it) but that he would merely not allow new states to have slaves.

It was about slavery

 

[nctransplant]

@Grayhead

The north didn't even have time to push the issue. SC seceded before Lincoln took office despite saying he wasn't going to abolish slavery in southern states (he didn't think the constitution allowed it) but that he would merely not allow new states to have slaves.

It was about slavery

Next time you travel back in time let us know what else new you learn about US history.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Next time you travel back in time let us know what else new you learn about US history.

 

[ticket2ride04]

Next time you travel back in time let us know what else new you learn about US history.

I'm sorry?

 

[Grayhead]

@Grayhead

The north didn't even have time to push the issue. SC seceded before Lincoln took office despite saying he wasn't going to abolish slavery in southern states (he didn't think the constitution allowed it) but that he would merely not allow new states to have slaves.

It was about slavery

He was talking about slavery in his debates before he decided to run for president. His famous house divided quote came from his running for Congress, which he lost if memory serves me. Everyone acknowledges it was an issue and wrong. No one is defending slavery. But there is proof that it wasn't all about slavery. Again, if he felt so much for blacks, why did he not make them equal in all ways once emancipated? Also, why didn't he burn those 4 border states down who didn't take sides with the union? I'll answer the second one for you, they had no economical impact for the north. They had no cotton for cash crops. Again, the nation as a whole was moving away from slavery.

Maybe the north should have invested in the south, sent the good folks of new jersey down to create HOA's out of the plantations, and unionized the slave market.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Maybe the north should have invested in the south, sent the good folks of new jersey down to create HOA's out of the plantations, and unionized the slave market.

lol

 

[ticket2ride04]

He was talking about slavery in his debates before he decided to run for president. His famous house divided quote came from his running for Congress, which he lost if memory serves me. Everyone acknowledges it was an issue and wrong. No one is defending slavery. But there is proof that it wasn't all about slavery. Again, if he felt so much for blacks, why did he not make them equal in all ways once emancipated? Also, why didn't he burn those 4 border states down who didn't take sides with the union? I'll answer the second one for you, they had no economical impact for the north. They had no cotton for cash crops. Again, the nation as a whole was moving away from slavery.

Maybe the north should have invested in the south, sent the good folks of new jersey down to create HOA's out of the plantations, and unionized the slave market.

Lincoln was a constitutionalist. He wasn't going to take away slavery from the south. He didn't think it was under his purview. Yet the south seceded anyway.

 

[nctransplant]

Lincoln was a constitutionalist. He wasn't going to take away slavery from the south. He didn't think it was under his purview. Yet the south seceded anyway.

Your argument that succession and the war were about slavery makes no sense according to your post(you don't get a poast). The south seceded because of economics. Lincoln brought in slavery for fear of England helping the South. You undercut your own theory.

 

[ticket2ride04]

Your argument that succession and the war were about slavery makes no sense according to your post(you don't get a poast). The south seceded because of economics. Lincoln brought in slavery for fear of England helping the South. You undercut your own theory.

What in sweet heaven are you trying to say? First, explain how I undercut my own argument.