Slavery could have been made permanent in America?

[_Icarus]

I recommend checking out this sobering thread on Twitter about intended amendments to the US Constitution that were written to forever enshrine and protect slavery. The first prohibited Congress from abolishing or “impairing” slavery, and it passed both houses, was signed by the President, but was in the process of ratification when the Civil War broke out and scuttled it. The thread doesn’t mention it, but at the time, Lincoln had commented that he had no objection.

https://Twitter.com/TheViewFromLL2/stat ... 8256074753

So much for that argument that "The Civil War was unnecessary because slavery was on its way out anyway." This is a talking point I've seen folks in Right Wing la la land repeat.

[_ajax18]

Is that why your side is burning down statues of Lincoln along with George Washington now?

[Guest]

And Grant today. Looks like the hard Left is just going to go for it unopposed. I wouldn’t mind all the statue stuff if we had some really interesting or beautiful art to replace it with.

- Doc

[_Icarus]

Is that why your side is burning down statues of Lincoln along with George Washington now?

No, it is why you care more about pieces of metal than the lives of humans who have darker skin.

GW owned slaves, and the statue of Lincoln wasn't just of him. It also was a statue of a chained negro at his feet and Lincoln with his hand over him as if he were petting a dog.

[_EAllusion]

And Grant today. Looks like the hard Left is just going to go for it unopposed. I wouldn’t mind all the statue stuff if we had some really interesting or beautiful art to replace it with.

- Doc

Sometimes people just want to break stuff Doc.

[_Icarus]

You know what would be cool?

A statue of people breaking crap.

[_EAllusion]

Is that why your side is burning down statues of Lincoln along with George Washington now?

The thing about statues memorializing figures like Washington is that while George Washington did abhorrent things, he also did some important, laudable things and the statues are generally understood to be celebrating those things rather than the negatives. A statue of Washington exists because his roles in the American revolution and his shaping of the American presidency. Have you heard the term "problematic" before in this context? That's what it was invented to describe - something that has positive traits that can make it worthwhile, but comes with a downside that has to be understood. As in Fantasia is a "problematic" film.

Confederate statues aren't like this. The only reason those figures are famous is because of their association with being traitors to the United States to form a nation dedicated to the preservation of slavery. The statues don't exist despite this, but rather because of it. Jeff Davis did nothing historically noteworthy in his life besides head the government of the Confederacy and that's why there exist statues of him. Unlike a statue of Washington, they lack redeeming value. Because they were intentionally put up to memorialize and continue to function as monuments to white supremacy, they're just bad. Sometimes when people try to defend them, they claim they're just monuments to history - a way to remember the civil war. But we all know that's not what's really going on. What I appreciate about you Ajax is you most certainly know that. You just need a little push to be more open about it from time to time.

[_EAllusion]

You know what would be cool?

A statue of people breaking ____.

I'm a fan of the idea of replacing the statues with statues of Union figures, maybe black freedmen soldiers, to troll the idea that they exist merely to commemorate the civil war. Thaddeus Stevens definitely deserves more statues than exist of him. Wouldn't hurt to have more statues of Fredrick Douglas.

Failing at that, there's like a ton of historical figures who deserve recognition where this presents a nice opportunity to provide some love.

[_Icarus]

You know what would be cool?

A statue of people breaking ____.

I'm a fan of the idea of replacing the statues with statues of Union figures, maybe black freedmen, to troll the idea that they exist merely to commemorate the civil war. Thaddeus Stevens definitely deserves more statues than exist of him.

Failing at that, there's like a ton of historical figures who deserve recognition where this presents a nice opportunity to provide some love.

After watching the History Channel's documentary series on Grant, I'm stunned there aren't more statues of him. Not sure I've ever come across one.

[_EAllusion]

I gotta say that the rapid rehabilitation of Grant's reputation is an interesting story that I haven't seen written about much yet. I think Chernow's biography has a lot to do with it? I'm vaguely aware of the existence of a popular History channel documentary on him. Is that it? I can almost physically feel the public shift in reputation.

Hamilton's rehabilitation was easy to chalk up to a quirk of a very talented person writing a really good musical about him based on another Chernow biography, but Grant's? It seems like the turnabout was just as whiplash inducing.

I had an extremely good American history class in high school. My teacher had won state and national awards and I think of as one of the most impressive people I've ever known. I was fortunate not to get the lost-cause propaganda tinged version of Grant that was common in American history classes even up to when I was in school, but the hagiography wasn't there either, and I think the points of emphasis were still pulled by the gravity of lost-cause propaganda. I remember needing to know a lot of detail about corruption in his admin, for instance. I wonder how it'd be different now.