Tarps must come down from Confederate statues, judge says

The Daily Progress ^ | Feb 27, 2018 | The Daily Progress staff reports

[think4yrsf]

The City of Charlottesville will soon be ordered to remove the black tarps currently covering two Confederate statues downtown.

Reading from an official court letter Tuesday afternoon, Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore said he thinks the shrouds on the statues of Gens. Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson are a violation of a state code protecting the removal or disturbance of war memorials.

Moore said the city will have 15 days to remove the tarps after an official order has been signed.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Nope. That’s not what I said.

How could it have believed such an influx of paganism would have impunity. Like one could enslave in a vacuum.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Plus the only thing that could keep unwilling slaves — threatening — was forbidden in the New Testament.

If you’re going to excuse everything Christendom got involved with just because they did — well look what else your plate is crawling with.

[dsc]

“Otherwise, you lose, period.”

Nonsense. Cherry-picking is just as invalid from you as it is from him.

And what are you doing pinging in people who have been arguing with me on other topics? Trying to get a mob together? This is a cult with some people, and no amount of evidence or argumentation can shake their belief. I don’t propose to become entangled with that again.

As for contradicting “in any way,” there is a large amount of material doing just that in the public record. There’s everything from diaries to filmed statements of former Confederates. Any man of good faith is free to find it for himself, without demanding that I type it in here.

Of course, that would require that a person be more interested in finding the truth than in “winning” online arguments.

[Tammy8]

Change comes slowly to people, I am not sure at all that the mindset of all slave owners was to give up their slaves. The reality though was that slaves were very expensive, not just to purchase but to support. Each thing that allowed a slave owner to save on labor was leading to less slaves being needed. Some owners were turning against slavery for moral reasons- it became more and more common to give slaves their freedom. I have read many accounts of people inheriting slaves, and choosing to give them their freedom. There are also many accounts of people freeing slaves in their will.

I do believe slavery would have died out on its own, but the time frame- that is up for debate. I don’t have any idea if morals or the need for less labor would have led to it ending fairly quickly or over a long time frame. I know if I were a slave I would certainly not want to wait for freedom.

[Tammy8]

Yes, the truth is the country was divided on many issues just as it is now. More than anything there was a cultural divide which there is right now. If anything like the Civil War happens again I am sure one issue will be chosen as the cause and the many other issues will be forgotten.

Saying the Civil War was only about slavery fits an agenda but is not accurate.

[rockrr]

I don't know of anyone who claims that slavery was the only point of contention between north and south. I do claim that it was the prime issue - as evidenced by the statements of the confed leadership themselves.

[mac_truck]

I do claim that it was the prime issue -

You might even say it was a Cornerstone issue...if you believe the rebels own words.

[rockrr]

As a meeter of fact I included a passage from Mr. Stephens in my #61: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3635811/posts?page=61#61

But apparently posting the words of the president and vice president of the would-be confederacy is “cherry picking”

[rockrr]

meeter=matter ;’}

[Mr.Unique]

Sadly dsc will never admit error.

Even if he messes up 5th grade math.

[BroJoeK]

HiTech RedNeck: "How could it have believed such an influx of paganism would have impunity.
Like one could enslave in a vacuum."

FRiend, if you're making an argument against slavery, then you're preaching to the choir, no need to convince me.
I would not defend slavery, simply attempt to answer the historical question of "how it happened."

One issue in the US was how much education, especially religious teaching slaves should receive.
A problem was: some slave-holders realized that once a slave converted to Christianity, the Bible required them to be freed.
That's why many slaves were kept as ignorant of such things as possible.

HiTech RedNeck: "Plus the only thing that could keep unwilling slaves — threatening — was forbidden in the New Testament."

Sure, among other things.

HiTech RedNeck: "If you’re going to excuse everything Christendom got involved with just because they did — well look what else your plate is crawling with."

Not "excusing" anything -- have already mentioned the Bible opposes slavery for God's people, and the link in my post #97 shows where the Church first opposed slavery in 873 AD.
So it goes way back, though admittedly incomplete and inconsistent.

But if you're looking for an anti-Christian screed from me, then sorry, FRiend, you won't get it.

[BroJoeK]

dsc: "Cherry-picking is just as invalid from you as it is from him."

But there's no "cherry-picking" when the long list of quotes posted by rockrr is totally representative of the entire body of reasons published by secessionists at the time.

dsc: "And what are you doing pinging in people who have been arguing with me on other topics?
Trying to get a mob together?"

Nonsense, simply courtesy to those who've engaged you on this thread.
As for "mob", there's no such thing as a "mob" on Free Republic, simply a number of people interested in the same topic.

dsc: "This is a cult with some people, and no amount of evidence or argumentation can shake their belief.
I don’t propose to become entangled with that again."

Total nonsense.
The fact is, you have no "evidence or argumentation" which could convince anybody not already committed to your point of view.

dsc: "As for contradicting 'in any way,' there is a large amount of material doing just that in the public record.
There’s everything from diaries to filmed statements of former Confederates."

No, in fact there is nothing -- zero, zip, nada data -- from the time, supporting the Lost Cause myth.
All of it, every bit, comes long after the fact by people hoping to explain the inexplicable.

Indeed, by definition, the difference between real history and myth is what we have evidence for versus what was concocted after the fact to justify it.

dsc: "Any man of good faith is free to find it for himself, without demanding that I type it in here.
Of course, that would require that a person be more interested in finding the truth than in 'winning' online arguments."

Sure, on occasion I've attempted to read books supporting the Lost Cause, but could never get through them, because they are so full of nonsense & lies, they just make me angry.

So, if you wish to argue the Lost Cause here, you'll need to do better than that.
But you won't, will you, because you have no data and your beliefs aren't based on data anyway, are they?
Instead: "no amount of evidence or argumentation can shake their your belief," right?

[BroJoeK]

Tammy8: "Change comes slowly to people, I am not sure at all that the mindset of all slave owners was to give up their slaves."

There's a lot of confusion on this topic because, it turns out, both of the following were true:

1. In 1860 slavery was dying out.
   
2. In 1860 slavery had never been more profitable and slaves never in higher demand.

How can both be true, you ask?
The answer is: high prices for slaves made slavery in Border South states (Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Missouri) unprofitable, and given the ease of escaping to Northern free-states, caused many slave-holders to free their slaves or sell some "down the river" to the Deep Cotton South.
In 1860 slave prices were high and rising due to the highly profitable Deep South cotton industry which supplied 75% of the world's exports.
In 1860 there were no suggestions for abolition in the Deep South.

Tammy8: "I do believe slavery would have died out on its own, but the time frame- that is up for debate.
I don’t have any idea if morals or the need for less labor would..."

It's sometimes argued that slaves would be eventually replaced by machines, but that ignores the facts that slave prices went up & down according to cotton prices and if cotton became cheaper (because of machines), slave prices would adjust accordingly.
Also, by 1860 slaves could build, maintain and operate such machines as they had, no reason to think they couldn't continue to.

So, in an alternate-history where there was no Civil War or Confederates won it quickly, there's no reason to think slavery would ever necessarily become more of a burden than asset in the Deep South.

[BroJoeK]

;-)

[dsc]

“But there’s no “cherry-picking” when the long list of quotes posted by rockrr is totally representative of the entire body of reasons published by secessionists at the time.”

Which it most certainly is not. It is “totally representative” of what you believe, and nothing more.

“As for “mob”, there’s no such thing as a “mob” on Free Republic”

Nonsense.

“The fact is, you have no “evidence or argumentation” which could convince anybody not already committed to your point of view.”

Wrong again. It’s been typed in here on multiple occasions. Operating on the “pearls before swine” principle, I don’t propose to type it in again.

“No, in fact there is nothing — zero, zip, nada data — from the time, supporting the (truth).”

What a lie. Of course there is.

“All of it, every bit, comes long after the fact by people hoping to explain the inexplicable.”

And another lie.

Your purblind ferocity shows that it is useless to try and reason with you. Once again I gave you the courtesy of a reply; I don’t propose to do so again.

[BroJoeK]

dsc: "Which it most certainly is not.
It is “totally representative” of what you believe, and nothing more."

But the data is what it is.
If you have data from the time which contradicts the quotes in rockrr's post #61 above, please present it.
Otherwise, anyone reading this must assume you're just blowing smoke, right?

dsc: "Your purblind ferocity shows that it is useless to try and reason with you.
Once again I gave you the courtesy of a reply; I don’t propose to do so again."

"Prublind ferocity" would describe some posts from our pro-Confederates, by contrast with which the rest of us are gentle as lambs.
Plus, you actually made no reply at all, except to deny facts of history.
You claim your data has "already been presented", but you never presented anything, did you?

So now, having contributed exactly nothing to this discussion, you announce that you will continue to contribute... nothing.

Oh well...

[rockrr]

If you won’t/can’t defend your POV why don’t you just go away?

[dsc]

“If you won’t/can’t defend your POV why don’t you just go away?”

Why don’t *you* go away? I haven’t been following *you* around with my alter-ego posse.

[dsc]

“If you have data from the time which contradicts the quotes in rockrr’s post #61 above, please present it. Otherwise, anyone reading this must assume you’re just blowing smoke, right?”

One last try.

I doubt that your prejudice will allow you to evaluate the import of this history, but here’s a crumb.

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Virginia_Slavery_Debate_of_1831-1832_The

Now, kindly take your purblind ferocity and honk off.

[rockrr]

Simply stated (beyond the fact that, unlike you I can defend what I say) I don’t want to ;’}