• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Virginia CountyTo Re-Name Schools After Confederates

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I've heard some proposals to take Jackson's portrait off the $20 and replace it with Harriet Tubman. I don't know why it hasn't changed yet. I recall an earlier proposal to put Tubman on the $10, to replace Hamilton, but some people balked at that, since Hamilton was a good guy.

He wasn't that good a guy, by 21st century standards:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I've heard some proposals to take Jackson's portrait off the $20 and replace it with Harriet Tubman. I don't know why it hasn't changed yet. I recall an earlier proposal to put Tubman on the $10, to replace Hamilton, but some people balked at that, since Hamilton was a good guy.
A lesser known, but far greater figure in ending
slavery is Edgar Yergason, founder of the Wide
Awakes, who were a major force for abolition.
Even Wikipedia doesn't mention him.
Greatness isn't always the criterion for being
immortalized on money
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
He wasn't that good a guy, by 21st century standards:

Well, then, I guess Hamilton will have to removed from the $10 bill after all.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
He wasn't that good a guy, by 21st century standards:
I like how the history link starts out.

"The Founding Father opposed slavery, but he bought and sold enslaved people for his in-laws—and possibly even his own household"

I don't think that adds up to opposing slavery lol
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Here's a guy who was hanged for treason and insurrection, but could his portrait be put on money today?

1715436587019.png



 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I like how the history link starts out.

"The Founding Father opposed slavery, but he bought and sold enslaved people for his in-laws—and possibly even his own household"

I don't think that adds up to opposing slavery lol
I doubt he really, really opposed slavery.
 
In modern times, the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris Administrations have both allowed and supported wars that have killed thousands; Crimea and Ukraine. Should we rename the Obama Library and all statues with his name? Or should we use politics and not do what is best for the majority? Biden-Harris is still feeding arms into the Ukraine and Middle East, with all Lefty politicians signing the check. To be consistent, anything associated with any of their names needs to be stricken. Or is the Liberal dual standard in effect?

I was being facetious. I believe the only way to learn from history is to not hide from it or try to disguise it. It is useful to honor the past; good, bad and the ugly. These constant reminders make it harder to repeat the mistakes. If we hide it, so people will forget, then scoundrels will recycle the old music from the past and try to make it look original; repeating the past and call it new state of the art.

To me, the many Generals of all Wars, were never fully in charge of their fate. They are honored, by all sides, as being good soldiers following orders. It is always the Politicians who create war, approve and fund war. Then the Generals have to fight to win. In terms of the Civil War, it was the Southern Democrat politicians who voted to divide the country, into two, as a way to perpetuate slavery. These bad policy choices led to the Civil War. After that, hundreds of thousands of men, from both sides, had a job to do. Both sides, still honor all the grunts, who were victims of a fate, created by their political leaders. The majority honors the grunts, since they too are the grunts, forced to fight or obey; electric or else.

What would be best for the majority, is to put all the Politicians in an arena and let them fight it out. There will no more need to honor the Generals with statues. We can nip this in the bud. Trump and Biden can duke it out. Winner takes all. Trump only needs to knock Biden off his feet and it is over. Trump is like a football player and he will ram and tackle Biden, and then use an arm bar, until Biden taps out. This will save the majority of citizens from having to listen to all the lies and mud, as well as the promises that will not be kept. It is a win-win.

Now we have the Politicians, not only exempt; Obama Library, but still demonizing the very people who followed the orders of past politicians in their own party. This is a Lefty politician misdirect, to cover their own butts and their group responsibility connected to slavery and the Civil War. Democrats politicians of the past have all this blood on their hands but are sold as clean. Now they order the grunts and heroes to be dishonored and scapegoated, as a historical coverup, so they can do it again, and stick it to the majority; inflation, border invasion and crime.
 
In modern times, both Republican and Democrats have been responsible for favoring war.
Many Christians, Republicans and Democrats had their hands in promoting slavery.

War is and always has been a horrible thing and soldiers have lost so much due to politicians using them as a means to a supposed end while they themselves do nothing other than divide, running that mouth and receiving perks.
 
Last edited:

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
In modern times, both Republican and Democrats have been responsible for favoring war.
Many Christians, Republicans and Democrats had their hands in promoting slavery.

Yes, but only one group of people made slavery their identity. To quote the cornerstone speech:

The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”2

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
 
Yes, but only one group of people made slavery their identity. To quote the cornerstone speech:

The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”2

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Let's not forget slavery in the Bible.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I like how the history link starts out.

"The Founding Father opposed slavery, but he bought and sold enslaved people for his in-laws—and possibly even his own household"

I don't think that adds up to opposing slavery lol

I've even read that General Grant's wife owned slaves at some point. Slavery was an American institution which went back more than a hundred years even before America gained independence. It was a slave-based, plantation economy, so anyone of any wealth or stature would most definitely be involved in the economic system of their time - even if they didn't have direct ownership over slaves. They're still buying products from and benefiting from slave labor, as were those in the Mother Country.

Our Founders were also expansionists and wanted to take all the land throughout the continent, and they didn't care if anyone was living there beforehand.

So, yeah, they all have blood on their hands, and so does all of our money.

Of course, there are other things we can look at, the various nuances of difference between various figures, regions, and periods of history. It took time, but there were many voices wanting change and reform.

Part of the problem here seems to be rooted in the "great man" approach to history, where people feel they have to honor individuals for whatever achievement or noteworthy place in history. But if they turn out to be bad people, then it might turn out to be some kind of embarrassment - or worse. As a result, to continue to honor them is perceived as an endorsement of whatever crimes or atrocities they're associated with.

Also, it's hard to evaluate and measure an individual's entire life based on a small cross-section of something bad they may have done. George Washington did a lot of bad things, but he also did many good things. Perhaps we should measure how many good things one has done versus how many bad things, and work out some kind of average or percentage to make a determination as to whether they're good or evil.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I've even read that General Grant's wife owned slaves at some point. Slavery was an American institution which went back more than a hundred years even before America gained independence. It was a slave-based, plantation economy, so anyone of any wealth or stature would most definitely be involved in the economic system of their time - even if they didn't have direct ownership over slaves. They're still buying products from and benefiting from slave labor, as were those in the Mother Country.

Our Founders were also expansionists and wanted to take all the land throughout the continent, and they didn't care if anyone was living there beforehand.

So, yeah, they all have blood on their hands, and so does all of our money.

Of course, there are other things we can look at, the various nuances of difference between various figures, regions, and periods of history. It took time, but there were many voices wanting change and reform.

Part of the problem here seems to be rooted in the "great man" approach to history, where people feel they have to honor individuals for whatever achievement or noteworthy place in history. But if they turn out to be bad people, then it might turn out to be some kind of embarrassment - or worse. As a result, to continue to honor them is perceived as an endorsement of whatever crimes or atrocities they're associated with.

Also, it's hard to evaluate and measure an individual's entire life based on a small cross-section of something bad they may have done. George Washington did a lot of bad things, but he also did many good things. Perhaps we should measure how many good things one has done versus how many bad things, and work out some kind of average or percentage to make a determination as to whether they're good or evil.
Presidents that owned slaves.


"George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses Grant"

 
Top