Hmm...thoust know me too well, I suspect...laughing

Com-on...it was way to obvious...(spuk-spu[n]k!)
Truly...that's way to good of an analogy to apply to them.

One of my all time favorite movies.

I knew you would catch that.

Makes about as much sense as the Dr. Strangelove movie where someone said that you can't fight in the war room.

A = non-A

Agreed, Term2. I was a Civil War re-enactor for over 20 years and have uniforms for both sides. Yankee born and raised with ancestors who fought for the Union I figured I'd never do Confederate, but ended up doing Confederate far more than Federal (long and interesting story) and studying the "part" was a eye opener on that part of America's history. What's happening today makes me sick at all the ignorance and willful throwing away of our freedom.

Here's a true story: About ten years ago I met a re-enactor from England who did a lot of American Civil War portrayals in England. He said it was "big" over there as well as in Sweden, Norway, and Germany. I asked him why American Civil War re-enacting was so popular as England has a rich history and plenty of civil wars of its own. His reply was that most of the flags and symbols of the losers were outlawed for public display so why bother having a re-enactment if you can't do it properly. At the time I assured him that would never happen here because in America we like our history straight up and the First Amendment of the Constitution will protect the losers as well as the winners. I guess I was wrong on that one. [Side note: I have met American Civil War re-enactors from England, Scotland, Sweden, Germany, Australia, and - believe it or not - Russia!]

Edit add: Mega-events like 10 year anniversaries of Gettysburg, Shiloh, Chickamauga can draw American Civil War re-enactors from all over the world. I fear all that is about to come to an end.

I have gotten very interested in the whole confederate issue since all this politically correct nonsens has erupted. I dont think we really understand what happened in the civil war at all.

I like the idea of seceding from the union when the union is bad, like it is now. Preventing the dissolution of a corrupt union doesnt seem to me a "good" reason to kill the people who just want to leave.

We should leave up ALL the statues, so we can learn from history. Doesnt mean anyone has to agree with everything that was ever done, but it WAS done, and cant be undone.

the "needed them to run his plantation" came from one of the workers when I pressed him on how Jefferson could say all men were equal while he had slaves who were NOT equal. I tend to believe this, since Jefferson didnt stop using slaves.

As to others freeing their slaves, it was on printed materials that they gave out and displayed in the museum. Not exactly "proof"

Interesting point about Grant and monuments to him. He had no real problem with slavery and didn't think much of the negro. His mantra was definitely "preserve the Union" and the put down of those he considered in rebellion against it. He had no problem pressing "contraband" into service of manual labor to facilitate the fall of Vicksburg and other places. Large portions of the Union Army were composed of soldiers who didn't give a hoot about freeing the negro, but were there to preserve the Union and even came from states that refused admittance to blacks attempting to settle within their borders (I believe Illinois was one of them). Should all their statues be torn down? And what of Confederate soldiers that had no desire to fight for the rich mans slave plantation, but were willing to sacrifice all for the freedom and autonomy of their state? What of Confederate officers that wanted Richmond to free the slaves and let them fight for their homes in the South (Cleburne comes to mind)? Should their statues remain standing?

Our history in America is rich with struggle and often isn't really "back and white", but we need to preserve it all so we can understand it all.

Did the people at the museum show you proof? I would love to see it.

Who would replace Lincoln, I understand he might have owned one slave for about two years?

I think they were all somewhat intellectually inconsistent, as are most people today. They did what they did, and it is history and shouldnt be eradicataed. Same with the confederacy and the union soldiers. The north attacked the south for the sin of wanting to secede and be on their own. Not a great reason. Maybe down with the Ulysses Grant statues too.

I went to the jefferson house in charlottesville actually, and the museum people told me that others had freed their slaves but jefferson "needed them to run his plantation". I think he was very intellectually conflicted on the subject, as were most of the other founding fathers. It was what it was, and they all compromised just like today.

He may have been considered somewhat progressive for the time, prior to women's suffrage for example, suffrage was a GOP/Republican effort and heavily opposed by the Democrats, just as abolishing slavery was. I don't regard equal treatment of humans as 'progressive' but it certainly was considered as such at the time.

You are totally correct, edweaver, but that part of history is strangely omitted. Also omitted is the fact that in the 18th century slavery was prolific all over the world and even the Founders were men of their time and were not as "perfect" as their self-righteous twenty first century detractors seem to be. You hear and read of the ignorant people who declare Jefferson a hypocrite because he had the audacity to pen the words "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, but don't have the historical knowledge or perspective to realize that phrase was an assault on the Divine Right of Kings and had nothing to do with race, gender, or any other litany of contemporary PC protected species. Except for Obama bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia, Americans are clueless of any previous Royalty/Commoner dichotomy in the national consciousness because Jefferson and the Founders ended it right at the beginning of the new nation. The Declaration's phrase "all men are created equal" was a serious poke in the eye of King George III and the House of Lords. The phrase was also a great seed planted for those who came later to use as a rallying cry to bring even more freedom to the country and the world and Jefferson should be credited even if he was a slave holder in his time.

I think you are correct. I should have clarified, he became a progressive, during and after his presidency. For me it proved the fact that power corrupts. If, through your research you have proof differently, I'd love to see it.

I would debate that thoroughly, I've read most of his personal writing. Most cite the common "walk softly, but carry a big stick" foreign policy, but his writings before becoming President were very patriotic and very "help yourself, we won't do it for you".

Here's one of my favorites:

Unless we are thorough-going Americans and unless our patriotism is part of the very fiber of our being, we can neither serve God nor take our own part. Whatever may be the case in an infinitely remote future, at present no people can render any service to humanity unless as a people they feel an intense sense of national cohesion and solidarity. The man who loves other nations as much as he does his own, stands on a par with the man who loves other women as much as he does his own wife. The United States can accomplish little for mankind, save in so far as within its borders it develops an intense spirit of Americanism. A flabby cosmopolitanism, especially if it expresses itself through a flabby pacifism, is not only silly, but degrading. It represents national emasculation. The professors of every form of hyphenated Americanism are as truly the foes of this country as if they dwelled outside its borders and made active war against it. This is not a figure of speech, or a hyperbolic statement. The leaders of the hyphenated-American movement in this country (who during the last eighteen months have been the professional German-Americans and Austro-Americans) are also leaders in the movement against preparedness.

My understanding is Jefferson couldn't free his slaves because it was illegal to do so. This is why he did finally free them upon his death. I've read this numerous times with footnotes to the actual proof. If I had time, I'd try to find it for you but I don't right now. It may be worth your time to search though. I hate to see someone so important to our county being destroyed, like the progressives want.

You know, Teddy was a Progressive, right?

WOW!

You have a point. When I visited the Jefferson museum in charlottesville, I came away thinking the founding fathers were a bunch of intellectually compromised people who just settled on the constitution so they could get enough votes to get it through. Jefferson had slaves himself and didnt free them upon signing the documents, because he "needed" them to keep his plantation going. The history of the USA is definitely not some pristine thing. It was better I suppose in practical terms than other countries, but its flaws are now becoming VERY apparent and will bring down the country.

political correctness is the latest weapon to control people. Even the CEO's are afraid to be labeled racists. I say that there are a very tiny number of people who actually believe race is some determiner of human rights. BUT, most people have preferences as to culture, and would rather NOT be around people of a certain culture.
Currently, the current black culture itself has been steeped in entitlement, and I do NOT like that. Therefore, I want to stay away from those people, and its just not efficient to analyze from afar whether they are entitled or not. Therefore, I label myself a culturist, but the liberals would call me racist (incorrectly). Political correctness be damned as far as I am concerned.

We need a healthy dose of Teddy Roosevelt for a couple of terms.

... and social experiment is more important to the US Navy than basic seamanship skills.

A headline from a CNN story tells it all "Antifa Seeks Peace through Violence."