West Point moves to vanquish Confederate symbols from campus

[Ouroboros]

Saying their relationship was complicated is not an argument. Couple that with hiding behind someone else's opinion is in fact cowardly. Reed isn't here to offer her opinion nor did you make any attempt to even present it so I'm not going to pretend to know what it is or what you think it is. What I do know and what I can in fact argue (because I'm not a total ****ing coward) is that a relationship between 40 year old men and enslaved teenagers can't be reasonably argued to be consensual because teenage girls, especially enslaved ones can't be argued to making these decisions free of duress. That isn't to say she is incapable of exerting some agency over herself in that situation but that situation is inarguably one of inherent duress.

This is an example of projecting current attitudes backward. A lot of free white marriages were made between older men and younger women in that time. If one doesn't have a distorting agenda, it's clear that this happened because men, who were the movers and shakers in society, often took many years to build up businesses of all kinds (not just plantations). Then, once they were stable, then they wanted brides who were at the peak of fertility, not women who might be going through menopause in the next ten years (assuming that they lived that long, which most people of all races did not in those days). Predictable distortions.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Confederate Monuments should not have been put up in the first place. They are objects of White Supremacy.

Seriously... what other country in the world celebrates the losers in a conflict that they caused which resulted in the deaths of 100s of thousands of people?

The fact that the system that they were fighting for was a nightmare slave centered oligarchy should make the entire thing a no brainer.

That is why we see the falsehoods that the Confederacy wasn't established for the sanctity of slavery put out there... it is an indefensible position.

That's loosely true that Russia certainly didn't put up any monuments to the Poles who sought independence,. Nor did any other powerful entity ever say nice things about less powerful factions trying to break away. That doesn't automatically make those historical erasures good, though.

But it was a little different with the South and the North, because all thirteen colonies had signed an agreement called the Constitution, which indirectly validates slavery in terms of property rights. The North sought to break that agreement for their own benefit, not to liberate slaves. You're okay with that erasure of history, and, without validating every fantasy the South entertains, I'm not okay with it.

 

[Master Debator]

Still moral relativism, because you're assuming moral superiority on the part of the oppressed. The fact that you make that assumption is part of your programming, probably mostly by society though you were complicit in your indoctrination.

I'm not assuming moral superiority, I'm acknowledging different moral beliefs. As I said you're free to feel differently and I don't begrudge you those feelings. That doesn't connote your inferiority. What connotes that is your dwindling social and political power. If your beliefs weren't inferior and by that I mean, if they weren't held by a decreasing number of social outcasts then you'd be able to protect your idols from falling. Hell you'd feel brave enough to even defend them rather than pretending its about defending history.

"Human misery" is more overbaked rhetoric. Some slaves suffered terribly, no doubt. Some, like Sally Hemmings, prospered far beyond anything they would have experienced had they been remained back in Africa (where they also could have been taken as slaves). Or if they'd been born in a high enough station, they might have been taking slaves themselves. No inherent moral superiority.

I suppose the chains and whips and constant threat of violence was just to help educate them on all the benefits of slavery....

Yawn. More moral relativism.

Already said what I know you meant; try to keep up.


Right, you only care about those noble slaves, who came from a culture in which everyone took slaves as a regular thing, with zero pushback.

Victim blaming is also a tactic. Probably not a winning one but what else have you got left to lose at this point?

Nope, you're trying to head off the accusation of Lib snowflake status by projecting on others. I'm opposing your snowflake sensibilities, that's all.

What snowflake sensibilities?

I don't propose taking down statues because they hurt my feelings but because cuck whites need to learn their place.

Why did you bring up the topic of equality if you didn't think it meant anything?

I brought up his words specifically to point out how funny it is to rely on the words of a child rapist.

You misread again. I was just establishing that though I had cited Rakove, I didn't agree with all his statements in that citation. It had nothing to do with eliciting your opinion, only showing that you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know anything about Rakove's opinion. That not the gotcha you think it is.

 

[Master Debator]

This is an example of projecting current attitudes backward. A lot of free white marriages were made between older men and younger women in that time. If one doesn't have a distorting agenda, it's clear that this happened because men, who were the movers and shakers in society, often took many years to build up businesses of all kinds (not just plantations). Then, once they were stable, then they wanted brides who were at the peak of fertility, not women who might be going through menopause in the next ten years (assuming that they lived that long, which most people of all races did not in those days). Predictable distortions.

I understand how patriarchy works my guy, you explaining it doesn't make it any better.

 

[Jezcoe]

He could have freed her at anytime


He didn't

As I stated. I think it was because of the 1806 Manumission law.

That is just my opinion though.

 

[Jezcoe]

What quotes specifically because I read that piece and what I read is a negotiation between a teenage slave and her slaver. That's a ****ing horrible position to put a teenage girl in not a loving relationship.

As for consent my argument is the only rational one. Your argument that father time came by and told you it was okay for 40 year old men to **** their teenage slaves doesn't hold much water and I don't see you lifting a finger to address my criticism of that hilarious bit of reasoning.

What evidence specifically because you and I read that article very differently. That Jefferson "cared for" the teenage slave who he negotiated sexual favors from is simply a matter of opinion. It might be an opinion shared by you others and I've already shared my opinion on the type of people who do so.

They were together for 32 years and lived in the bedroom adjacent to Jefferson in Monticello.

While I do understand the condemnation of Jefferson, the evidence points to a deeper relationship between he and Hemmings than the simple he raped a slave girl.

It was still a very ****ed up situation… not denying that. My only push back is that there is really good evidence that they loved and cared for each other and that Hemmings was basically Jefferson’s second wife in everything but name.

 

[Jezcoe]

That's loosely true that Russia certainly didn't put up any monuments to the Poles who sought independence,. Nor did any other powerful entity ever say nice things about less powerful factions trying to break away. That doesn't automatically make those historical erasures good, though.

But it was a little different with the South and the North, because all thirteen colonies had signed an agreement called the Constitution, which indirectly validates slavery in terms of property rights. The North sought to break that agreement for their own benefit, not to liberate slaves. You're okay with that erasure of history, and, without validating every fantasy the South entertains, I'm not okay with it.

The people who erected the monuments to Confederates said explicitly why they were doing it.

The crazy thing is that they got away with it and now we have to have this very dumb debate about the intent of the Confederacy, which I have pairs of underwear that has longer than it has and was for the express establishment of an oligarchical slave state.

It is not worth honoring.

 

[Master Debator]

They were together for 32 years and lived in the bedroom adjacent to Jefferson in Monticello.

While I do understand the condemnation of Jefferson, the evidence points to a deeper relationship between he and Hemmings than the simple he raped a slave girl.

It was still a very ****ed up situation… not denying that. My only push back is that there is really good evidence that they loved and cared for each other and that Hemmings was basically Jefferson’s second wife in everything but name.

A sexual relationship that develops between an adult man in his 40s and a teenager, especially one who is his slave, is not in any way a loving relationship. It's only because you have confusing feelings towards Jefferson why you even fan fic this deplorable theory.

 

[Jezcoe]

A sexual relationship that develops between an adult man in his 40s and a teenager, especially one who is his slave, is not in any way a loving relationship. It's only because you have confusing feelings towards Jefferson why you even fan fic this deplorable theory.

It isn’t a deplorable theory… it is a theory that is backed up by the scholarship.

I don’t excuse Jefferson for owning slaves. I don’t excuse that he did very little to end the institution of slavery while writing about how bad it was. I don’t excuse him for relying on future generations to figure it out.

In that he was hypocritical and wrong and I don’t think that anyone can square the two notions of “All men are created equal” and slavery.

It is impossible.

But there is good scholarship that shows that he and Hemmings had a real and loving relationship. You may not agree with that.., that doesn’t dismiss that there is evidence to that case.

 

[Master Debator]

It isn’t a deplorable theory… it is a theory that is backed up by the scholarship.

So you keep saying yet I read the same article you linked to and never got that impression at all.

I don’t excuse Jefferson for owning slaves. I don’t excuse that he did very little to end the institution of slavery while writing about how bad it was. I don’t excuse him for relying on future generations to figure it out.

You just excuse him negotiating sex from his teenage captive. I got it. First you tried to argue father time told you it was okay now its scholarly work, neither argument really changes much for me.

In that he was hypocritical and wrong and I don’t think that anyone can square the two notions of “All men are created equal” and slavery.

It is impossible.

But there is good scholarship that shows that he and Hemmings had a real and loving relationship. You may not agree with that.., that doesn’t dismiss that there is evidence to that case.

You keep saying that yet have not provided the specific quotes from these good scholarly works that argue this. There are actually scientific arguments for why teenagers can't consent to sex with adults which don't rely on mutant fan fiction notions of "true love." Maybe find an argument that's more sophisticated than the excuse given by every pedophile. What makes an adult ****ing a teenager okay is if the teenager really wants it....

 

[Jezcoe]

So you keep saying yet I read the same article you linked to and never got that impression at all.

Look... I was simply introducing Gordan-Reed's work into this... I am not going to the kind of guy who insists that one has to read " The most Blessed of the Patriarchs" or the " Hemmings' of Monticello"... her two works on this to understand it. I recommend those books.. they offer a good portrait of their relationship and shows that it was much more than Jefferson raping a slave girl.

You just excuse him negotiating sex from his teenage captive. I got it. First you tried to argue father time told you it was okay now its scholarly work, neither argument really changes much for me.

This is just silly... My only push back is that their relationship was a loving and caring one. It lasted 32 years until his death.

You keep saying that yet have not provided the specific quotes from these good scholarly works that argue this. There are actually scientific arguments for why teenagers can't consent to sex with adults which don't rely on mutant fan fiction notions of "true love." Maybe find an argument that's more sophisticated than the excuse given by every pedophile. What makes an adult ****ing a teenager okay is if the teenager really wants it.

Also getting into silly territory. It was not outside of the norms of the day for a 15 year old to marry a much older man. While it is rightfully abhorrent today it wasn't then.... so to throw down the "pedophile" charge is being inflammatory for no reason.

 

[Master Debator]

Look... I was simply introducing Gordan-Reed's work into this... I am not going to the kind of guy who insists that one has to read " The most Blessed of the Patriarchs" or the " Hemmings' of Monticello"... her two works on this to understand it. I recommend those books.. they offer a good portrait of their relationship and shows that it was much more than Jefferson raping a slave girl.

Considering how you mischaracterized the article I doubt that very much.

This is just silly... My only push back is that their relationship was a loving and caring one. It lasted 32 years until his death.

That a slaver kept a slave until his death is not any indication to me of a loving relationship.

Also getting into silly territory. It was not outside of the norms of the day for a 15 year old to marry a much older man. While it is rightfully abhorrent today it wasn't then.... so to throw down the "pedophile" charge is being inflammatory for no reason.

What do the "customs" of any particular society have to do with whether or not it's abhorrent to **** teenagers who are your captives?

 

[Jezcoe]

Considering how you mischaracterized the article I doubt that very much.

That a slaver kept a slave until his death is not any indication to me of a loving relationship.

What do the "customs" of any particular society have to do with whether or not it's abhorrent to **** teenagers who are your captives?

It is the inflammatory nature of the argument that you are putting forth that is omitting the decades of their relationship..

Arguing that Jefferson and Hemmings actually cared for and loved each other during their life together is not a radical proposition even though some would like to make it so.

 

[SoCal]

I push back on this a little. I think that Jefferson really loved Sally Hemmings and she loved him.

Yeah... their relationship was seriously ****ed up in that she was the enslaved half sister of Jefferson's dead wife... but she was basically his second wife... that he later to tried to hide the existence of... yeah... Jefferson is a very frustrating guy.

I'm curious, do you know how old Sally actually was when they began their relationship?

 

[SoCal]

...But if you're going to make such moral judgments, you don't get to pick and choose. Your judgment is automatically flawed if you say "I'm going to look at the immorality of the Confederacy but not at the immorality of the Union."...

I just can't sit back and not comment on this ridiculous and absurd BS. It's the kind of twisted logic that allows conservatives to claim Trump is just like all other politicians. Of course you can pick and choose the extent, or the level of immorality and the damage that results from one evil act from another...

 

[eohrnberger]

"West Point moves to vanquish Confederate symbols from campus"
Because the confederacy, the civil war, never happened and the Confederacy never had any great military leaders nor anyone who valiantly died for their cause?

So nothing more than history denial. OK. Got it.

 

[jaeger19]

"West Point moves to vanquish Confederate symbols from campus"
Because the confederacy, the civil war, never happened and the Confederacy never had any great military leaders nor anyone who valiantly died for their cause?

So nothing more than history denial. OK. Got it.

Valiantly dying for the right to keep slaves?

The confederacy was a rebellion and those that fought against the union that were from West Point violated their oaths.
That history.

 

[Tigerace117]

"West Point moves to vanquish Confederate symbols from campus"
Because the confederacy, the civil war, never happened and the Confederacy never had any great military leaders nor anyone who valiantly died for their cause?

So nothing more than history denial. OK. Got it.

The idea that there’s anything “valiant” about dying to protect slavery is ludicrous.

 

[Ouroboros]

I understand how patriarchy works my guy, you explaining it doesn't make it any better.

"Patriarchy" is a simplistic and anile explanation, so it's definitely not the least bit related to what I wrote.

 

[Jezcoe]

I'm curious, do you know how old Sally actually was when they began their relationship?

She was 15 to 16 years old.

Their relationship lasted for over thirty years.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not assuming moral superiority, I'm acknowledging different moral beliefs. As I said you're free to feel differently and I don't begrudge you those feelings. That doesn't connote your inferiority. What connotes that is your dwindling social and political power. If your beliefs weren't inferior and by that I mean, if they weren't held by a decreasing number of social outcasts then you'd be able to protect your idols from falling. Hell you'd feel brave enough to even defend them rather than pretending its about defending history.

It's indeed comical that every time you temporarily assume a blithe stance about different moral beliefs, you immediately contradict it by claiming that history is on your side and that this proves "my" dwindling social and political power. If this were true, then Lib candidates would get into power in every single election because a clear majority would be committed at all times to the Liberal vision. I know Libs love to bleat about the lack of a "Red Wave" at last midterms, but there wasn't a clear "Blue Wave" either. I don't care that you think yourself morally superior for whatever contrived reason; I'm just pointing out that your bloated self-congratulations are based in fantasy.

And like four or five other posters, you show your presumption that if I defend any aspect of the Confederacy, the monuments in question must be "my" idols. That too is based in convenient fantasy.

I suppose the chains and whips and constant threat of violence was just to help educate them on all the benefits of slavery....

Didn't say there was no misery; I said you exaggerated it as pertaining to all slaves. Go look through your copy of the Sojourner Truth bio, if you've got one handy, and show me where her life was filled with chains and whips.

Victim blaming is also a tactic. Probably not a winning one but what else have you got left to lose at this point?

An unsurprising lie. Earlier you impugned American ethics and I responded in part by pointing out that all African slaves came from cultures that were OK with slavery as long as their particular tribe wasn't victimized.

What snowflake sensibilities?

I don't propose taking down statues because they hurt my feelings but because cuck whites need to learn their place.

Nah, you radiate fear that the great cult of White Supremacy is going to rise again and turn you into chattel. People confident of their own position don't need to make gratuitous demonstrations of power-- which you don't really have anyway.

I brought up his words specifically to point out how funny it is to rely on the words of a child rapist.

Since Hemmings was free as long as she stayed in France, which is where we think the affair began, there was no literal rape and no whips and chains, and our statutory rape laws don't apply to that time.

I don't know anything about Rakove's opinion. That not the gotcha you think it is.

Again, just noting my disagreement with some points, not a "gotcha." It proved unnecessary since you chose to dismiss anything that didn't agree with your stance of moral relativism, and you probably didn't read the points I was mentioning, if anything.

 

[Ouroboros]

The people who erected the monuments to Confederates said explicitly why they were doing it.

The crazy thing is that they got away with it and now we have to have this very dumb debate about the intent of the Confederacy, which I have pairs of underwear that has longer than it has and was for the express establishment of an oligarchical slave state.

It is not worth honoring.

Again, the people who erected the monuments did not say they were doing so to provoke any particular reaction of Black citizens TO the monuments. And even if you produced ONE, it would not prove across the board motivation.

The intent of the Confederacy was to keep their prosperity. That included both keeping the profitable custom of slavery and preventing the North from enjoying total political hegemony over them. Any interpretation of motivation that leaves out the second part is indeed dumb.

 

[Ouroboros]

A sexual relationship that develops between an adult man in his 40s and a teenager, especially one who is his slave, is not in any way a loving relationship. It's only because you have confusing feelings towards Jefferson why you even fan fic this deplorable theory.

The silly use of the term "fan fic" in no way supports your rigid dogma.

 

[Ouroboros]

I just can't sit back and not comment on this ridiculous and absurd BS. It's the kind of twisted logic that allows conservatives to claim Trump is just like all other politicians. Of course you can pick and choose the extent, or the level of immorality and the damage that results from one evil act from another...

You (probably deliberately) misread my statement, since I was taking issue with people who would not admit that the North did anything wrong in fomenting the Civil War with both economic policies and Constitutional violation.

 

[Ouroboros]

Valiantly dying for the right to keep slaves?

The confederacy was a rebellion and those that fought against the union that were from West Point violated their oaths.
That history.

Can't have rebellion if the states are sovereign and can leave any time they want. No legal formulation earlier than the revisionist Texas v. White cuts off the possibility of secession.

But thanks for not claiming Northerners died for the right to liberate slaves.