Revealed: neo-Confederate group includes military officers and politicians

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/neo-confederate-group-members-politicians-military-officers

 

Leaked membership data from the neo-Confederate Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) organization has revealed that the organization’s members include serving military officers, elected officials, public employees, and a national security expert whose CV boasts of “Department of Defense Secret Security Clearance”.

But alongside these members are others who participated in and committed acts of violence at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and others who hold overlapping membership in violent neo-Confederate groups such as the League of the South (LoS).

[Ban Hammer 13,545]

looks like grasping at guilt by association.

[Boiler 46,103]

Neo and systemic are among my favourite terms,must use them more frequently.

[laylalex 7,300]

The Matrix is a pretty good film, and I love Keanu in it, so more refs to Neo are fine by me.

 

But if I am made to watch Constantine another time I will lose it, really. Not all Keanu films are equal, in my opinion.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,382]

On 6/28/2021 at 3:49 PM, Boiler said:

Neo and systemic are among my favourite terms,must use them more frequently.

I also got a chuckle out of the term Neo-Confederates as if  the term NEO makes it  a sinister and dangerous organization. The military is know monitoring members for White supremacy in it's ranks, while at the same time the FBI is considering disbanding it's task force on the same issue, after concluding you stand a better chance of being struck by lighting than being attacked by a white supremist.  

[Boiler 46,103]

You need to watch CNN, they are all around us.

[TBoneTX 46,117]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

being struck by lighting

To avoid this risk:

  1.  Hang it firmly

  2.  Duck your head below chandeliers before walking under them, if you're tall

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

15 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I also got a chuckle out of the term Neo-Confederates as if  the term NEO makes it  a sinister and dangerous organization. The military is know monitoring members for White supremacy in it's ranks, while at the same time the FBI is considering disbanding it's task force on the same issue, after concluding you stand a better chance of being struck by lighting than being attacked by a white supremist.  

Chuckle if you want, it was a term invented in the 1980s to describe the disinformation campaign that was foisted upon America schools. 

 

Historian James M. McPherson used the term "neo-Confederate historical committees" in his description of the efforts which were undertaken from 1890 to 1930 to have history textbooks present a version of the American Civil War in which secession was not rebellion, the Confederacy did not fight for slavery, and the Confederate soldier was defeated by overwhelming numbers and resources.^[1]

[Ban Hammer 13,545]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Historian James M. McPherson used the term "neo-Confederate historical committees" in his description of the efforts which were undertaken from 1890 to 1930 to have history textbooks present a version of the American Civil War in which secession was not rebellion, the Confederacy did not fight for slavery, and the Confederate soldier was defeated by overwhelming numbers and resources.^[1]

back then things were a bit different.  for example:

 

"...in which secession was not rebellion" - back then the states had more say in things, and it was widely believed that what one joined, could also be left.    see the declaration of independence below for an example, which was not too far in the distant past for those who were alive just before the civil war.

Quote

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"...the Confederacy did not fight for slavery" - also back then, most individuals identified more with their state than the union of said states.  to many, their state came first, and the union afterward.  by extension, it was not

unexpected that many citizens of the southern states did not like the federal government or northern states telling them what they could or could not do.   in the case of slavery, the abolition of it would decimate the southern economy and strongly favor the northern states for a long time in the way of industrial might and therefore influence in us politics.

 

"...the Confederate soldier was defeated by overwhelming numbers and resources." - the north flat out had more population and most of the factories.  i fail to see how this is even contentious.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Ban Hammer

[Boiler 46,103]

Reminds me of a couple of incidents, I went on a shooting course which was centered around 1776 and covering the history.

 

Also what is called the War of 1812, a tiny part of the Napoleonic Wars.

 

So Neo American history?

 

Just to get us going, I can think of many many other scenarios.

 

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

NEO-CRT!!!  Heil!!!

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

6 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

back then things were a bit different.  for example:

 

"...in which secession was not rebellion" - back then the states had more say in things, and it was widely believed that what one joined, could also be left.    see the declaration of independence below for an example, which was not too far in the distant past for those who were alive just before the civil war.

"...the Confederacy did not fight for slavery" - also back then, most individuals identified more with their state than the union of said states.  to many, their state came first, and the union afterward.  by extension, it was not

unexpected that many citizens of the southern states did not like the federal government or northern states telling them what they could or could not do.   in the case of slavery, the abolition of it would decimate the southern economy and strongly favor the northern states for a long time in the way of industrial might and therefore influence in us politics.

 

"...the Confederate soldier was defeated by overwhelming numbers and resources." - the north flat out had more population and most of the factories.  i fail to see how this is even contentious.

Regardless of what enlisted soilder or average residents of the states thought the "revolution" was about,  the war was clearly about racism and preserving slavery based on a subhuman status for nonwhites.

 

 

The vice president of the confederacy laid out the premise of the confederacy one week before Fort Sumter.

 

"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."

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. "

Edited July 1, 2021 by CanAm1980

[Boiler 46,103]

8 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Regardless of what enlisted soilder or average residents of the states thought the "revolution" was about,  the war was clearly about racism and preserving slavery based on a subhuman status for nonwhites.

 

 

The vice president of the confederacy laid out the premise of the confederacy one week before Fort Sumter.

 

"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."

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. "

The causes of the ACW are many and complex, certainly not just one issue.

[yuna628 9,712]

18 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

back then things were a bit different.  for example:

 

"...in which secession was not rebellion" - back then the states had more say in things, and it was widely believed that what one joined, could also be left.    see the declaration of independence below for an example, which was not too far in the distant past for those who were alive just before the civil war.

"...the Confederacy did not fight for slavery" - also back then, most individuals identified more with their state than the union of said states.  to many, their state came first, and the union afterward.  by extension, it was not

unexpected that many citizens of the southern states did not like the federal government or northern states telling them what they could or could not do.   in the case of slavery, the abolition of it would decimate the southern economy and strongly favor the northern states for a long time in the way of industrial might and therefore influence in us politics.

 

"...the Confederate soldier was defeated by overwhelming numbers and resources." - the north flat out had more population and most of the factories.  i fail to see how this is even contentious.

Oh, I see. So the torture and enslavement of human beings, the belief in that some human beings had more rights than others, that some human beings weren't even a human being, and not living up to the "all men are created equal" creed was a good trade-off because otherwise the poor southern economy might collapse. Cry me a river. These excuses are often repeated so much it's laughable how ridiculous they sound and it spits in the face of the Constitution. Yes I guess doing the right thing is just too hard.

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

Not all slaves were tortured.  Many slaves had a better life in the US than where they came from.  Most slaves were sold into slavery by their own people.  Yes, slavery was a dark time in our history, but it's over, and has been for many years, so no need to cry me any tables.  (Minus what the left party continues to do to minorities today, but it's not PC to call it slavery.  The end result is still the same, however.)