My research specialization has some unique views on that.

One of the earliest movement starters for the Left was Margaret Sanger. What people don’t tell you is that Sanger’s Eugenics was merely a clone copy and re development of the Southern slave lord’s 1830 and Southern Baptist 1850 theology that whites are superior to blacks (justifying slavery as virtuous and Christian).

So the slave lords weren’t Leftist. They just had the same theology and doctrine that the Left later began to adopt. Different human named factions… same puppet master.

but they were very much trying to conserve a way of life.

Do you know why John Brown radicalized and started the Harper’s Ferry Raid?

It is because of kansas. Missouri sent slave raiders to MIssouri to destroy all the free settlements that were abolitionst, but not well armed or well defended. This ethnic cleansing was designed to put Kansas into the pro slave state, after it was a territory.

Preserving life? Heh. Sending armed raiders into a different state to “preserve” your way of life, very funny.

Since Aesop is also involved here, I will make mention of another little facet. The reason why the Missourians gave the Extermination order against the Latter Day Saints, pushing them eventually into Utah during the months of winter, was because the Missourians didn’t like the anti slave vote of the Latter Day Saint block. So they exterminated them, and grabbed all the loot. Very Spanish Inquisition.

Preserving their way of life, these slave lord states, they did… maybe not.

Also the Secession Documents clearly a primary document, yet they only rarely mentioned legitimate issues that they were defending against. Most of the time the Southern states claimed that they seceded because they wanted US Territories to become slave states, so that they could dominate the US federal system to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and prevent abolitionist states like New York from nullifying federal laws. Isn’t nullification a state’s right? Yes. Civil War 1 was about state’s rights? No. They fooled those AMericans good with that line.

Honest question, AesopFan – was there actually a “left” back in 1865?

Saving the union wasn’t a happy thing for southern democrats. But the southern democrats of 1865 weren’t “left” as we currently understand the term. They were conservatives. I am not trying to start a flame war here – I realize that Democrats were on the wrong side (I’m not a democrat remember) and they started the KKK, etc, but they were very much trying to conserve a way of life. It was Republicans who were called the “radicals”.

I find comparisons between modern Republicans and Democrats to the parties in 1865 to be fairly useless. So much has happened since then – two world wars, the nuclear age, the information age, Vietnam, 911, the Great Society and New Deal, the Civil Rights movement, etc. There’s no comparing the eras.

They gloss over the aphorism that while not all Democrats were pro-slavery, all pro-slavers were Democrats.
* *
Review Neo’s links to the flipping of the association of slavery from Democrats to Republicans in a later post.

The rather loose syllogism is (a) Democrats want to pull down CSA statues’ (b) Republicans insist any removals be done lawfully; (c) therefore, the statues are not of Democrats.

Agreed.

A side note on the sorry state of historical knowledge in our country: Exhibit A is our own President.

Oh sorry … just looked like them

LOL

If that is what the author of that quote was taught, it is unlikely he learned in in the 1960s or 70s.

1890’s maybe.

“And I’ve made it clear that I don’t care if they come down, as long as it’s by the rule of law.”

You are attempting to argue arbitrating [ruling] law with a guy who’s primarily interested in feelings … as he once made abundantly clear with his explicit rejection of a hypothetical restoration of the rule of law conditioned on the [non-fatal] expulsion of illegal aliens.

In that hypothetical case, it was the rule of law that went out the window.

Though I seem to be continually flogging a dead horse point, or attacking a “fellow” commenter personally; the political point is that it a falsely premised shared-moral-judgment-basis assumption which is, in the first place, at the root of these disagreements.

They gloss over the aphorism that while not all Democrats were pro-slavery, all pro-slavers were Democrats.

Of course I don’t think statues teach history. They might spark a discussion of it, but the discussion is based on the historical meme du jour.

And I’ve made it clear that I don’t care if they come down, as long as it’s by the rule of law.