What do you think of VA Gov. McDonnell's Confederate History Month

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Zeke

You cannot be serious...

"carpetbaggers were seen as insidious Northern outsiders with questionable objectives meddling in local politics, buying up plantations at fire-sale prices, taking advantage of poor Southerners and pushing their alien Northern ways on Southern politics."

To wit, "questionable objectives."

Wow. That's equal to slavery...

I'm forced to disagree on this one...

I would say that the carpetbaggers practices were lower than "questionable objectives" but it's hard to get much lower than slavery. Gotta go with Zeke on this one.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

"So not only are you a goddamn Yankee, but you're great-grand daddy was a goddamned traitor as well?!"

Rotflmao! You should've laughed at him.

"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored...

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

That makes the previous celebration of the Confederacy a bit more relevant. Is he up for reelection this November, and is the right wing that much in control of VA politics? Does he face a primary challenge from the right? How cynical are we?

Regards,

D-Ray

He was just elected in November when the Dem's put up a particularly weak candidate (Creigh Deeds). BTW, he ran as a "moderate" even though he got his law degree from Regent University (Pat Robertson's school).

During the campaign, his thesis at Regent came under fire because it outlined a controversial 15-point conservative agenda. In his thesis, McDonnell wrote "government policy should favor married couples over 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.'" McDonnell also "described working women and feminists as 'detrimental' to the family." He criticized a 1965 Supreme Court decision which legalized the use of contraceptives and wrote that "man’s basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter."

He somehow seems to have convinced the Virginia voter (particularly those who lean Democratic from Northern Virginia, Richmond and Tidewater) that he had changed his stripes in favor of moderation. Not so, it seems.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I would say that the carpetbaggers practices were lower than "questionable objectives" but it's hard to get much lower than slavery. Gotta go with Zeke on this one.

Regards,

D-Ray

The carpetbaggers simply went down south to steal everything they could get their hands on, it was not buying up plantations at fire sale prices (that is not different than those that buy foreclosed properties today) but they resorted to every rotten scheme in the book, and some that were not in the book.

Not all slave owners were as nasty as those protrayed in fiction, in fact if you were to visit Williamsburg in VA you would see that although slave quarters look bloody miserable by todays standards, the homes of the poor whites were no better.

Who is worse, the Arabs who rounded up the blacks in Africa, the ship owners who brought them over here, or the people that bought them? Considering the sad lot that the workers in the northern mills had one might think that those that railed against slavery were just a tad sanctimonious.

No man has a right to own another human being, but there are degrees of ownership.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Ya know, thinking can be dangerous.

I think all of us agree that slavery is morally wrong. I was just struck by the quote from your ancestor that he was "doing God's work upon the field of battle." I am trying to put that quote in perspective in light of our recent thread about religious extremism, the stories about the arrests of the religious militia, and my repeated concern about the "oath-keepers." Are we more tolerant of mixing religion and politics when we agree with the beliefs or aims of those expressing religious motivation for their acts? (For example, the prominent role that black churches played in the civil right movement) If what people are doing is just in our eyes, do we need to be concerned with their motivation?

At this point I don't pretend to offer any answers - just food for thought. Indeed, I need to question my earlier statement that I wanted to "reclaim the meaning of Christianity from the religious right." While that might be a socially or religiously important goal, I now question it's value as a political goal.

P.S. Not picking on your ancestor, Dave. This is really more a matter of questioning myself.

Regards,

D-Ray

And I'm certain a great many of Confederate soldiers felt they were "doing Gods work upon the field of battle" as well.

To me, it only demonstrates how religion is used to motivate people, even to become bloodthirsty killers. (9/11 comes to mind.)

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. And when you are fighting what you perceive as evil, are you not "doing Gods work"?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

He was just elected in November when the Dem's put up a particularly weak candidate (Creigh Deeds). BTW, he ran as a "moderate" even though he got his law degree from Regent University (Pat Robertson's school).

During the campaign, his thesis at Regent came under fire because it outlined a controversial 15-point conservative agenda. In his thesis, McDonnell wrote "government policy should favor married couples over 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.'" McDonnell also "described working women and feminists as 'detrimental' to the family." He criticized a 1965 Supreme Court decision which legalized the use of contraceptives and wrote that "man’s basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter."

He somehow seems to have convinced the Virginia voter (particularly those who lean Democratic from Northern Virginia, Richmond and Tidewater) that he had changed his stripes in favor of moderation. Not so, it seems.

Regent University---two miles down the road. I've met some real gems from that place. Trust me, even if you are a staunch Republican, you DON'T want these people running your country. If you think Obama is bad, you aint seen nuthin' yet.......................

Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by merrylander

The carpetbaggers simply went down south to steal everything they could get their hands on, it was not buying up plantations at fire sale prices (that is not different than those that buy foreclosed properties today) but they resorted to every rotten scheme in the book, and some that were not in the book.

Not all slave owners were as nasty as those protrayed in fiction, in fact if you were to visit Williamsburg in VA you would see that although slave quarters look bloody miserable by todays standards, the homes of the poor whites were no better.

Who is worse, the Arabs who rounded up the blacks in Africa, the ship owners who brought them over here, or the people that bought them? Considering the sad lot that the workers in the northern mills had one might think that those that railed against slavery were just a tad sanctimonious.

No man has a right to own another human being, but there are degrees of ownership.

I would suggest that anyone who purchased a slave was a co-conspirator with all of the people involved in the slave trade.

No doubt the "Captains of Industry" who exploited the workers had their own sins to atone for, but the workers were not taken to the sweatshops in chains.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Regent University---two miles down the road. I've met some real gems from that place. Trust me, even if you are a staunch Republican, you DON'T want these people running your country. If you think Obama is bad, you aint seen nuthin' yet.......................

Dave

As I said, it is not at all clear whether we can ignore the motives of those intent on restraining liberty. Perhaps a look at their "philosophy" gives us some clue what to expect in conduct of those in positions of authority, but in the end, it is a restraint on liberty, no matter the motivation.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by merrylander

No man has a right to own another human being, but there are degrees of ownership.

Really? You can swallow a rationalization of slavery?

How, precisely, do you reconcile the absolutism of "No man" and the quantification of "degree?"

I can't.

[Sandy G]

Originally Posted by merrylander

The carpetbaggers simply went down south to steal everything they could get their hands on, it was not buying up plantations at fire sale prices (that is not different than those that buy foreclosed properties today) but they resorted to every rotten scheme in the book, and some that were not in the book.

Not all slave owners were as nasty as those protrayed in fiction, in fact if you were to visit Williamsburg in VA you would see that although slave quarters look bloody miserable by todays standards, the homes of the poor whites were no better.

Who is worse, the Arabs who rounded up the blacks in Africa, the ship owners who brought them over here, or the people that bought them? Considering the sad lot that the workers in the northern mills had one might think that those that railed against slavery were just a tad sanctimonious.

No man has a right to own another human being, but there are degrees of ownership.

Here, Here !! We're ALL "owned" by the Federal gov't, the local gov't, and/or the local bank you have yr mortgage with...Just don't pay yr taxes or miss a few payments & you'll find out just how "Free" you really are...