PostHeaderIcon How Dare Trump Tell The Truth

I know we are supposed to be transitioning this blog from politics to religion and philosophy – yet I can’t stay quiet about the (in my view) approaching civil war.

Donald Trump’s overall reaction to the insanity in Charlottesville, VA (not NC as much of the lame-brained media seem to think) – his position that it took TWO sides to cause such trouble is right on. And he is catching hell for saying it.

There is no place in our society for neo-Nazis and we can all easily agree to that. But there was more to the protest in Charlottesville.

In the first place, there is nothing overtly racial or bigoted in the continuing Southern reverence for Robert E Lee. Indeed, his bearing and his conduct of the war was about all Southerners we had left to be proud of once the shooting had stopped and the looting began. And most present Americans understand to little about those days that I, for one, do not grant them the right to an opinion. In other words, learn about the thing you would pontificate on and THEN we can have a discussion.

A couple of simple thoughts to ponder:

First, Robert E Lee was at worst ambivalent about slavery (some say he outright opposed it, others that he simply knew it was untenable). For sure, his family (of whom he was titular head) used their own wealth to free slaves and relocate them to Liberia.

Second, while estimates vary, the net estimate is that no more than 20% of white Southerners owned slaves at the outbreak of the Civil War. If we assume that the makeup of the Confederate military pretty much reflected that of the South as a whole, then one has a quandary to deal with. It is somewhat easy to insist that the 20% were willing to fight to retain their primary source of wealth. Bit what of that other 80%? Do you suppose that they were gladly willing to die for the fortunes of a pseudo aristocracy? Somehow that does not ring true to one such as myself who grew up under the remnants of said pseudo aristocracy. Ergo, they must have been fighting for something far more personally important to themselves.

Let us diverge for a moment and think about the legalized abortion issue that plagues today’s politics. A clear majority of females, especially the younger ones, will fight like hell to preserve access to legal abortions. Yet, relatively few of them actually get abortions, even when an unplanned for family addition suddenly presents itself, mid-womb. Does this not raise the same question as the one above regarding the non-slaveholders willingness to fight and die? I contend that the same reasoning is at work. In both cases, the people involved simply do not want to surrender their right to make up their own minds about certain issues rather than be dictated to by others who have far less at stake in the issue.

I close with a warning to this nation: Years ago, the author John Donne postulated that “no man is an island, Entire of itself, Every man is a piece of the continent. A part of the main…” We Americans have so very little time left to understand our interdependence, ergo to respect our fellow humans as essential to our own survival. And then, to treat each other accordingly.

Were Trump WRONG about Charlottesville, the so-called riot there would have been no more than the sound of one hand clapping.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson


Users who have LIKED this post:

  • avatar

8 Responses to “How Dare Trump Tell The Truth”

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Don’t worry about the focus of this moribund blog, Troy. Any topic that stirs your passion for debate is fair game and welcome.

    I am as disgusted with current events as you are; I just don’t see how participating in partisan politics could ever reverse the inexorable slide into collectivist tyranny, which Leftist control of the media and academia for the past century has purposely inspired.

    I watched Trump’s press confrontation yesterday with glee. I so appreciate his ability and propensity to speak his politically incorrect truth to the hostile media, come what may. Yes, he was absolutely correct in his assessment that there were bad actors on both sides, and that reporters were deliberately remiss in their duty to acknowledge it.

    The initial protesters had a permit, and were outnumbered 2 to 1 by the police. When the “Antifa” thugs arrived, with the equipment and obvious intent for physical confrontation, the police were inexplicably ordered to “stand down,” and they left the scene to violently unfold as expected (intended?). Without “Antifa,” there would have been no riot. Even with them, had the police been doing their jobs to keep them separated, it could not have escalated to the level it did. I do wonder how much the mayor’s political science degree from Berkeley had to do with it… 🙄

    Trump predicted that statues of Washington and Jefferson will be next, because they were slave owners. Hide and watch how long it takes for that to come to pass. College indoctrinated sheeple are very useful idiots. Personally, I would much prefer dealing with islands of individuals, to a continent full of collectivist sheeple… Just saying… 😉 ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    As I said on the other post. I’m disgusted. On the up side all the BS is up until now confined to the progressive urban crap holes. I’m pleased to be sheltered in my nice small town where I don’t know if my neighbors are democrat or republican, conservative, libertarian, or progressive. We have a few “skin heads” and maybe even some Nazis. What matters is when they meet up at the local convenience store or school function nobody bothers the black folks there or the old white guy that used to stop in way too often for a pack of smokes. Good morning and have a nice day is for all and if your a cripple in a wheel chair you still hold the door for the young lady behind you. That’s my America. I’ll live it as long as I can. Now get off my lawn!

  • The thought that there were multiple groups with varying motives and culpability is something the left can’t allow. It invalidates their core philosophy of identity politics. If you aren’t a victim, then you’re a victimizer. The people behind their movement need to keep their mob too emotional to think things through, or they’ll collapse into infighting.

    The most notable thing about the protest may have been one murderous idiot setting his own cause back by a decade, but when you take a step back, you have a group getting a permit for a protest, and then a separate group showing up as a counterprotest, looking for a fight. This looks to be a new norm until they start cracking down on troublemakers with police or military. Until then, I’m blaming counterprotesters for any general atmosphere of violence. Go get your own protest.

    The left seems to be fueling their protest with a kind of ritual defamation where they all focus on something to shame and destroy to fuel their self righteousness.

    One danger from their combo of identity politics and immigration, is that people mostly only care about their own ancestors. The left is filling up with people from elsewhere who don’t share our history. So they’re seeing monuments to our history as something to be torn down and replaced with their own. It may not end until around the time they tear down the MLK statues to be replaced with someone who wasn’t offended by gay marriage.

    I’m not even sure the Civil War is aptly named. Seven states had seceded by the time Lincoln took office. That sounds like a war of conquest between two nations. I don’t think many of the people on the battlefield, especially early on, would have said they were dying and killing their brothers over slavery. This was an invasion.

    Users who have LIKED this comment:

    • avatar
    • ◄Dave► says:

      Good analysis, Steel; I concur. Especially, the last paragraph. 😉 ◄Dave►

    • Troy Robinson says:

      I’m not even sure the Civil War is aptly named. Seven states had seceded by the time Lincoln took office. That sounds like a war of conquest between two nations. I don’t think many of the people on the battlefield, especially early on, would have said they were dying and killing their brothers over slavery. This was an invasion.

      NO States had seceded when Lincoln was inaugurated. As we all know, South Carolina left first followed by only 1 or 2 others. SC’s primary beef (and the reason for the first shots) being the mighty fort (Sumpter) that controlled her primary harbor and which the federals refused to turn over to them. The remainder of the States left rather than respond to Lincoln’s call for volunteers to “quell the rebellion”. That is to say, they refused to bear arms against their fellow Southerners. Virginia, which suffered the most in the war, was among the latter group. Meanwhile, Bobby Lee, at the time in temporary charge of Union forces in Texas, almost fired on Confederate troops there when they began to seize federal property as their own. How different things might have been had Lee’s superior not returned in time to belay such orders.

      As to the proper name for the conflict, we Southerners have long favored “The War Of Northern Aggression”.

      One interesting aspect of the conflict, and one we may soon have to consider again if things proceed in California, is whether a State which voluntarily entered to Union has a right to voluntarily leave again. I have yet to find anything in our Constitution that forbids such an action — but then, one could hardly expect to since the Constitution was written to control the federal government and not the governments of the several States.

      Troy

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

        “The Confederacy was originally formed by seven states – South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas

        Each state declared its secession from the United States following the November 1860 election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln to the U.S. presidency

        Before Lincoln took office in March, a new Confederate government was established in February 1861, which was considered illegal by the government of the United States.”

        That seems to support what I said, though I suppose the U.S. wouldn’t have called it valid, and the war was basically to determine who was right. I prefer to believe that representative governance requires the consent of the governed.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links