For Every Confederate Soldier Statue They Remove, Put Up 10

[JonKoch]

Where are the memorials for the British soldiers that fought in the War for Independence?

In Britain.

Well, there your are...!

You think you made a point but you didn't.

Nobody from the south is heading to NYC to tear down the Bull, or to DC to unseat Lincoln, or whining about how those statues represent OPPRESSION to them.

Do you maintain that every utterance of every politician accurately sums up not only the truth of every situation, but the viewpoint of the masses?

A tyrannical government used the slave issue to exert illegal authority over the states. Just as a tyrannical government today uses environmental and homo issues to exert illegal authority over the states. They pick an issue that will create a divide, and they ride it.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States


Georgia


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.


....A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party

Mississippi

...Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.


There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.


South Carolina

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.




Texas

....She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States | Civil War Trust

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, remind people that you support treason. Put up a Trump sign, too, and there will be no doubt.

It wasn't treason, it was secession. They were individual states and their sovereignty was being usurped by an overbearing federal parasite. That is why they seceded.
You're so brainwashed you can't even understand that.
You represent the reason for their secession.
Get back to class.

REBELLION!

re·bel·lion
rəˈbelyən/
noun

1. an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.
   "the authorities put down a rebellion by landless colonials"
   synonyms: uprising, revolt, insurrection, mutiny, revolution, insurgence, insurgency; More

WHY?

You need to lay off the posters, loser.

No, I didn't. None of your funny little posters disproved what I said..

which is that the civil war was about resources. They did what tyrannical governments seeking to exert illegal pressure on a minority always do...they started out with an issue to convince people that THIS time, it will be okay to ignore the law and squish the minority.

And that's what they did. They said "southerners are racists!" and used that to justify the takeover of the south, the decimation of the south, and the seizure of property and resources of the south.

None of your funny little posters disproved what I said..
which is that the civil war was about resources.

Never saw it better explained. The Civil War WAS about resources
Slave Labor that supported a cotton based economy

 

[JonKoch]

Yes, remind people that you support treason. Put up a Trump sign, too, and there will be no doubt.

It wasn't treason, it was secession. They were individual states and their sovereignty was being usurped by an overbearing federal parasite. That is why they seceded.
You're so brainwashed you can't even understand that.
You represent the reason for their secession.
Get back to class.

REBELLION!

re·bel·lion
rəˈbelyən/
noun

1. an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.
   "the authorities put down a rebellion by landless colonials"
   synonyms: uprising, revolt, insurrection, mutiny, revolution, insurgence, insurgency; More

WHY?

You need to lay off the posters, loser.

No, I didn't. None of your funny little posters disproved what I said..

which is that the civil war was about resources. They did what tyrannical governments seeking to exert illegal pressure on a minority always do...they started out with an issue to convince people that THIS time, it will be okay to ignore the law and squish the minority.

And that's what they did. They said "southerners are racists!" and used that to justify the takeover of the south, the decimation of the south, and the seizure of property and resources of the south.

YES, THAT'S WHAT THOSE TRAITOROUS SOUTHERN STATES SAID RIGHT BUBBA, IT WAS ABOUT "RESOURCES"??? LMAOROG

Hint just because CONservatives are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history and have to revise their "history" to support their bad behavior, doesn't make it real Bubs

 

[Staidhup]

These statues serve as a reminder of a dark time in our history, when for the sake in unification the founding fathers turned their back on the very principles behind their newly formed constitutional based government.

The vein attempt of others to rewrite or diminish the consequences this period had in the birth of our nation is reprehensible. It is who we are, nothing more nothing less.

Let them stand as a reminder, not only of the transgression against humanity, but human sacrifice paid to expunge injustice.

Those that do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it (George Santayana)

 

[koshergrl]

"Southerners had also discussed secession in the nation’s early years, concerned over talk of abolishing slavery. But when push came to shove in 1832, it was not over slavery but tariffs. National tariffs were passed that protected Northern manufacturers but increased prices for manufactured goods purchased in the predominantly agricultural South, where the Tariff of 1828 was dubbed the "Tariff of Abominations." The legislature of South Carolina declared the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 were "unauthorized by the constitution of the United States" and voted them null, void and non-binding on the state.

"President Andrew Jackson responded with a Proclamation of Force, declaring, "I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." (Emphasis is Jackson’s). Congress authorized Jackson to use military force if necessary to enforce the law (every Southern senator walked out in protest before the vote was taken)."

The war was about the feds superimposing their laws over state laws, when they clearly had no constitutional authority to do so. They had the support of the NORTH, because the NORTHERN manufacturers benefited TREMENDOUSLY from such tyrannical interference and control of resources.

Secession | HistoryNet

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Confederate soldiers’ statues are being removed all over the South. For in New Orleans, one in Virginia. More in Florida. But these are all on public land, in city squares. There is no attempt to remove any statues (or even flags) from private property. People can fly flags or display statues in their front yards, in full view, if they wish to. Some people here in Tampa, Florida already do.

So if the do-gooders really want to make Confederate statues an issue, let’s make it one for them. For every Confederate soldier statue they remove, let’s put 10 more up. They remove 10, we put up 100. They remove 100, we put up 1000.

Before you know it, you won’t be able to drive 2 blocks without seeing a reminder of the Confederacy and the people who fought for it. The do-gooders will wish they never came up with this idea. And yeah, there’s always airplanes with skywriting and message trailers.

Now, as for the politics, I can sympathize with black folks being uncomfortable with glorification of the nation that supported slavery. And maybe the flags representing that (partially) could be a bit over the top. Maybe that statue of Jefferson Davis also.

But the removal of soldiers’ statues is not acceptable. Jefferson Davis was a politician who led the Confederacy. And the Confederate flag represents that nation and its politics. But soldiers don’t make laws. They don’t prescribe policy. They follow orders and risk their lives (and often lose them) in wars. It’s just not right to remove soldiers’ statues and dishonor them in the process. They take them down….put more up.

The Democrats are trying to rewrite their own history. They'd like to get as far away from slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK and other products and vestiges that continue to sully their well-known history and current totalitarian objectives, and their renewed support for the slavery of all to The State.

funny how things changed starting in the 1940 with a demo prez integrating the military and the dems kicking out the southern dixicrat scum in 48'. then in the 60's a democrat signed the civil rights act and the republicans went after and captured the racist cracka south with their southern strategy

That's a lovely story.

Which party wants to fly the CONfderate flag again and is upset over removing the statues to traitors to the USA???


CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964:

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

Hey Goofy, you people have been screaming for years that all the southern Democrats joined the Republican party following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I have asked this before and gotten no response. Perhaps YOU can provide a list of those Congress folks and state officials from the southern states who switched to the Republican Party following passage?

Thanks.

 

[rightwinger]

Confederate soldiers’ statues are being removed all over the South. For in New Orleans, one in Virginia. More in Florida. But these are all on public land, in city squares. There is no attempt to remove any statues (or even flags) from private property. People can fly flags or display statues in their front yards, in full view, if they wish to. Some people here in Tampa, Florida already do.

So if the do-gooders really want to make Confederate statues an issue, let’s make it one for them. For every Confederate soldier statue they remove, let’s put 10 more up. They remove 10, we put up 100. They remove 100, we put up 1000.

Before you know it, you won’t be able to drive 2 blocks without seeing a reminder of the Confederacy and the people who fought for it. The do-gooders will wish they never came up with this idea. And yeah, there’s always airplanes with skywriting and message trailers.

Now, as for the politics, I can sympathize with black folks being uncomfortable with glorification of the nation that supported slavery. And maybe the flags representing that (partially) could be a bit over the top. Maybe that statue of Jefferson Davis also.

But the removal of soldiers’ statues is not acceptable. Jefferson Davis was a politician who led the Confederacy. And the Confederate flag represents that nation and its politics. But soldiers don’t make laws. They don’t prescribe policy. They follow orders and risk their lives (and often lose them) in wars. It’s just not right to remove soldiers’ statues and dishonor them in the process. They take them down….put more up.

The Democrats are trying to rewrite their own history. They'd like to get as far away from slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK and other products and vestiges that continue to sully their well-known history and current totalitarian objectives, and their renewed support for the slavery of all to The State.

funny how things changed starting in the 1940 with a demo prez integrating the military and the dems kicking out the southern dixicrat scum in 48'. then in the 60's a democrat signed the civil rights act and the republicans went after and captured the racist cracka south with their southern strategy

That's a lovely story.

Which party wants to fly the CONfderate flag again and is upset over removing the statues to traitors to the USA???


CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964:

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

Hey Goofy, you people have been screaming for years that all the southern Democrats joined the Republican party following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I have asked this before and gotten no response. Perhaps YOU can provide a list of those Congress folks and state officials from the southern states who switched to the Republican Party following passage?

Thanks.

It was the VOTERS who switched allegiance which the Republicans quickly exploited

 

[JonKoch]

"Southerners had also discussed secession in the nation’s early years, concerned over talk of abolishing slavery. But when push came to shove in 1832, it was not over slavery but tariffs. National tariffs were passed that protected Northern manufacturers but increased prices for manufactured goods purchased in the predominantly agricultural South, where the Tariff of 1828 was dubbed the "Tariff of Abominations." The legislature of South Carolina declared the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 were "unauthorized by the constitution of the United States" and voted them null, void and non-binding on the state.

"President Andrew Jackson responded with a Proclamation of Force, declaring, "I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." (Emphasis is Jackson’s). Congress authorized Jackson to use military force if necessary to enforce the law (every Southern senator walked out in protest before the vote was taken)."

The war was about the feds superimposing their laws over state laws, when they clearly had no constitutional authority to do so. They had the support of the NORTH, because the NORTHERN manufacturers benefited TREMENDOUSLY from such tyrannical interference and control of resources.

Secession | HistoryNet

YES, WE SAW THAT IN THE DECLARATION OF SECESSION RIGHT? TARIFFS? LMAOROG


YOUR LINK:

The Abolition Movement, and Southern Secession

Between the 1830s and 1860, a widening chasm developed between North and South over the issue of slavery, which had been abolished in all states north of the Mason-Dixon line. The Abolition Movement grew in power and prominence. The slave holding South increasingly felt its interests were threatened, particularly since slavery had been prohibited in much of the new territory that had been added west of the Mississippi River. The Missouri Compromise, the Dred Scott Decision case, the issue of Popular Sovereignty (allowing residents of a territory to vote on whether it would be slave or free), and John Brown‘s Raid On Harpers Ferry all played a role in the intensifying debate. Whereas once Southerners had talked of an emancipation process that would gradually end slavery, they increasingly took a hard line in favor of perpetuating it forever.

Secession | HistoryNet


Let's see. 1860 minus 1828 is 32 years.

So according to you, it took 32 years for them to secede because of the Tariff of 1828?

LOWEST TARIFF SINCE 1816??? LOL

 

[rightwinger]

The only allowable statue for the Confederacy

 

[koshergrl]

"Southerners had also discussed secession in the nation’s early years, concerned over talk of abolishing slavery. But when push came to shove in 1832, it was not over slavery but tariffs. National tariffs were passed that protected Northern manufacturers but increased prices for manufactured goods purchased in the predominantly agricultural South, where the Tariff of 1828 was dubbed the "Tariff of Abominations." The legislature of South Carolina declared the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 were "unauthorized by the constitution of the United States" and voted them null, void and non-binding on the state.

"President Andrew Jackson responded with a Proclamation of Force, declaring, "I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." (Emphasis is Jackson’s). Congress authorized Jackson to use military force if necessary to enforce the law (every Southern senator walked out in protest before the vote was taken)."

The war was about the feds superimposing their laws over state laws, when they clearly had no constitutional authority to do so. They had the support of the NORTH, because the NORTHERN manufacturers benefited TREMENDOUSLY from such tyrannical interference and control of resources.

Secession | HistoryNet

YES, WE SAW THAT IN THE DECLARATION OF SECESSION RIGHT? TARIFFS? LMAOROG


YOUR LINK:

The Abolition Movement, and Southern Secession

Between the 1830s and 1860, a widening chasm developed between North and South over the issue of slavery, which had been abolished in all states north of the Mason-Dixon line. The Abolition Movement grew in power and prominence. The slave holding South increasingly felt its interests were threatened, particularly since slavery had been prohibited in much of the new territory that had been added west of the Mississippi River. The Missouri Compromise, the Dred Scott Decision case, the issue of Popular Sovereignty (allowing residents of a territory to vote on whether it would be slave or free), and John Brown‘s Raid On Harpers Ferry all played a role in the intensifying debate. Whereas once Southerners had talked of an emancipation process that would gradually end slavery, they increasingly took a hard line in favor of perpetuating it forever.

Secession | HistoryNet


Let's see. 1860 minus 1828 is 32 years.

So according to you, it took 32 years for them to secede because of the Tariff of 1828?

LOWEST TARIFF SINCE 1816??? LOL

Actually, one of the Northern states tried to secede decades before, for the same thing only with a different *excuse*.

So yes, that's kind of what I'm saying. It was just another instance of federal government overreach. It has been going on since we created our government. And every time it happens, the government grants itself more authority.

Which is of course what the civil war is all about.

"Following ratification by 11 of the 13 states, the government began operation under the new U.S. Constitution in March 1789. In less than 15 years, states of New England had already threatened to secede from the Union. The first time was a threat to leave if the Assumption Bill, which provided for the federal government to assume the debts of the various states, were not passed. The next threat was over the expense of the Louisiana Purchase."

Secession | HistoryNet

I am glad you have progressed from the stupid memes and posters to the less neurotic and simpleminded, but still hysterical, font action.

 

[JonKoch]

Confederate soldiers’ statues are being removed all over the South. For in New Orleans, one in Virginia. More in Florida. But these are all on public land, in city squares. There is no attempt to remove any statues (or even flags) from private property. People can fly flags or display statues in their front yards, in full view, if they wish to. Some people here in Tampa, Florida already do.

So if the do-gooders really want to make Confederate statues an issue, let’s make it one for them. For every Confederate soldier statue they remove, let’s put 10 more up. They remove 10, we put up 100. They remove 100, we put up 1000.

Before you know it, you won’t be able to drive 2 blocks without seeing a reminder of the Confederacy and the people who fought for it. The do-gooders will wish they never came up with this idea. And yeah, there’s always airplanes with skywriting and message trailers.

Now, as for the politics, I can sympathize with black folks being uncomfortable with glorification of the nation that supported slavery. And maybe the flags representing that (partially) could be a bit over the top. Maybe that statue of Jefferson Davis also.

But the removal of soldiers’ statues is not acceptable. Jefferson Davis was a politician who led the Confederacy. And the Confederate flag represents that nation and its politics. But soldiers don’t make laws. They don’t prescribe policy. They follow orders and risk their lives (and often lose them) in wars. It’s just not right to remove soldiers’ statues and dishonor them in the process. They take them down….put more up.

The Democrats are trying to rewrite their own history. They'd like to get as far away from slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK and other products and vestiges that continue to sully their well-known history and current totalitarian objectives, and their renewed support for the slavery of all to The State.

funny how things changed starting in the 1940 with a demo prez integrating the military and the dems kicking out the southern dixicrat scum in 48'. then in the 60's a democrat signed the civil rights act and the republicans went after and captured the racist cracka south with their southern strategy

That's a lovely story.

Which party wants to fly the CONfderate flag again and is upset over removing the statues to traitors to the USA???


CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964:

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

Hey Goofy, you people have been screaming for years that all the southern Democrats joined the Republican party following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I have asked this before and gotten no response. Perhaps YOU can provide a list of those Congress folks and state officials from the southern states who switched to the Republican Party following passage?

Thanks.

FOLKS? How about VOTING Bubba

1960:

1964:

1968:

SEE ANYTHING WITH THOSE MAPS BUBBA?

From the end of the Civil War to 1960 Democrats had solid control over the southern states in presidential elections, hence the term “Solid South” to describe the states’ Democratic preference. After the passage of this Act, however, their willingness to support Republicans on a presidential level increased demonstrably. Goldwater won many of the “Solid South” states over Democratic candidate Lyndon Johnson, himself a Texan, and with many this Republican support continued and seeped down the ballot to congressional, state, and ultimately local levels.


Southern Democrats - Wikipedia

 

[Marianne]

Confederate soldiers’ statues are being removed all over the South. For in New Orleans, one in Virginia. More in Florida. But these are all on public land, in city squares. There is no attempt to remove any statues (or even flags) from private property. People can fly flags or display statues in their front yards, in full view, if they wish to. Some people here in Tampa, Florida already do.

So if the do-gooders really want to make Confederate statues an issue, let’s make it one for them. For every Confederate soldier statue they remove, let’s put 10 more up. They remove 10, we put up 100. They remove 100, we put up 1000.

Before you know it, you won’t be able to drive 2 blocks without seeing a reminder of the Confederacy and the people who fought for it. The do-gooders will wish they never came up with this idea. And yeah, there’s always airplanes with skywriting and message trailers.

Now, as for the politics, I can sympathize with black folks being uncomfortable with glorification of the nation that supported slavery. And maybe the flags representing that (partially) could be a bit over the top. Maybe that statue of Jefferson Davis also.

But the removal of soldiers’ statues is not acceptable. Jefferson Davis was a politician who led the Confederacy. And the Confederate flag represents that nation and its politics. But soldiers don’t make laws. They don’t prescribe policy. They follow orders and risk their lives (and often lose them) in wars. It’s just not right to remove soldiers’ statues and dishonor them in the process. They take them down….put more up.

I have no problem removing those statues however I do have a problem with destroying them. History should not be sanitized. These statues have a place in museums, battle fields and cemetery's. Change the plaques if you have too but don't destroy them, they are a important part of history and need to be put into proper perspective.

 

[JonKoch]

"Southerners had also discussed secession in the nation’s early years, concerned over talk of abolishing slavery. But when push came to shove in 1832, it was not over slavery but tariffs. National tariffs were passed that protected Northern manufacturers but increased prices for manufactured goods purchased in the predominantly agricultural South, where the Tariff of 1828 was dubbed the "Tariff of Abominations." The legislature of South Carolina declared the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 were "unauthorized by the constitution of the United States" and voted them null, void and non-binding on the state.

"President Andrew Jackson responded with a Proclamation of Force, declaring, "I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." (Emphasis is Jackson’s). Congress authorized Jackson to use military force if necessary to enforce the law (every Southern senator walked out in protest before the vote was taken)."

The war was about the feds superimposing their laws over state laws, when they clearly had no constitutional authority to do so. They had the support of the NORTH, because the NORTHERN manufacturers benefited TREMENDOUSLY from such tyrannical interference and control of resources.

Secession | HistoryNet

YES, WE SAW THAT IN THE DECLARATION OF SECESSION RIGHT? TARIFFS? LMAOROG


YOUR LINK:

The Abolition Movement, and Southern Secession

Between the 1830s and 1860, a widening chasm developed between North and South over the issue of slavery, which had been abolished in all states north of the Mason-Dixon line. The Abolition Movement grew in power and prominence. The slave holding South increasingly felt its interests were threatened, particularly since slavery had been prohibited in much of the new territory that had been added west of the Mississippi River. The Missouri Compromise, the Dred Scott Decision case, the issue of Popular Sovereignty (allowing residents of a territory to vote on whether it would be slave or free), and John Brown‘s Raid On Harpers Ferry all played a role in the intensifying debate. Whereas once Southerners had talked of an emancipation process that would gradually end slavery, they increasingly took a hard line in favor of perpetuating it forever.

Secession | HistoryNet


Let's see. 1860 minus 1828 is 32 years.

So according to you, it took 32 years for them to secede because of the Tariff of 1828?

LOWEST TARIFF SINCE 1816??? LOL

Actually, one of the Northern states tried to secede decades before, for the same thing only with a different *excuse*.

So yes, that's kind of what I'm saying. It was just another instance of federal government overreach. It has been going on since we created our government. And every time it happens, the government grants itself more authority.

Which is of course what the civil war is all about.

"Following ratification by 11 of the 13 states, the government began operation under the new U.S. Constitution in March 1789. In less than 15 years, states of New England had already threatened to secede from the Union. The first time was a threat to leave if the Assumption Bill, which provided for the federal government to assume the debts of the various states, were not passed. The next threat was over the expense of the Louisiana Purchase."

Secession | HistoryNet

I am glad you have progressed from the stupid memes and posters to the less neurotic and simpleminded, but still hysterical, font action.

War of 1812 and New England huh? Wonder why? DID they secede like those TRAITORS CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa Bubs?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

For what reason would American memorials in the U.S. be attacked?

Because that's how communism and tyranny operate.

"In order to seize, maintain and consolidate its tyranny, the CCP needs to replace human nature with its evil Party nature, and the Chinese traditional culture with its Party culture of “deceit, wickedness, and violence.”

This destruction and substitution includes cultural relics, historical sites, and ancient books, which are tangible, and such intangible things as the traditional outlook on morality, life, and the world. All aspects of people’s lives are involved, including their actions, thoughts, and lifestyles.

At the same time, the CCP regards insignificant and superficial cultural manifestations as the “essence,” retaining them, and then puts this essence up as a façade. The Party keeps the semblance of tradition while replacing the real tradition with Party culture. It then deceives the people and international society behind a façade of carrying on and developing Chinese traditional culture."

Commentary 6: On How the Chinese Communist Party Destroyed Traditional Culture

The Nazis did the same thing. They seized all the art, distributed what they wanted amongst themselves, hid the rest.

Because it's not about anything except eradicating tradition. It has nothing to do with racism. It's replacing a good, strong society with a sick, twisted one that will bow to tyrants.

koshergrl

The US is losing so much to this new adoration of ignorance that trump personifies. Humiliating that he can't read, remember actual facts. I read where someone wth NATO said he has an attention span of about 12 seconds. And the things that he needs - no long speeches, use his name in and on documents to get him to pay attention a little longer.

And the childish crap, the tweet tantrums, no control over his own mouth, accidentally confessing that it was Israel's secrets he blabbed to Russia, confessing twice to obstruction and on and on.

RWNJs love his stupidity and love that US education is being destroyed. And boy,my hey really love that he wants to destroy the middle class and drive homelessness sky high.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[rightwinger]

A monument to the Confederacy which represents 40% of their population

 

[Luddly Neddite]

For what reason would American memorials in the U.S. be attacked?

These aren't American memorials.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bodecea]

Confederate soldiers’ statues are being removed all over the South. For in New Orleans, one in Virginia. More in Florida. But these are all on public land, in city squares. There is no attempt to remove any statues (or even flags) from private property. People can fly flags or display statues in their front yards, in full view, if they wish to. Some people here in Tampa, Florida already do.

So if the do-gooders really want to make Confederate statues an issue, let’s make it one for them. For every Confederate soldier statue they remove, let’s put 10 more up. They remove 10, we put up 100. They remove 100, we put up 1000.

Before you know it, you won’t be able to drive 2 blocks without seeing a reminder of the Confederacy and the people who fought for it. The do-gooders will wish they never came up with this idea. And yeah, there’s always airplanes with skywriting and message trailers.

Now, as for the politics, I can sympathize with black folks being uncomfortable with glorification of the nation that supported slavery. And maybe the flags representing that (partially) could be a bit over the top. Maybe that statue of Jefferson Davis also.

But the removal of soldiers’ statues is not acceptable. Jefferson Davis was a politician who led the Confederacy. And the Confederate flag represents that nation and its politics. But soldiers don’t make laws. They don’t prescribe policy. They follow orders and risk their lives (and often lose them) in wars. It’s just not right to remove soldiers’ statues and dishonor them in the process. They take them down….put more up.

The Virginia Flaggers do that already. They put up flags all over Virginia because of the ones being removed.

Make sure you donate to them.

 

[bodecea]

Revisionism is removing all trace of cultures that you don't approve of.

Slaver-worship isn't culture.

Anyone who would equate Nazism with German culture would be shitting on German culture.

In exactly the same way, anyone who equates the Confederacy with southern culture is shitting on southern culture.

Most conservatives are making an extra effort to shit on southern culture.

It does crack me up why they want to call a 4 year failed revolt their "culture". Loser culture? Oooooookaaaaaay.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Confederate soldiers’ statues are being removed all over the South. For in New Orleans, one in Virginia. More in Florida. But these are all on public land, in city squares. There is no attempt to remove any statues (or even flags) from private property. People can fly flags or display statues in their front yards, in full view, if they wish to. Some people here in Tampa, Florida already do.

So if the do-gooders really want to make Confederate statues an issue, let’s make it one for them. For every Confederate soldier statue they remove, let’s put 10 more up. They remove 10, we put up 100. They remove 100, we put up 1000.

Before you know it, you won’t be able to drive 2 blocks without seeing a reminder of the Confederacy and the people who fought for it. The do-gooders will wish they never came up with this idea. And yeah, there’s always airplanes with skywriting and message trailers.

Now, as for the politics, I can sympathize with black folks being uncomfortable with glorification of the nation that supported slavery. And maybe the flags representing that (partially) could be a bit over the top. Maybe that statue of Jefferson Davis also.

But the removal of soldiers’ statues is not acceptable. Jefferson Davis was a politician who led the Confederacy. And the Confederate flag represents that nation and its politics. But soldiers don’t make laws. They don’t prescribe policy. They follow orders and risk their lives (and often lose them) in wars. It’s just not right to remove soldiers’ statues and dishonor them in the process. They take them down….put more up.

I have no problem removing those statues however I do have a problem with destroying them. History should not be sanitized. These statues have a place in museums, battle fields and cemetery's. Change the plaques if you have too but don't destroy them, they are a important part of history and need to be put into proper perspective.

To some extent, I agree.

No patriotic American wants them glorified. Like the Holocaust, we need reminders of the horrors humans have perpetrated.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[IsaacNewton]

Why aren't the racists in the south buying up these statues? They could throw in the Stalin, Lenin, and Saddam Hussein statues as well as a bonus and these klan kissers could put up all these statues of losers like Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis in their backyards.