Memphis City Council unanimously votes to dig up Confederate General, wife

[Correll]

The difference between us is that I do not have a negative personal opinion of those people just because they had different death rituals than I do.

Right, because you are all into the Mumbo Jumbo.

I do care that about moving the body.

I do care that this witch hunt is still ongoing, and is still attacking the culture of the South/America.

You mean by pointing out that racism and treason were part of the "culture".

Again- we are talking about a man who committed what would be considered a war crime today and founded a hate group.

He doesn't deserve a statue.

1. Yes. In that I am a member of a culture with death rituals.

2. Tearing down a statue and digging up bodies is not "pointing out that racism and treason were part of the culture". This is an attack on the heritage and culture of the SOuth/America.

3. IF racism and treason means that a man doesn't deserve a statue, then tear down Mount Rushmore. George Washington is guilty on both counts. Does it have to be both or would just one mean no statues? Cause by modern standards they all have to come down, if it is just racism.

 

[Geaux4it]

 

[defcon4]

CLEANSING… you slip here and there revealing the true motive. You are in the process of political, cultural and ETHNIC CLEANSING.

Yes, we are totally coming to get you, Cleetus.

You must really hate Cleetus Friedman. You consider him as traitor of your kind.
"Cleetus Friedman has to be the finest politically uncorrect white Jewish ambisexual hip-hop artist around" - Chicago Sun Times.
Come on over, but do not hide behind your brown shirt, jackbooted thugs.

 

[JoeB131]

2. Tearing down a statue and digging up bodies is not "pointing out that racism and treason were part of the culture". This is an attack on the heritage and culture of the SOuth/America.

3. IF racism and treason means that a man doesn't deserve a statue, then tear down Mount Rushmore. George Washington is guilty on both counts. Does it have to be both or would just one mean no statues? Cause by modern standards they all have to come down, if it is just racism.

The heritage of the South DESERVES to be attacked.

America should look upon the Confederacy the way Germans look at the Third Reich - as something we should be PROFOUNDLY embarrassed about.

George Washington didn't start a hate group...

 

[Correll]

2. Tearing down a statue and digging up bodies is not "pointing out that racism and treason were part of the culture". This is an attack on the heritage and culture of the SOuth/America.

3. IF racism and treason means that a man doesn't deserve a statue, then tear down Mount Rushmore. George Washington is guilty on both counts. Does it have to be both or would just one mean no statues? Cause by modern standards they all have to come down, if it is just racism.

The heritage of the South DESERVES to be attacked.

America should look upon the Confederacy the way Germans look at the Third Reich - as something we should be PROFOUNDLY embarrassed about.

George Washington didn't start a hate group...

1. So, you are admitting this is an attack on the heritage and culture of the south, good. Lets not revisit that stupid question again.

You have admitted before that you hate the South, and are a bigot against them. Attacking the south is not going to do anything but divide US.



2. George Washington owned slaves and committed treason against the British Empire. The rest of them, by modern standards, were racist too. IF nathan's statue can be torn down, than so can Mount Rushmore.

 

[EverCurious]

I just wanted to comment on the tossing around of Confederate soldiers being "traitors"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


One may argue, rightfully, that slavery was an injustice to equality, however, one must also recognize that the abolishment of slavery was a direct threat to the safety and happiness of the Southern slave states. Their economy was dependent upon slavery and they feared that Lincoln's anti-slavery ties were going to destroy that, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. To argue that succession states were traitors is incorrect, they were not traitors, they were merely loyal to their states' health and rejected federal overreach into that matter. They argued that secession was constitutionally supported; which clearly implies that they supported the constitution does it not. Either way, they /were/ still American's - merely American's who felt that Lincoln [though pro-active anti-slavery actions] was going to endanger their states.


If we are going to equate all secession acts as treason, then we have a lot of places to "purge" of "traitors". You probably know about Texas' secession movements, but there's a lot more:

1893 - Hawaii is seeking to succeed, at a minimum in part, from the US "invasion." In 1893 their queen (basically surrendered and) was overthrown by the US military and Hawaii was "illegally" annexed. There have been numerous court cases since (in both the US justice department and international courts) regarding their status; while in the mainstream they are thought of as a state, in international opinion they are oft recognized as an independent nation under [forced] US occupation. Hawaii Sovereignty groups are, and have been, actively working with the UN to find a peaceful solution to the "illegal" invasion and occupation of Hawaii. In 1893 President Grover Cleveland investigated and found that the US was directly responsible for the Queen's overthrowing and took steps to reinstate her to power. In 1897 President William McKinley negotiated a treaty with them which would have given Hawaiian's a chance to vote on annexation into the US; he was unable to get it through congress acquiring only 46 of the necessary 60 votes. There's a long list of court cases and attempts to "secede" (both partially and in full) throughout the decades since.

1982 - Florida, the Conch Republic of the Florida Key's (illegally) seceded and, in fact, declared war on the US (they surrendered to a Navy officer and applied for 1 billion in foreign aid after 1 minute heh) over the US Border Patrol removed road blocks [on the only road into their area] and devastating their tourism (aka their economic safety.) It could be argued that the US military invaded in September 1995, in fact, the US Army Reserve actually apologized for the accidental "invasion." Despite forgoing their "succession," to this day they still fly the official national flag of The Conch Republic and they celebrate their own Independence Day on April 23.

2001 - New Hampshire Liberty Party seeks secession, or they'll settle for a forced compromise with the US government.

2003 - The Second Vermont Republic seeks dissolution of the Union because of Corporate America and the US Government.

2006 - Alaska asked the Supreme Court the constitutionality, and legality, of putting Alaska's secession from the US on a ballot. The Court opinioned that such a vote could not be put on a ballot according to Alaska's constitution; "When the forty-nine-star flag was first raised at Juneau, we Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for good or ill, in perpetuity. To suggest otherwise would disparage the republican character of the National Government." (They mostly declined to comment on conflicting constitutional issues also brought up in the case, though that could come back up soon - specifically the Alaska State Constitution bans same sex marriage, which is now in conflict with the opinion of the US Supreme Court.)

2007 - The Republic of Lakotah has asserted their independence from the US, their territory lies within the states of North & South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. (They do not argue they are seceding, but that they are reasserting their sovereignty.) They've sent representatives all over the world seeking the global recognition of their nation.

2009 - Georgia state senate passed a resolution 43-1 that asserts the states right to nullify federal laws, if any of the provisions are broken they declare that the constitution of the United States is null and void and the union would be dissolved.

2010 - South Carolina's Palmetto republic claims that SC seceded from the US in 1776 and 1860 and seeks a return to their independent status.

Those are the higher profile groups, there's a shit ton of smaller grass-roots types out there. They don't hate the union, (well except maybe Hawaii and Lakotah,) they are merely dissatisfied with the way things are headed. Attempting secession is /not/ traitorous, it is a statement that a state or group feels oppressed. Feeling oppressed and overthrowing the government is as American as you can get frankly. It is why this country seceded in the first place. It is part of the very foundation of our country, we are /all/ traitors so stop using that term as a derogatory.

I used to be PROUD to be a "traitor", because of where it took our great country. I'm afraid my faith in the country has faltered a lot in the past decade or so, I am no longer as "proud" to be American as I used to be, though I do not hate her, I simply do not like where she is headed. I suppose that is why I can find understanding for the Confederate movement, because I understand how hard it is to maintain your faith in a national ideal while everyone around you tries to dismantle it. You want to quit, leave, escape and remake it as you remember it, as you think it should be. I love the idea of America, I do not love the "direction" she has turned. And I too have thought about leaving the country, moving somewhere else, "quitting" as the south did.

So if you /must/ pick a derogatory term, because simply saying "the south" or "confederates" isn't hostile enough for your PC brand of passive-aggressive hate, how about since they wanted to "quit" America as the north envisioned its future, you call them "quitters" or "abandoners." But they are no more traitors than EVERY other American.

 

[defcon4]

I just wanted to comment on the tossing around of Confederate soldiers being "traitors"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


One may argue, rightfully, that slavery was an injustice to equality, however, one must also recognize that the abolishment of slavery was a direct threat to the safety and happiness of the Southern slave states. Their economy was dependent upon slavery and they feared that Lincoln's anti-slavery ties were going to destroy that, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. To argue that succession states were traitors is incorrect, they were not traitors, they were merely loyal to their states' health and rejected federal overreach into that matter. They argued that secession was constitutionally supported; which clearly implies that they supported the constitution does it not. Either way, they /were/ still American's - merely American's who felt that Lincoln [though pro-active anti-slavery actions] was going to endanger their states.


If we are going to equate all secession acts as treason, then we have a lot of places to "purge" of "traitors". You probably know about Texas' secession movements, but there's a lot more:

1893 - Hawaii is seeking to succeed, at a minimum in part, from the US "invasion." In 1893 their queen (basically surrendered and) was overthrown by the US military and Hawaii was "illegally" annexed. There have been numerous court cases since (in both the US justice department and international courts) regarding their status; while in the mainstream they are thought of as a state, in international opinion they are oft recognized as an independent nation under [forced] US occupation. Hawaii Sovereignty groups are, and have been, actively working with the UN to find a peaceful solution to the "illegal" invasion and occupation of Hawaii. In 1893 President Grover Cleveland investigated and found that the US was directly responsible for the Queen's overthrowing and took steps to reinstate her to power. In 1897 President William McKinley negotiated a treaty with them which would have given Hawaiian's a chance to vote on annexation into the US; he was unable to get it through congress acquiring only 46 of the necessary 60 votes. There's a long list of court cases and attempts to "secede" (both partially and in full) throughout the decades since.

1982 - Florida, the Conch Republic of the Florida Key's (illegally) seceded and, in fact, declared war on the US (they surrendered to a Navy officer and applied for 1 billion in foreign aid after 1 minute heh) over the US Border Patrol removed road blocks [on the only road into their area] and devastating their tourism (aka their economic safety.) It could be argued that the US military invaded in September 1995, in fact, the US Army Reserve actually apologized for the accidental "invasion." Despite forgoing their "succession," to this day they still fly the official national flag of The Conch Republic and they celebrate their own Independence Day on April 23.

2001 - New Hampshire Liberty Party seeks secession, or they'll settle for a forced compromise with the US government.

2003 - The Second Vermont Republic seeks dissolution of the Union because of Corporate America and the US Government.

2006 - Alaska asked the Supreme Court the constitutionality, and legality, of putting Alaska's secession from the US on a ballot. The Court opinioned that such a vote could not be put on a ballot according to Alaska's constitution; "When the forty-nine-star flag was first raised at Juneau, we Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for good or ill, in perpetuity. To suggest otherwise would disparage the republican character of the National Government." (They mostly declined to comment on conflicting constitutional issues also brought up in the case, though that could come back up soon - specifically the Alaska State Constitution bans same sex marriage, which is now in conflict with the opinion of the US Supreme Court.)

2007 - The Republic of Lakotah has asserted their independence from the US, their territory lies within the states of North & South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana. (They do not argue they are seceding, but that they are reasserting their sovereignty.) They've sent representatives all over the world seeking the global recognition of their nation.

2009 - Georgia state senate passed a resolution 43-1 that asserts the states right to nullify federal laws, if any of the provisions are broken they declare that the constitution of the United States is null and void and the union would be dissolved.

2010 - South Carolina's Palmetto republic claims that SC seceded from the US in 1776 and 1860 and seeks a return to their independent status.

Those are the higher profile groups, there's a shit ton of smaller grass-roots types out there. They don't hate the union, (well except maybe Hawaii and Lakotah,) they are merely dissatisfied with the way things are headed. Attempting secession is /not/ traitorous, it is a statement that a state or group feels oppressed. Feeling oppressed and overthrowing the government is as American as you can get frankly. It is why this country seceded in the first place. It is part of the very foundation of our country, we are /all/ traitors so stop using that term as a derogatory.

I used to be PROUD to be a "traitor", because of where it took our great country. I'm afraid my faith in the country has faltered a lot in the past decade or so, I am no longer as "proud" to be American as I used to be, though I do not hate her, I simply do not like where she is headed. I suppose that is why I can find understanding for the Confederate movement, because I understand how hard it is to maintain your faith in a national ideal while everyone around you tries to dismantle it. You want to quit, leave, escape and remake it as you remember it, as you think it should be. I love the idea of America, I do not love the "direction" she has turned. And I too have thought about leaving the country, moving somewhere else, "quitting" as the south did.

So if you /must/ pick a derogatory term, because simply saying "the south" or "confederates" isn't hostile enough for your PC brand of passive-aggressive hate, how about since they wanted to "quit" America as the north envisioned its future, you call them "quitters" or "abandoners." But they are no more traitors than EVERY other American.

This is a fantastic piece. Thank you so much! I have no Southern roots nor do I have anything to do with slavery, I am just in opposition to lies, revisionism and the destruction of historical artifacts. I am just in opposition to the attempt of political, historical and "ethnic" cleansing. Thank you again!

 

[9thIDdoc]

Let's be blunt, you guys don't care that General Forrest's body is being moved.

You care that his place of honor as a historical figure is being RIGHTFULLY revoked (retroactively)

Don't be stupid. You can't change history or revoke honor. All those ghoulish assholes are doing is stirring up shit and giving actual bigots reason to say "See, I told you so." You don't stop violence by provoking more.
In any case a couple of years ago a Tn. State law was passed that outlawed cities or counties from removing monuments or flags from public property without State approval. So the obese person who identifies as female may not have sung on this issue.

 

[Stephanie]

did you ever IMAGINE this is what you would be getting when electing a black President, who they said was going to bring the RACES together and UNITE us all in one failed swoop?

WELL you were DUPED and duped big time.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Wonder where Sherman is buried...

 

[JoeB131]

One may argue, rightfully, that slavery was an injustice to equality, however, one must also recognize that the abolishment of slavery was a direct threat to the safety and happiness of the Southern slave states. Their economy was dependent upon slavery and they feared that Lincoln's anti-slavery ties were going to destroy that, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. To argue that succession states were traitors is incorrect, they were not traitors, they were merely loyal to their states' health and rejected federal overreach into that matter.

Not to plow through all your verbal diarrhea to answer this, but the Traitors of the Confederacy fought to perpetuate an institution that involved the systematic brutalization, selling, rape, maiming and torture of human beings for profit. The notion this was about liberty is silly. This was about racism and the rich exploiting dumb inbred whites. And most of the dumb inbreds who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves- in fact, slave owners were exempted from service.

So if you /must/ pick a derogatory term, because simply saying "the south" or "confederates" isn't hostile enough for your PC brand of passive-aggressive hate, how about since they wanted to "quit" America as the north envisioned its future, you call them "quitters" or "abandoners." But they are no more traitors than EVERY other American.

I'll call them what they were. Racists and Traitors. The sooner we dig up a POS Like Forrest and dump him in ignominity, the better. Melt down his statue and replace it with one of Dr. King.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't be stupid. You can't change history or revoke honor. All those ghoulish assholes are doing is stirring up shit and giving actual bigots reason to say "See, I told you so." You don't stop violence by provoking more.
In any case a couple of years ago a Tn. State law was passed that outlawed cities or counties from removing monuments or flags from public property without State approval. So the obese person who identifies as female may not have sung on this issue.

Do you really think that the State is going to go to war for the Founder of the Klan?

I want to repeat that. Forrest founded the KLAN! You think anyone wants a statue of him up?

 

[Correll]

Don't be stupid. You can't change history or revoke honor. All those ghoulish assholes are doing is stirring up shit and giving actual bigots reason to say "See, I told you so." You don't stop violence by provoking more.
In any case a couple of years ago a Tn. State law was passed that outlawed cities or counties from removing monuments or flags from public property without State approval. So the obese person who identifies as female may not have sung on this issue.

Do you really think that the State is going to go to war for the Founder of the Klan?

I want to repeat that. Forrest founded the KLAN! You think anyone wants a statue of him up?

He was also a war hero who fought and fought well, famously well.

IF we are only allowed to celebrate historical figures that pass modern lib muster, we will not be allowed to have celebrate any historical figures.

Which is the point. The destruction of traditional American culture.

Every other group is allowed to celebrate their culture(s), but not American Whites.

 

[JoeB131]

He was also a war hero who fought and fought well, famously well.

IF we are only allowed to celebrate historical figures that pass modern lib muster, we will not be allowed to have celebrate any historical figures.

Which is the point. The destruction of traditional American culture.

Every other group is allowed to celebrate their culture(s), but not American Whites.

I'm an American White, and I don't think the Founder of the Ku Klux Klan represents MY culture.

Why do you think he represents yours.

So he was a general who fought well? So was Benedict Arnold. I'm not seeing any statues to him anywhere.

Point is, they are finally putting Forrest in his proper historical context.

Traitor. Racist. War Criminal.

We aren't talking about Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson here. (Guys you could argue were just doing their duty to their state.) We are talking about a guy who committed war crimes during the war and did some truly awful things after the war.

 

[Correll]

He was also a war hero who fought and fought well, famously well.

IF we are only allowed to celebrate historical figures that pass modern lib muster, we will not be allowed to have celebrate any historical figures.

Which is the point. The destruction of traditional American culture.

Every other group is allowed to celebrate their culture(s), but not American Whites.

I'm an American White, and I don't think the Founder of the Ku Klux Klan represents MY culture.

Why do you think he represents yours.

So he was a general who fought well? So was Benedict Arnold. I'm not seeing any statues to him anywhere.

Point is, they are finally putting Forrest in his proper historical context.

Traitor. Racist. War Criminal.

We aren't talking about Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson here. (Guys you could argue were just doing their duty to their state.) We are talking about a guy who committed war crimes during the war and did some truly awful things after the war.

THe Confederacy and the South are big parts of traditional American culture.


And we are talking about Lee and Jackson. Plenty of libs have badmouthed Gen Robert E. Lee and called him names. I am sure that someday they will get the witch hunt treatment too, when the mob needs a new target.

IF we are only allowed to celebrate historical figures that pass modern lib muster, we will not be allowed to have celebrate any historical figures.


Which is the point. The destruction of traditional American culture.

 

[defcon4]

his was about racism and the rich exploiting dumb inbred whites. And most of the dumb inbreds who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves- in fact, slave owners were exempted from service.

You did not seem to address any of the points in an intelligent way but answered with insults and made up shit reflecting your own opinion.
You are harping on your stupid ideas expressed throughout this thread and all those stupidities were addressed with factual citations. Repeating the same shit over and over again is the Alinsky method written for radical provocateurs.
What would you say if a revisionist group demanded the destruction of Holocaust museums everywhere and called the jews of the Holocaust scumbags who deserved to be exterminated? Or, a group gained substantial following and just say the Holocaust was a lie and we eradicate all the memorials erected in remembrance? Yes, I had to bring to you a shocking example to illustrate what kind of cleansing you propagating around here. If one can do it so can the other, each according to his belief that's what you are saying?

 

[JoeB131]

THe Confederacy and the South are big parts of traditional American culture.

The Nazis and the Third Reich were big parts of German culture, but no one is putting up any statues to them.

And we are talking about Lee and Jackson. Plenty of libs have badmouthed Gen Robert E. Lee and called him names. I am sure that someday they will get the witch hunt treatment too, when the mob needs a new target.

IF we are only allowed to celebrate historical figures that pass modern lib muster, we will not be allowed to have celebrate any historical figures.

Maybe we shouldn't. In the immortal words of Malcolm Reynolds on the show Firefly, "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of 'em was one kinda sombitch or another."

Here's the thing. CONSERVATIVES on the Memphis City Council voted to give General Forrest the Boot! It was a unanimous vote.

 

[defcon4]

He was also a war hero who fought and fought well, famously well.

IF we are only allowed to celebrate historical figures that pass modern lib muster, we will not be allowed to have celebrate any historical figures.

Which is the point. The destruction of traditional American culture.

Every other group is allowed to celebrate their culture(s), but not American Whites.

I'm an American White, and I don't think the Founder of the Ku Klux Klan represents MY culture.

Why do you think he represents yours.

So he was a general who fought well? So was Benedict Arnold. I'm not seeing any statues to him anywhere.

Point is, they are finally putting Forrest in his proper historical context.

Traitor. Racist. War Criminal.

We aren't talking about Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson here. (Guys you could argue were just doing their duty to their state.) We are talking about a guy who committed war crimes during the war and did some truly awful things after the war.

THe Confederacy and the South are big parts of traditional American culture.


And we are talking about Lee and Jackson. Plenty of libs have badmouthed Gen Robert E. Lee and called him names. I am sure that someday they will get the witch hunt treatment too, when the mob needs a new target.

IF we are only allowed to celebrate historical figures that pass modern lib muster, we will not be allowed to have celebrate any historical figures.


Which is the point. The destruction of traditional American culture.

This guy's grandparents found refuge here in the US from persecution. He is an agitprop trained anti-American jew with no ancestry here therefore, no heritage. As far as I am concerned he could be sitting in Tel Aviv burning up our taxpayers money earmarked for One Voice.

 

[JoeB131]

You did not seem to address any of the points in an intelligent way but answered with insults and made up shit reflecting your own opinion.
You are harping on your stupid ideas expressed throughout this thread and all those stupidities were addressed with factual citations. Repeating the same shit over and over again is the Alinsky method written for radical provocateurs.
What would you say if a revisionist group demanded the destruction of Holocaust museums everywhere and called the jews of the Holocaust scumbags who deserved to be exterminated? Or, a group gained substantial following and just say the Holocaust was a lie and we eradicate all the memorials erected in remembrance? Yes, I had to bring to you a shocking example to illustrate what kind of cleansing you propagating around here. If one can do it so can the other, each according to his belief that's what you are saying?

Dude Saul Alinsky's Zombie is hiding under your bed, but when he finds out about your lack of brains, it's going to be disappointed.

The thing is, Forrest is being eradicated because of what HE ACTUALLY DID. He did commit War crimes. He did found the Ku Klux Klan.

(Oh, by the way, I'm not Jewish.. I'm not sure where you get the notion that I am.)

 

[eagle1462010]

Ah shut up Joe........................

Get your shovel out and get busy being a grave robber................

Dig up bones and be happy, and while your at it dig up Byrd........................Grant for having slaves until after the war..........

You are boring.