Messages in context, the Civil War Memorial edition.

[SavannahMann]

The old truth still applies. Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it. But what history will they learn? The problem with adjusting history to suit your modern narrative is that you lose the lesson that is there to be learned.

The first lesson that should be learned is that the Civil War as not a Civil War. A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government. Usually these are rebels and loyalists. Usually the Loyalists win, but a few times in history, the Rebels take control. The Cuban Revolution is an example that is close to us and recent enough to be used as an example.

The Civil War was a war for independence. The Confederate States wanted to be free of the Federal Government. The States were no longer United. This has happened and failed many times in history in many places on earth. Ireland has seen a few. Spain sees the effort now and then as the Catalan areas argue for freedom from the National Government. Americans supported the effort in Northern Ireland in the 1970's, and 1980's. We sent food, medicine, and money to support the fight for freedom.

But only the American effort is mislabeled, and misrepresented. No one calls the Irish revolts Civil Wars. Many Southerners still call the war the "War of Northern Aggression". That name may be a bit too far the other way, but it is closer to the truth than Civil War.

Second. Slavery. It would have ended anyway. It would have ended within a couple decades. Industrialization was happening. There was no stopping it. Machines were being designed to replace people, and the invention of the machines to take over from the field hands was already underway. So arguing that if the South had won then Slavery would have continued through to the middle of the twentieth century is fantasy. It deserves the same sort of serious contemplation as Lord of the Rings.

Third. Memorials. The Catalan people are proud of those who stood up and were punished for demanding freedom. Amnesty International was formed when Basque people raised a toast to freedom and were arrested for it. There is no need to tear down memorials, and the argument that they are up to honor slavery is asinine.

Yes, there are some idiots who feel their skin color is the main factor in how awesome they are. That is on both sides. Video: Democrats shouting down the "wrong sort" of Democrats at NN17 - Hot Air

There are Blacks who vote Democrat who hate Whites just because of skin color. Does that mean all Democrats are racist? There are Civil War aficionados who want to preserve the history, and the memorials, who would rather eat a raw turd than hurt someone because they were a different color.

The average soldier in the Civil War, the boys and young men who marched off with rifles on their shoulders did not fight for slavery. They were fighting for their rights. The same as the young men and boys who marched with Washington against the British. They're the same kids who stood the wall in New Orleans. They're the same who stood up every time the need arose. They didn't fight to subjugate anyone.

The Movie "The Patriot" has a brilliant quote. A man can have his rights trampled by three thousand men one mile away as easily as one man three thousand miles away. That is why the South fought.

Has this nation endured a lot of racial animosity? Yes. Busing riots in the South in the 1960's, and in the north ten years later. Does it still happen today? Yes. Without a doubt. I'll never deny or make any claim otherwise. We learn to deal with it, we learn about each other by talking. Not shouting at each other. If you want to discredit a White Supremicist don't shout him down, stand back and let him make a damned fool of himself. If you want to discredit a Black Racist, let him talk. They'll do all the work for you. A vast majority of the people will walk away wondering what is wrong with those idiots. Those same people will walk away wondering why they were not allowed to talk, because people want to read what they're not supposed to.

Most kids read the books on the banned list to see what is so bad they shouldn't be exposed to it. Most people try to find the website that is so bad it had to be banned. All you do by banning the speech, the words, and the ideals, is make sure more people are exposed to them, and wonder what was so bad about it. You legitimize it, instead of deligitimizing it.

Fahrenheit 451 is a terrible book. It's boring, wordy, and a chore to read. But we read it because it's a book about banning books that almost inevitably ends up being banned. Ayn Rand's incredibly slow moving tome Atlas Shrugged was made into three movies. They grossed about fifty bucks at the theaters. The final one was realeased not to DVD, but free download.

Banning them didn't do anything, let them talk, then let the people decide. By tearing down the monuments, by demanding that they be torn down, you do nothing but increase the imagined value of the things you are denouncing. Why do you think that the first thing the Soviet's did was start claiming all history before the October Revolution was sort of unimportant nonsense that the Capitalists would only care about?

You are making their case by trying to silence them. You are helping them by shouting them down. You are hurting your own cause by demanding that they be punished for whatever.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yes let them talk, and let others be there to talk them down in return. That is what free speech in the public square is.

And a 'War of Northern Aggression'? I'm pretty sure America didn't fire the first shot on it's own Fort Sumter. The Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. A northern state. The south attempted to invade the north and lost their ass. Hardly a 'War of Defense' for the South.

And the whole thing was 150 years ago, the South lost, that's it. Get over it. The South isn't going to 'rise again'. Are the people of the South ever going to rejoin the country as Robert E Lee asked them to do in 1866?

 

[forkup]

The old truth still applies. Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it. But what history will they learn? The problem with adjusting history to suit your modern narrative is that you lose the lesson that is there to be learned.

The first lesson that should be learned is that the Civil War as not a Civil War. A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government. Usually these are rebels and loyalists. Usually the Loyalists win, but a few times in history, the Rebels take control. The Cuban Revolution is an example that is close to us and recent enough to be used as an example.

The Civil War was a war for independence. The Confederate States wanted to be free of the Federal Government. The States were no longer United. This has happened and failed many times in history in many places on earth. Ireland has seen a few. Spain sees the effort now and then as the Catalan areas argue for freedom from the National Government. Americans supported the effort in Northern Ireland in the 1970's, and 1980's. We sent food, medicine, and money to support the fight for freedom.

But only the American effort is mislabeled, and misrepresented. No one calls the Irish revolts Civil Wars. Many Southerners still call the war the "War of Northern Aggression". That name may be a bit too far the other way, but it is closer to the truth than Civil War.

Second. Slavery. It would have ended anyway. It would have ended within a couple decades. Industrialization was happening. There was no stopping it. Machines were being designed to replace people, and the invention of the machines to take over from the field hands was already underway. So arguing that if the South had won then Slavery would have continued through to the middle of the twentieth century is fantasy. It deserves the same sort of serious contemplation as Lord of the Rings.

Third. Memorials. The Catalan people are proud of those who stood up and were punished for demanding freedom. Amnesty International was formed when Basque people raised a toast to freedom and were arrested for it. There is no need to tear down memorials, and the argument that they are up to honor slavery is asinine.

Yes, there are some idiots who feel their skin color is the main factor in how awesome they are. That is on both sides. Video: Democrats shouting down the "wrong sort" of Democrats at NN17 - Hot Air

There are Blacks who vote Democrat who hate Whites just because of skin color. Does that mean all Democrats are racist? There are Civil War aficionados who want to preserve the history, and the memorials, who would rather eat a raw turd than hurt someone because they were a different color.

The average soldier in the Civil War, the boys and young men who marched off with rifles on their shoulders did not fight for slavery. They were fighting for their rights. The same as the young men and boys who marched with Washington against the British. They're the same kids who stood the wall in New Orleans. They're the same who stood up every time the need arose. They didn't fight to subjugate anyone.

The Movie "The Patriot" has a brilliant quote. A man can have his rights trampled by three thousand men one mile away as easily as one man three thousand miles away. That is why the South fought.

Has this nation endured a lot of racial animosity? Yes. Busing riots in the South in the 1960's, and in the north ten years later. Does it still happen today? Yes. Without a doubt. I'll never deny or make any claim otherwise. We learn to deal with it, we learn about each other by talking. Not shouting at each other. If you want to discredit a White Supremicist don't shout him down, stand back and let him make a damned fool of himself. If you want to discredit a Black Racist, let him talk. They'll do all the work for you. A vast majority of the people will walk away wondering what is wrong with those idiots. Those same people will walk away wondering why they were not allowed to talk, because people want to read what they're not supposed to.

Most kids read the books on the banned list to see what is so bad they shouldn't be exposed to it. Most people try to find the website that is so bad it had to be banned. All you do by banning the speech, the words, and the ideals, is make sure more people are exposed to them, and wonder what was so bad about it. You legitimize it, instead of deligitimizing it.

Fahrenheit 451 is a terrible book. It's boring, wordy, and a chore to read. But we read it because it's a book about banning books that almost inevitably ends up being banned. Ayn Rand's incredibly slow moving tome Atlas Shrugged was made into three movies. They grossed about fifty bucks at the theaters. The final one was realeased not to DVD, but free download.

Banning them didn't do anything, let them talk, then let the people decide. By tearing down the monuments, by demanding that they be torn down, you do nothing but increase the imagined value of the things you are denouncing. Why do you think that the first thing the Soviet's did was start claiming all history before the October Revolution was sort of unimportant nonsense that the Capitalists would only care about?

You are making their case by trying to silence them. You are helping them by shouting them down. You are hurting your own cause by demanding that they be punished for whatever.

This is a good, well thought out OP I do have a few problems.

A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government.

Your definition seems a bit narrow. You cite that a civil war is something that happens when 2 factions fight for control. But a civil war can also be when factions want to break free from their parent country, in fact every dictionary identifies that a civil war is a war between citizens of the same country. The motive to fight has no bearing on how you call it.

The Confederate States wanted to be free of the Federal Government.

Again this seems terribly incomplete. You are trying to make a case for slavery not playing a major role in it. I suspect you know that, it's simply not true, since you seem to know your history. State rights in the South was a euphemism for the right to hold slaves, using it here in the same manner is suspect, especially in light of Trump's comments.
- This brings me to my point. I agree that free speech is absolute. I even agree, but this is my personal opinion, that tearing down status of people because you don't like what you feel they stand for is shortsighted. The problem starts when the president of the United States does not feel obliged to condemn people who use their free speech to espouse values that people in general find repugnant. If a private person chooses to be an asshole and identifies himself as one by screaming blood and honor,you have no right too stop him. If POTUS tries then to put those assholes on the same level as people who object to them, even after they kill one of the counter protesters one has to worry. A statue of someone who defended a system we find repugnant now isn't a problem. A president who can't clearly and unequivocally condemn people who support repugnant historical systems is a MAJOR problem.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes let them talk, and let others be there to talk them down in return. That is what free speech in the public square is.

And a 'War of Northern Aggression'? I'm pretty sure America didn't fire the first shot on it's own Fort Sumter. The Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. A northern state. The south attempted to invade the north and lost their ass. Hardly a 'War of Defense' for the South.

And the whole thing was 150 years ago, the South lost, that's it. Get over it. The South isn't going to 'rise again'. Are the people of the South ever going to rejoin the country as Robert E Lee asked them to do in 1866?

The most decorated soldier in World War One was Alvin C. York. Alvin was from Tennessee. I believe that was a southern state during the inaptly named Civil War. The greatest soldier during the second war? Audie Murphy. Another boy from Tennessee.

Nimitz was from Texas. A lot of really great commanders during the various wars were from the South.

Georgia boys join the military at a higher rate than those from many other states. Despite the fact that Sherman conducted war crimes in the state. War Crimes by the standards of the era, not modern times.

Black Jack Persing? Missouri. Born in the era of the Civil War.

Shall I continue? I can. Harry Truman, Missouri. A lot of the Southern Pride you decry has led to a lot of really great people lionized by the historians for their achievements.

As you can see from the map above, all those southern boys and girls you hate seem to be joining the military at a substantial higher rate than you patriotic guys from California. Why do you think that is?

Your ignorance of so much is shown. Shouting someone down makes people wonder what they are saying that is so terrible. Playboy, the magazine, would have folded as economically unsustainable if not for the "moral majority" rushing about and protesting, filing lawsuits, and of course the constant arrests for violating the blue laws.

Children rush to see R-Rated movies, because they're not supposed to. They emulate it because they think that anything they aren't supposed to do is cool. Boys and girls go to X-rated websites, because they want to see what they're not supposed to.

For some reason, this little truth has escaped you but that isn't surprising since so many seem to have seen you.

A Comedian once joked that he would be made if only the Washington Wives would read his words into congress to show what kind of filth was being played for the children. Kids buy the "explicit" version of songs because it's a lot cooler than listening to the radio or edited version.

Come on man, surely you know all this.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yes let them talk, and let others be there to talk them down in return. That is what free speech in the public square is.

And a 'War of Northern Aggression'? I'm pretty sure America didn't fire the first shot on it's own Fort Sumter. The Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. A northern state. The south attempted to invade the north and lost their ass. Hardly a 'War of Defense' for the South.

And the whole thing was 150 years ago, the South lost, that's it. Get over it. The South isn't going to 'rise again'. Are the people of the South ever going to rejoin the country as Robert E Lee asked them to do in 1866?

The most decorated soldier in World War One was Alvin C. York. Alvin was from Tennessee. I believe that was a southern state during the inaptly named Civil War. The greatest soldier during the second war? Audie Murphy. Another boy from Tennessee.

Nimitz was from Texas. A lot of really great commanders during the various wars were from the South.

Georgia boys join the military at a higher rate than those from many other states. Despite the fact that Sherman conducted war crimes in the state. War Crimes by the standards of the era, not modern times.

View attachment 144258

Black Jack Persing? Missouri. Born in the era of the Civil War.

Shall I continue? I can. Harry Truman, Missouri. A lot of the Southern Pride you decry has led to a lot of really great people lionized by the historians for their achievements.

As you can see from the map above, all those southern boys and girls you hate seem to be joining the military at a substantial higher rate than you patriotic guys from California. Why do you think that is?

Your ignorance of so much is shown. Shouting someone down makes people wonder what they are saying that is so terrible. Playboy, the magazine, would have folded as economically unsustainable if not for the "moral majority" rushing about and protesting, filing lawsuits, and of course the constant arrests for violating the blue laws.

Children rush to see R-Rated movies, because they're not supposed to. They emulate it because they think that anything they aren't supposed to do is cool. Boys and girls go to X-rated websites, because they want to see what they're not supposed to.

For some reason, this little truth has escaped you but that isn't surprising since so many seem to have seen you.

A Comedian once joked that he would be made if only the Washington Wives would read his words into congress to show what kind of filth was being played for the children. Kids buy the "explicit" version of songs because it's a lot cooler than listening to the radio or edited version.

Come on man, surely you know all this.

You started out with the OP with some semblance of normality but you've devolved from there. You project your 'why do you hate them' meme onto me and others. You diverge from the OP with some weird Red Herring about a map and Audie Murphy.

The whole point is these people came from the United States. Not the Confederacy.

You exhibit the real problem in my opinion. This weird right wing need to feel superior because you in fact feel inferior. How about just be a normal human among other Americans with no need to incessantly root for your local 'team'.

This thread isn't worth further comment from me. Bye now.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes let them talk, and let others be there to talk them down in return. That is what free speech in the public square is.

And a 'War of Northern Aggression'? I'm pretty sure America didn't fire the first shot on it's own Fort Sumter. The Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. A northern state. The south attempted to invade the north and lost their ass. Hardly a 'War of Defense' for the South.

And the whole thing was 150 years ago, the South lost, that's it. Get over it. The South isn't going to 'rise again'. Are the people of the South ever going to rejoin the country as Robert E Lee asked them to do in 1866?

The most decorated soldier in World War One was Alvin C. York. Alvin was from Tennessee. I believe that was a southern state during the inaptly named Civil War. The greatest soldier during the second war? Audie Murphy. Another boy from Tennessee.

Nimitz was from Texas. A lot of really great commanders during the various wars were from the South.

Georgia boys join the military at a higher rate than those from many other states. Despite the fact that Sherman conducted war crimes in the state. War Crimes by the standards of the era, not modern times.

View attachment 144258

Black Jack Persing? Missouri. Born in the era of the Civil War.

Shall I continue? I can. Harry Truman, Missouri. A lot of the Southern Pride you decry has led to a lot of really great people lionized by the historians for their achievements.

As you can see from the map above, all those southern boys and girls you hate seem to be joining the military at a substantial higher rate than you patriotic guys from California. Why do you think that is?

Your ignorance of so much is shown. Shouting someone down makes people wonder what they are saying that is so terrible. Playboy, the magazine, would have folded as economically unsustainable if not for the "moral majority" rushing about and protesting, filing lawsuits, and of course the constant arrests for violating the blue laws.

Children rush to see R-Rated movies, because they're not supposed to. They emulate it because they think that anything they aren't supposed to do is cool. Boys and girls go to X-rated websites, because they want to see what they're not supposed to.

For some reason, this little truth has escaped you but that isn't surprising since so many seem to have seen you.

A Comedian once joked that he would be made if only the Washington Wives would read his words into congress to show what kind of filth was being played for the children. Kids buy the "explicit" version of songs because it's a lot cooler than listening to the radio or edited version.

Come on man, surely you know all this.

You started out with the OP with some semblance of normality but you've devolved from there. You project your 'why do you hate them' meme onto me and others. You diverge from the OP with some weird Red Herring about a map and Audie Murphy.

The whole point is these people came from the United States. Not the Confederacy.

You exhibit the real problem in my opinion. This weird right wing need to feel superior because you in fact feel inferior. How about just be a normal human among other Americans with no need to incessantly root for your local 'team'.

This thread isn't worth further comment from me. Bye now.

You asked when the Southerners would rejoin the Union. That has happened. The blood of those same southerners has been spilled in every war. They've paid in blood, pain, and suffering for the Union. That was the point of the response.

You should find a new handle. Issac Newton was a man who dealt with things logically, not emotionally. He used his mind, and so far you haven't used yours in this thread.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yes let them talk, and let others be there to talk them down in return. That is what free speech in the public square is.

And a 'War of Northern Aggression'? I'm pretty sure America didn't fire the first shot on it's own Fort Sumter. The Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. A northern state. The south attempted to invade the north and lost their ass. Hardly a 'War of Defense' for the South.

And the whole thing was 150 years ago, the South lost, that's it. Get over it. The South isn't going to 'rise again'. Are the people of the South ever going to rejoin the country as Robert E Lee asked them to do in 1866?

The most decorated soldier in World War One was Alvin C. York. Alvin was from Tennessee. I believe that was a southern state during the inaptly named Civil War. The greatest soldier during the second war? Audie Murphy. Another boy from Tennessee.

Nimitz was from Texas. A lot of really great commanders during the various wars were from the South.

Georgia boys join the military at a higher rate than those from many other states. Despite the fact that Sherman conducted war crimes in the state. War Crimes by the standards of the era, not modern times.

View attachment 144258

Black Jack Persing? Missouri. Born in the era of the Civil War.

Shall I continue? I can. Harry Truman, Missouri. A lot of the Southern Pride you decry has led to a lot of really great people lionized by the historians for their achievements.

As you can see from the map above, all those southern boys and girls you hate seem to be joining the military at a substantial higher rate than you patriotic guys from California. Why do you think that is?

Your ignorance of so much is shown. Shouting someone down makes people wonder what they are saying that is so terrible. Playboy, the magazine, would have folded as economically unsustainable if not for the "moral majority" rushing about and protesting, filing lawsuits, and of course the constant arrests for violating the blue laws.

Children rush to see R-Rated movies, because they're not supposed to. They emulate it because they think that anything they aren't supposed to do is cool. Boys and girls go to X-rated websites, because they want to see what they're not supposed to.

For some reason, this little truth has escaped you but that isn't surprising since so many seem to have seen you.

A Comedian once joked that he would be made if only the Washington Wives would read his words into congress to show what kind of filth was being played for the children. Kids buy the "explicit" version of songs because it's a lot cooler than listening to the radio or edited version.

Come on man, surely you know all this.

You started out with the OP with some semblance of normality but you've devolved from there. You project your 'why do you hate them' meme onto me and others. You diverge from the OP with some weird Red Herring about a map and Audie Murphy.

The whole point is these people came from the United States. Not the Confederacy.

You exhibit the real problem in my opinion. This weird right wing need to feel superior because you in fact feel inferior. How about just be a normal human among other Americans with no need to incessantly root for your local 'team'.

This thread isn't worth further comment from me. Bye now.

You asked when the Southerners would rejoin the Union. That has happened. The blood of those same southerners has been spilled in every war. They've paid in blood, pain, and suffering for the Union. That was the point of the response.

You should find a new handle. Issac Newton was a man who dealt with things logically, not emotionally. He used his mind, and so far you haven't used yours in this thread.

Jesus you are just another right wing hack that lives on emotion, your map and your sob stories of 'heroes of the South' are dripping with emotion. Go away junior you aren't ready for the big leagues.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes let them talk, and let others be there to talk them down in return. That is what free speech in the public square is.

And a 'War of Northern Aggression'? I'm pretty sure America didn't fire the first shot on it's own Fort Sumter. The Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. A northern state. The south attempted to invade the north and lost their ass. Hardly a 'War of Defense' for the South.

And the whole thing was 150 years ago, the South lost, that's it. Get over it. The South isn't going to 'rise again'. Are the people of the South ever going to rejoin the country as Robert E Lee asked them to do in 1866?

The most decorated soldier in World War One was Alvin C. York. Alvin was from Tennessee. I believe that was a southern state during the inaptly named Civil War. The greatest soldier during the second war? Audie Murphy. Another boy from Tennessee.

Nimitz was from Texas. A lot of really great commanders during the various wars were from the South.

Georgia boys join the military at a higher rate than those from many other states. Despite the fact that Sherman conducted war crimes in the state. War Crimes by the standards of the era, not modern times.

View attachment 144258

Black Jack Persing? Missouri. Born in the era of the Civil War.

Shall I continue? I can. Harry Truman, Missouri. A lot of the Southern Pride you decry has led to a lot of really great people lionized by the historians for their achievements.

As you can see from the map above, all those southern boys and girls you hate seem to be joining the military at a substantial higher rate than you patriotic guys from California. Why do you think that is?

Your ignorance of so much is shown. Shouting someone down makes people wonder what they are saying that is so terrible. Playboy, the magazine, would have folded as economically unsustainable if not for the "moral majority" rushing about and protesting, filing lawsuits, and of course the constant arrests for violating the blue laws.

Children rush to see R-Rated movies, because they're not supposed to. They emulate it because they think that anything they aren't supposed to do is cool. Boys and girls go to X-rated websites, because they want to see what they're not supposed to.

For some reason, this little truth has escaped you but that isn't surprising since so many seem to have seen you.

A Comedian once joked that he would be made if only the Washington Wives would read his words into congress to show what kind of filth was being played for the children. Kids buy the "explicit" version of songs because it's a lot cooler than listening to the radio or edited version.

Come on man, surely you know all this.

You started out with the OP with some semblance of normality but you've devolved from there. You project your 'why do you hate them' meme onto me and others. You diverge from the OP with some weird Red Herring about a map and Audie Murphy.

The whole point is these people came from the United States. Not the Confederacy.

You exhibit the real problem in my opinion. This weird right wing need to feel superior because you in fact feel inferior. How about just be a normal human among other Americans with no need to incessantly root for your local 'team'.

This thread isn't worth further comment from me. Bye now.

You asked when the Southerners would rejoin the Union. That has happened. The blood of those same southerners has been spilled in every war. They've paid in blood, pain, and suffering for the Union. That was the point of the response.

You should find a new handle. Issac Newton was a man who dealt with things logically, not emotionally. He used his mind, and so far you haven't used yours in this thread.

Jesus you are just another right wing hack that lives on emotion, your map and your sob stories of 'heroes of the South' are dripping with emotion. Go away junior you aren't ready for the big leagues.

LOL. Called you on your own reply and you now pout. Tell me how many slaves the infantry private who didn't own shoes had during the civil war? Most of the soldiers were dirt poor. What were called rednecks. That name derived from the fact they were in the fields all day bent over and working. Their necks got sunburnt. That's where the term redneck came from. Poor whites who worked in the fields. So how many slaves do you think they owned when they could not afford shoes?

 

[usmbguest5318]

A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government.

The first lesson that should be learned is that the Civil War as not a Civil War. A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government....The Confederate States wanted to be free of the Federal Government.

Really? Definition of CIVIL WAR

Even what we think of the Revolutionary War was, in its first year considered a civil war. "American Revolution" became what it was called in wake of Drayton's October 1776 "A Charge on the Rise of the American Empire" which he delivered to the grand jury of the district of Charleston. His charge was published in newspapers and the notion of revolution overtook the reality of civil war. Remember, until the war was won, the colonists were Englishmen.

• The American War for Independence as a Revolutionary War

At the risk of oversimplifying, the Revolutionary war was thus because the revolters won and the Civil War was not a revolution because the revolters (secessionists) lost. Why? Because among the spoils of winning such conflicts is the right to define the terms with which the events themselves are named. That doesn't alter the actual substance of the events and it doesn't alter what contemporaries recorded about them as they occurred. History is not changed by the winner's choice of names. Favorable impressions inculcated in middle schoolers' minds are what result from the baptism. But who among us remains middle-school minded?

the argument that [memorials to Confederate icons] are up to honor slavery is asinine.

Do people actually make that argument? Seems to me the thing honored is the Confederacy, one part of which is the sundering of the nation and another is its "cornerstone" ideology of white supremacy, enslavement of non-whites having been but an odious consequence of that misguided mindset. I believe no homage is due any of those notions for whatever may have been noble about the icons of the Confederacy, their acts to rend the nation bedim them.

what history will they learn? The problem with adjusting history to suit your modern narrative is that you lose the lesson that is there to be learned.

History does not change with the emplacement or removal of statues. Such actions alter the messages sent to observers. Ask yourself this: Were the Confederates to have won the Civil War, would they have paid monumental homage to any of the following individuals:

• James Armistead -- Armistead volunteered to spy for the Continental army commander General Lafayette. James soon became a servant to British general Lord Cornwallis, who asked him to spy on the Americans! As a double agent, James gave unimportant information to Cornwallis, while keeping Lafayette informed about British troop strength and positions.
• Crispus Attucks -- I presume everyone knows who this guy was. Even now, I can recall my fifth grade social studies teacher telling us he was one of the blacks who sided with America in the Revolution.
• Phillis Wheatley -- In 1773, Phillis Wheatley became the first African American woman, and the first slave, to publish a book of poetry. John Wheatley freed Phillis in 1773. She wrote a second book, but died before it was published.
• Benjamin Banneker (See also: Banneker High School) -- With L'Enfant, surveyed and designed the nation's capital. He also was an astronomer who published successful almanacs, a correspondent with Thomas Jefferson on matters of slavery, and he did other noteworthy things.
• Charles Drew
• Thurgood Marshall [1]

Even now, is there even a monument, bridge, school, or anything honoring people such as William A. Jackson, Robert Smalls, William Flora, and myriad others? I'm hard pressed to find them even as I am aware of these people having lived and acted honorably to further the cause of the United States. Even as there may be no statues reminding us of them, even as their names may not emblazon schools, bridges, state buildings, and so on, history nonetheless records them and their deeds.

History is not altered by the presence or absence of public recognition. What is altered is people's perceptions of the value the nation places on history's events and actors. By honoring Confederates, our nation, states and cities demonstrably give homage to treason and moral turpitude.


Note/Edit:

1. Worthwhile reading:
   • Simple Justice Vol. 1: The History Of Brown V. Board Of Education
   • Simple Justice Vol. 2: The History Of Brown V. Board Of Education

 

[bendog]

The old truth still applies. Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it. But what history will they learn? The problem with adjusting history to suit your modern narrative is that you lose the lesson that is there to be learned.

The first lesson that should be learned is that the Civil War as not a Civil War. A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government. Usually these are rebels and loyalists. Usually the Loyalists win, but a few times in history, the Rebels take control. The Cuban Revolution is an example that is close to us and recent enough to be used as an example.

The Civil War was a war for independence. The Confederate States wanted to be free of the Federal Government. The States were no longer United. This has happened and failed many times in history in many places on earth. Ireland has seen a few. Spain sees the effort now and then as the Catalan areas argue for freedom from the National Government. Americans supported the effort in Northern Ireland in the 1970's, and 1980's. We sent food, medicine, and money to support the fight for freedom.

But only the American effort is mislabeled, and misrepresented. No one calls the Irish revolts Civil Wars. Many Southerners still call the war the "War of Northern Aggression". That name may be a bit too far the other way, but it is closer to the truth than Civil War.

Second. Slavery. It would have ended anyway. It would have ended within a couple decades. Industrialization was happening. There was no stopping it. Machines were being designed to replace people, and the invention of the machines to take over from the field hands was already underway. So arguing that if the South had won then Slavery would have continued through to the middle of the twentieth century is fantasy. It deserves the same sort of serious contemplation as Lord of the Rings.

Third. Memorials. The Catalan people are proud of those who stood up and were punished for demanding freedom. Amnesty International was formed when Basque people raised a toast to freedom and were arrested for it. There is no need to tear down memorials, and the argument that they are up to honor slavery is asinine.

Yes, there are some idiots who feel their skin color is the main factor in how awesome they are. That is on both sides. Video: Democrats shouting down the "wrong sort" of Democrats at NN17 - Hot Air

There are Blacks who vote Democrat who hate Whites just because of skin color. Does that mean all Democrats are racist? There are Civil War aficionados who want to preserve the history, and the memorials, who would rather eat a raw turd than hurt someone because they were a different color.

The average soldier in the Civil War, the boys and young men who marched off with rifles on their shoulders did not fight for slavery. They were fighting for their rights. The same as the young men and boys who marched with Washington against the British. They're the same kids who stood the wall in New Orleans. They're the same who stood up every time the need arose. They didn't fight to subjugate anyone.

The Movie "The Patriot" has a brilliant quote. A man can have his rights trampled by three thousand men one mile away as easily as one man three thousand miles away. That is why the South fought.

Has this nation endured a lot of racial animosity? Yes. Busing riots in the South in the 1960's, and in the north ten years later. Does it still happen today? Yes. Without a doubt. I'll never deny or make any claim otherwise. We learn to deal with it, we learn about each other by talking. Not shouting at each other. If you want to discredit a White Supremicist don't shout him down, stand back and let him make a damned fool of himself. If you want to discredit a Black Racist, let him talk. They'll do all the work for you. A vast majority of the people will walk away wondering what is wrong with those idiots. Those same people will walk away wondering why they were not allowed to talk, because people want to read what they're not supposed to.

Most kids read the books on the banned list to see what is so bad they shouldn't be exposed to it. Most people try to find the website that is so bad it had to be banned. All you do by banning the speech, the words, and the ideals, is make sure more people are exposed to them, and wonder what was so bad about it. You legitimize it, instead of deligitimizing it.

Fahrenheit 451 is a terrible book. It's boring, wordy, and a chore to read. But we read it because it's a book about banning books that almost inevitably ends up being banned. Ayn Rand's incredibly slow moving tome Atlas Shrugged was made into three movies. They grossed about fifty bucks at the theaters. The final one was realeased not to DVD, but free download.

Banning them didn't do anything, let them talk, then let the people decide. By tearing down the monuments, by demanding that they be torn down, you do nothing but increase the imagined value of the things you are denouncing. Why do you think that the first thing the Soviet's did was start claiming all history before the October Revolution was sort of unimportant nonsense that the Capitalists would only care about?

You are making their case by trying to silence them. You are helping them by shouting them down. You are hurting your own cause by demanding that they be punished for whatever.

Considering history, all statues of civil war era southerners were not created equal. When a statue was created to commemorate Jim Crow or to make secession more a reasonable course, it serves no valid civil purpose.

 

[SavannahMann]

The old truth still applies. Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it. But what history will they learn? The problem with adjusting history to suit your modern narrative is that you lose the lesson that is there to be learned.

The first lesson that should be learned is that the Civil War as not a Civil War. A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government. Usually these are rebels and loyalists. Usually the Loyalists win, but a few times in history, the Rebels take control. The Cuban Revolution is an example that is close to us and recent enough to be used as an example.

The Civil War was a war for independence. The Confederate States wanted to be free of the Federal Government. The States were no longer United. This has happened and failed many times in history in many places on earth. Ireland has seen a few. Spain sees the effort now and then as the Catalan areas argue for freedom from the National Government. Americans supported the effort in Northern Ireland in the 1970's, and 1980's. We sent food, medicine, and money to support the fight for freedom.

But only the American effort is mislabeled, and misrepresented. No one calls the Irish revolts Civil Wars. Many Southerners still call the war the "War of Northern Aggression". That name may be a bit too far the other way, but it is closer to the truth than Civil War.

Second. Slavery. It would have ended anyway. It would have ended within a couple decades. Industrialization was happening. There was no stopping it. Machines were being designed to replace people, and the invention of the machines to take over from the field hands was already underway. So arguing that if the South had won then Slavery would have continued through to the middle of the twentieth century is fantasy. It deserves the same sort of serious contemplation as Lord of the Rings.

Third. Memorials. The Catalan people are proud of those who stood up and were punished for demanding freedom. Amnesty International was formed when Basque people raised a toast to freedom and were arrested for it. There is no need to tear down memorials, and the argument that they are up to honor slavery is asinine.

Yes, there are some idiots who feel their skin color is the main factor in how awesome they are. That is on both sides. Video: Democrats shouting down the "wrong sort" of Democrats at NN17 - Hot Air

There are Blacks who vote Democrat who hate Whites just because of skin color. Does that mean all Democrats are racist? There are Civil War aficionados who want to preserve the history, and the memorials, who would rather eat a raw turd than hurt someone because they were a different color.

The average soldier in the Civil War, the boys and young men who marched off with rifles on their shoulders did not fight for slavery. They were fighting for their rights. The same as the young men and boys who marched with Washington against the British. They're the same kids who stood the wall in New Orleans. They're the same who stood up every time the need arose. They didn't fight to subjugate anyone.

The Movie "The Patriot" has a brilliant quote. A man can have his rights trampled by three thousand men one mile away as easily as one man three thousand miles away. That is why the South fought.

Has this nation endured a lot of racial animosity? Yes. Busing riots in the South in the 1960's, and in the north ten years later. Does it still happen today? Yes. Without a doubt. I'll never deny or make any claim otherwise. We learn to deal with it, we learn about each other by talking. Not shouting at each other. If you want to discredit a White Supremicist don't shout him down, stand back and let him make a damned fool of himself. If you want to discredit a Black Racist, let him talk. They'll do all the work for you. A vast majority of the people will walk away wondering what is wrong with those idiots. Those same people will walk away wondering why they were not allowed to talk, because people want to read what they're not supposed to.

Most kids read the books on the banned list to see what is so bad they shouldn't be exposed to it. Most people try to find the website that is so bad it had to be banned. All you do by banning the speech, the words, and the ideals, is make sure more people are exposed to them, and wonder what was so bad about it. You legitimize it, instead of deligitimizing it.

Fahrenheit 451 is a terrible book. It's boring, wordy, and a chore to read. But we read it because it's a book about banning books that almost inevitably ends up being banned. Ayn Rand's incredibly slow moving tome Atlas Shrugged was made into three movies. They grossed about fifty bucks at the theaters. The final one was realeased not to DVD, but free download.

Banning them didn't do anything, let them talk, then let the people decide. By tearing down the monuments, by demanding that they be torn down, you do nothing but increase the imagined value of the things you are denouncing. Why do you think that the first thing the Soviet's did was start claiming all history before the October Revolution was sort of unimportant nonsense that the Capitalists would only care about?

You are making their case by trying to silence them. You are helping them by shouting them down. You are hurting your own cause by demanding that they be punished for whatever.

Considering history, all statues of civil war era southerners were not created equal. When a statue was created to commemorate Jim Crow or to make secession more a reasonable course, it serves no valid civil purpose.

Who is calling for secession now? Liberals in California. There is no move to put secession on the ballot in South Carolina. The folks in Georgia aren't demanding to leave the union.

Support for California secession is up, one poll says

Pfui

 

[bendog]

The old truth still applies. Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it. But what history will they learn? The problem with adjusting history to suit your modern narrative is that you lose the lesson that is there to be learned.

The first lesson that should be learned is that the Civil War as not a Civil War. A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government. Usually these are rebels and loyalists. Usually the Loyalists win, but a few times in history, the Rebels take control. The Cuban Revolution is an example that is close to us and recent enough to be used as an example.

The Civil War was a war for independence. The Confederate States wanted to be free of the Federal Government. The States were no longer United. This has happened and failed many times in history in many places on earth. Ireland has seen a few. Spain sees the effort now and then as the Catalan areas argue for freedom from the National Government. Americans supported the effort in Northern Ireland in the 1970's, and 1980's. We sent food, medicine, and money to support the fight for freedom.

But only the American effort is mislabeled, and misrepresented. No one calls the Irish revolts Civil Wars. Many Southerners still call the war the "War of Northern Aggression". That name may be a bit too far the other way, but it is closer to the truth than Civil War.

Second. Slavery. It would have ended anyway. It would have ended within a couple decades. Industrialization was happening. There was no stopping it. Machines were being designed to replace people, and the invention of the machines to take over from the field hands was already underway. So arguing that if the South had won then Slavery would have continued through to the middle of the twentieth century is fantasy. It deserves the same sort of serious contemplation as Lord of the Rings.

Third. Memorials. The Catalan people are proud of those who stood up and were punished for demanding freedom. Amnesty International was formed when Basque people raised a toast to freedom and were arrested for it. There is no need to tear down memorials, and the argument that they are up to honor slavery is asinine.

Yes, there are some idiots who feel their skin color is the main factor in how awesome they are. That is on both sides. Video: Democrats shouting down the "wrong sort" of Democrats at NN17 - Hot Air

There are Blacks who vote Democrat who hate Whites just because of skin color. Does that mean all Democrats are racist? There are Civil War aficionados who want to preserve the history, and the memorials, who would rather eat a raw turd than hurt someone because they were a different color.

The average soldier in the Civil War, the boys and young men who marched off with rifles on their shoulders did not fight for slavery. They were fighting for their rights. The same as the young men and boys who marched with Washington against the British. They're the same kids who stood the wall in New Orleans. They're the same who stood up every time the need arose. They didn't fight to subjugate anyone.

The Movie "The Patriot" has a brilliant quote. A man can have his rights trampled by three thousand men one mile away as easily as one man three thousand miles away. That is why the South fought.

Has this nation endured a lot of racial animosity? Yes. Busing riots in the South in the 1960's, and in the north ten years later. Does it still happen today? Yes. Without a doubt. I'll never deny or make any claim otherwise. We learn to deal with it, we learn about each other by talking. Not shouting at each other. If you want to discredit a White Supremicist don't shout him down, stand back and let him make a damned fool of himself. If you want to discredit a Black Racist, let him talk. They'll do all the work for you. A vast majority of the people will walk away wondering what is wrong with those idiots. Those same people will walk away wondering why they were not allowed to talk, because people want to read what they're not supposed to.

Most kids read the books on the banned list to see what is so bad they shouldn't be exposed to it. Most people try to find the website that is so bad it had to be banned. All you do by banning the speech, the words, and the ideals, is make sure more people are exposed to them, and wonder what was so bad about it. You legitimize it, instead of deligitimizing it.

Fahrenheit 451 is a terrible book. It's boring, wordy, and a chore to read. But we read it because it's a book about banning books that almost inevitably ends up being banned. Ayn Rand's incredibly slow moving tome Atlas Shrugged was made into three movies. They grossed about fifty bucks at the theaters. The final one was realeased not to DVD, but free download.

Banning them didn't do anything, let them talk, then let the people decide. By tearing down the monuments, by demanding that they be torn down, you do nothing but increase the imagined value of the things you are denouncing. Why do you think that the first thing the Soviet's did was start claiming all history before the October Revolution was sort of unimportant nonsense that the Capitalists would only care about?

You are making their case by trying to silence them. You are helping them by shouting them down. You are hurting your own cause by demanding that they be punished for whatever.

Considering history, all statues of civil war era southerners were not created equal. When a statue was created to commemorate Jim Crow or to make secession more a reasonable course, it serves no valid civil purpose.

Who is calling for secession now? Liberals in California. There is no move to put secession on the ballot in South Carolina. The folks in Georgia aren't demanding to leave the union.

Support for California secession is up, one poll says

Pfui

Dude, that's what White Supremicists are about. Stormfront.

 

[SavannahMann]

The old truth still applies. Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it. But what history will they learn? The problem with adjusting history to suit your modern narrative is that you lose the lesson that is there to be learned.

The first lesson that should be learned is that the Civil War as not a Civil War. A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government. Usually these are rebels and loyalists. Usually the Loyalists win, but a few times in history, the Rebels take control. The Cuban Revolution is an example that is close to us and recent enough to be used as an example.

The Civil War was a war for independence. The Confederate States wanted to be free of the Federal Government. The States were no longer United. This has happened and failed many times in history in many places on earth. Ireland has seen a few. Spain sees the effort now and then as the Catalan areas argue for freedom from the National Government. Americans supported the effort in Northern Ireland in the 1970's, and 1980's. We sent food, medicine, and money to support the fight for freedom.

But only the American effort is mislabeled, and misrepresented. No one calls the Irish revolts Civil Wars. Many Southerners still call the war the "War of Northern Aggression". That name may be a bit too far the other way, but it is closer to the truth than Civil War.

Second. Slavery. It would have ended anyway. It would have ended within a couple decades. Industrialization was happening. There was no stopping it. Machines were being designed to replace people, and the invention of the machines to take over from the field hands was already underway. So arguing that if the South had won then Slavery would have continued through to the middle of the twentieth century is fantasy. It deserves the same sort of serious contemplation as Lord of the Rings.

Third. Memorials. The Catalan people are proud of those who stood up and were punished for demanding freedom. Amnesty International was formed when Basque people raised a toast to freedom and were arrested for it. There is no need to tear down memorials, and the argument that they are up to honor slavery is asinine.

Yes, there are some idiots who feel their skin color is the main factor in how awesome they are. That is on both sides. Video: Democrats shouting down the "wrong sort" of Democrats at NN17 - Hot Air

There are Blacks who vote Democrat who hate Whites just because of skin color. Does that mean all Democrats are racist? There are Civil War aficionados who want to preserve the history, and the memorials, who would rather eat a raw turd than hurt someone because they were a different color.

The average soldier in the Civil War, the boys and young men who marched off with rifles on their shoulders did not fight for slavery. They were fighting for their rights. The same as the young men and boys who marched with Washington against the British. They're the same kids who stood the wall in New Orleans. They're the same who stood up every time the need arose. They didn't fight to subjugate anyone.

The Movie "The Patriot" has a brilliant quote. A man can have his rights trampled by three thousand men one mile away as easily as one man three thousand miles away. That is why the South fought.

Has this nation endured a lot of racial animosity? Yes. Busing riots in the South in the 1960's, and in the north ten years later. Does it still happen today? Yes. Without a doubt. I'll never deny or make any claim otherwise. We learn to deal with it, we learn about each other by talking. Not shouting at each other. If you want to discredit a White Supremicist don't shout him down, stand back and let him make a damned fool of himself. If you want to discredit a Black Racist, let him talk. They'll do all the work for you. A vast majority of the people will walk away wondering what is wrong with those idiots. Those same people will walk away wondering why they were not allowed to talk, because people want to read what they're not supposed to.

Most kids read the books on the banned list to see what is so bad they shouldn't be exposed to it. Most people try to find the website that is so bad it had to be banned. All you do by banning the speech, the words, and the ideals, is make sure more people are exposed to them, and wonder what was so bad about it. You legitimize it, instead of deligitimizing it.

Fahrenheit 451 is a terrible book. It's boring, wordy, and a chore to read. But we read it because it's a book about banning books that almost inevitably ends up being banned. Ayn Rand's incredibly slow moving tome Atlas Shrugged was made into three movies. They grossed about fifty bucks at the theaters. The final one was realeased not to DVD, but free download.

Banning them didn't do anything, let them talk, then let the people decide. By tearing down the monuments, by demanding that they be torn down, you do nothing but increase the imagined value of the things you are denouncing. Why do you think that the first thing the Soviet's did was start claiming all history before the October Revolution was sort of unimportant nonsense that the Capitalists would only care about?

You are making their case by trying to silence them. You are helping them by shouting them down. You are hurting your own cause by demanding that they be punished for whatever.

Considering history, all statues of civil war era southerners were not created equal. When a statue was created to commemorate Jim Crow or to make secession more a reasonable course, it serves no valid civil purpose.

Who is calling for secession now? Liberals in California. There is no move to put secession on the ballot in South Carolina. The folks in Georgia aren't demanding to leave the union.

Support for California secession is up, one poll says

Pfui

Dude, that's what White Supremicists are about. Stormfront.

So liberal white supremacist in California are demanding secession. Um. No.

 

[bendog]

The old truth still applies. Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it. But what history will they learn? The problem with adjusting history to suit your modern narrative is that you lose the lesson that is there to be learned.

The first lesson that should be learned is that the Civil War as not a Civil War. A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government. Usually these are rebels and loyalists. Usually the Loyalists win, but a few times in history, the Rebels take control. The Cuban Revolution is an example that is close to us and recent enough to be used as an example.

The Civil War was a war for independence. The Confederate States wanted to be free of the Federal Government. The States were no longer United. This has happened and failed many times in history in many places on earth. Ireland has seen a few. Spain sees the effort now and then as the Catalan areas argue for freedom from the National Government. Americans supported the effort in Northern Ireland in the 1970's, and 1980's. We sent food, medicine, and money to support the fight for freedom.

But only the American effort is mislabeled, and misrepresented. No one calls the Irish revolts Civil Wars. Many Southerners still call the war the "War of Northern Aggression". That name may be a bit too far the other way, but it is closer to the truth than Civil War.

Second. Slavery. It would have ended anyway. It would have ended within a couple decades. Industrialization was happening. There was no stopping it. Machines were being designed to replace people, and the invention of the machines to take over from the field hands was already underway. So arguing that if the South had won then Slavery would have continued through to the middle of the twentieth century is fantasy. It deserves the same sort of serious contemplation as Lord of the Rings.

Third. Memorials. The Catalan people are proud of those who stood up and were punished for demanding freedom. Amnesty International was formed when Basque people raised a toast to freedom and were arrested for it. There is no need to tear down memorials, and the argument that they are up to honor slavery is asinine.

Yes, there are some idiots who feel their skin color is the main factor in how awesome they are. That is on both sides. Video: Democrats shouting down the "wrong sort" of Democrats at NN17 - Hot Air

There are Blacks who vote Democrat who hate Whites just because of skin color. Does that mean all Democrats are racist? There are Civil War aficionados who want to preserve the history, and the memorials, who would rather eat a raw turd than hurt someone because they were a different color.

The average soldier in the Civil War, the boys and young men who marched off with rifles on their shoulders did not fight for slavery. They were fighting for their rights. The same as the young men and boys who marched with Washington against the British. They're the same kids who stood the wall in New Orleans. They're the same who stood up every time the need arose. They didn't fight to subjugate anyone.

The Movie "The Patriot" has a brilliant quote. A man can have his rights trampled by three thousand men one mile away as easily as one man three thousand miles away. That is why the South fought.

Has this nation endured a lot of racial animosity? Yes. Busing riots in the South in the 1960's, and in the north ten years later. Does it still happen today? Yes. Without a doubt. I'll never deny or make any claim otherwise. We learn to deal with it, we learn about each other by talking. Not shouting at each other. If you want to discredit a White Supremicist don't shout him down, stand back and let him make a damned fool of himself. If you want to discredit a Black Racist, let him talk. They'll do all the work for you. A vast majority of the people will walk away wondering what is wrong with those idiots. Those same people will walk away wondering why they were not allowed to talk, because people want to read what they're not supposed to.

Most kids read the books on the banned list to see what is so bad they shouldn't be exposed to it. Most people try to find the website that is so bad it had to be banned. All you do by banning the speech, the words, and the ideals, is make sure more people are exposed to them, and wonder what was so bad about it. You legitimize it, instead of deligitimizing it.

Fahrenheit 451 is a terrible book. It's boring, wordy, and a chore to read. But we read it because it's a book about banning books that almost inevitably ends up being banned. Ayn Rand's incredibly slow moving tome Atlas Shrugged was made into three movies. They grossed about fifty bucks at the theaters. The final one was realeased not to DVD, but free download.

Banning them didn't do anything, let them talk, then let the people decide. By tearing down the monuments, by demanding that they be torn down, you do nothing but increase the imagined value of the things you are denouncing. Why do you think that the first thing the Soviet's did was start claiming all history before the October Revolution was sort of unimportant nonsense that the Capitalists would only care about?

You are making their case by trying to silence them. You are helping them by shouting them down. You are hurting your own cause by demanding that they be punished for whatever.

Considering history, all statues of civil war era southerners were not created equal. When a statue was created to commemorate Jim Crow or to make secession more a reasonable course, it serves no valid civil purpose.

Who is calling for secession now? Liberals in California. There is no move to put secession on the ballot in South Carolina. The folks in Georgia aren't demanding to leave the union.

Support for California secession is up, one poll says

Pfui

Dude, that's what White Supremicists are about. Stormfront.

So liberal white supremacist in California are demanding secession. Um. No.

Link?

 

[SavannahMann]

The old truth still applies. Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it. But what history will they learn? The problem with adjusting history to suit your modern narrative is that you lose the lesson that is there to be learned.

The first lesson that should be learned is that the Civil War as not a Civil War. A Civil War by definition is two factions fighting for control of the Government. Usually these are rebels and loyalists. Usually the Loyalists win, but a few times in history, the Rebels take control. The Cuban Revolution is an example that is close to us and recent enough to be used as an example.

The Civil War was a war for independence. The Confederate States wanted to be free of the Federal Government. The States were no longer United. This has happened and failed many times in history in many places on earth. Ireland has seen a few. Spain sees the effort now and then as the Catalan areas argue for freedom from the National Government. Americans supported the effort in Northern Ireland in the 1970's, and 1980's. We sent food, medicine, and money to support the fight for freedom.

But only the American effort is mislabeled, and misrepresented. No one calls the Irish revolts Civil Wars. Many Southerners still call the war the "War of Northern Aggression". That name may be a bit too far the other way, but it is closer to the truth than Civil War.

Second. Slavery. It would have ended anyway. It would have ended within a couple decades. Industrialization was happening. There was no stopping it. Machines were being designed to replace people, and the invention of the machines to take over from the field hands was already underway. So arguing that if the South had won then Slavery would have continued through to the middle of the twentieth century is fantasy. It deserves the same sort of serious contemplation as Lord of the Rings.

Third. Memorials. The Catalan people are proud of those who stood up and were punished for demanding freedom. Amnesty International was formed when Basque people raised a toast to freedom and were arrested for it. There is no need to tear down memorials, and the argument that they are up to honor slavery is asinine.

Yes, there are some idiots who feel their skin color is the main factor in how awesome they are. That is on both sides. Video: Democrats shouting down the "wrong sort" of Democrats at NN17 - Hot Air

There are Blacks who vote Democrat who hate Whites just because of skin color. Does that mean all Democrats are racist? There are Civil War aficionados who want to preserve the history, and the memorials, who would rather eat a raw turd than hurt someone because they were a different color.

The average soldier in the Civil War, the boys and young men who marched off with rifles on their shoulders did not fight for slavery. They were fighting for their rights. The same as the young men and boys who marched with Washington against the British. They're the same kids who stood the wall in New Orleans. They're the same who stood up every time the need arose. They didn't fight to subjugate anyone.

The Movie "The Patriot" has a brilliant quote. A man can have his rights trampled by three thousand men one mile away as easily as one man three thousand miles away. That is why the South fought.

Has this nation endured a lot of racial animosity? Yes. Busing riots in the South in the 1960's, and in the north ten years later. Does it still happen today? Yes. Without a doubt. I'll never deny or make any claim otherwise. We learn to deal with it, we learn about each other by talking. Not shouting at each other. If you want to discredit a White Supremicist don't shout him down, stand back and let him make a damned fool of himself. If you want to discredit a Black Racist, let him talk. They'll do all the work for you. A vast majority of the people will walk away wondering what is wrong with those idiots. Those same people will walk away wondering why they were not allowed to talk, because people want to read what they're not supposed to.

Most kids read the books on the banned list to see what is so bad they shouldn't be exposed to it. Most people try to find the website that is so bad it had to be banned. All you do by banning the speech, the words, and the ideals, is make sure more people are exposed to them, and wonder what was so bad about it. You legitimize it, instead of deligitimizing it.

Fahrenheit 451 is a terrible book. It's boring, wordy, and a chore to read. But we read it because it's a book about banning books that almost inevitably ends up being banned. Ayn Rand's incredibly slow moving tome Atlas Shrugged was made into three movies. They grossed about fifty bucks at the theaters. The final one was realeased not to DVD, but free download.

Banning them didn't do anything, let them talk, then let the people decide. By tearing down the monuments, by demanding that they be torn down, you do nothing but increase the imagined value of the things you are denouncing. Why do you think that the first thing the Soviet's did was start claiming all history before the October Revolution was sort of unimportant nonsense that the Capitalists would only care about?

You are making their case by trying to silence them. You are helping them by shouting them down. You are hurting your own cause by demanding that they be punished for whatever.

Considering history, all statues of civil war era southerners were not created equal. When a statue was created to commemorate Jim Crow or to make secession more a reasonable course, it serves no valid civil purpose.

Who is calling for secession now? Liberals in California. There is no move to put secession on the ballot in South Carolina. The folks in Georgia aren't demanding to leave the union.

Support for California secession is up, one poll says

Pfui

Dude, that's what White Supremicists are about. Stormfront.

So liberal white supremacist in California are demanding secession. Um. No.

Link?

It was in the reply above. Let me post it again. Support for California secession is up, one poll says


One-third of state residents support peacefully seceding from the United States, up from 20% since Californians were last asked the same question in 2014, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll. The poll's margin of error for the California answers was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Still, half of Californians opposed the idea of succession, though Democrats were more inclined to support it than Republicans. The survey found that 60% of Republicans gave the idea of peacefully seceding a thumbs down compared with 48% of Democrats and 50% of independents.

Nationally, 22% of those polled supported having their state break away from the U.S., according to the survey.

Only 48% of Democrats in California oppose the idea of secession. So according to you they are white supremacist stormfront.

Drop the rhetoric and think for a change.