Confederate Memorials and Monuments - what history do they represent?

[Syriusly]

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical contard cowardly pussy.

That anyone is pissed because communities don't want to support my heros.

First lie. They are not My heroes.
Second lie. Some communities are not deciding this on their own, but are being threatened with violence.
Biggest lie. That this is anything other than censoring free speech.

Since I was responding to a post by someone else- why do you believe you are one of the cowardly pussies I was speaking about?

Note you haven't provided a single quote of mine that is a lie- just your own snowflake hurt feelings.

Once again- my position- which you snowflakes are so offended about:

1. All vandalism and violence is wrong- I am fine with vandals being arrested, and that murderers like the driver in Charlottesville was arrested.
2. Local communities should make their own decisions on which monuments to have.
3. That only a total idiot would think that removing a statue of Robert E. Lee is 'censoring free speech'

So symbols can't be considered part of free speech? The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Whose free speech is being censored by the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue?

Not the people who erected the statue. They are dead- and have no 'free speech rights'

Certainly a statue or any symbol can be someone's free speech- but it has to be a someone- not a something.

Those that want them to stay. They don't have to be the ones that put it up.

That's what I said. Symbols can be a part of free speech. The person can use them in doing that.

How can a statue put up by a dead person- be 'speech' by a living person?

Hey- does that mean though, that I can go erect a statue to anyone I like in any public park- because of my free speech right?

Now- what about the free speech rights of those who don't want them to stay?

 

[cnelsen]

We all must pick a side.

And those "sides" would be...?

 

[eagle1462010]

That anyone is pissed because communities don't want to support my heros.

First lie. They are not My heroes.
Second lie. Some communities are not deciding this on their own, but are being threatened with violence.
Biggest lie. That this is anything other than censoring free speech.

Since I was responding to a post by someone else- why do you believe you are one of the cowardly pussies I was speaking about?

Note you haven't provided a single quote of mine that is a lie- just your own snowflake hurt feelings.

Once again- my position- which you snowflakes are so offended about:

1. All vandalism and violence is wrong- I am fine with vandals being arrested, and that murderers like the driver in Charlottesville was arrested.
2. Local communities should make their own decisions on which monuments to have.
3. That only a total idiot would think that removing a statue of Robert E. Lee is 'censoring free speech'

So symbols can't be considered part of free speech? The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Whose free speech is being censored by the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue?

Not the people who erected the statue. They are dead- and have no 'free speech rights'

Certainly a statue or any symbol can be someone's free speech- but it has to be a someone- not a something.

Those that want them to stay. They don't have to be the ones that put it up.

That's what I said. Symbols can be a part of free speech. The person can use them in doing that.

How can a statue put up by a dead person- be 'speech' by a living person?

Hey- does that mean though, that I can go erect a statue to anyone I like in any public park- because of my free speech right?

Now- what about the free speech rights of those who don't want them to stay?

 

[Conservative65]

That anyone is pissed because communities don't want to support my heros.

First lie. They are not My heroes.
Second lie. Some communities are not deciding this on their own, but are being threatened with violence.
Biggest lie. That this is anything other than censoring free speech.

Since I was responding to a post by someone else- why do you believe you are one of the cowardly pussies I was speaking about?

Note you haven't provided a single quote of mine that is a lie- just your own snowflake hurt feelings.

Once again- my position- which you snowflakes are so offended about:

1. All vandalism and violence is wrong- I am fine with vandals being arrested, and that murderers like the driver in Charlottesville was arrested.
2. Local communities should make their own decisions on which monuments to have.
3. That only a total idiot would think that removing a statue of Robert E. Lee is 'censoring free speech'

So symbols can't be considered part of free speech? The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Whose free speech is being censored by the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue?

Not the people who erected the statue. They are dead- and have no 'free speech rights'

Certainly a statue or any symbol can be someone's free speech- but it has to be a someone- not a something.

Those that want them to stay. They don't have to be the ones that put it up.

That's what I said. Symbols can be a part of free speech. The person can use them in doing that.

How can a statue put up by a dead person- be 'speech' by a living person?

Hey- does that mean though, that I can go erect a statue to anyone I like in any public park- because of my free speech right?

Now- what about the free speech rights of those who don't want them to stay?

Same way a traitor burning the American flag uses free speech to defend doing it. Unless they're over 200 years old, they weren't alive when the U.S. flag was created.

Feel free to do that. If you can put one up, I can take it down or prevent you from doing it.

If both have free speech rights, why do those that oppose them get to override those that support them?

 

[Syriusly]

Compare General Lee to General Sherman and you will see who was the better man.

One fought for the United States.
One fought against the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

Since I was responding to a post by someone else- why do you believe you are one of the cowardly pussies I was speaking about?

Note you haven't provided a single quote of mine that is a lie- just your own snowflake hurt feelings.

Once again- my position- which you snowflakes are so offended about:

1. All vandalism and violence is wrong- I am fine with vandals being arrested, and that murderers like the driver in Charlottesville was arrested.
2. Local communities should make their own decisions on which monuments to have.
3. That only a total idiot would think that removing a statue of Robert E. Lee is 'censoring free speech'

So symbols can't be considered part of free speech? The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Whose free speech is being censored by the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue?

Not the people who erected the statue. They are dead- and have no 'free speech rights'

Certainly a statue or any symbol can be someone's free speech- but it has to be a someone- not a something.

Those that want them to stay. They don't have to be the ones that put it up.

That's what I said. Symbols can be a part of free speech. The person can use them in doing that.

How can a statue put up by a dead person- be 'speech' by a living person?

Hey- does that mean though, that I can go erect a statue to anyone I like in any public park- because of my free speech right?

Now- what about the free speech rights of those who don't want them to stay?

Same way a traitor burning the American flag uses free speech to defend doing it.

You mean a traitor like those who attack American soldiers in 1860?

 

[Syriusly]

Since I was responding to a post by someone else- why do you believe you are one of the cowardly pussies I was speaking about?

Note you haven't provided a single quote of mine that is a lie- just your own snowflake hurt feelings.

Once again- my position- which you snowflakes are so offended about:

1. All vandalism and violence is wrong- I am fine with vandals being arrested, and that murderers like the driver in Charlottesville was arrested.
2. Local communities should make their own decisions on which monuments to have.
3. That only a total idiot would think that removing a statue of Robert E. Lee is 'censoring free speech'

So symbols can't be considered part of free speech? The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Whose free speech is being censored by the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue?

Not the people who erected the statue. They are dead- and have no 'free speech rights'

Certainly a statue or any symbol can be someone's free speech- but it has to be a someone- not a something.

Those that want them to stay. They don't have to be the ones that put it up.

That's what I said. Symbols can be a part of free speech. The person can use them in doing that.

How can a statue put up by a dead person- be 'speech' by a living person?

Hey- does that mean though, that I can go erect a statue to anyone I like in any public park- because of my free speech right?

Now- what about the free speech rights of those who don't want them to stay?

Same way a traitor burning the American flag uses free speech to defend doing it. Unless they're over 200 years old, they weren't alive when the U.S. flag was created.

Feel free to do that. If you can put one up, I can take it down or prevent you from doing it.

If both have free speech rights, why do those that oppose them get to override those that support them?

A person burning a flag, or a traitor waving the Confederate flag are both exercising free speech.

A person who objects to a monument being removed is exercising his free speech. But the monument is not his speech- it was the speech of someone long dead. Removing a monument put up by the dead doesn't impact the free speech of anyone.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We all must pick a side.

And those "sides" would be...?

Seriously?

One either opposes white supremacy or one embraces it. AFAIC, there is no middle ground on that.
One either opposes racism or one embraces it. There too, there is no middle ground position I will accept.

 

[Syriusly]

Who had a voice in them going up? Are they any different then statues of Stalin?

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

Let them go away and state that no more violence will be issued toward them, and then see if these communities vote to take these statues down. However, before they do that, I think they should hold a series of public forums (local community ONLY) to ensure that is the true will of the people.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

I am advocating that for every community that elects to bow down to these violent intimidations, that America boycott spending any dollars in the community at all. Let their tourist dollars dry up.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

One of the tenets of republican governance is that elected leaders must sometimes do things because they are the right thing to do, because they think it best, even though at the time they are unpopular things to do. One may not like that, but the fact remains that it is the case. Republics are not variously direct democracies when it's convenient and republics when that is convenient. They are republics or they are not.

"Heavy is the head that wears the crown" applies to more than just monarchs. It is the burden of leadership at all levels. Be that as it may, we elect our leaders to carry that burden, so carry it they must.

yes, I understand how representative republicanism works. When a group of terrorists tear down a statue, or a council folds to the threats of violence, then the representatives of the people are not doing their job and should be replaced, bypassed, or simply taken out of office in favor of representatives with courage.

This is not a matter of having a disagreement with the value of an elected representative. The entire equation changes when coercion is involved.

Which councils have 'folded' due to threats of violence?

Who are those 'terrorists' trying to 'terrorize' by pulling down a statue of a dead guy?

Who? Antifa are the terrorists. They have demonstrated and have threatened communites with violence if they do not get their way in this matter..

Again-

Which councils have 'folded' due to threats of violence?

Who are those 'terrorists' trying to 'terrorize' by pulling down a statue of a dead guy?

Merely going 'but...but.....but....Antifa' is not an answer.

 

[Conservative65]

So symbols can't be considered part of free speech? The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Whose free speech is being censored by the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue?

Not the people who erected the statue. They are dead- and have no 'free speech rights'

Certainly a statue or any symbol can be someone's free speech- but it has to be a someone- not a something.

Those that want them to stay. They don't have to be the ones that put it up.

That's what I said. Symbols can be a part of free speech. The person can use them in doing that.

How can a statue put up by a dead person- be 'speech' by a living person?

Hey- does that mean though, that I can go erect a statue to anyone I like in any public park- because of my free speech right?

Now- what about the free speech rights of those who don't want them to stay?

Same way a traitor burning the American flag uses free speech to defend doing it.

You mean a traitor like those who attack American soldiers in 1860?

They weren't traitors. They had made a choice to leave peacefully and those they told to get out didn't leave.

You say the southern states wanting to leave meant they were rebels. Does that mean if you leave one job to go to something better, you're a rebel? Buy a new house? Sell your car? Divorce?

 

[Syriusly]

Whose free speech is being censored by the removal of Robert E. Lee's statue?

Not the people who erected the statue. They are dead- and have no 'free speech rights'

Certainly a statue or any symbol can be someone's free speech- but it has to be a someone- not a something.

Those that want them to stay. They don't have to be the ones that put it up.

That's what I said. Symbols can be a part of free speech. The person can use them in doing that.

How can a statue put up by a dead person- be 'speech' by a living person?

Hey- does that mean though, that I can go erect a statue to anyone I like in any public park- because of my free speech right?

Now- what about the free speech rights of those who don't want them to stay?

Same way a traitor burning the American flag uses free speech to defend doing it.

You mean a traitor like those who attack American soldiers in 1860?

They weren't traitors.

LOL- you call a guy burning an American flag a traitor- but not the Americans shooting Americans soldiers.

How fucked up are you anyway?

 

[Conservative65]

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

Let them go away and state that no more violence will be issued toward them, and then see if these communities vote to take these statues down. However, before they do that, I think they should hold a series of public forums (local community ONLY) to ensure that is the true will of the people.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

I am advocating that for every community that elects to bow down to these violent intimidations, that America boycott spending any dollars in the community at all. Let their tourist dollars dry up.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

One of the tenets of republican governance is that elected leaders must sometimes do things because they are the right thing to do, because they think it best, even though at the time they are unpopular things to do. One may not like that, but the fact remains that it is the case. Republics are not variously direct democracies when it's convenient and republics when that is convenient. They are republics or they are not.

"Heavy is the head that wears the crown" applies to more than just monarchs. It is the burden of leadership at all levels. Be that as it may, we elect our leaders to carry that burden, so carry it they must.

yes, I understand how representative republicanism works. When a group of terrorists tear down a statue, or a council folds to the threats of violence, then the representatives of the people are not doing their job and should be replaced, bypassed, or simply taken out of office in favor of representatives with courage.

This is not a matter of having a disagreement with the value of an elected representative. The entire equation changes when coercion is involved.

Which councils have 'folded' due to threats of violence?

Who are those 'terrorists' trying to 'terrorize' by pulling down a statue of a dead guy?

Who? Antifa are the terrorists. They have demonstrated and have threatened communites with violence if they do not get their way in this matter..

Again-

Which councils have 'folded' due to threats of violence?

Who are those 'terrorists' trying to 'terrorize' by pulling down a statue of a dead guy?

Merely going 'but...but.....but....Antifa' is not an answer.

They folded because they're a bunch of pussies like you and anyone else that is bothered by a statue.

 

[cnelsen]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

They did not inherit slavery, they brought it with them.

My ancestors were European. No ancestor of mine has ever owned a slave in North America.

 

[Conservative65]

Those that want them to stay. They don't have to be the ones that put it up.

That's what I said. Symbols can be a part of free speech. The person can use them in doing that.

How can a statue put up by a dead person- be 'speech' by a living person?

Hey- does that mean though, that I can go erect a statue to anyone I like in any public park- because of my free speech right?

Now- what about the free speech rights of those who don't want them to stay?

Same way a traitor burning the American flag uses free speech to defend doing it.

You mean a traitor like those who attack American soldiers in 1860?

They weren't traitors.

LOL- you call a guy burning an American flag a traitor- but not the Americans shooting Americans soldiers.

How fucked up are you anyway?

Nowhere near as fucked as a pussy like you that gets his panties in a wad over a piece of metal.

 

[Conservative65]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

They did not inherit slavery, they brought it with them.

My ancestors were European. No ancestor of mine has ever owned a slave in North America.

My ancestors were E. European. They didn't come to the U.S. until 40 years after slavery ended with the 13th Amendment.

 

[cnelsen]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

Another contard who can't tell the difference between a monument celebrating rebels against the United States- and monuments that celebrate the United States.

There is nothing celebratory about Confederate reconciliation monuments, jackass.

 

[cnelsen]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over...[people who at once despise and envy the achievements [of the founders and regard them] with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

As one of the WASPs who's descended from those founding colonists, I have no difficulty looking at the Confederacy and its icons and saying that they were wrong, that they were despicable and deplorable, and that they and the Confederacy for which they stood thus deserve no government sanctioned honoraria. Period.

General Lee's horse effectively had no choice. Erect a statue honoring the equine for it surely served its owner well. The owner, however, had a choice and he chose wrong. I don't want to remove Lee from the history books and museums, or even from Civil War battle sites where he participated, he belongs there. Where there are sculptures of him humbled and defeated, signing his army's surrender, fine, for that context shows him, his Confederacy and what it stood for and upon, as having been bested by the United States of America. I care only to see him removed from the pedestals, street signs, bridges, and so on that venerate him.

I don't have a problem with statues merely depicting Confederates and the Confederacy. I have a problem with the statues that exalt them and it.

No Confederate monument is exultant. They were the product of a defeated people. And this will not end with the Confederate statues. Jefferson is next.

 

[cnelsen]

I grew up in Maryland - kind of an "in between" state..

I've lived in Maryland for nearly 50 years.
Maryland was not 'in between'. It was a southern state coopted by the north because of its proximity to DC.
The fascist academics on the U of MD campus removed the state song's melody from the campus chapel's clock chimes because some democrat fascist pointed out that the lyrics, written in 1847 or so, made reference to the 'tyranny of the north'.
Marylanders during the Civil War used the red and white Crossland portion of the state flag as their confederate battle flag.
If Maryland Democrat fascists want to be taken seriously then they need to be consistent and remove all vestiges of red and white from the campus and its sports teams, too. Good luck with that. Too much money at risk for the billion dollar sports industry there that Curley Byrd generated in the 1940's. Oh, BTW, the Democrat Nazis took Byrd's name off of the football stadium a couple of years back because he favored 'separate but equal' back in the 1950's. This was in spite of the tons of money he directed towards Maryland's black universities.

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone."

You anti-whites always quote the Vice President of the Confederacy. Why not the President? or the Secretary of State, who, to "preserve the Confederacy as military defeat made its situation increasingly desperate, he advocated freeing and arming the slaves, but his proposals were not accepted until it was too late."

Do you have a link to this? Never heard of anyone from the confederacy wanting to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation of their repugnant society.

Out of curiosity, do you call any other society "repugnant"?

yes

And which would that be?

 

[cnelsen]

We all must pick a side.

And those "sides" would be...?

Seriously?

One either opposes white supremacy or one embraces it. AFAIC, there is no middle ground on that.
One either opposes racism or one embraces it. There too, there is no middle ground position I will accept.

Seems very clear cut. What is racism, anyway?

 

[Asclepias]

I've lived in Maryland for nearly 50 years.
Maryland was not 'in between'. It was a southern state coopted by the north because of its proximity to DC.
The fascist academics on the U of MD campus removed the state song's melody from the campus chapel's clock chimes because some democrat fascist pointed out that the lyrics, written in 1847 or so, made reference to the 'tyranny of the north'.
Marylanders during the Civil War used the red and white Crossland portion of the state flag as their confederate battle flag.
If Maryland Democrat fascists want to be taken seriously then they need to be consistent and remove all vestiges of red and white from the campus and its sports teams, too. Good luck with that. Too much money at risk for the billion dollar sports industry there that Curley Byrd generated in the 1940's. Oh, BTW, the Democrat Nazis took Byrd's name off of the football stadium a couple of years back because he favored 'separate but equal' back in the 1950's. This was in spite of the tons of money he directed towards Maryland's black universities.

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone."

You anti-whites always quote the Vice President of the Confederacy. Why not the President? or the Secretary of State, who, to "preserve the Confederacy as military defeat made its situation increasingly desperate, he advocated freeing and arming the slaves, but his proposals were not accepted until it was too late."

Do you have a link to this? Never heard of anyone from the confederacy wanting to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation of their repugnant society.

Out of curiosity, do you call any other society "repugnant"?

yes

And which would that be?

Which would you guess that would be?