Good News, At Least 160 confederate Monuments Were Finally Removed In 2020

[theHawk]

Have any idea how many black people lived in New Orleans, then and now?

Think having to look at a monument to white supremacy "didn't hurt" them?

Black people who chose to stay in America are proof of “white supremacy”. They want to live in a country founded and built by white people, all based on the values they brought from England and Europe. If white culture wasn’t “superior”, why are third worlders always trying to get into our country as well as other Western nations?

Wow, thanks for coming out dood. Don't forget yer hood.

The point stands. Unlike the obelisk. To which, good riddance.

Why would I need a hood? I have nothing to hide. Your [sic] the ones hiding behind masks.

I am a singular, not a plural, and the only masks I have are for containing COVID spread.

Yes, we know what kind of mask you wear.

 

[Pogo]

I'm very happy to read about this. I hope it continues.

All of those monuments and statues should be in a museum where they belong.

People who attacked our nation causing the bloodiest war in our history, which put brother against brother, which killed over 600 thousand Americans, should never been revered or celebrated.

They should only be held in contempt. They aren't patriots. Patriots don't go to war to leave the union.

They are traitors to our nation and the last thing they deserve is our respect or any sort of monument or statue.

TAI News

Reporting for progress

americanindependent.com

Idiotic. And I'll bet you claim to be against divisiveness. You are the problem; not monuments that never hurt anybody.

Here's the first monument the city of New Orleans took down (see post 17) in its original placement:

That obelisk is (was) standing at the foot of Canal Street, literally the busiest spot in the entire city. You can see the streetcar turning around to head back up toward the Lake.

Here's what the inscription on that obelisk read:

That's a commemoration of a coup d'etat staged in the city in 1876 by a White Supremacist group called the White League, which literally went to war against a democratically elected biracial city government to install an all-white one.

Then they plunked THIS into the most prominent spot in the entire city.

Have any idea how many black people lived in New Orleans, then and now?

Think having to look at a monument to white supremacy "didn't hurt" them?

Hm?

How about the statue of Robert E. Lee, who never wanted graven images of himself to exist, standing defiantly facing NORTH, at Lee Circle, where St. Charles Avenue (and another streetcar) begin?

Think black people "didn't hurt" about that?

Hm?

No, I don't think black people "hurt" about that. I think that some people go around looking for any possible excuse to be offended because they enjoy playing the victim.
Why should anybody need your approval to honor someone? What about the people "hurt" by the desecration of monuments they cherished and approved of? Your opinion is the only one that matters? Peddle that crap elsewhere.

Whelp ---- to quote an old tired phrase, " that's white of you".

What did you think of the case laid out in the video of post 17? Or the one in post 38?

Oh wait --- you didn't even play 'em. Ignance is bliss.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I'm very happy to read about this. I hope it continues.

All of those monuments and statues should be in a museum where they belong.

People who attacked our nation causing the bloodiest war in our history, which put brother against brother, which killed over 600 thousand Americans, should never been revered or celebrated.

They should only be held in contempt. They aren't patriots. Patriots don't go to war to leave the union.

They are traitors to our nation and the last thing they deserve is our respect or any sort of monument or statue.

TAI News

Reporting for progress

americanindependent.com

Democrats erasing their parties history.

 

[Dana7360]

Each side of the Revolution and the Civil War believed they were right, also the main issue of the Civil War was not about slavery it was secondary. We have
distorted the reason for the Civil War and are trying to rewrite all of history over it.

Then it's kind of inconvenient that every seceding state specifically cited Slavery, AT THE TIME, as a basis for leaving the Union, isn't it.

See, this malarkey about "it wasn't about Slavery" is part and parcel of the Lost Cause Cult revisionism, which is what those monuments were executing as well. The effect of the UDC Ministry of Propaganda.

When I see monuments, shrines and statues to the British we fought in the revolutionary war, I might reconsider the ridiculous comparison between the revolutionary war and civil war.

There is no comparison.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except one war was for freedom and the other was for slavery.

No. Both conflicts were about overthrowing the control of an overbearing central government and returning it to the people at the local level.

Wrong.

The Southern states’ act of treason was motivated by a desire to preserve slavery and expand slavery into new territories.

Anti-slavery measures enacted by Congress were perfectly Constitutional; that the slave states opposed those measures was not justification for treason and war.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm very happy to read about this. I hope it continues.

All of those monuments and statues should be in a museum where they belong.

People who attacked our nation causing the bloodiest war in our history, which put brother against brother, which killed over 600 thousand Americans, should never been revered or celebrated.

They should only be held in contempt. They aren't patriots. Patriots don't go to war to leave the union.

They are traitors to our nation and the last thing they deserve is our respect or any sort of monument or statue.

TAI News

Reporting for progress

americanindependent.com

You should not try to re-write history.

The confederacy did NOT attack the Union.

They seceded, which, back then, was their right, and then the Union attacked them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You’re into Marxist censorship.
You need to be removed.

The creation of these monuments and statues was motivated by fear, racism, and hate – not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War.

They were created to reinforce and codify black codes, Jim Crow laws, and segregation.

It is perfectly appropriate to remove these monuments as those who engaged in treason against the United States and committed war crimes deserve no commemoration.

And we might quickly add that said monuments --- I still call them propaganda transmitters since that WAS their purpose --- were deliberately located on public property in prominent places, such as the Canal Street and Lee Circle placements noted upthread.

That's exactly how cities and towns have been able to remove them ---- they're taking up space on PUBLIC property, and in so doing making a statement that reflects that town or city. It's right there in the video back in post 17 where the mayor explains all of this for those who have ears to hear.

These monuments were created primarily during the 1890s and first quarter of the 20th Century – decades after the end of the war – clearly their intent was not to ‘honor’ the war dead.

Just as these monuments were created by local governments at the behest of the people, local government today have the authority to relocate the monuments likewise reflecting the will of the people.

 

[9thIDdoc]

You’re into Marxist censorship.
You need to be removed.

The creation of these monuments and statues was motivated by fear, racism, and hate – not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War.

They were created to reinforce and codify black codes, Jim Crow laws, and segregation.

It is perfectly appropriate to remove these monuments as those who engaged in treason against the United States and committed war crimes deserve no commemoration.

Idiotic. You don't get to make those silly claims and expect to be unchallenged. How about at least a little evidence to back them up? Better yet why not just admit you make up whatever suits you to fit your agenda.
Why in the world wouldn't people honor friends and relatives who honorably risked everything for what they considered a good cause (and that decision was theirs to make; not yours'). Why would the people that took the time and trouble to erect those monuments care what your opinion might be decades later?
And no, much monument destruction happened to monuments that had absolutely nothing to do with the excuses you whine about including some I especially enjoyed and appreciated.
The truth as I see it is that you and your fellow nazi communist totalitarians seek to destroy actual history so you can replace it with whatever appeals to you. You have the same mindsets as those who conducted book burnings. A shame that computer burnings would not have the same drama and hysteria.

 

[Quasar44]

I'm very happy to read about this. I hope it continues.

All of those monuments and statues should be in a museum where they belong.

People who attacked our nation causing the bloodiest war in our history, which put brother against brother, which killed over 600 thousand Americans, should never been revered or celebrated.

They should only be held in contempt. They aren't patriots. Patriots don't go to war to leave the union.

They are traitors to our nation and the last thing they deserve is our respect or any sort of monument or statue.

TAI News

Reporting for progress

americanindependent.com

Well dummy?? Next you will see many monuments that you like being removed in the north

 

[Aletheia4u]

 

[Dana7360]

Good news for left loons, not so much for us against trying to erase history

This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘erase’ history.

Such monuments can be relocated from public venues to private ones, where government that represents all the people is not seen as endorsing racism and hate.

The history will remain for all to see in museums and like locations.

It will also be in all the history books and taught in every school in America.

The civil war is included in history classes throughout public school.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Each side of the Revolution and the Civil War believed they were right, also the main issue of the Civil War was not about slavery it was secondary. We have
distorted the reason for the Civil War and are trying to rewrite all of history over it.

Then it's kind of inconvenient that every seceding state specifically cited Slavery, AT THE TIME, as a basis for leaving the Union, isn't it.

See, this malarkey about "it wasn't about Slavery" is part and parcel of the Lost Cause Cult revisionism, which is what those monuments were executing as well. The effect of the UDC Ministry of Propaganda.

Ah, the quoted poster "disagrees" but has no response to prove me wrong. Because I'm right.

>> Although they mentioned other causes and sometimes used veiled references to defense of “life and property,” none of the secessionist was [sic] shy about making some reference to slavery as a primary cause for their dissolution of ties with a United States government that had, in their eyes, fallen under the domination of the “Black Republicans,” as a careful look through their respective ordinances will reveal.​

​

The attitudes of the time can be found in more detail in the rhetoric that accompanied the breaks. At the very onset, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina declared that President-elect Abraham Lincoln’s “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”​

​

On January 7, 1861, the ordinance signed in Montgomery that “it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the Slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States.”​

​

On February 2, 1861, Texas declared its decision to be “based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law.”​

​

On March 9, 1861, Arkansas’s George B. Smoote added a resolution: “Resolved, that the platform on the party known as the Black Republican Party contains unconstitutional dogmas, dangerous in their tendency and highly derogatory to the rights of slave states, and among them the insulting, injurious and untruthful enunciation of the right of the African race of their country to social and political equality with the whites.”​

​

On April 17, 1861 latecomer Virginia, provoked by Lincoln’s raising troops to suppress the already seceded states, declared “Lincoln’s opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” as it cut ties with Washington. Tennessee was the 11th and last, its population divided on secession (eastern Tennesseans generally opposed it), but not on the slave issue. << --- History.net​

​

It's recorded, dood. In writing. In 1860 and 1861.

Meanwhile the propaganda you bought from the UDC, and their monuments, is this:

>> The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical,[1][2] negationist ideology that advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one.[3] This ideology has furthered the belief that slavery was just and moral, because the enslaved were happy, even grateful, and it also brought economic prosperity. The notion was used to perpetuate racism and racist power structures during the Jim Crow era in the American South.[4] It emphasizes the supposed chivalric virtues of the antebellum South. It thus views the war as a struggle primarily waged to save the Southern way of life[5] and to protect "states' rights", especially the right to secede from the Union. It casts that attempt as faced with "overwhelming Northern aggression". At the same time, it minimizes or completely denies the central role of slavery and white supremacy in the build-up to, and outbreak of, the war.[4]​

​

... Though the idea of the Lost Cause has more than one origin, its proponents mainly argue that slavery was not the primary cause of the Civil War.[10] In reaching that conclusion, they ignore the declarations of secession by the Confederate states, the declarations of congressmen who left the US Congress to join the Confederacy, and the treatment of slavery in the Confederate Constitution.[11] They also deny or minimize the wartime writings and speeches of Confederate leaders, such as CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech, instead favoring the leaders' postwar views.[12] << (Wiki)​

​

Wanna see that "Cornerstone Speech"? Here's the relevant passage:

​

>> ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.[2]​

Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"—the real "corner-stone"—in our new edifice.[1] << (March 21, 1861 by Alexander Stephens, VP of the CSA)​

​

I'm afraid these are recorded quotes. You don't get to "disagree" that they exist.

​

​

Somebody claimed that slavery was not an issue or that your quotes are inaccurate? Slavery was in fact legal and the right for that legality was claimed by States' as one of the rights of the States; not the province of the federal government. So it was very much a matter of States' rights. It was also a matter of simple economics, power, and simple self-defense which you choose to ignore.

 

[Serioususername]

I don't know why you guys are arguing with this old doddering idiots. The simple fact of the matter is people who want these statues up are losing, their opinions are useless and in the minority. They'll bitch and moan on the internet and only on the internet will it matter.

Statues are not about History, they're about reverence, we do not revere the useless idiot traitors who wanted to keep slavery and fought for it. But for all those who want to curl up in a ball and pretend like they know the best, they're still that last ballwark for the "real" truth; carry on- you don't matter, and very few people care about you.

 

[Astrostar]

Good news for left loons, not so much for us against trying to erase history

Typical confederate mental illness. If you had an education, or even a modicum of common sense, you would know that history is what it is. It can't be erased. confederate monuments are not "history;" they are edifices created to celebrate slavery and to try and show that a lost war of tyranny was justified. And, in that respect, those monuments fail miserably. Their removal is aggressively patriotic!

 

[whitehall]

For once a republican doesn't get the blame. The Union fell apart on Lincoln's watch and he did little or nothing to try to stop it. If you want to be fair and balanced you have to tear down the statue of every Union general who engaged in or authorized the pillage and arson and murder of Southern citizens.

 

[Pogo]

Each side of the Revolution and the Civil War believed they were right, also the main issue of the Civil War was not about slavery it was secondary. We have
distorted the reason for the Civil War and are trying to rewrite all of history over it.

Then it's kind of inconvenient that every seceding state specifically cited Slavery, AT THE TIME, as a basis for leaving the Union, isn't it.

See, this malarkey about "it wasn't about Slavery" is part and parcel of the Lost Cause Cult revisionism, which is what those monuments were executing as well. The effect of the UDC Ministry of Propaganda.

When I see monuments, shrines and statues to the British we fought in the revolutionary war, I might reconsider the ridiculous comparison between the revolutionary war and civil war.

There is no comparison.

I suspect they're out there right next to the statues of Hitler in Germany.

Wonder how many of these partisan hacks get all misty when they see this ---

​

But, are there people in Germany who would look at that explosion with the same mouth-frothing consternation as the statue-thumpers here?

Actually yes, there are.

And they're Nazis. Not the metaphorical "you're as bad as Nazis" Nazis --- real everyday Nazis.

 

[Oddball]

I'm very happy to read about this. I hope it continues.

All of those monuments and statues should be in a museum where they belong.

People who attacked our nation causing the bloodiest war in our history, which put brother against brother, which killed over 600 thousand Americans, should never been revered or celebrated.

They should only be held in contempt. They aren't patriots. Patriots don't go to war to leave the union.

They are traitors to our nation and the last thing they deserve is our respect or any sort of monument or statue.

TAI News

Reporting for progress

americanindependent.com

 

[Pogo]

You’re into Marxist censorship.
You need to be removed.

The creation of these monuments and statues was motivated by fear, racism, and hate – not to ‘honor’ those who fought in the Civil War.

They were created to reinforce and codify black codes, Jim Crow laws, and segregation.

It is perfectly appropriate to remove these monuments as those who engaged in treason against the United States and committed war crimes deserve no commemoration.

And we might quickly add that said monuments --- I still call them propaganda transmitters since that WAS their purpose --- were deliberately located on public property in prominent places, such as the Canal Street and Lee Circle placements noted upthread.

That's exactly how cities and towns have been able to remove them ---- they're taking up space on PUBLIC property, and in so doing making a statement that reflects that town or city. It's right there in the video back in post 17 where the mayor explains all of this for those who have ears to hear.

These monuments were created primarily during the 1890s and first quarter of the 20th Century – decades after the end of the war – clearly their intent was not to ‘honor’ the war dead.

Just as these monuments were created by local governments at the behest of the people, local government today have the authority to relocate the monuments likewise reflecting the will of the people.

And not coincidentally the same period when Jim Crow and segregation was solidified, lynchings and race riots were running rampant, and Major League Baseball instituted its "gentlemen's agreement" "color line". Same period as "Birth of a Nation" and the reconstituted Klan. ALL related products of their time.

Oddly, we don't see these statuepologists decrying the arrival of Jackie Robinson to break that color line, but I'd bet the house that if this was 1947 they'd be all over it with the same führer.

 

[Pogo]

Each side of the Revolution and the Civil War believed they were right, also the main issue of the Civil War was not about slavery it was secondary. We have
distorted the reason for the Civil War and are trying to rewrite all of history over it.

Then it's kind of inconvenient that every seceding state specifically cited Slavery, AT THE TIME, as a basis for leaving the Union, isn't it.

See, this malarkey about "it wasn't about Slavery" is part and parcel of the Lost Cause Cult revisionism, which is what those monuments were executing as well. The effect of the UDC Ministry of Propaganda.

Ah, the quoted poster "disagrees" but has no response to prove me wrong. Because I'm right.

>> Although they mentioned other causes and sometimes used veiled references to defense of “life and property,” none of the secessionist was [sic] shy about making some reference to slavery as a primary cause for their dissolution of ties with a United States government that had, in their eyes, fallen under the domination of the “Black Republicans,” as a careful look through their respective ordinances will reveal.​

​

The attitudes of the time can be found in more detail in the rhetoric that accompanied the breaks. At the very onset, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina declared that President-elect Abraham Lincoln’s “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”​

​

On January 7, 1861, the ordinance signed in Montgomery that “it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the Slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States.”​

​

On February 2, 1861, Texas declared its decision to be “based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law.”​

​

On March 9, 1861, Arkansas’s George B. Smoote added a resolution: “Resolved, that the platform on the party known as the Black Republican Party contains unconstitutional dogmas, dangerous in their tendency and highly derogatory to the rights of slave states, and among them the insulting, injurious and untruthful enunciation of the right of the African race of their country to social and political equality with the whites.”​

​

On April 17, 1861 latecomer Virginia, provoked by Lincoln’s raising troops to suppress the already seceded states, declared “Lincoln’s opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” as it cut ties with Washington. Tennessee was the 11th and last, its population divided on secession (eastern Tennesseans generally opposed it), but not on the slave issue. << --- History.net​

​

It's recorded, dood. In writing. In 1860 and 1861.

Meanwhile the propaganda you bought from the UDC, and their monuments, is this:

>> The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical,[1][2] negationist ideology that advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one.[3] This ideology has furthered the belief that slavery was just and moral, because the enslaved were happy, even grateful, and it also brought economic prosperity. The notion was used to perpetuate racism and racist power structures during the Jim Crow era in the American South.[4] It emphasizes the supposed chivalric virtues of the antebellum South. It thus views the war as a struggle primarily waged to save the Southern way of life[5] and to protect "states' rights", especially the right to secede from the Union. It casts that attempt as faced with "overwhelming Northern aggression". At the same time, it minimizes or completely denies the central role of slavery and white supremacy in the build-up to, and outbreak of, the war.[4]​

​

... Though the idea of the Lost Cause has more than one origin, its proponents mainly argue that slavery was not the primary cause of the Civil War.[10] In reaching that conclusion, they ignore the declarations of secession by the Confederate states, the declarations of congressmen who left the US Congress to join the Confederacy, and the treatment of slavery in the Confederate Constitution.[11] They also deny or minimize the wartime writings and speeches of Confederate leaders, such as CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech, instead favoring the leaders' postwar views.[12] << (Wiki)​

​

Wanna see that "Cornerstone Speech"? Here's the relevant passage:

​

>> ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.[2]​

Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"—the real "corner-stone"—in our new edifice.[1] << (March 21, 1861 by Alexander Stephens, VP of the CSA)​

​

I'm afraid these are recorded quotes. You don't get to "disagree" that they exist.

​

​

Now I've got a post-barnacle who clicks a "disagree" with the proof of everything claimed in the post, sitting right there.

Hard to believe.

 

[Oddball]

Each side of the Revolution and the Civil War believed they were right, also the main issue of the Civil War was not about slavery it was secondary. We have
distorted the reason for the Civil War and are trying to rewrite all of history over it.

Then it's kind of inconvenient that every seceding state specifically cited Slavery, AT THE TIME, as a basis for leaving the Union, isn't it.

See, this malarkey about "it wasn't about Slavery" is part and parcel of the Lost Cause Cult revisionism, which is what those monuments were executing as well. The effect of the UDC Ministry of Propaganda.

When I see monuments, shrines and statues to the British we fought in the revolutionary war, I might reconsider the ridiculous comparison between the revolutionary war and civil war.

There is no comparison.

Confederate troops are legitimate United States veterans....Brit soldiers are not.

You hate US veterans.