How do leftists respond when black Condoleezza Rice DEFENDS Confederate statues??

[Darkwind]

Freaking snowflakes are annoying. For a hundred years these statues have been there and NOW they decide to wail.

Folks probably said the same about Slavery. Its been going for hundreds of years, why people want to stop it now?

Ahh shaddup. You have to be one of the most annoying left tards here.

You cannot just sanitize history because your tender little feelings are hurt. As a so called educator you of all should know this. You learn from history, not erase it

Explain to us what's being 'sanitized' about history by taking a statue off public property.

Not that I think you can follow it, but let Me ask you this.

Why do we have laws that forbid the display of cigarettes in convenience stores? I know you won't answer this, but I'm not sure if its because you're too stupid to make the connection or if you're ideology just blinds you to your bigotry.

 

[Auld Phart]

The question is, why would white supremacists from all over the country converge on Charlottesville to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee,

if they didn't feel some particular, important kinship to what the South represented at the time of secession?

why would white supremacists from all over the country converge on Charlottesville to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee,

Why would people from all over the country converge on Charlottesville converge to counter -protest?

Because they oppose the beliefs of the white supremacists and neo-Nazis,

duh. Which side are you on?

neither.

But, if they hadn't shown up to counter-protest, would there have been violence?

Did the protestors show up, and attack the innocent, unarmed, counter-protestors for no reason other than they were there?

 

[miketx]

So because a black person says something, its the truth? So why y'all ignored Obama for 8 years? Lol

I will respond to Condi the same way I respond to a white person. Confederates were hateful traitors. They don't need celebrating. Germany removed their Nazi symbols. So why can't we?

We don't have nazi symbols, that's why. Only twisted fucks like you have nazi symbols. Only twisted fucks like you run down helpless women with their car.

 

[HappyJoy]

Do I feel superior than those who want to glorify the Confederacy? Yeah, I do.

no. you feel superior when you can pass a blanket judgement on people and put on a smug face as if that blanket fits all.

we both know it doesn't. i'm just not enough of a dumbass to do something like this and pretend it's relevant.

I'll gladly say it again so that you understand:

Do I feel superior than those who want to glorify the Confederacy? Yeah, I do

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

despite the desire to keep it simple, it was not just about slavery.

do i feel superior to those who want to practice racism and hold things like that against someone else? probably. but i'm not going to generisize events in history to 1 point and make mass condemnation on people based off how i put things together.

Did you read your own link? Literally every reason for the civil war has a link to slavery according to it.

which came out of state vs federal powers of which the south thought the north was putting ALL ON THEM to change and not listening to them or their concerns about anything.

slavery included.

again - you take out the reasons behind something and just go THIS BAD DUMMY!

if things were that simple in the end, we'd not argue as much as we do but our desire to be understood despite having stereotypes put in front of us like hurdles of things we never said.

Dress it up however you want, the civil war was about slavery. Your very own link demonstrates this.

 

[HappyJoy]

Do I feel superior than those who want to glorify the Confederacy? Yeah, I do.

no. you feel superior when you can pass a blanket judgement on people and put on a smug face as if that blanket fits all.

we both know it doesn't. i'm just not enough of a dumbass to do something like this and pretend it's relevant.

I'll gladly say it again so that you understand:

Do I feel superior than those who want to glorify the Confederacy? Yeah, I do

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

despite the desire to keep it simple, it was not just about slavery.

do i feel superior to those who want to practice racism and hold things like that against someone else? probably. but i'm not going to generisize events in history to 1 point and make mass condemnation on people based off how i put things together.

Did you read your own link? Literally every reason for the civil war has a link to slavery according to it.

slavery was linked to EVERYTHING IN THE COUNTRY-------because it was so important
to the ECONOMY. ----------cotton and wheat too. -----everything was linked to cotton
and wheat. ----------and the cowboys and the farmers who can never be friends----and the
shin bone is connected to the knee bone------

Right, so, some jackass tries to tell me the civil war wasn't about slavery, provides a link that shows the exact opposite and then you come by with this shit?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The question is, why would white supremacists from all over the country converge on Charlottesville to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee,

if they didn't feel some particular, important kinship to what the South represented at the time of secession?

why would white supremacists from all over the country converge on Charlottesville to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee,

Why would people from all over the country converge on Charlottesville converge to counter -protest?

Because they oppose the beliefs of the white supremacists and neo-Nazis,

duh. Which side are you on?

neither.

But, if they hadn't shown up to counter-protest, would there have been violence?

Did the protestors show up, and attack the innocent, unarmed, counter-protestors for no reason other than they were there?

 

[iceberg]

no. you feel superior when you can pass a blanket judgement on people and put on a smug face as if that blanket fits all.

we both know it doesn't. i'm just not enough of a dumbass to do something like this and pretend it's relevant.

I'll gladly say it again so that you understand:

Do I feel superior than those who want to glorify the Confederacy? Yeah, I do

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

despite the desire to keep it simple, it was not just about slavery.

do i feel superior to those who want to practice racism and hold things like that against someone else? probably. but i'm not going to generisize events in history to 1 point and make mass condemnation on people based off how i put things together.

Did you read your own link? Literally every reason for the civil war has a link to slavery according to it.

which came out of state vs federal powers of which the south thought the north was putting ALL ON THEM to change and not listening to them or their concerns about anything.

slavery included.

again - you take out the reasons behind something and just go THIS BAD DUMMY!

if things were that simple in the end, we'd not argue as much as we do but our desire to be understood despite having stereotypes put in front of us like hurdles of things we never said.

Dress it up however you want, the civil war was about slavery. Your very own link demonstrates this.

part of it maybe. if you choose to hide the rest you don't like or don't prop up your agenda, great. your call but kinda stupid.

the north didn't care about the slaves at first, now did they? it was more about long standing political battles, who will get new lands as we expand west, states vs federal rights and powers, and the states that left later on, well it wasn't because of slavery then either.

lincoln quote:
As early as 1854 Abraham Lincoln stated that this was his own position. In a speech in Peoria, Illinois, Lincoln said, “Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved…”

so it wasn't about slavery if the north wasn't going to push that now could it be? musta had some other issues going on, huh? otherwise the north would say "keep 'em" and there never would have been a war.

these things could be taught and understood if we didn't have to take down the mean offensive statues.

 

[iceberg]

The question is, why would white supremacists from all over the country converge on Charlottesville to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee,

if they didn't feel some particular, important kinship to what the South represented at the time of secession?

why would white supremacists from all over the country converge on Charlottesville to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee,

Why would people from all over the country converge on Charlottesville converge to counter -protest?

Because they oppose the beliefs of the white supremacists and neo-Nazis,

duh. Which side are you on?

neither.

But, if they hadn't shown up to counter-protest, would there have been violence?

Did the protestors show up, and attack the innocent, unarmed, counter-protestors for no reason other than they were there?

the whole thing was like an asshole convention.

 

[iceberg]

no. you feel superior when you can pass a blanket judgement on people and put on a smug face as if that blanket fits all.

we both know it doesn't. i'm just not enough of a dumbass to do something like this and pretend it's relevant.

I'll gladly say it again so that you understand:

Do I feel superior than those who want to glorify the Confederacy? Yeah, I do

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

despite the desire to keep it simple, it was not just about slavery.

do i feel superior to those who want to practice racism and hold things like that against someone else? probably. but i'm not going to generisize events in history to 1 point and make mass condemnation on people based off how i put things together.

Did you read your own link? Literally every reason for the civil war has a link to slavery according to it.

slavery was linked to EVERYTHING IN THE COUNTRY-------because it was so important
to the ECONOMY. ----------cotton and wheat too. -----everything was linked to cotton
and wheat. ----------and the cowboys and the farmers who can never be friends----and the
shin bone is connected to the knee bone------

Right, so, some jackass tries to tell me the civil war wasn't about slavery, provides a link that shows the exact opposite and then you come by with this shit?

and i'm a jackass because we disagree on something here?

wow. when all else fails just insult the other side to negate their opinion.

got it.

 

[ChrisL]

I'll gladly say it again so that you understand:

Do I feel superior than those who want to glorify the Confederacy? Yeah, I do

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

despite the desire to keep it simple, it was not just about slavery.

do i feel superior to those who want to practice racism and hold things like that against someone else? probably. but i'm not going to generisize events in history to 1 point and make mass condemnation on people based off how i put things together.

Did you read your own link? Literally every reason for the civil war has a link to slavery according to it.

slavery was linked to EVERYTHING IN THE COUNTRY-------because it was so important
to the ECONOMY. ----------cotton and wheat too. -----everything was linked to cotton
and wheat. ----------and the cowboys and the farmers who can never be friends----and the
shin bone is connected to the knee bone------

Right, so, some jackass tries to tell me the civil war wasn't about slavery, provides a link that shows the exact opposite and then you come by with this shit?

and i'm a jackass because we disagree on something here?

wow. when all else fails just insult the other side to negate their opinion.

got it.

They don't like it when you complicate their dumbed down world views.

 

[irosie91]

So because a black person says something, its the truth? So why y'all ignored Obama for 8 years? Lol

I will respond to Condi the same way I respond to a white person. Confederates were hateful traitors. They don't need celebrating. Germany removed their Nazi symbols. So why can't we?

We don't have nazi symbols, that's why. Only twisted fucks like you have nazi symbols. Only twisted fucks like you run down helpless women with their car.

the confederate flag was not invented as a symbol for the perpetuation of chattel slavery. In fact
it is a flag replete with modified symbols related to Christianity. It has BECOME identified with
the issue of slavery and post civil war oppression of blacks and KKK Krap. There are several
versions of the confederate flag--------if anyone want to DISPLAY one for historical purposes----
the earlier ones would be best rather than use anything associated with KKK

 

[iceberg]

Causes Of The Civil War | HistoryNet

despite the desire to keep it simple, it was not just about slavery.

do i feel superior to those who want to practice racism and hold things like that against someone else? probably. but i'm not going to generisize events in history to 1 point and make mass condemnation on people based off how i put things together.

Did you read your own link? Literally every reason for the civil war has a link to slavery according to it.

slavery was linked to EVERYTHING IN THE COUNTRY-------because it was so important
to the ECONOMY. ----------cotton and wheat too. -----everything was linked to cotton
and wheat. ----------and the cowboys and the farmers who can never be friends----and the
shin bone is connected to the knee bone------

Right, so, some jackass tries to tell me the civil war wasn't about slavery, provides a link that shows the exact opposite and then you come by with this shit?

and i'm a jackass because we disagree on something here?

wow. when all else fails just insult the other side to negate their opinion.

got it.

They don't like it when you complicate their dumbed down world views.

good. i don't like it when their dumb simplistic views are paraded around as if it's the entire picture.

 

[Slash]

part of it maybe. if you choose to hide the rest you don't like or don't prop up your agenda, great. your call but kinda stupid.

the north didn't care about the slaves at first, now did they? it was more about long standing political battles, who will get new lands as we expand west, states vs federal rights and powers, and the states that left later on, well it wasn't because of slavery then either.

lincoln quote:
As early as 1854 Abraham Lincoln stated that this was his own position. In a speech in Peoria, Illinois, Lincoln said, “Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved…”

so it wasn't about slavery if the north wasn't going to push that now could it be? musta had some other issues going on, huh? otherwise the north would say "keep 'em" and there never would have been a war.

these things could be taught and understood if we didn't have to take down the mean offensive statues.

By "who will get new lands" you mean "will slavery be allowed to spread to new lands". Remember that's why the Republican Party was founded. To stop slavery after laws passed to allow it to expand.

By "states vs federal rights and powers" you mean states rights. They listed them out.
States needed their right to have the fugitive slave act enforced.
States needed their rights to choose if they wanted to be a slave state, not let gov't say new states couldn't have slaves
States needed their rights to choose if they wanted to re-open the slave trade or not.

Read the Confederate constitution. It was almost identical in federal powers. Except that in all states, slavery would be allowed.

Yes, Lincoln spoke more moderately in his election speeches. He didn't go in as the candidate wanting to dissolve the United States of America over slavery. Hillary has been anti-gun control in her speeches in rural area's. Trump has been pro-universal health care in his speeches in urban area's.

The North cared about slavery. Most Northern states passed their anti-slavery laws DURING the Revolutionary war. The only reason according to the minutes of early congresses, they didn't abolish slavery when writing the constitution was that the southern colonies would have left, and they felt preserving the union was more important.

 

[irosie91]

The question is, why would white supremacists from all over the country converge on Charlottesville to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee,

if they didn't feel some particular, important kinship to what the South represented at the time of secession?

why would white supremacists from all over the country converge on Charlottesville to protest the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee,

Why would people from all over the country converge on Charlottesville converge to counter -protest?

Because they oppose the beliefs of the white supremacists and neo-Nazis,

duh. Which side are you on?

neither.

But, if they hadn't shown up to counter-protest, would there have been violence?

Did the protestors show up, and attack the innocent, unarmed, counter-protestors for no reason other than they were there?

the take-away message is ------STAY AWAY FROM WHITE NATIONALIST NAZI PIG
RALLYS.-----------if you lie down with dogs-----you may wake up with rabies----or dead.
Counter demonstrations should be conducted -------ELSEWHERE

 

[ChrisL]

This flag is okay, but this one is not. This symbol is okay, but this one is not. This statue is okay, but this one is not. This viewpoint is okay, but this one is not. We the government have RULED. Welcome to the NEW America!

 

[Slash]

which came out of state vs federal powers of which the south thought the north was putting ALL ON THEM to change and not listening to them or their concerns about anything.

slavery included.

again - you take out the reasons behind something and just go THIS BAD DUMMY!

if things were that simple in the end, we'd not argue as much as we do but our desire to be understood despite having stereotypes put in front of us like hurdles of things we never said.

If you want an interesting read, read the writings of Joseph E Brown. He was the governor of Georgia at the time of the civil war. Relatively young, and truly did want a new country with stronger states rights. Of course once the Confederacy started up, he realized, it's the same exact federal government that he was fighting for, just a pro-slavery one.

Slavery was the cornerstone on which the secession occurred. It was THE reason. You can read the articles of secession. The minutes of congress in those southern states. The letters from governors to Lincoln.


I find it sad that the same people who sit here crying about "preserving our history" when a statue is removed seem to be the same exact ones trying to bastardize and create this revisionist history of what happened.

 

[ChrisL]

which came out of state vs federal powers of which the south thought the north was putting ALL ON THEM to change and not listening to them or their concerns about anything.

slavery included.

again - you take out the reasons behind something and just go THIS BAD DUMMY!

if things were that simple in the end, we'd not argue as much as we do but our desire to be understood despite having stereotypes put in front of us like hurdles of things we never said.

If you want an interesting read, read the writings of Joseph E Brown. He was the governor of Georgia at the time of the civil war. Relatively young, and truly did want a new country with stronger states rights. Of course once the Confederacy started up, he realized, it's the same exact federal government that he was fighting for, just a pro-slavery one.

Slavery was the cornerstone on which the secession occurred. It was THE reason. You can read the articles of secession. The minutes of congress in those southern states. The letters from governors to Lincoln.


I find it sad that the same people who sit here crying about "preserving our history" when a statue is removed seem to be the same exact ones trying to bastardize and create this revisionist history of what happened.

That's not what Abraham Lincoln said. He said it was not about slavery, as I quoted a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln earlier in the thread.

 

[iceberg]

part of it maybe. if you choose to hide the rest you don't like or don't prop up your agenda, great. your call but kinda stupid.

the north didn't care about the slaves at first, now did they? it was more about long standing political battles, who will get new lands as we expand west, states vs federal rights and powers, and the states that left later on, well it wasn't because of slavery then either.

lincoln quote:
As early as 1854 Abraham Lincoln stated that this was his own position. In a speech in Peoria, Illinois, Lincoln said, “Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved…”

so it wasn't about slavery if the north wasn't going to push that now could it be? musta had some other issues going on, huh? otherwise the north would say "keep 'em" and there never would have been a war.

these things could be taught and understood if we didn't have to take down the mean offensive statues.

By "who will get new lands" you mean "will slavery be allowed to spread to new lands". Remember that's why the Republican Party was founded. To stop slavery after laws passed to allow it to expand.

By "states vs federal rights and powers" you mean states rights. They listed them out.
States needed their right to have the fugitive slave act enforced.
States needed their rights to choose if they wanted to be a slave state, not let gov't say new states couldn't have slaves
States needed their rights to choose if they wanted to re-open the slave trade or not.

Read the Confederate constitution. It was almost identical in federal powers. Except that in all states, slavery would be allowed.

Yes, Lincoln spoke more moderately in his election speeches. He didn't go in as the candidate wanting to dissolve the United States of America over slavery. Hillary has been anti-gun control in her speeches in rural area's. Trump has been pro-universal health care in his speeches in urban area's.

The North cared about slavery. Most Northern states passed their anti-slavery laws DURING the Revolutionary war. The only reason according to the minutes of early congresses, they didn't abolish slavery when writing the constitution was that the southern colonies would have left, and they felt preserving the union was more important.

agreed - but this was an entire time of turmoil and as you cite by other examples that are NOT slavery related, slavery was not the ONLY motivation for the war itself. lincoln himself said that it could continue if it meant NOT going to war and/or ending it.

so how could the war be about slavery when the north would allow it to stop the war?

that part puzzles me. to me it says there are other things also going on that were critical at the time and slavery could be a bargaining chip but if not the grand prize...then it was not the focus of the war.

if so, please just help me understand how if the north again would have allowed it to stop the war itself.

and thank you for the intelligent replies - agree or disagree. i am learning as i go through both sides on this.

 

[irosie91]

which came out of state vs federal powers of which the south thought the north was putting ALL ON THEM to change and not listening to them or their concerns about anything.

slavery included.

again - you take out the reasons behind something and just go THIS BAD DUMMY!

if things were that simple in the end, we'd not argue as much as we do but our desire to be understood despite having stereotypes put in front of us like hurdles of things we never said.

If you want an interesting read, read the writings of Joseph E Brown. He was the governor of Georgia at the time of the civil war. Relatively young, and truly did want a new country with stronger states rights. Of course once the Confederacy started up, he realized, it's the same exact federal government that he was fighting for, just a pro-slavery one.

Slavery was the cornerstone on which the secession occurred. It was THE reason. You can read the articles of secession. The minutes of congress in those southern states. The letters from governors to Lincoln.


I find it sad that the same people who sit here crying about "preserving our history" when a statue is removed seem to be the same exact ones trying to bastardize and create this revisionist history of what happened.

That's not what Abraham Lincoln said. He said it was not about slavery, as I quoted a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln earlier in the thread.

seems to me-----that back then-----as now-----different people were batting different
opinions around.

 

[iceberg]

which came out of state vs federal powers of which the south thought the north was putting ALL ON THEM to change and not listening to them or their concerns about anything.

slavery included.

again - you take out the reasons behind something and just go THIS BAD DUMMY!

if things were that simple in the end, we'd not argue as much as we do but our desire to be understood despite having stereotypes put in front of us like hurdles of things we never said.

If you want an interesting read, read the writings of Joseph E Brown. He was the governor of Georgia at the time of the civil war. Relatively young, and truly did want a new country with stronger states rights. Of course once the Confederacy started up, he realized, it's the same exact federal government that he was fighting for, just a pro-slavery one.

Slavery was the cornerstone on which the secession occurred. It was THE reason. You can read the articles of secession. The minutes of congress in those southern states. The letters from governors to Lincoln.


I find it sad that the same people who sit here crying about "preserving our history" when a statue is removed seem to be the same exact ones trying to bastardize and create this revisionist history of what happened.

then please feel free to explain to me how the war was about slavery when lincoln said he'd allow it if it would end the war.

no one has said or approved of slavery to this point. it never should have happened. but to see this in a singular light is self serving to your views, not as the views themselves played out.